20110464 Ver 1_Complete File_20050217

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERVOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
January 18, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Merger Process Team Members & NCDOT Project Team Members
Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer-
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Invitation to Concurrence Point 2A Meeting
U-3812: Environmental Assessment of
NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Your attendance is requested at the Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Team Meeting scheduled
for Tuesday, March 15, 2005 in the Board Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh.
The purpose of the meeting is to present information to the Merger Process Team in order to reach
concurrence on Point 2A, Alternatives to Carry Forward and Bridging Decisions. I have attached the
following documents for your reference as you prepare for this meeting.
? Meeting Agenda
? Typical Sections
? Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts for Alternatives Studied
? Table 2: Ranking of Potential Impacts for Build Alternatives
? Table 3: Natural Environment Setting and Preliminary Hydraulics Design
? Concurrence Point 2A Agreement
Should you have comments or questions regarding our meeting, please contact me at
[phone] x214 at your earliest convenience. I appreciate your time and look forward to a
productive meeting.
Attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG/PLANNING
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
U-3812: Environmental Assessment of NC 88 Widening, Ashe County
Concurrence Point 2A Meeting Agenda
Board Room - Transportation Building - Raleigh, NC
March 15, 2005
1. Purpose of this Meeting : The purpose is to present information to the Merger Process Team in order to reach
concurrence on Point 2A, "Alternatives to Carry Forward" & "Bridging Decisions."
2. TIP Description : The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 -
2010 Transportation Improvement Program and the Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December 2002).
3. Merger Process Status
• Purpose & Need ( Concurrence Point No. 1, signed 12/12/01 ) : "The purpose of this project is to improve
safety on NC 88 and to improve a link between the existing multilane section in downtown Jefferson and NC 194
which is included in the area thoroughfare plan adopted in March 1992. The need is based on correcting a
restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has contributed to a fatal
accident rate that is three times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways."
Design Options for Detailed Study ( Concurrence Point No. 2, signed 12/12/01 )
1) No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2) 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3) 4-lane shoulder section symmetrical widening
4) 4-lane shoulder section best-fit widening
5) 4-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
6) 4-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
7) 5-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
8) 5-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
• Alternatives to Carry Forward & Bridging Decisions ( Concurrence Point No. 2A, not signed on 5/18/04)
Team eliminated seven alternatives, added three new alternatives, requested impacts for one of the alternatives
developed during the meeting, requested additional study of Crossing # 2 (culvert extension vs. bridge), and
requested a second CP2A Meeting.
4. Alternatives under Consideration (refer to Typical Sections and Tables 1 and 2)
Alternative 1 -+ No-Build / routine maintenance continues
Alternative 2 + 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (entire project length)
Alternative 3 + 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
Alternative 4 + 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
5. Concurrence on Alternatives to Carry Forward
6. Preliminary Hydraulics Design & Bridging Decisions under Consideration (refer to Table 3)
7. Concurrence on Bridging Decisions
8. Summary

r„
f

O1
C
^
W
`O
t?
U
N
O
L
a
? ?,
1 N N
I o
m3 °I W ?

Z m

w c
°
?
I cm
I Q c
?
L I
W N
I.f. ?

d
? ?0 I
_
N O
~
N 7
L ??
1
t(f C
? I O
M U ?
I
W .c
l U) ?
J
O
{7 y
o
d W
3
LL F-C f v,
L
r a)

O

n
^
a)

1
Z
O
l7 i
? I
Z

0
z
7
0
0
0

C z

W I
}O
L

? O
tf
O

I 0
Q
/1
Q
_ 1
ry•
L

w L

N
N

I (n
ca
a

M
U
v W
F-
?
L
?
LL

f
? N _
? W
J
m f
V W f
?
I /??
•W
? m f
U W f
?
I ?
?
•? NQ
li
O
0
lA r u `
pp?
N
ZN

S4- ?-
CO 6
tD
N ??
•; F

U) 1
u.
V,
W) ZD

M

-?
Z
O
m

f F-
L)

?
O
N
O U)
IL

L me

3
a
m
o
C4 0

a)
c
i ?
v
c? z I
1
00
0
0
z
z
0
u I
0
z I

O
Z
i. 0
C
C7
Z
I
?I
C
I ?
C 1 ?
? a
L m3 N
N ? ? ca
N v
o co
03 =
Q
m I z
C
C I uW
I I C J
C? I C Q
W i •4/ U W
°' O ( iv IO I O
V? ?d U-
N
N •N? / A
A
m O
I C o
0
}' J
? U
O io 3 06
N ?
C U
T
it
5I
0
0 0
z
I z
u I y
i I ?
U-3812: NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts for Alternatives Studied
ALTERNATIVES

FACTORS
1 2 3 4
3-lane c&g 5-lane c&g
O No-Build 3-lane shoulder section (urban) section (urban)
E Typical Section (routine maint. section
(entire project & &
S continues) length) 3-lane shoulder 3-lane shoulder
section (rural) section (rural)
c
R
P
T
I Widening Type best-fit best-fit best-fit
O
N
Construction Cost $ 7.0 (culvert) $ 7.3 (culvert) $ 8.0 (culvert)
E (in millions) $ 7.4 (bridge) $ 7.7 (bridge) $ 8.4 (bridge)
C
O
N RAN Cost $ 10.0 $ 10.9 $ 11.8
O (in millions)
M
I Total Cost $ 17.0 (culvert) $ 18.2 (culvert) $ 19.8 (culvert)
C (in millions) $ 17.4 (bridge) $ 18.6 (bridge) $ 20.2 (bridge)
Minority 0 0 0
Farm Relocations
0
0
P
Total -
Residential Minority 2 2 4
Relocations Total 14 24 29
Commercial Minority 0 0 0
Relocations Total 4 4 6
H Non-Profit Minority 0 0 0
U Relocations
Total
1
0
0
M
A Minority 2 2 4
N Total Relocations
Total,
_
19
28
35
Electrical Substation None None None
Apartments Parking Parking Parking &
Buildings
Joseph Benjamin Neal House
Proposed National Register Bndry 62' 53' 68'
(average impact width
Archaeological Resources 0 0 0
23CFR772 Noise Category B 9 9 12
(properties) (see note # 1)
Substantial Noise
Level Increase > 10 dB 0 0 0
(properties)
N Air Quality
A 2025 1-Hr Ave. Carbon Monoxide 7.1 7.1 7.1
T arts per million see note # 2
U Ponds (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
R
A Steams (linear feet) 1763 1733 1763
L Wetlands (acres) 0.17 0.13 0.19
Terrestrial Communities 37.2 35.7 37.6
acres see note # 3
Protected Species (each) 0-3 0-3 0-3
Hazardous Material (LIST sites) 4 4 4
Notes:
1. Noise Activity Category B: exterior, equivalent sound level of approximately 67 dBA.
2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) maximum CO permitted for 1-hr average = 35 ppm.
3. Terrestrial communities: maintained/disturbed, montane oak-hickory forest, and Christmas tree plantation.
U-3812: NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Table 2: Ranking of Potential Impacts for Build Alternatives
BUILD ALTERNATIVES

FACTORS 2
3-lane
shoulder
section
(entire project
length) 3
3-lane c&g
(urban)
&
3-lane
shoulder
section rural 4
5-lane c&g
(urban)
&
3-lane
shoulder
section rural
E Construction Cost 1 2 3
C RM Cost 1 2 3
O Total Cost 1 2 3
N Ave. Economic Rankin 1 2 3
Minority Relocations 1 1 2
H Total Relocations 1 2 3
U Electrical Substation 1 1 1
M Apartments 1 1 2
A Architecture 2 1 3
N Archaeology 1 1 1
Ave. Human Ranking 1.2 1.2 2.0
Noise 1 1 2
Noise Level Increase 1 1 1
N Air Quality 1 1 1
A Ponds 1 1 1
T Steams 2 1 2
U
R Wetlands 2 1 3
A Terrestrial Communities 2 1 3
L Protected Species 1 1 1
Hazardous Materials 1 1 1
Ave. Natural Ranking 1.3 1 1.7
Average
Overall Ranking 1.2
I 1.4 2.2
Ordinal Ranking 1 2 3
Notes: 1. All alternatives are best-fit widening.
2. Ranking System : 1 + least impact 3 + most impact
3. The Average Overall Ranking was calculated using equal weighting
for economic, human, and natural impacts.
C
U,
W
N
Q

^V^,
W
•O
a.
VI
cco
z
N
co
M
.N
N
N
V
L
L
L
CL
U)
r
C
N
c
C
w
L
z
M
Z
I S/OIj b. >?lS-VCI?0??

L c
o? c o c o
-0 M,
? cm=>a)mO
.°.Ec _ Z v c c
c3as°
C ..
?
m 75
E: C U O
O cL L O ="O U O> N' r in
U N
E =
O a 6 0 L
.
D U O d ,O C
f
` N
E-3
V U U U N d O
N

0 > co C U O
6 v
'm
a)6 E m (0.9 a)
U) 3 c c N
? O N p, O c C U
.O.
t:

U a)
C a1 C co
E C
L _
w fA N a O
Q O
,r
c
fn N U
N _
C m c d a) N N m O C
N N c m t Q E
O.
nQ
:3 'a 6
L
U 0 N o
0 CD' as v
m
0
0 0
?O
.
> '15 y
(D
V r r
LU
N > x r
°z C) 1` N > w 9i
0
a) LU 'C
i Q) (D
U
'O E X :°
0) W L X U 7 W •N ; L x U U L_
J O Q
L_
J x U
3
y
m
0 a 3 °ox
r-U
o X x? 3 -ox
W N
O
U W 3 co 0)0x
w
a4) O m m
? of m

a`?cj Cl)

)

O
a

3

N v
v

C

U) 0
LLD

Y

D
r a)

ZC
Q?
o
d w y
tm
LLJ >+ ?'
U
Lll >. A
U
m+ 3
2A U Q N
D Q 1
=3
a x o O C7 °? m C7 O °? m
d W

a0N Q `

z in = w a

Q _i _
?
°¢ _

d a0. O Q o 0_
_ X a) N C
(D EM ?v,n- mo,d

X
W N `'
.OO.
V
U
O X
?U
N .m..
U
M
Cl) m to

w
C O L L C _ O aj L
7 a)
. L V m L V y" d
T N TO) w m o
N
61 T N >.
C a, ? U a) >, +
V
N 4-- O O M N 'O U -6 U
N c m O a) a U ?
U
d U d
N .0
m O
_N
m E 'O m 0 c C a 0 m C
_v, 3
m E
Y U O 'n m 0 7
C '!? a) a) a) c
m E
m N Y >. 20.2
O. m ,
O c •
a)
U
_0 in a) c 3 m O O U co U C m U cn
O .2
N cn ???? n urn

y C
c

E o c
'V)
(, c
w,
_ E O c
>, o N co o
M
c U
a 2
)' m
p; a O
C ca 0 =.E- 4= O c c
j
2.2
0
cu m
y y Q O >
- ii U 1
rOg
cu
a O O O 7 a m
m m ?
U M
C°i O_?. 3
E c Z fc
? s ENO o,.°
° > 0
_

0 O
O U .`. C O

, - a)
•
DES N c 0 E m m^

a) ca
N r 0 E m) a)
m
0 a
v) U iv -
-° U Co
N a) m> + NEv? my y
m a) m a> c 3 Y
;L- +. y4; E-0a)v
O
m a, 0 0 c 7

0
w : () N U S ? m
a 0
>
6 C
0 m ml:
L c N cn
?- U? m O O
j
p N y
c m a0
3 o c o to
v
CU c a a3 a)?
0m
m
o
l
.5
?i Qo
U v co a
mV Q0N?a ? F
oE
'00
- `
0 )E -00
U) F
c
M=LU p
mom
v Q c c 2 m
?
3 o m m

3
c o m `O
U .
c
3
, ?
c o
c U
(? V) L M M N U a a
i a
t
N m a) N "-) m a)
)
Oj
d
O d
O
Q.
w
0
U O
? 0 N 3
' N
Y

a) Y
m
a)
a1
E
m
O
m N
V _ N F-
o u
z a
)
0 D m m m m
E 0 6 6
m O 3
m Q Y Y co m m
m Z
Z d) ~ m
co J J J
a0 Z
fn N M

m
a)
m
U
a)
O
Q m
a) E
0 0_
C 'E
D
p U_
m ?
`O)O
c O
o-0
-0
C
Y m
a)
N ?
U E
00
Y N
m
ZO
W
c
0
Z
O
O
N
a)
N
Y
O)
O
N
CD
U
a)
CL
U)
a)
U
O
a
m
a)
0
M
O
'U
U
A)
O
a
a)
t
c
N
X
m
(4
Q
co
L
N
T
a)
Z
N
c
m
E
C
O
C
Q)
c?6
c
m
c
V
m
Z m
0o
U) Co
o •Q
O m
c C
N ?
3>
N p
a) c
U Co
ccn C_
L O_
rnQ
:03 E
L M
! in
N

U-3812 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A:
ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD & BRIDGING DECISIONS
NC 88 Widening Project, NCDOT Division 11, Ashe County
TIP Project No. U-3812
Federal Aid Project No. STP-88(2) State Project No. 8.1711501
TIP Description : The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program and the
Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December 2002).
Alternatives to Carry Forward : The Merger Process Team met on March 15, 2005 to discuss
the alternatives. The Team concurred that the following alternatives should be carried forward in
this proposed action.
# 1 No-Build / routine maintenance continues
# 2 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (entire project length)
# 3 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
# 4 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
Bridging Decisions : The Merger Process Team met on March 15, 2005 to discuss the
preliminary hydraulics design for the three major stream crossings on NC 88. Based upon the
current project development information, the Team concurs with the proposed decisions
presented in the following table, as amended.

Proposed Culvert
Site
Stream Name Existing
Drainage Replacement or
Culvert Extension Comments
No. Structure or Bridge
1 -60" REPLACE
Corrugated Bury invert 12" for fish
Tributary of Steel Pipe With passage; Detailed phase
1 Naked Creek & construction plan required
1 - 30" 10' x 6' to maintain traffic during
(Naked UT B) Corrugated Concrete construction.
Steel Pipe Box Culvert
EXTEND
$ 160,000;
Existing Detailed phase
Culvert construction plan required
to maintain traffic during
With construction; Sills or
baffles in culvert extension
3 @ 11'x 7' 3 @ 11' x Tx 60' to retain bed material and
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete Concrete promote fish passage.
Box Culvert Box Culvert
REPLACE
$ 560,000;
With Traffic must be rerouted
during construction.
Bridge
REPLACE Intersection realignment
will necessitate
Tributary of
6
with replacement of existing
culvert; bury invert 12" for
3 Little Buffalo Creek Corrugated
'
' fish passage; Detailed

(Little Buffalo UT B) Steel Pipes x 5
9
Concrete phase construction plan
required to maintain traffic
Box Culvert during construction.
USAGE NCDOT
John T. Thomas, Jr. Date Mark S. Pierce, P.E. Date
USEPA USFWS
Christopher A. Militscher Date Marella Buncick Date
FHWA NCDWQ
Jake D. Riggsbee Date Brian Wrenn Date
NCWRC NCDCR
Marla J. Chambers Date Sarah D. McBride Date
4?e wYa? V
N ? !S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS s Q
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNt TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SEC TARP
March 30, 2005
(Wednesday)
MEMORANDUM TO : Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDOT Coordinator, Western Region
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
FROM : Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer Wu- W. `)
SUBJECT : U-3812: NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
3/15/05 CP2A Meeting Minutes
A Merger Process Team Meeting was held on March 15, 2005 from 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. in the Board Room of
the Transportation Building at 1 South Wilmington Street in Raleigh for TIP Project Number U-3812, NC 88
Widening Project in Ashe County. The following 24 individuals were in attendance:
David Baird High Country RPO
Trent Beaver, P.E. Division 11 ( via videoconference )
Marla Chambers North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
David Chang, P.E. Hydraulics
Clarence Coleman, P.E. Federal Highway Administration
Rebecca Cruz Roadway Design
Tim Gardiner Community Studies
James Goodnight, P.E. Roadway Design
Robert Hanson, P.E. Project Development
Teresa Hart, P.E. Project Development
Steve Kendall Roadway Design
Elizabeth Lusk Natural Environment
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Christopher Militscher United States Environmental Protection Agency
Michael Pettyjohn, P.E. Division 11 ( via videoconference )
Mark Pierce, P.E. Project Development
Karen Reynolds Project Development
Deanna Riffey Natural Environment
Jerry Snead, P.E. Hydraulics
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
I? DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
F'ROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG/PLANNING RALEIGH NC 27601
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
U-3812: 3115105 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
March 30, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Linwood Stone Project Development
Dewayne Sykes, P.E. Roadway Design
John Thomas United States Army Corps of Engineers
Beverly Williams Transportation Planning
Brian Wrenn NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
After brief introductions, the following topics and issues were discussed during the meeting:
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The purpose of this meeting was to present information to the Merger Process Team in order to reach
concurrence on Point 2A, "Alternatives to Carry Forward" & "Bridging Decisions," for this proposed action.
TIP DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 - 2010
Transportation Improvement Program and the Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December
2002).
MERGER PROCESS STATUS
Purpose & Need ( Concurrence Point No. 1, signed 12/12/01 ): "The purpose of this project is to improve
safety on NC 88 and to improve a link between the existing multilane section in downtown Jefferson and
NC 194 which is included in the area thoroughfare plan adopted in March 1992. The need is based on
correcting a restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has contributed
to a fatal accident rate that is three times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways."
Design Options for Detailed Studv ( Concurrence Point No. 2. signed 12/12/01 ) :
1) No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2) 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3) 4-lane shoulder section symmetrical widening
4) 4-lane shoulder section best-fit widening
5) 4-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
6) 4-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
7) 5-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
8) 5-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
Alternatives to Carry Forward & Bridging Decisions ( Concurrence Point No. 2A, not signed on 5/18/04):
The Team eliminated seven alternatives, added three new alternatives, requested impacts for one of the
alternatives developed during the meeting, requested additional study of Crossing # 2 (culvert extension vs.
bridge for Little Buffalo Creek), and requested a second CP2A Meeting.
U-3812: 3115105 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
March 30, 2005
Page 3 of 4
ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD
The Merger Process Team discussed the following alternatives and concurred that they should be carried
forward in this proposed action. The typical sections and associated impact matrices are attached for
reference.
Alternative 1 + No-Build / routine maintenance continues
Alternative 2 + 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (entire project length)
Alternative 3 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
Alternative 4 4 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
BRIDGING DECISIONS
The Merger Process Team discussed the preliminary hydraulics design for the three major stream crossings
on NC 88. The data table presenting the natural environment setting and preliminary hydraulics design is
attached for reference. Based upon the current project development information, the team concurred with the
proposed decisions presented in the following table.
Existing Proposed Culvert
Site Stream Name Drainage Replacement or Comments
No. Structure Culvert Extension
or Bridge
REPLACE
Tributary of I - 60" Corrugated Bury invert 12" for fish
Naked Creek Steel Pipe with passage; Detailed phase
1 & construction plan required to
(Naked UT-B) 1 - 30" Corrugated 10'x6' maintain traffic during
Steel Pipe Concrete construction.
Box Culvert
EXTEND
Existing Detailed phase construction
Culvert plan required to maintain
3 @ 11' x 7' traffic during construction;
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete
with Sills or baffles in culvert
Box Culvert extension to retain bed
3 @ 11' x 7' x 60' material and promote fish
Concrete passage.
Box Culvert
REPLACE Intersection realignment will
Tributary of
" necessitate replacement of
Little Buffalo Creek 2 - 60 with existing culvert; bury invert
3 Corrugated 12" for fish passage; Detailed
(Little Buffalo UT-B) Steel Pipes 9' x 5' phase construction plan
Concrete required to maintain traffic
Box Culvert during construction.
U-3812: 3115105 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
March 30, 2005
Page 4 of 4
ACTION ITEMS
The Merger Process Team concurred on the alternatives to carry forward and the bridging decisions
referenced herein. Seven of the eight members of the team signed the concurrence agreement during the
meeting.
Ms. Marella Buncick (USFWS) was unable to attend this meeting. Project Development agreed to contact
Ms. Buncick to offer a summary of this meeting and to request her comments or concurrence. Ms. Buncick
and Mr. Mark Pierce discussed the meeting during a telephone conversation on March 23, 2005. Ms.
Buncick subsequently signed the concurrence agreement on March 28, 2005. A copy of the agreement is
attached for reference.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to those who participated or contributed to this concurrence meeting. These minutes present the
topics discussed during the meeting. If you have comments, questions, or revisions to these minutes, please
contact Mr. Eric Midkiff at [phone] x232 by April 15, 2005.
Attachments: Typical Sections for Build Alternatives
Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts for Alternatives Studied
Table 2: Ranking of Potential Impacts for Build Alternatives
Table 3: Natural Environment Setting and Preliminary Hydraulics Design
Concurrence Agreement for Point 2A (3/28/05)
MSP - End of Memorandum -

L
O1
C
N
U
N
O
L -
CL
d m N N

Z .
?
W °
J
I
m I
Q ?
?
d ?o I Q

s ?
y
7
4?
A
I
O
cn
U ?
I
I LU
3
J C
O

m3 U
? N
L

O
.C
N
a)

1
O
z
I
O
? I
O I
Z
F.
6
CA
0
z
D
0
0
s ?
.I 0
c ?I
0 0

n a
a I
? ?
e L

i 4-0
U)

U) ? ? M
3 °? 3 c H
0 f i Q
= Z

L
? ?
/
N
c N _ W
J
m I .? m I ? Q
t7 W I ?
d W I /
O
m
co o f
u `
3 ;o
tip--
LL

R I N V Z
O
M a) ,
m
F-
I
I 0
co
I N o
o U

(?

?
U
o
cn
c
cn Q

U
m ' a
?` I? L m 3 .a,

0
06
N
N I U
C
(a
a)

M
i I C
cu

f i
o M

z

0
0 I
i I

W
0
z

:.
C& 0
u
0
z
;I
f W I

O
c

'° O

d L
C
L m3 N
r ?
^^,,
W
at D
O U N I cu F
L Q

Z

I 1 w
I M 1 ? J
m ?
E
Q

W?
C4 1 W V W 1
m
• N 20 I 3 0
N N O? Z Of r ?? +?
pr
r V J M p?
W y- ?
/^

W
N C

A
'

R
O C N
?1?

\{/ /

L

M
'°
I (D 0
0 -C L
O 1
I w
N
I O
C
O

t
? ? Q
me
y?
1``
W
N
r
I cn
L
°D 3 °
LL ? N CL
I
?

:3
O m3 06
t
U) L
N ?
U
C
a)

M I co
i
t1')
of
zl
0
d
?
o
z
I
z

? I
z

U-3812: NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts for Alternatives Studied
ALTERNATIVES

FACTORS
1 2 3 4
3-lane c&g 5-lane c&g
O No-Build 3-lane shoulder section (urban) section (urban)
E
E Typical Section (routine maint. section
(entire project & &
continues) length) 3-lane shoulder 3-lane shoulder
section (rural) section (rural)
C
R
P
T
I Widening Type best-fit best-fit best-fit
O
N
Construction Cost $ 7.0 (culvert) $ 7.3 (culvert) $ 8.0 (culvert)
E (in millions) $ 7.4 (bridge) $ 7.7 (bridge) $ 8.4 (bridge)
C
O
N RNV Cost $ 10.0 $ 10.9 $ 11.8
O (in millions)
M
I Total Cost $ 17.0 (culvert) $ 18.2 (culvert) $ 19.8 (culvert)
C (in millions) $ 17.4 (bridge) $ 18.6 (bridge) $ 20.2 (bridge)
Minority 0 0 0
Farm Relocations
0
0
0
Total -
Residential Minority 2 2 4
Relocations Total 14 24 29
Commercial Minority 0 0 0
Relocations Total 4 4 6
H Non-Profit Minority 0 0 0
tJ
M Relocations
Total
1
0
0
A Minority 2 2 4
N Total Relocations
Total
-
19
28
35
Electrical Substation None None None
Apartments Parking Parking Parking &
Buildings
Joseph Benjamin Neal House
'
Proposed National Register Bndry 62' 53' 68
avers a impact width
Archaeological Resources 0 0 0
23CFR772 Noise Category B 9 9 12
(properties) (see note # 1)
Substantial Noise
Level Increase > 10 dB 0 0 0
(properties)
N Air Quality
A 2025 1-Hr Ave. Carbon Monoxide 71 7.1 7.1
arts per million see note # 2
T
U Ponds (acres) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
R Steams (linear feet) 1763 1733 1763
A
L
Wetlands (acres)
0.17
0.13
0.19
Terrestrial Communities 37.2 35.7 37.6

3
acres see note #
Protected Species (each) 0-3 0-3 0-3
Hazardous Material (UST sites) 4 4 4
Notes:
1. Noise Activity Category B: exterior, equivalent sound level of approximately 67 dBA.
2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) maximum CO permitted for 1-hr average = 35 ppm.
3. Terrestrial communities: maintained/disturbed, montane oak-hickory forest, and Christmas tree plantation.
U-3812: NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Table 2: Ranking of Potential Impacts for Build Alternatives
BUILD ALTERNATIVES

FACTORS 2
3-lane
shoulder

section
(entire project

length) 3
3-lane c&g
(urban)
&

3-lane
shoulder

section rural 4
5-lane c&g
(urban)
&

3-lane
shoulder

section rural
E Construction Cost 1 2 3
c RAN Cost 1 2 3
O Total Cost 1 2 3
N Ave. Economic Rankin 1 2 3
Minority Relocations 1 1 2
H Total Relocations 1 2 3
U Electrical Substation 1 1 1
M Apartments 1 1 2
A Architecture 2 1 3
N Archaeology 1 1 1
Ave. Human Ranking 1.2 1.2 2.0
Noise 1 1 2
Noise Level Increase 1 1 1
N Air Quality 1 1 1
A Ponds 1 1 1
T Steams 2 1 2
U Wetlands 2 1 3
R
A
Terrestrial Communities
2
1
3
L Protected Species 1 1 1
Hazardous Materials 1 1 1
Ave. Natural Ranking 1.3 1 1.7
Average
Overall Rankin 1.2 1.4 2.2
Ordinal Ranking 1 2 3
Notes: 1. All alternatives are best-fit widening.
2. Ranking System : 1 + least impact 3 + most impact
3. The Average Overall Ranking was calculated using equal weighting
for economic, human, and natural impacts.
C
U
s
Q
c
V
m
.O
L
a
W
Mo
W
Z
N
r
oo
M
1
5
c
.N
0
N
C)
3
L
L
CL
d
N
d
c
W
t6
L
z
M
d
M

fl w (O ? a U

?
cl,

m C 3
N
O Ca C U) -
6

O .0 C CO

in 3.

. U
C0 3? C ? y L)
w woo
N
?
c ...
?m _
D OQpE?? Ogf O?aU >....p y•p
UN.y
C
N
0
G O (0 0 (
N m U C U 00 ` U U N O m w
id E co _U y? jA
3 C N G N U U
p) U O +m+ U
N
C
N OI m m i' to
V C y y m C E
co Y
A N C- y y a O EF) N O V G
C m C C> N N m O C
m N O
N X CL Q a
7 O- Q - a `
U N
m
t: , c
NO2 o
c0
>+' N

0
U d r W

U O N X

C)
Z Of
r N 3 W

U W a> N

U L M
V :2 c
a y t x ??j L
u,> x o U t m
a 3 v g x cU
W
d0 m a 3 0
?U x? 3 pox
W d p ?U co w o)ox
O
o
aam c
> m m m
0 a)
Cl)
IL

m o? ?
C 3
3

y a
v w
C O
H N R N U
y 7
a Y } Z QC

(a
o
m
s wN j y

V E- 2 F- T

Q
m W T T

m
Q U W >1 T
U

Q
m N Y

7._ U
D c -
O _
C3 U Ca m
_
3

C,6
C'1 v m
d W

U) W
O a w ? O

Q W i a
45
C
a0 Z U = U = Q
_

d d
61 a.
N y N
_
Q - Q
r N N
x a y
y N
p (p Q-
w m _
co C? Cc ma C, to a
oa M m .- U 3

?
U (O ma

2
A `?
`b
? G 0
N
Lu U(n ?Um UfA
?
OHO
. t
Nw L C m y a
a yw....O co (UpL N ? U N?
T m0 mt j N
,
C C N Tr-- `

'
- 70
m >' N p U N a U L D O
m a U N Tw ` N a
a o D O
C d
U w t
r
a m m 0
y _

C:
cc om M-
a m m N C O C U) N y N C
U) 'a cc,

0
rn y C y L O U O
m E
N
f.1 m
m E m_
V
co
m E
U
N
m. Y T N N
N
U 'a
O. M a .O C 0 3 m O? U C m 02 U
N N? O? Q y.C

>+c
O
c
•O
E
m o c
a) m
>? m .? a
E O C
T?pNmo
7 •W
C9 U U
j N
vi a m m
a -° a? 7 U C O C C
C? ca
-
p
L- ? N G 1
o
0 Q m Q .-. (L C
l?6 m >
U M
° Q .-. 3 m N O S m .D
?
? p
?U n
c E? Z >>

N O „ _

o y°=- C_ N xs

N E CN ? oa
,
r .y N N CCD

D w Co
U ID 4) •Z 7

Z6 '6 ca
?
N 7 O C N y Co CD 4) (D C

~ (m6 7 0 C «6 N m
N N 3
O G m
Q N U >
? a o a 3
U a
0 U ;?? 7 N N Q o 3 >
d
mM p
p
ay?.0 o. L l
0
? 2 E a0 JI
?0 E a0
N m

E or- y ` 0
-

m 'a+ W d O
O f

LO 3:
O i6
LO c
- r 5
O (6C
LO t 3:
a
M_ N R O N N
M _
OV "a a) 0 N p U N
a)
Ci N t w
? ?°a0
> N N
3 C d y m N m
:3
w
V U) y N
Y

D m
N
-
d
E 0 m N
U N F
OU D
Z ?U D m
0a a

N
9 O ?

7 >j ?

,p
m
r Y
F Z Z y F- N N
J
w
CO) Z N Cl)
N
y
3
U
N
a
a?
m
Q
E
E
m
a
y
v
M
C.
Cl)
C
O
U
aD
m
MA
a
C
m
t_
U
0
C
O
w
w
y
N
m
U
a>
m
m
y
y
m
m
a
N
C
01
.y
y
m
c
d
N
Q
y
m
(4
N
m
U
a?
o
CL CD
N
I '-
m
O Q
C E
D m
v v
m 'm
? o
C p
O ?
as
G
N
UE
m a
Y y
m y
Zo
U
W
0
Z
O
O
a
C
f6
N
N
m
O
N
d
U
d
a
a
d
U
.O•
O
Q
T
m
a?
a
M
O
.T.
E
U
U
Uf
O
Q
N
w
C
.y
N
0
m
L
y
N
y
N
E
c
0
C
N
m
3
m
c
m
G
3
a
a
O
Z (d
(D 4)
O Q
o U
m
G 'c
a
m 2)
y
N ?
U m
N C
CD
of
w Co
Q V)
N
U-3812 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A:
ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD & BRIDGING DECISIONS
NC 88 Widening Project, NCDOT Division 11, Ashe County
TIP Project No. U-3812
Federal Aid Project No. ST P-88(2) State Project No. 8.1711501
TIP Description : The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program and the
Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December 2002).
Alternatives to Carry Forward : The Merger Process Team met on March 15, 2005 to discuss
the alternatives. The Team concurred that the following alternatives should be carried forward in
this proposed action.
# 1 No-Build / routine maintenance continues
# 2 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (entire project length)
# 3 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
# 4 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
& 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
Bridging Decisions : The Merger Process Team met on March 15, 2005 to discuss the
preliminary hydraulics design for the three major stream crossings on NC 88. Based upon the
current project development information, the Team concurs with the proposed decisions
presented in the following table, as amended.
Proposed Culvert
Site
No Stream Name Existing
Drainage Replacement or
Culvert Extension Comments
. Structure or Bridge
1 - 60" REPLACE
Corrugated Bury invert 12" for fish
Tributary of Steel Pipe With passage; Detailed phase
1 Naked Creek & construction plan required
1 - 30" 10'x 6' to maintain traffic during
(Naked UT-B) Corrugated Concrete construction.
Steel Pipe Box Culvert
EXTEND
$ 160,000;
Existing Detailed phase
Culvert construction plan required
to maintain traffic during
With construction; Sills or
baffles in culvert extension
3 @ 11'x7' 3 @ 11' x 7'x 60' to retain bed material and
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete Concrete promote fish passage.
Box Culvert Box Culvert
EPLAC

<
>
UZ.
du'
Br idge
REPLACE Intersection realignment
will necessitate
Tributary of 2 - 60" with replacement of existing
"
3 Little Buffalo Creek Corrugated culvert; bury invert 12
for
Steel Pipes 9'x 5' fish passage; Detailed
(Little Buffalo UT-B)
Concrete phase construction plan
required to maintain traffic
Box Culvert
L during construction.
__j
i
USACE 3 f s fJ NCDOT
John T. Thomas, Jr. Date
USEP ""'?- USFWS
Christopher A. MMilitscher Date
FHWA (Y-Me4L?W- &?) 3115105 NCDW
Jake D. Riggsbee Date
NCWRC NCDCR
Marla J. Ch bers Date
??317
ryt.!
Mark S. Pierce, P.E. Date
`?- 3 Ze os'
Marella Buncick Dale
Brian Wrenn Da e
Sarah D. McBride bate J`
t A
r-7 A Re
r.`
y?
i
s. swpo
?d y. m.a
v.Rm?
?Qa ww ?"°?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
November 27, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Scoping Participants
FROM: Daniel Keel, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: NC 88 Widening, from US 221 Business to NC 194, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-88(2), State Project No. 8.1711501, T.I.P.
Project No. U-3812
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on November 16, 2000, at 1:00 P.M. in the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). The
following people were in attendance: s
Carl McCann
Jake Riggsbee
April Montgomery
Bill Wedeking
Leon Oliver
Sid Autry
Rob Allen
Ronald Young
Raymond W. Goodman, III
Elina Zlotchenko
David Woodie
Travis Marshall
Jon Weathersbee
Jason Salisbury
Van Argabright
Tim Bassette
Heather Feambach
Bryan Kluchar
Linwood Stone
NCDOT/ Division 11
FHWA
State Historic Preservation Office
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Roadway Design
NCDOT Location & Surveys
NCDOT Photogrammetry
NCDOT Program Development
NCDOT Right of Way Negotiations
NCDOT Congestion Management
NCDOT Hydraulics
NCDOT Statewide Planning
NCDOT Traffic Control
NCDOT Traffic Control
NCDOT Program Devlopment
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmentar Analysis
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
After brief introductions, the following was discussed at the meeting:
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 88 from US 221
Business to NC 194. The NCDOT's 2002-2008 T.I.P. description calls for a multi-lane
facility. The total length of this project is approximately 1.6 miles.
T.I.P. Schedule
The project schedule for TIP Project U-3812 is:
Right of Way (begin): 2005
Construction (begin): 2007
T.I.P. Fundine
The cost estimates in the T.I.P. are as follows:
Right of Way: $3,750,000
Construction: $3,850,000
Total: $7,600,000
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve traffic flow and safety, and provide
improved access to the industrial park and the combined school system. The need is based
on system linkage and the capacity deficiency of the current system.
• Schools in the area generate a considerable amount of traffic. Requests from citizens
and school system for the improvements.
Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) is scheduled for completion in August, 2002.
Existing. Conditions
Typical Sections and Traffic Volumes
• NC 88: Two-lane 1999 ADT is 6,300 vehicles (East End)
• NC 88: Two-lane 1999 ADT is 5,800 vehicles (West End)
• US 221 Business: Four-lane 1999 ADT is 8,000 vehicles
• NC 194: Two-lane 1999 ADT is 10,000 vehicles (North of NC 88)
• NC 194: Two-lane 1999 ADT is 6,100 vehicles (South of NC 88)
Speed Limits
• NC 88 (East End): 60 km/h (35 mph)
• NC 88 (West End):70 km/h (45 mph)
Proposed Improvements
Other Projects in the Immediate Area
NC 16 Upgrade from Wilkes County to Jefferson, R-2100:
Construction scheduled for 2005
US 221 Upgrade from Allegheny County to Jefferson, R-2310:
Construction scheduled for 2005
Build Alternates
Three build alternates have been identified for the project.
Alternate 1 Symmetrical Widening (Study both 4 and 5 lane typical sections)
Alternate 2 Asymmetrical Widening (Best Fit) (Study both 4 and 5 lane typical sections)
Alternate 3 Asymmetrical with a combination of four and five lanes
Constraints in the Project Area
• Commercial properties on the east end of the project
t
• Intersection challenge at SR 1153 due to grades of both SR 1153 and NC 88
• Little Buffalo Creek is a Class C trout stream
• An unnamed tributary crosses under NC 88
• Wetland delineation is a priority to determine whether the official merger process will be
followed
• Six endangered species possible
Coordination Schedule
Photogrammetry: 1"=50' mapping to plan sheet specs in September, 2001
Location & Survey: will coordinate with Roadway
Roadway Design: preliminary design in January, 2002
Next Step in the Project Development Process
A Citizens Informational Workshop is planned for March 2001. i
e„asWFo
auwva,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 10, 2004
(Thursday)
MEMORANDUM TO : Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDOT Coordinator, Western Region
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
FROM : Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1 401 GROUP
JUN 1 12004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT : NC 88 Widening Project, Ashe County
Minutes from Merger Process Team Meeting held on 5/18/04
A Merger Process Team Meeting was held on May 18, 2004 from 1:00 to 2:45 p.m. in the Board Room of
the Transportation Building at 1 South Wilmington Street in Raleigh for TIP Project Number U-3812, NC 88
in Ashe County. The following 17 individuals were in attendance:
John Thomas
John Hennessy
Brian Wrenn
Marella Buncick
Marla Chambers
Christopher Militscher
Jake Riggsbee
Mark Freeman, P.E.
John Pilipchuk, L.G., P.E.
Jerome Nix, P.E.
James Goodnight, P.E.
Steve Kendall
Elizabeth Lusk
Deanna Riffey
Robert Hanson, P.E.
Linwood Stone
Mark Pierce, P.E.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
United States Army Corps of Engineers
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration - NC Division
Division 11
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Office of Natural Environment
Office of Natural Environment
Project Development
Project Development
Project Development
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG/PLANNING
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
U-3812: 5118104 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2004
Page 2 of 5
After brief introductions, the following topics and issues were discussed during the meeting:
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The purpose of the meeting was to update the Team on the status of this project since the last Merger Process
Team Meeting (December 12, 2001), narrow the alternatives and establish alternatives to carry forward
(Concurrence Point 2A), and establish Bridging Decisions (Concurrence Point 2A) for this proposed action.
TIP DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 - 2010.
Transportation Improvement Program and the Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December
2002).
MERGER PROCESS STATUS
Purpose & Need ( Concurrence Point No. 1, signed 12/12/01) : "The purpose of this project is to
improve safety on NC 88 and to improve a link between the existing multilane section in downtown
Jefferson and NC 194 which is included in the area thoroughfare plan adopted in March 1992. The need is
based on correcting a restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has
contributed to a fatal accident rate that is three times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways."
Design Options for Detailed Study ( Concurrence Point No. 2, signed 12/12/01)
1. No-Build / routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center tum lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section best-fit widening
5. 4-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
7. 5-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
8. 5-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Team discussed the above Design Options for Detailed Study and recommended the following regarding,
alternatives to be carried forward:
? Eliminate the symmetrical alternatives, 3, 5, and 7, for the following reasons: symmetrical
alternatives do not minimize impacts to the parallel stream crossings; and the best-fit widening scenarios
could include symmetrical widening if symmetrical widening was determined to be the best fit.
? Eliminate Alternative 2 for the following reasons: it is a symmetrical alternative with limitations
similar to Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 as described above; and since 74% of this alternative is comprised of a
3-lane section and tapers, it could be replaced with a 3-lane, best-fit, shoulder section throughout the
length of this project with a best-fit alignment to minimize impacts.
U-3812: 5118104 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2004
Page 3 of 5
? Eliminate alternatives 4 and 6 because undivided sections are not recommended by NCDOT from a
congestion management and traffic safety standpoint and do not meet the purpose and need for this
proposed action.
? Eliminate Alternative S because it is a larger footprint that would not minimize impacts in the rural
portion of the project.
? Retain Alternative 1 because it provides a basis for comparison with the build alternatives.
? Add a 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening along the entire length of the project.
? Add a hybrid alternative with a 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening in the urban portion
and a 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening in the rural portion of the project.
? Add another hybrid alternative with a 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening in the urban
portion and a 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening in the rural portion of the project.
ALTERNATIVES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD (CONCURRENCE POINT 2A)
The Team did not reach concurrence on the alternatives carried forward, but agreed to renumber and study
the displacements, hydraulic designs, and impacts for the new set of alternatives described above and
presented below, and to convene a second meeting for Concurrence Point 2A to present the study
information on these alternatives.
Alternative 1 4 No-Build / routine maintenance continues
Alternative 2 4 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening
Alternative 3 4 3-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
& 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
Alternative 4 4 5-lane curb & gutter section with best-fit widening (urban portion)
& 3-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening (rural portion)
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC DESIGNS
The following table presents the natural environment setting and preliminary hydraulic designs discussed
during the meeting for the three major stream crossings.
V
fi
eo
d
01
V
U
N
tiO?+
h N `ti
N ti a
ti
M ? a0
a
°a
U
O
M
a
w
W
A
a
V
F
W
z
C

m m U°
4D
O m m U O
O
Co m O
3
N C
w 3 m O 0 U 0
C ?L C N 2
CL
2 CL Cw N 3
O
; co y C 00)
N
V,
' O- m c V 2 R 2
O
E
.
C C
y '°
,m_ g N O C
1
"O
m;° U
y
mz? m E N
C C
7 N C
ft-ggU?g(D
O
V C m y N• Q Ol
C C O m N N• a Ol
C O f6 ?O O C O
m C O1 m p• C m o• a cm
C
C
708 E p
E
U 3 O F-
3 m
d X m t n E
7
7
co
6% > 0.
"0
c
mom
w
a
rn
U
w U L

A=! L

Ai
a
?j m m mrn

E
° 3
i
U
U X
3 3
m
U 3 c
n
0
U
W co

a ?°O x

? v o
?o
o`-mo
CL 0. U Lu In
Cl) a a U
N
N cf)
?

m
m C C 6
N o No

a
o
Y
m
}
Z n?
R x2
IL wN D _°
N
,,

'0 :
N 0 2 o w0 2 >.
?
a w0 2 T
4O Z 2 (
2 Q r 2

rCM

..
m '0 m
o°=0--? ccn a

m a a
co i. •r

>
-xm
U

o
a
cm
C v
q
X L6 2
a M CO 06 fn
C? V (?
? U U co
0
0
U U

YI 0 Z5 o o N
C.) C M to
a.
00 L
CO) S W) 0
IA
a+
C
N 4) T7 V ?? Ut
N C O
m ' ???•O UL m
H m
m
N
U m +?,' 13
m 01 N m
O U
m 0 N C C •a m y O C
g U..
'O M Of U C '2 m N C C
i
g
N
m m E
V C o
m E •_ 3 d ,,L m
U N
V "0 C 3 N m E m u
Tt m
o
? U N
U C R
N N O
N .D O .D .a O
N .O

c
O w w O
cm
_
T
m m ( m > QI N 'p
C O C C
rm.o-:g O 2
A m Q o m Fri '" -°m aaa2a$ tea
m m
3V MO 0..?-. N cd = 'L H O a)
Uc?E
° >
Z=CY
00
c
o
o E
o E

3 + 00
' comma;
m
C
~
(4 0
?
0 m a () m
i o Qm Z.-
o c m o y (A ?r t 5 O C.+ cam
U MI5 m y° c 3 fn?
O `O C
w m
V ° m m a c
J
mV °°
'w0o. n0E 00 OE v0
N
m
c
-m
W-O
R
c?
cm
cm E
,
+
RV m-
er c ?v
o_ m
6 3 a
o m
-6 3 o m
3
3
tit
Z A
(? N c
L
8 2
M H N ?
o
N N m
r -'
N N m
cc u a 3t a
3 ?t a
0 (? ' N ' f
/1 ' N
m
m 00
R

Z o (D
F-

?U V

o O V

Z o 0
? m w m ?
m Q Y Y co m Co
~ m

dl
~ Z
z
?
J J

(/? Z N Cl)
U-3812: 5118104 2A Concurrence Meeting Minutes
June 10, 2004
Page 5 of 5
BRIDGING DECISIONS (CONCURRENCE POINT 2A)
Although the Team did not reach concurrence on Bridging Decisions, it agreed to the following actions:
? Crossing No.1 should be a culvert replacement.
? Crossing No. 3 should be a culvert replacement.
? Additional roadway design information (alignment and superelevation) is needed to determine
whether Crossing No. 2 should be a culvert extension or a bridge.
ACTION ITEMS & PREPARATION FOR SECOND MEETING FOR CP2A
The Merger Process Team generated the following action items during the meeting and requested
presentation of the study information on the new list of alternatives during the second meeting for
Concurrence Point 2A.
1. NCDOT will determine the discharge points, impacts, and treatment techniques for alternatives with curb
and gutter sections.
2. NCDOT will design a climbing lane on NC 88 for the eastbound traffic departing NC 194 and determine
the impacts.
3. NCWRC will further study the occurrence of trout in this area and requirements for stream crossings.
4. NCDOT will study the displacements and impacts associated with the new list of alternatives.
5. NCDOT will meet with DWQ to discuss the project file.
6. NCDOT will be prepared to present information for Concurrence Points 2A and 3 at the next Merger
Process Team Meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to those who participated or contributed to this concurrence meeting. These minutes present the
topics discussed during the meeting. If you have comments, questions, or revisions to these minutes, please
contact me at [phone] x214 by June 24, 2004.
- End of Memorandum -
MSP\D.\U-3812\Merger\ConcurrenceMtg-2A-Minutes-5-18-04
5-l( l0q Cori c.o- .", e,
eJ t? b1.> S VfJ TA1 ? a C )G T
r ?` f ?
? . _?-es.T - 1?, at v es c"?
i
J
a?tues
J
a(fcm, 3/ S, 4--7 dw
l al S aJ ?Wa, i jO41 kl (o to Curl.
50
ac K
0T LI tf c WOO CV
t_ --e?- ?6 1`4.
also ?t?dW U'L?uc?ic?? 1r??tu TO 1-- -12 -OVA\
J
s Qt - vl?. lou.? l?
a
l J
?? 3 `' w J sln9w? ? ? ru,?a? Se.e?: 5 ? p„? c??do ?- ??? u-vb aN- see.
?1\ 3 lam ?? ? 5 Loov?c Cron,.
4 ?a??wa w 3 so
- e (y,,e 5 Sw?e l ?o" pot ") ?o eg r\A o t ?w Ar ` v-y t twt
lvlCA o?oc?g? o ra ?. S 3Q 3 C ?? se)

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
April 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Invitation to Concurrence Point 2A Meeting
Environmental Assessment of U-3812:
NC 88 Widening Project in Ashe County
Your attendance is requested at the Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Team Meeting scheduled
for Tuesday, May 18, 2004 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Board Room in the Transportation
Building in Raleigh.
The purpose of the meeting is to present information to the Merger Process Team in order to reach
concurrence on Point 2A, Alternatives to Carry Forward and Bridging Decisions. I have attached
the following documents for your reference as you prepare for this meeting.
? Meeting Agenda
? Historical Architectural Resources Survey Summary of Findings (7/31 /01)
? Natural Resources Technical Report Executive Summary (December 2003)
? Preliminary Hydraulics Report (11/4/02)
? Concurrence Point 2A Agreement (draft)
..
Should you have comments or questions regarding our meeting, please contact me at
[phone] x214 at your earliest convenience. I appreciate your time and look forward to a
productive meeting.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF I ANSPORTATION
Merger Process Team Members & NCDOT Project Team Members
Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG/PLANNING
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27601
Environmental Assessment of U-3812: NC 88 Widening, Ashe County
Concurrence Point 2A Meeting Agenda
Board Room - Transportation Building - Raleigh, NC
May 18, 2004 1:00- 2:30 p.m.
?1. Purpose of this Meeting : to present information to the Merger Process Team in order to reach concurrence on
Point 2A, "Alternatives to Carry Forward" & "Bridging Decisions."
2. TIP Description : The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 -
2010 Transportation Improvement Program and the Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December 2002).
3. Merger Process Status
• Purpose & Need (Concurrence Point No. 1, signed 12/12101 ) : "The purpose of this project is to improve
safety on NC 88 and to improve a link between the existing multilane section in downtown Jefferson and NC 194
which is included in the area thoroughfare plan adopted in March 1992. The need is based on correcting a
restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has contributed to a fatal
accident rate that is three times higher than the statewide average for similar roadways."
Design Options for Detailed Study ( Concurrence Point No. 2, signed 12/12/01 )
1) No-Build / routine maintenance continues qq"?-?
2) 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections 51?i2aI\
4-lane shoulder section symmetrical widening
4) 4-lane shoulder section best-fit widening
rg 4-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
6) 4-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
X 5-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
8) 5-lane curb & gutter best-fit widening
4. 3-lane Shoulder Section 4 Alternative 9 ? or "a practical expression of Alternative 2 ?"
• Alternative 2 includes 2-lane portions totaling 26% of the project length and 3-lane portions and tapers totaling
74% of the project length.
5. Selection of Alternatives to Carry Forward
• Incorporation of Alternative 9 into Alternative 2 ?
• Elimination of symmetrical alternatives to minimize impacts to parallel streams ?
• Hybrid (combination) section might be necessary due to project context (topography, urban and rural portions,
curb & gutter and shoulder sections).
• Alternatives to carry forward ?
0
C
MA
y
O
L
V
R
V
N
O
m
M
d
Z
L
w
C
.N
d
0
A
C

? a

Q =

w E-
d

V =
d E
O
•
O
V ?} M C
W
N C p
N

cV aD N ?
00 d Z

C C
(D m u.2
a cyo C o F= ti O C

0E ti
°•) N `-° ° O
l, O C
0
° O 'D

to tov Z' N C

c 01 L ° ° ° _
d .5- _C;+..2..
y
?'' 0 O r C l` 2
a 0 D., co y OO `
et 0 IX
? O.+°CL' 2 `1 R 7
C-04) _ .+_
_
O
C
>? 'N O
2a
c G4
A C C
•
2
- 8 E? V y
.O. C
°U°
z to
y O' •- y
to 7 N C C C
E
O
12
O 0
d C N y m
S v
°O w y y r 0 °
°
OO ? O.0 C O
N a- C .O d I .E M

-
7
m U E

U E

D f0 C
° ?.
c
T U
a E
03, O L
?axic° v
C
4 0 0
>Z
L
a
c U
c?
U
t
3
r
a
a x? w V _
m>'3 i• w rn w U
oRim C° °z0. x g m g °
06 Q do a ?u x -

IL
V
Lu
N
0 m ?V

LLI
w
LU N

m `
L O M = w C
0 y 4)
•O .wy.
M N A N
os x } Z N d
a?
w
a wN C U) O
U)
C

v - ? w

Q
w
F-
7 .9 +O•'
Qx = j
ad
w
7 Q V
> > >
? Q U
> >
'm Ow ` Q W ? w
3
Q
0 U 2
z S >1
Q N J
Q U =
m m v o i?

c U
W `M
rn
(1) 06 Cl)
.2
X co

NCO oU

?U
N
0 6

U W

U
M m
°w

H C
E 'C
yt`
?
` L C d
y W ?.N N U OL N
-
U L
r
=
T
O
h r V
4 L
>. ?t? t0 Ut.Q
y
a >,'a
O -
l
0
`
o'
d '
Ma
o c> 00
(
l
N
l`
6
4)
?
o Ub y
y c m
? p U
=
vM? i
N N °
t
i
t
V l6 H
Q:? co E O/ C
N= e
6
c
rn ui C C y 0 y N C
y E 0= 3 `y Y Tr g, U 0 ?
I
•O W O1 y C N N y N C
m E f0 _ y 0 y U 0
(n m U •O C U 'o C O 3 c0 0 7 U y U 10 C U p 7 U W
V) y .0 0:5 L y a .O

i o c
f.0m
m °0
o `
2
T
y ° j
f
° G 2
m2
(?
i
d y

a+ y n
it
Q-O C
N .1
W
O O
.2 m --
`y -.a 0,w ate,a C
O as 7
y
aS a0
cn _
N
3: - E- y ° rn2
al
?
. I
z >
0
M -
° 2° v o °'
m° m ?°
m° E s
Q 0
V m
N f
>
O C
y
N 0 N O .r0.
H
?
H
R
d Z .
.
N V M Q
3 o c c m
N n
.
N •?
.. U)
>
? ??
no
U D
D an N
C
>mo c0 yca
U Ti
a

mU o

nyrw 0 n ?
I
d
a 2 E '00 o
m
o0
-0 E v

_
m
w- 0
O
y `
?.
y t0 U C •- C.
..
C
O m . C.
..
O m m
LO C r
O m
LO

M
Q W L 10 M N U O
C)
V 'O U N 'O U N
oUots?W ' N a = a a
y N

m Y
N Y m
N
Z Z'V o
Z.o 0
E
m m
S-0
4)
.d.. `- m m
z z m
a? ? m m
F- y d
U)
J J
•'O-'-' Z N Cl)
.O C
C l0
N y
C C
d a
E n•
0 y
O _
H O
? O
? o
E
cEa c
d r
N
d N
U) N
CL
f7 N
M U
ur
° a
T
? m
m a?
? w
c
c
m -
-0
t T
U :L-
C
7O C1
C >
o
U 0
N
m
V c
d y
m N
D N
N 16
Q a
[a co
C1 r
? y
N
f6
C y
Of C
A N
y E
l4 C
C O
a c
y N
m ?p
L 7
f6 ?p
N C
N O?
O 'O
a ?
L
o'
O V)
C O
O
=0 C
CD
N
? c 3
O _E y
co U 0
Y
aD N N
E a •=
d •- y a
Uvrnm
v-?0•E
m moo w°._
'
z.0Q>
N
(01
W
0
z
t
U-3892: 2A Concurrence Meeting Agenda
May 98, 2004
Page 3 of 3
7. Joseph Benjamin Neal House
• Eligible for National Register of Historic Places
• Section 106 and 4(f)
8. Summary

E
S
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
REPORT
Final Identification and Evaluation
NC 88 Widening from US 221 Business to NC 194
Ashe County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3812
State Project No. 8.1? 11501
Federal Aid No. STP-88 (2)
r
x?
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Report Prepared by Heather Fearnbach
July 2001

NCDOT conducted an intensive survey with the following goals: (1) to
determine the APE, defined as the geographic area or areas within which
a project may cause changes in the character or use of historic
properties, if any such properties exist; (2) to identify all significant
resources within the APE; and (3) to evaluate these resources according
to the National Register of Historic Places criteria.
The APE for historic architectural resources was delineated by a NCDOT
staff architectural historian and reviewed in the field. The APE boundary
is shown in Figure 1.
The survey methodology consisted of a field survey and background
research on the project area. NCDOT staff architectural historians
conducted a field survey on April 19, 2001. All structures over fifty years
of age in the APE were photographed and keyed to an area map (Figure
2).
Background research was conducted at the HPO in Raleigh, the North
Carolina State Library and Archives in Raleigh, the Ashe County
Courthouse in Jefferson, and the Ashe County Public Library in West
Jefferson.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
The project area includes twelve buildings over fifty years of age. Eleven
of those properties were determined not eligible for the National Register
at a concurrence meeting with the HPO on June 28, 2001. The Joseph
Benjamin Neal House (Property 4) appears to be eligible for the National
Register.
Properties Considered Potentially Eligible for the National Register
Joseph Benjamin Neal House (Figures 4-7)
Properties Considered Not Eligible for the National Register
Properties 1-3, 5-12 (Figures 9-19)
NCDOT Survey Report for U-3812 4
Heather Fearnbach i % July 2001

RIV O- Ivy
X03
17-38)2
WIDENING OF NC 88
FROM US 221 BUSINESS TO NC 194
ASHE COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. U-3812
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1711501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-88(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U-3812
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
OFFICE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
RzF( C,qR?
? J
z?
December 2003
r

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U- 3812
• . ASHE COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project involves the widening of 2-lane NC 88 to a multi-lane facility in Ashe County
from NC 194 near. Smethport to US 221 Business in Jefferson. Nine alternatives have been
proposed for the project ranging from "no build" (Alternative 1) to a five-lane facility.
The build alternatives include: Alternative 2-two-lane shoulder section with a center turn lane at
selected intersections; Alternative 9- three-lane shoulder section with best-fit widening; Alternative 3-
four-lane shoulder section with symmetrical widening; Alternative 4- four-lane shoulder section with
best-fit widening; Alternative 5- four-lane curb and gutter section with symmetrical widening;
Alternative 6- four-lane curb and gutter section with best-fit widening; Alternative 7- five-lane curb
and gutter section with symmetrical widening; Alternative 8- five-lane curb and gutter section with
best-fit widening. For all alternatives, stream crossings will be accomplished by extending the
existing culverts to accommodate the wider roadway.
The project lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. Topography of the project
vicinity is characterized as mountainous with steeply sloping banks along most drainage ways.
Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 2,840 to 3,500 feet above mean sea level
(msl). Elevations in the project study area vary from approximately 2,840 to 3,040 feet above msl.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The proposed 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. One
pond, Buffalo Creek, four of its unnamed tributaries and two unnamed tributaries to Naked Creek
are located within the project study area. Buffalo Creek, two of its unnamed tributaries and two
tributaries to Naked Creek have been classified as perennial. The remaining two tributaries are
intermittent.
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
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:+".
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-11.-
predominately undeveloped watersheds) norOutstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occurwithin one
mile of the project study area. One §303(d) listed stream is located within one mile of the project
• study area. Little Buffalo Creek is considered impaired and is listed on the 2000 §303(d) list.
Approximately three miles east of the project study area; the section of Naked Creek downstream of
• the study area and just below the Town of Jefferson Waste Water Treatment Plant is also listed on
• the 2000 §303(d) list.

`a
r•
Biotic Resources
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Maintained/Disturbed,
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, and Christmas Tree Plantation. The potential impacts of the project
• on terrestrial communities are presented below. Impacts to each community are presented within
the document.
M
IMPACTS TO'TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
ALTERNATIVE SIZE ac
1 No Build 0
2 2-Lane 22.1
3 4-Lane 25.0
4 4-Lane 28.0
5 4-Lane 24.2
6 4-Lane 26.6
7 5-Lane 24.4
8 5-Lane 26.1
9 3-Lane 26.9
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Jurisdictional surface waters identified within the project area include Little Buffalo Creek and four of
_ its unnamed tributaries, a small pond, and two unnamed tributaries to Naked Creek. All are
considered perennial waters except for Little Buffalo UT-A and Little Buffalo UT-C. Approximately
0.2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands lie within the project study area. All impacts for the different
alternatives were calculated from the proposed cut and fill limits on the preliminary design drawings.
ALTERNATIVE STREAM IMPACT
linear feet POND IMPACT
acres WETLAND IMPACT
acres
1 0 0 0
2 1300 0 0.1
3 1495 < 0.1 0.1
4 1310 0 0.1
5 1395 < 0.1 0.1
I? 6 1130 < 0.1 0.1
ii 7 1295 < 0.1 0.2
8 1040 0 0.2
9 4040 0 0.2
Permits -
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from
the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States". A series of USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14s or an Individual Permit is -
likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed
project. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Permit. This certification is issued for any activity,
which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. Since the
_proposed project is located in a designated "Trout " county, the authorization of a Nationwide Permit
by the USACE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Compensation
Wetlands
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.20, compensatory mitigation for wetland losses may be required if
avoidance and minimization of an impact is not possible. Total wetland impacts for all of the build
alternatives are less than 1/3 acre and should not require compensatory mitigation.
Surface Waters
In accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0506(h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, mitigation will be required for stream
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters when these impacts are equal or greater than 150 linear feet
per stream. Proposed impacts to Little Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo UT-C, Little Buffalo UT-D and
Naked UT-A meet this criterion for some or all alternatives, and may require mitigation (Table 4.2.1.1).
Proposed impacts to the pond are less than 0.1 acre and may not require compensatory mitigation.
Mitigation requirements will be dependent upon final project plans and the opinion of the USACE and
DWQ.
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 August 5, 2003, the
FWS lists seven federally protected species for Ashe County. These species are as follows:
(1) bog turtle Threatened
Biological Conclusion: Not required for this species (threatened due to similarity of
appearance).
(2) Heller's blazing star Threatened
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
(3) Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
(4) spreading avens Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
(5) rock gnome lichen Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
(6) swamp pink Threatened
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT- NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
(7) Virginia spiraea Threatened
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Habitat is present in the project study area for the bog turtle, Virginia spiraea, and possibly swamp
pink. No bog turtles have been observed during project site visits on August 1, 2002, June 4, 2003,
and July 24, 2003. A search for Virginia spiraea was conducted in the project study area on August
1. 2002 and June 4, 2003 and no specimens were found. A search for swamp pink was also
conducted on June 4, 2003 and no specimens were found. The field survey determined that no
habitat is present for any other federally protected species listed for Ashe County. Additionally,
there have been no recorded occurrences of any rare or protected species within the project vicinity
according to the NCNHP
RECOMMENDATIONS
The selection of a preferred alternative for the U-3812 project will involve not only environmental
considerations, but also impacts to human resources, constructibility, to the cost of land and
construction, and the future transportation needs for the Jefferson area. From the context of this
report. the "best" alternative would likely be a 4 to 5 lane facility that combines the use of curb and
gutter along hill slopes to reduce the extent of cut needed, with shoulder sections in other areas to
reduce to amount of fill needed. The "best" alternative would also combine symmetrical and best-fit
widening to minimize the amount of fill needed for the roadway.
The best-fit alternatives tend to have less impact to stream channels but greater impacts to forested
slopes and to human resources than the symmetrical widenings. As the roadway is shifted away
from the stream channels the impacts are often shifted into the hill slopes. This shift minimizes
direct impacts to the stream but may lead to secondary impacts from sediment and erosion control
problems created by the additional land disturbance required to cut the slope back in order to widen
the road.
Hanging culverts such as the one that carries Little Buffalo UT-B under NC 88 should be avoided
and corrected if possible. Little Buffalo Creek has been proposed as a critical habitat area for trout
by the WRC and improvements to the culverts will improve this habitat. The DWQ and WRC
recommend that culverts be placed one foot below the streambed to allow for the passage of
aquatic species. These agencies also recommend that stream widening and excess removal woody
vegetation at culverts be avoided. Where curb and gutter is used, every attempt should be made to
dissipate the concentrated stormwater flows before they enter stream channels.
Two areas of potential stream mitigation exist along the project corridor. As much as 1500 linear
feet of Little Buffalo Creek south of the reach impacted by the project and as much as 2000 linear
feet above the NC 88 crossing provide opportunities for additional mitigation. They could be
surveyed for unstable banks, channel stability, and lack of habitat. At the eastern end of the project,
500 to 600 linear feet of Naked UT-A flows through an open grassy area before entering the project
area. It too could be examined for potential stream enhancement or restoration that may tie into the
stream relocation that will likely be needed.
IV
t `+..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 4, 2002
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Attn: Mr. Daniel Keel, P.E.
FROM: ?app D. R. Henderson, P.E. Oat,?'d ???e?f
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Aspects of the Environmental Impact for the
Proposed Widening of NC 88 from US 221 Business to NC
194 in Jefferson, Ashe County, State Project No.
8.1711501, TIP No. U-3812
The purpose of this project is to improve safety and the level of service on NC 88 from
US 221 Business to NC 194 in Jefferson, Ashe County. The existing roadway section is
two-lane with grassed shoulders. This project proposes widening to a four or five-lane
curb and gutter roadway section. The Hydraulics Unit staff recently conducted a field
investigation and preliminary study for the subject project. Three major drainage
structures (conveyance equal to or greater than a single 72" pipe) were found along the
corridor of the proposed project. The hydraulic recommendations are summarized as
follows:
The first major drainage structure is an existing single 60" corrugated steel pipe (CSP)
and a single barrel 30" CSP with matched crowns, located at approximately 200' west
of US 221 Business. This crossing intersects an unnamed tributary of Naked Creek
and has a drainage area of 460 acres. The existing structure has approximately three
feet of fill and is in poor condition. The outfall channel consists of a three-foot base;
twelve-foot bank width and is approximately five feet deep. Based on preliminary
hydraulic analysis, it is recommended that the existing structure be replaced with 2 @
66" CSP at the same location. There are businesses located in close proximity to both
the stream and existing NC 88 at this stream crossing. A detailed phase construction
plan will be required to maintain local traffic during construction.
• The second major drainage structure is an existing triple barrel 11'x 7' reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC) located proximately 1100'east of NC 194. This
crossing intersects Little Buffalo Creek at a 30-degree skew and has a drainage area
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
HYDRAULICS UNIT BUILDING B
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590 RALEIGH NC

of five square miles. The existing roadway is super-elevated such that there is
minimal cover on the upstream (south) side while the downstream (north) side has
about four feet over cover. The existing culvert is in good condition. Based on
preliminary hydraulic analysis, the existing culvert is hydraulically adequate. It is
recommended that the existing triple barrel 11'x 7' RCBC be retained and extended
where appropriate. A best-fit alignment at this crossing may reduce the existing
super-elevation, thus allowing the culvert to be extended on the upstream side. A
detailed phase construction plan will also be required to maintain local traffic during
construction.
The third major drainage structure is two barrel 60" CSP, located 400' east of NC
194. This crossing intersects an unnamed tributary of Little Buffalo Creek
perpendicularly and has.a drainage area of 307 acres. The existing structure is under
approximately 10 feet fill. The existing culvert is in good condition. Based on
preliminary hydraulic analysis, the existing culvert is hydraulically adequate. It is
recommended that the existing double barrel 60" CSP be retained and extended where
appropriate. The proposed widening should be done to the south of the existing to
avoid encroachment on the 100-year floodplain of Little Buffalo Creek. It is
anticipated that a detailed phase construction plan will be able maintain local traffic
during construction.
This project is located within the New River Basin. Ashe County is currently
participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The proposed project's
alignment parallels (in close proximity) Little Buffalo Creek, which has been designated
as an Emergency Flood Hazard Zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). A detailed flood study for Little Buffalo Creek terminates at the confluence of
unnamed tributary located 400' east of NC 194, however, the 100-year emergency flood
hazard zone extends southeastward crossing under NC 88 and continuing several hundred
feet. Encroachment of the proposed project upon the 100-year flood zone of Little
Buffalo Creek should be avoided to the extent practical. Attached is a copy of the FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map on which the 100-year flood zone of Little Buffalo Creek is
shown. There is a pond located 3000' west of US 221 business in close proximity to NC
88 on the south side. Widening at the pond location should be avoided to minimize
impacts (widen to the north). The, North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Environmental Sensitivity Maps show that Little Buffalo Creek is
designated as "Trout Waters". No other sensitive waters were identified within the
project area. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control methods. Ground water
resources along the new location portion of the project can not be evaluated until the
grade is determined.
The three stream crossings identified are located above headwaters. It is anticipated that
construction of the project may be authorized under a United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) nationwide permit. The Hydraulics Unit will assist the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, in coordinating with the USACOE
and other governmental regulatory agencies to ensure that all environmental concerns are
appropriately addressed.

DRH/MSUdjn
Attachment: Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ashe County, N.C.
cc: Ms Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Ms Beth Harmon, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
'
V 7 ? ? I o o° c
O
c
act:
tt )
C)
O
W N O O L.L.
L U o
°° 30

C NE
cm Kr
9=
Q
x L, ?

o C/) 0 U
W
2=
^
y

Z __j Z
Q 2C

?. Y W
3
c = L
c' c •^

C p

G ti
>
G
Z

_

_
O G GT+ c c .., _

dw O

r?i
O N

Op

0 G _

_O
• N r d a
G - H V ^v

N R c
V ?. O O ?.. •? r 0 C i
_ M A E. 3 i V-C
c '.'
J
G
O= G ?'D
'
0 E > ...
0 r -
C
20
C
C
J?
O -
r
V p O'
7
G G ` 0
0 -
- C
y C ^? j
O H C
7 w
_
O N
O~ C
>
c
O E G C
_
t C
= uH? y O
-D Cu a
c G D O -
(u rj r,
J 7 G ?- U C L'+ V C C+ C+
o o oc <
o G
Ci -o u G
o y
F° Y c au
>
? N

C G
_ 7
V .?
O Q
G m C G
3 q
L G

- j C `.

N

G i
c
y C
'7. G
O ?.
N
G=
c- C

O

J
O
? G 2
L .-
L
O c
-=
C O
y
?
` _
C
O c

O _?. Z
O_
>G .-
2 V
u O -c O O N _ u_ E :.o C
V L
O + 7
E C O •C O
p C
> - O- r 0 0 - O
_ r
L
G
C G O

O

o

..,

U
c=>=
- w
-°?=
c C
>
.
o moo`
U
d
oy`
7
- _
w` V
E
J
Z
w N
>2 O
O? co
O
U
LL U vi
pz ?p >
w V) C
<?
pZ j O
W - Q N
?c
~O
<
w 0 <
LL
LL LL'
w ?
H
w.
u
c p
c
L
C n
c E
n `
n O
C C
0
u u
u
C
a
n 7
A C
O
? o
u LL
c
C
H n
C ,0
0 Z
O
O
E u
u O O
V ?
? C V
C ?
V
J,
U
v
h
61
`
G=.
<O--

LLj C u = O ? ' O
-?
Vi J
_ C
I

E V-
z c =
v 3 _
O v N n y M - = v, E ?.,

° ° LJ
L c E i - - - - O

r
C c C G J n ^

O E
c_ v < CD

J
LL 41
cn <
LL'
_ i < L

L
u
O o U C O ?• _ _ C
}
L P:
v1 O N N N
N
N
h ??

cQ

C o

M
LAJ

L,-

Q

-r.
r
W
i
o
c
v

> y
O Q u
_ \
c C A

> N c o c c =
` C N L C >
'
C C N u -
^ `
? n O T^ ? ?1 C- C O -

f
L
L
v
n
C'
i

05
?y0

of

z
m
D
N
O
z
m
X

m N
O
m
x
O

?d
o.
N
0
0
D
v
A
O
_X
3
D
--I
o r"
D
r
m
Z
T
m
m
N
O
O
I
Moy ?
LW
0
wo
V 1--1-?
• O
O L-1
00
N
O
?I
??l
U-3812 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECTION 404 / NEPA MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A:
ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD & BRIDGING DECISIONS
NC 88 Widening Project, NCDOT Division 11, Ashe County
TIP Project No. U-3812
Federal Aid Project No. STP-88(2) State Project No. 8.1711501
TIP Description : The North Carolina Department of Transportation 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 2004 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program and the
Jefferson-West Jefferson Transportation Plan (December 2002).
Alternatives to Carry Forward : The Merger Process Team met on May 18, 2004 to discuss
the alternatives. The Team concurred that the following alternatives, as amended, should be
carried forward in this proposed action.
# 1 No-Build / routine maintenance continues L
o r1 U?S'1 ,? fi
# 2 -lane shldr section with center turn lane ??• -•,.?1nn:noL
#X 4-lane shoulder section (symmetrical widening)
# 4 4-lane shoulder section (best-fit widening)
# 4-lane curb & gutter (symmetrical widening)
# 6 4-lane curb & gutter (best-fit widening)
#y 5-lane curb & gutter (symmetrical widening)
# 8 5-lane curb & gutter (best-fit widening)
# 9 ?'-lane shoulder section (best-fit widening) div • wn PaO-i OA cu" -L + S
U-3812: Point 2A Concurrence Agreement
May 18, 2004
Page 2 of 2
Bridging Decisions : The Merger Process Team met on May 18, 2004 to discuss the
preliminary hydraulics design for the three major stream crossings. Based upon the current
project development information, the Team concurs with the proposed pipe culvert and bridging
decisions for the three major crossings on NC 88 as presented in this table, as amended.
Existing Proposed Culvert
Site
No. Stream Name Drainage Replacement or
Culvert Extension Comments
Structure or Bridge
Bury invert by 12";
Tributary of
Naked Creek Corrugated REPLACE with Detailed phase
construction plan
1 Steel Pipe (CSP)

(Naked UT-B)
"
2 @ 66" CSP required to
maintain traffic
1 @ 30
CSP during construction.
EXTEND existing $79.000 - $113,000;
box culvert by Detailed phase
35'- 50' with construction plan
Required to
3 @ 11' x 7' CBC maintain traffic
during construction.
3@11'x7'
2 Little Buffalo Creek Concrete Box
Culvert (CBC) $310,000 - $465,000;
(3% increase in
REPLACE with total project cost)
Traffic must be rerouted
Bridge onto Doggett Road
and NC 194
during construction.
Intersection realignment
will necessitate
Tributary of REPLACE with replacement of existing
3 Little Buffalo Creek 2 @ 60" CSP culvert; bury invert by 12";
2 @ 60" CSP Detailed phase
(Little Buffalo UT-B) construction plan required
to maintain traffic
during construction.
USACE NCDOT
John T. Thomas. Jr. Date Mark S. Pierce. P.E. Date
USEPA USFWS
Christopher A. Militscher Date Marella Buncick Date
FHWA NCDWQ
Jake D. Riggsbee Date Cynthia Van Der Wide Date
NCWRC NCDCR
Maria J. Chambers Date Sarah McBride Date

a
v n n ? a a a a
_
co
.. -4
.. -Ph
.. W
.. Q)
.. W
.. co
.. N
..
c

w

N

D
c c
n

o o c e o o r
c ?
cc to
c
c
c
c
c
c

Cl)
f A C

0

0 0 zz

y 3 3 rt 3 N 3
rt
go
Sr (D X+ CD rr cc j- m

0
A) A) 0) ?1
V Z

co Co Co O O C
N N N
'C 'C 'C -C 'C -C 'C -C

C
C 't1
N N f
A (AA A N N N Q

N N fA N fA N N N
z
O O O O O O O O ,?
CD W
0 0 CD 0 0 CA
N N N to N N N N
:`alt 31one_ot_h ey_in ter 5ection5\u3ft12.typ
3
?N
I
Z5:
-IZ
rnm
X .
?y
2
rizc
N vOD
Srn
70
imtn>
r
ijq
Z-Dn
N N
NQ
m
r-Z
m
!Q:*?
v=
O'
S
B!q
o0
I
I
I
I
a
`o
N
t
s
T z

i
I ^'

0
0
I
I
.? n
?o n
I
I
C?

I
I 4
o
?

l?

v
,o ?
N

r

P
P
I
t
I ?1
I I II
v a
I I
I I II
I ? I II
I 1 II
p? I I I
cZ I I I
00 I II
0
0
O

f
t?
m?
?or?t 'I1dlone_ot_6.ey_tnte.-ct,ans\u3812.typ
h ..T R021230-1
ORR
CZ
co
1
1
1
I
a
O
N
C
A Cm
r
(Arn
N
moo
-ic
Xr
00
>M"
r7o
Cyr
rn
vn?
rn-?w
Z_Q
ZZ
2
O
N
0
N

-.n

Y•
Cm
I
P
P
! t
1 ?1
( 1 ?1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 ?1
1 1 11
08 1 ?ZS
O 1 OGl
IN
Iq

O?
Q
2
N
g ?a
try ?
U
?X 7
MM 6
-.0 3 11:33
`o t2.31one.. o t_ key_inte, sect ion s\-0512.typ
h. Al RDll2'f7o
Aa
0
CZ
OG1
I
I
I

_t
O
N

i
m
MCA
rn=
_,CL
T
'40.,
70
::Vv
DCrnr
7,0' 4
Z0?
OZ
2
SS
C
CF?
t
T
Q
N
r
O
N
a
0
1
a
0

-In

'?1 V

P
I
I ?I
I I .I
I 1
I II
I I II
I 111
p? I0
cZ I cz
O0 I o0
P
O
Z
N
C
4

: \.olt,
k. ey_in ter 5ections\u3812.typ
gs OR
24
vo 00
I I
L ?r
A
O O~
4
z
m
Nn
1;a
E4Q0C
A00D
c
CC?N
<
7vq
Uch-
zn?
00
z
0
N
0
s
IN
IN
O
le
I I
I ?I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
00 oO

IA
2
a
c?
1
a??

nter sect-,n \u3812.typ
z
m
n
C
NW
COD
N
am>
m;vq
z(A
Zn?
0-_,1
a
`Z
-1
o bg
zZ ZZ
GQ OQ
1
1
I I
I 1
1 1
I
I I
A.
?r
Te a
O Oy
1
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
0
N
i1
0
O
N
0
0
IS
0
o~ ?
y
c? c?
o0 DO

in

2
N
E
6 C
? G
? a
inter sections\u38l2.typ
o'8 °8g
o o0 cl
I I
O O~
s
E
a
c o
r
VI
Z
m
Nn
I'°
MROC
?L ?m
r-=N
::?MD
ow
mrnV
ZC1
00
Z
o
O
1
1J
- -
_
I
l
l
i
I
I
I

N
I
I I
I I Op
I I
I I ?m
I I
I I
I.
I I
I I
0
s
O
9
0
s
?o

ar L
A
O~ O
98 °9
Cl o
o41 o0
i

C
'fi I I?
v'-20
,c`.o?t3 2_ul r
oreo t_k ey- inter 5ectiona\0812.typ
Ul
z
m
n
C'
yW
TjRoc
-n L
=i lco
CN
o?>
m
Zcn'
Zn0°
O
`JZ
08 A8
ZZ ZZ
O? Oct
I I
7 ?r
O O
:1
O
N
i
1
.I
I
I
I
I
1
0
O
a
0
N
O
s
o
le ?
I
I I
1
I I
I I
I I
?S Q8
0 oo0
s
C o
r
O
I
O

2
a
c
r
C?
?> I
Z
0
-2U 3 iP37
k e y_ to ter se c u ons\u3812.typ
W
F
Z
m
IM(A
mm
0C
Tr-ta
M"
?70
Do>
zm?q 110
ZD
Oz
OG)
I
I
I
I
IO
N
O
N
t

rn o

O

m
0
s

T

9 S
C
N
CR
r

Oa
O.
P
1
I .l I
I I II
I 1
I I II
I 111
1 11
p8 1 I I
c? I I I
ao a II
7108
t7o
s
? ?LLm
v 6
N
r
0
P
O
2

C
a ?
T
}ydNt SEW q,
L5
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 00 15 2W2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: Jean Manuelle, US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Maryellen Haggard, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Dept. of Cultural Resources- PO
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDENR-DWQ/Wetlands
Jake Rigsbee, FHWA
FROM: Daniel Keel, PE /PIP,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: U-3812
NC 88 Improvement Project, From US 221 Business to NC 194
Ashe County
Merger Points 1 & 2
Thank you for your input at the merger meeting of December 12, 2001. Enclosed are
copies of the signed merger points.
If you need additional information, please contact me at [phone] ext. 217.
wdk
attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
.
+?w+ti w y
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and Need.
Project Name/Description: NC 88, Proposed widening from US 221 Business to NC 194,
Ashe County, TIP Project U-3812, Federal Aid Project STP-88(2), State Project No.
8.1171501.
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project:
The purpose of this project is to improve safety on NC 88 and to improve a link between
the existing multilane section in downtown Jefferson and NC 194 which is included in
the area thoroughfare plan adopted in March 1992 . The need is based on correcting
restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has
contributed to a fatal accident rate that is three times higher than the statewide average
for similar roadways.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of December 12, 2001 with the purpose and
need for the proposed project as stated above.
USAC
USEPAC-?--'?? 1'----?
NCWRC l
NCDCR
NCDOT,
USFWS_
NCDW(
FHWA
W'ti&
i
Y
.1
1
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document.
Project Name/Description: NC 88, Proposed widening from US 221 Business to NC 194,
Ashe County, TIP Project U-3812, Federal Aid Project STP-88(2), State Project No.
8.1171501.
Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document:
' 1. No-build/routine maintenance continues
2. 2-lane shoulder section with center turn lane at selected intersections
3. 4-lane shoulder section symmetrical widening
4. 4-lane shoulder section best fit widening
5. 4-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
6. 4-lane curb & gutter best fit widening
7. 5-lane curb & gutter symmetrical widening
8. 5-1ane curb & gutter best fit widening
The Project Team has concurred on this date of December 12, 2001 with the "alternatives
to be studied in detail in the NEPA document" as stated above.
USACE
USEP' NCWRC c
NCDCR ?&u? ?Ouvu

NCDOT
USFWS -' C iJr'"G?c
NCDWQ C" W-C2k
FHWA
Re: U-3812: New PDE & Merger Status
Subject: Re: U-3812: New PDE & Merger Status
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:21:56 -0400
From: "Phil Trew" <[e-mail]>
To: "Mark Pierce" <mspierce @dot. state.nc.us>, "Marella Buncick" <[e-mail]>,
"Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @vnet.net>,
"Renee Gledhill-Earley" <[e-mail]>,
"Christopher Militscher" <[e-mail]>,
"Jake Riggsbee" <[e-mail]>,
"John Thomas" <[e-mail]>,
"Cynthia Van Der Wiele" <[e-mail]>
Mark:
In response to your email, I offer the following comments on the referenced
project:
1. I agree with the suggestion of evaluating only the best-fit
alternatives. As well as the natural constraints, development in the area
is sparse enough that best-fit design could minimize impacts.
2. I think that a design incorporating two separate cross-sections should
be considered. The project covers two areas of different land-use patterns
(more developed within the Jefferson city limits, and less developed in the
western portion of the project).
3. A feasibility study is being conducted on a proposed NC 194 Bypass
that would impact the U-3812 project. It's identified as FS-0111B. Effects
from the proposed NC 194 Bypass (if constructed) on U-3812 should be
considered in the design (i.e., intersection of the projects, traffic
pattern changes, speed limits, etc.).
Our RPO committees meet on third Wednesdays. Therefore, I would prefer the
Sept. 8 or Oct. 22 meeting dates.
Phillip Trew, Transportation Planner
High Country RPO
PO Box 1820
Boone, NC 28607
828-265-5434, ext. 121
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Pierce" <[e-mail]>
To: "Marella Buncick" <[e-mail]>; "Marla J. Chambers"
<[e-mail]>; "Renee Gledhill-Earley"
<[e-mail]>; "Christopher Militscher"
<[e-mail]>; "Jake Riggsbee" <[e-mail]>;
"John Thomas" <[e-mail]>; "Phillip Trew"
<[e-mail]>; "Cynthia Van Der Wiele"
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: U-3812: New PDE & Merger Status
> Dear Merger Process Team Members:
> I am writing to notify you that I am now the Project Development
> Engineer for U-3812, NC 88 in Ashe County. I have reviewed the
> file and the status of the Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process. I
> am also writing to request your continued involvement in the
> Merger Process.
> Based upon the topography and physical features, I recommend that
I of 2 6/13/03 4:32 PM
Re: U-3812: New PDE & Merger Status
> the symmetrical alternatives (3, 5, and 7) be deleted from
> further study. I also recommend that the 3-lane
> shoulder-section, best-fit alternative be considered as a
> "practical expression" of Alternate 2 (2-lane shoulder section
> with center turn lane at selected intersections) rather than as a
> new alternate, Alternate # 9, since the 3-lane and taper portions
> of Alternate # 2 now comprise 75t of the length of the proposed
> roadway improvement.
> NCDOT has received comments from Ashe County, the Town of
> Jefferson, and one business regarding the proposed alternatives
> for NC 88 (and combinations of the alternatives) with respect to
> the urban vs. rural portions of this project.
> John Thomas and -T-met briefly on 5119103 to discuss the project
> scope in general, the alternatives under study and findings thus
> far, my recommendations presented above, and the municipal input
> presented above. John recommended that we call a Merger Process
> Team Meeting to discuss these issues in accordance with
> Concurrence Point 2A under Merger 01.
> I hereby request your input on these issues. If you feel that a
> team meeting is warranted, please check your calendars for the
> following available meeting dates and notify me of your
> preference by 6119103 if possible:
> August 20, 2003 (9:00, 10:30, 1:00, 2:30)
> September 8, 2003 ( same times )
> September 17, 2003 ( same times )
> October 15, 2003 ( same times )
> October 22, 2003 ( same times )
> Once I receive input from all of the team members, I will contact
> you again with a summary of your comments and recommendations and
> meeting date/time preferences, as appropriate.
> Again, I thank you for your time and consideration and look
> forward to working with you on this project!
> Sincerely,
> Mark Pierce, P.E.
> Project Development Engineer
> [phone] x214
2 of 2 6/13/03 4:32 PM
,,. SfAi[ o
Nan
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Jean Manuelle, US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Becky Fox, US Environmental Protection Agency
Owen Anderson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Dept. of Cultural Resources-SHPO
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDENR-DWQ/Wetlands
FROM: Daniel Keel, PE rv
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: U-3812
NC 88 Improvement Project, From US 221 Business to NC 194
Ashe County
Meeting to Discuss Project Purpose and Need and Alternatives
You are invited to attend a meeting for the above mentioned project on December 12,
2001 at 10:30 a.m. in the Photogrammetry Conference Room at the Century Center in
Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting is to review, discuss, and reach consensus on the
"purpose and need" and "alternatives"wing considered for this project. These two
cence Points 1 and 2. The concurrence
project milestones are also known as Co?. urr
process uses the consensus method of-Lachrig agreement; it is an agreement that is
acceptable to all members.
If you need directions or additional infamation, please contact me at [phone] ext.
217.
wdk
October 23, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
attachments
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to increase safety on NC 88. The need is based on the
amount of fatal accidents that occur on this roadway. The project begins at the
intersection of US 221 Business and ends at NC 194 as shown by Figure 1. The length of
the project is approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers).
B. Project Status
Improvements to NC 88 are funded by state and federal dollars and are identified as
Project Number U-3812 in the NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). Proposed improvements consist of widening the current two-lane roadway to a
multilane facility. According to the NCDOT 2002-2008 TIP, right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 and construction is scheduled to begin in FY
2007.
An informal Citizens Informational Workshop for the NC 88 improvement project
was held on April 4, 2001 at the Ashe County Courthouse. Representatives from
NCDOT were available at the workshop to discuss the project with citizens and public
officials. Approximately 20 people attended the workshop. The majority of citizens
attending were concerned with how the improvements would affect their properties.
C. Traffic Capacity
Capacity is defined as 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. Simply defined, 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.
Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were developed for the proposed
NC 88 improvements for years 2000 and 2025. The year 2000 and 2025 traffic volumes
are shown in Figures 4 through 7.
1. Existing Conditions
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along NC 88 for the year 2000 range
from 6,000 vehicles per day between SR 1153 and Northwest Drive to 6,600 vehicles per
day east of McConnell Street. These traffic volumes result in an Level of Service B on
NC 88 throughout most of the project area.
2. No-Build Conditions - Year 2025
No-Build conditions in the year 2025 assume that the NC 88 improvements
will not be constructed. By the year 2025, average traffic volumes are expected to
increase to between 11,200 to 12,200 vehicles per day, resulting in Level of Service C
conditions throughout much of the project area.
3. Build Condiiions - Year 2025
The multilane highway proposed with the Build Alternative will add capacity
and improve traffic flow along NC 88. In the year 2025, traffic along much of the
proposed multilane highway is expected to operate at Level of Service A.
There is currently one signalized intersection along the length of the NC 88
improvement project. This intersection will remain signalized with the proposed
improvements along NC 88.
D. Safety
Accident studies along NC 88 in the project area were collected for a three-year
period. Table 2 provides a summary of the accidents and the corresponding NCDOT
statewide averages for rural two-lane undivided US routes.
Total and nonfatal crash rates for NC 88 in the project area are lower than the
NCDOT statewide averages. However, fatal crashes are over three times higher than the
statewide averages. "Rear end" collisions account for almost 35 percent of the total
accidents. The high percentage of rear-end collisions may be attributed to the large
number of residential and business access points along this section of NC 88.
The proposed NC 88 improvements should reduce the number of "rear end"
collisions by adding one travel lane in each direction and exclusive turning lanes at
various intersections. In addition, the proposed improvements include lanes that are
12 feet (3.6 meters) wide, an improved shoulder area, and up-to-date design standards
which should reduce the number of "ran off road" accidents throughout the entire project
area.
Table 2
Accident Summary
Type of Accident Statewide Average
(US Rural) NC 88
Ran Off Road n/a 13.8%
Rear End n/a 34.5%
Left-Turn n/a 13.8%
Angle n/a 24.1%
Other n/a 13.8%
Crash Rates (Accidents/100 million vehicle mi les traveled)
Total 228.87 10.13
Fatal 2.93 9.87
Non-Fatal 102.74 88.87
II. ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives considered in this Environmental Assessment include the
Transportation Systems Management Alternative, Public Transportation Alternative, No-
Build Alternative, and Build Alternative. The Build Alternative consists of two options
for widening NC 88 identified as Alternates 1 and 2. Alternate 1 "symmetrically" widens
NC 88 about the existing centerline. Alternate 2 uses the "best fit" alignment to
minimize impacts.
A. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
Two of the four alternatives were considered but eliminated because they do not
serve the purpose of and need for the project. Alternatives eliminated from further
consideration include the Transportation System Management Alternative and the Public
Transportation Alternative.
1. Transportation System Management Alternative
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes limited
construction activities designed to maximize the traffic flow and energy efficiency of the
present transportation system. TSM measures enhance roadway operations while
minimizing capital outlay. These measures can include physical improvements to the
roadway network as well as operational improvements. Potential TSM options include
optimizing traffic signal timing, coordinating signal operations, adding traffic signals at
congested intersections, minor realignment of sharp horizontal curves, adding turn lanes
at intersections, and other similar improvements.
Limited sight distance and numerous access points combine to make NC 88
an unsafe facility as attested by the number of rear end and angle collisions. Also, due to
the dimension of the project, traffic signals will not significantly improve the situation.
Therefore, the TSM Alternative is not a substitute for the subject project and will not be
necessary if the proposed implements are completed.
2. Public Transportation Alternative
Limited public transportation opportunities exist in Ashe County. There are
no plans to expand the type of public transportation opportunities in the county.
The limited public transportation opportunities in Ashe County is influenced
by the rural nature of the area. The privately owned automobile remains the major form
of transportation for area residents, commuters, and other travelers. Therefore, the Public
Transportation Alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
B. Alternatives Considered For Detailed Study
Of the four basic alternatives considered for this project, two were retained for
further study or for comparative purposes. These include the No-Build Alternative and
the Build Alternative.
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative consists of not constructing the proposed
improvements along NC 88. All other projects currently planned or programmed in the
TIP will be constructed in the area as proposed. Continued roadway maintenance and
minor improvements along NC 88 would be part of this concept.
The No-Build Alternative does not improve safety along NC 88 by providing
additional and wider travel lanes, improved shoulders, and additional turn-lanes at
intersections. The No-Build Alternative is the baseline for comparison with the Build
Alternative
2. Build Alternative
The Build Alternative improves existing two-lane NC 88 to a multilane
facility.
Within the Build Alternative are two different options for widening the
roadway. They are identified as Alternates 1 and 2. Alternate 1 widens NC 88
"symmetrically" while Alternate 2 uses the "best fit" widening approach to minimize
impacts.
a. Alternate 1
Alternate 1 widens NC 88 equally on both sides of the existing
centerline. This type of roadway improvement is identified as "Symmetric" widening.
Alternate 1 follows existing NC 88 regardless of deficiencies in design speed or vertical
and horizontal curvature. Alternate 1 is not recommended because it does not minimize
impacts or avoid sensitive areas.
b. Alternate 2
Alternate 2 uses a combination of symmetric and asymmetric widening
along NC 88. Alternate 2 is identified as the "Best Fit" option and is the recommended
option for the project because it considers design criteria and minimizes potential social
and environmental impacts along NC 88.
1) Length of the Proposed Project
The total length of the NC 88 improvements is approximately
1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers). The proposed project begins along NC 88 at the intersection
of US 221 Business and ends at the intersection of NC 194.
2) Typical Section Description
Two typical sections are being considered for the NC 88
improvement project. A four-lane curb and gutter section and a five-lane curband gutter
section will be studied. Typical sections are shown in Figure 2. The typical sections are
described as follows:
• Four-lane curb and gutter - The four-lane curb and gutter section has four 12-foot
(3.6 meter) travel lanes and a right of way width of 100feet (30 meters).
Five-lane with curb and gutter - This typical section has a right of way width of 100
feet (30 meters) with a 12-foot (3.6 meter) continuous center left-turn lane and 4 12-
foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes.
1 aM - ?, ( (.` 194 rJ t
88
? ? `'?`?----??-=--?"_, ? ? ` ? --? 1. a
?-
\??j r? / / w A o~°
" l
e
88
1 > ( ` claya?
l ,r l End Project-,`, _ Begin Project'
J-1 ffbrsoll
227 i i
221
194' 16
q) ,
22 /IVlou?nt Je ers'on
-~ , L`\? ? i, ? ate Natur lrea $$ ??. t t'c5
Frank Dillard-Rd
Ne?r'River-5tate Parts-?
FIGURE 1 der F?oad,Rc
4 _ -- i
1 s: Canoe
The New River ® Outfitter "
Streams High Bridge
- Roads
c Low Bridge F
2 Blue Ridge Parkway
Campground
Dam
uix Project elevation in feet 1 inch = 1 milE
i ':Yn - 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600

FOUR-LANE CURB AND GUTTER
TYPICAL SECTION
Right of Way
gutter
FIVE-LANE CURB AND GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION
Right of Way
100'
60'
Two-Way
Left Tum Lane
Typ.
curb or
gutter
Figure 2
a C C < ua

'h
c C
x
c
,'??r1 A?o? zOcv
P2, 02
x
afro
O C
C o b
e 3dbdx?v ?o>nz
?C
t?1 „?
O ° xzr
tr1 ;:m m d
, 3
o?
°
v z? viz

d
z
e
wt
o ? nx z
C

l?
*] d n c*- :r. *0
C C U N a ?
O
? N !D

o y
..
N
000
?
x
? o
y c
?

pp ? o

~ °r n
O

F+ N' A
C 0

O
N
0
O
O
m
Cl)
R
D
m
v
D
v

?-
- rn
N Z
C7

(O N
P -i -? -P. Z
0
-
b -- o tr
W
N 00
V rn t
CY) 00
(1Y) (I Y)
()q'*--ZI - 09 44 ZI

w W
0

0 ?- N
co
w
?i
'°+ ? O
Q w -.,
'
w
??

N
Ul N N
(t Y)
S5? Wa ZI
O O
D -- --D
O

(D
Z
?n
? 00
a 00
S• ,
cn
r+
'ti
to
ara
O
N
a w v
40
CCn Croxt7 p? b
?pzn?wZ ??x

?
??z?xc r
;:4
m
a
z
rAr
> b .
erb$x? ?o>?z
m qt
??o xc ??? ro
zv z? dtv tz
p rr 9

C < x° z
0
C o 0

ts7
C
(
D
r+ Z C

D - -

- - -

D
0

c o
?t

0
0
N
V W
z
rn ?- °
Dr+
OD <.
N CD

r+
-• N
(fl
N ?
V
(£'b)
OI ?a-?09
W
W W
W
N
Q
Q
Q W
N
co
q
0 N
--
? 1
.

m cn
? W

D
(i'Z) N
v ss.-a zi
W W
W W
H d n (.-? g ?d
b C N a

w '"? o H

00

C H
O ?

O

~ N
? o
O
?Q•
C
fit
7 4h. N N

V N
N z
°

U)
N)
C.0

.--- -Pb U)

=r
N OD 0
? 5
c w
cn (A)
CD -' -? O (A

(1'b) _

00
00
.P

(1'Z) r+
SS--*-ZI SS.4 Nd Zl
0

?a
? z o°

O oo
CU) CP to
N r?iy
N

BE I.

C

Z
n
z

d r
-
d
Q0
>
7C ? x C ? "? 'r •v
O?
C C17 CbZ7

d C
e
0 ? e
>
o ?°
06 z

o
0

C?7
H C n c: ro
ro C ? Nom: ?
'• z
a
c! H Qa n
W

? o0
x ?.

? o
H
O ?

00 ? ?

f n
O

F+ N A
? o
O
N
N
m
n
m
v
v
Aly PP'
--
OD Z
. D
O 0 n
z 00

4 -

01 1
- -
OD.
CD
a)
00
v 00
Wz) Wz )
ZI
0914 - 09-4477W-,I Z[
Rd

0

C E
N
Cf)
0

A
01 4)
'
CD
N
Wz )
SSA a Zl
cn cn
0)

ON
(D
Z
? n
Cl) 00
00
?r
aro
O
N
1
?< < .
a? a o zorv
14
r..t=1ro n ?
z
??A
o
.??o>o
°m
3
AO
O ar
Or
M
'M
"
.?
o?
?" 7-
?a14?c?r <0xx?
e? ?dm<? 4Ezr
?
obz

p rg o v

v dux z
C ° °o

C:7

(D
,N+ z
N
? C7
00
coo
--
D
---D
' _
U)

?t 0
s
c
rn

0-

0
N
CA
m
CO)

p

N
JJ
o 4
1
n
m ? co
N
''
- - T
v ?
D
N
?

Wz ) tD
SSA 11 Z(

v
?f`4)
01a 09
z
0
Oh <
(D N
N
r+
C) 0)
y C n c
:? yby
b C G _
N O. ~
O
N fD

W ~ k ?? n
o y

N

l J
? ?
y

00

n
O

~ N ?
C o

C N w E- o
V ? m
K C31
co --? ,? -? p. V
O w
C N w
-? V cn

W v)
W W
V
Wz)

SSA wd Zi ZI
SS d
co
s
b
to
z
p
o
O
p
p
h cp N
F W A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\O?? RQC. William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
f Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> y 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 C.(>p110
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. 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), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
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.
8. 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[ 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required for-impacts -- a-...- -
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 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
9. Qualified personnel should perform onsite wetlanddelineations 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 D-WQ 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