U-3800

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 11, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa Martin
Through: John Dornef*
From: Cyndi Bell t L?
A ZW TVA
74 go
Oft
D E N R
Subject: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for US 321
from River Street to US 421-NC 194 in Boone
Watauga County
State Project No. 9.8110455, T.I.P. No. U-3800; DENR #98-0523;
DWQ #11986
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve no fill in
wetlands and no stream crossings. NCDOT has sufficiently addressed the questions DWQ
raised in our scoping comments. Based upon the impacts described in the EA/FONSI, a 401
Water Quality Certification will not be required for this project.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA/FONSI. Questions
regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification Program should be directed to Cyndi Bell at (919)
733-1786 in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mark Cantrell, FWS, Asheville
David Cox, WRC
U3800EA.DOC
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Widening of US 321 (Hardin Street)
From SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421/NC 194
Watauga County
TIP No. U-3800
State Project No. 9.8110455
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-3800
a°
EB 2 g
fl
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
NATURAL RESOURCES, PERMITS AND MITIGATION UNIT
BRUCE O. ELLIS, CLM, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
11 SEPTEMBER 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................................... ..1
1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................ ..1
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... ..1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ......................................................................... ..2
1.5 Definitions ..................................................................................................... ..2
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................................................................................... ..2
2.1 Soils ............................................................................................................... ..2
2.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................. ..3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................................. ..3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ................................................................... ..3
2.2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................... ..4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................... ..4
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................... ..5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................. ..5
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................... ..6
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................................................... ..7
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................. ..7
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .............................................................................. ..7
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................ ..7
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ......................... 1 l
5.0 References .................................................................................................................12
Figure IA. Project Location .............................................................................................2A
Figure 1B. Project Study Area .........................................................................................2B
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Watauga County .................................................8
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Watauga County ................................................11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a State Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the proposed project. The
project is located in Watauga County (Figure 1A).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening US .321 (Hardin Street) from SR 1163
(Rivers Street) to US 421/NC 194 (Figure 1B). The existing roadway consists of a two
lane roadway with shoulders. The proposed facility is a five lane curb and gutter
roadway. Project length is 0.6 km (0.4 mi).
The existing right-of-way (ROW) varies between 12 in and 14 in (40 ft and 45
ft). The proposed ROW will be 30 in (100 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Boone), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
Watauga, Avery, and Caldwell Counties, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and federal species of concern, and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Dale Suiter and Chris Rivenbark on 15 July 1997. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
2
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994. Lake and
watershed management; natural resource investigations, water quality;
stream bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; Section 7
field investigations; NEPA investigations.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for the terminology used in areal descriptions contained in this report
are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction
limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the
project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Mountain Physiographic Province of North
Carolina. The topography within the project region is characterized by mountainous
areas frequently dissected by streams. The entire project area lies within the town of
Boone, and it is adjacent to Appalachian State University (ASU). The project area is
relatively flat and is situated in a small valley associated with Boone Creek. Elevations
within the project average approximately 975 in (3200 ft) above mean sea level (amsl).
Higher hilltops within the project region vary between 1097 in and 1347 in (3600 ft and
4420 ft) amsl.
2.1 Soils
A modern soil survey of Watauga County is not available at this time. However,
soils within the project area would likely be classified as urban land. Urban land is
described by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) as those soils that are
covered with streets, buildings, parking lots, railroad yards and airports. The natural
3
soils were greatly altered by cutting, filling, grading, and shaping during the process of
urbanization. The original landscape, topography, and commonly the drainage pattern
have been changed. Due the presence of impermeable surfaces, surface runoff is high
and erosion is a hazard with unprotected soils.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize impacts.
No surface waters are located within the project area. However, an unnamed
tributary to Boone Creek has the potential to receive runoff from project construction.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources present within the project vicinity are located in the South Fork
of the New River drainage basin (sub basin no. 050701). Most of the South Fork of the
New River watershed is forested, with areas of pasture, crop production and
development. Boone is the largest urban area within this watershed. (Division of
Environmental Management, 1994).
An unnamed tributary to Boone Creek runs parallel and to the west of the project
area. The tributary originates approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) north of the project, on the
south slope of Howard Knob (Blowing Rock). As the tributary travels through the town
of Boone it becomes channelized and enclosed in pipe to accommodate development.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The classification of Boone Creek (index no. 10-1-4-4) is C Tr +.
Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification Tr denotes freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The + symbol
identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy in order to protect
downstream waters designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), which are:
unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological
significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses. The New River
and lower portions of the South Fork of the New River have ORW designations.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
4
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the
DWQ ( formerly the Division of Environmental Management) and is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in
their life cycle that can last from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a
toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of
macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term changes in
water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to
pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the
population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality
conditions. No BMAN stations are situated on Boone Creek or its unnamed tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. No point source dischargers are listed for
Boone Creek or its unnamed tributaries.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt (DWQ). In urban areas, high concentrations of impervious surfaces greatly
increases runoff rates and volumes. Stormwater collection systems then transport runoff
waters quickly to receiving streams with little or no filtering by vegetated surfaces
(DWQ). Contaminants originating from urban development include: lawn care
products, such as, pesticides and fertilizers; automobile -related pollutants that include
lubricants, abraded tire and brake linings; lawn and household wastes; and fecal coliform
bacteria from animals and=failing septic systems (DWQ). The high velocity and
volumes of runoff can also cause increased erosion of stream channels through physical
scouring of the stream banks and flood plain.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will not impact water resources directly by
installation of culverts, bridges or stream channelization. However, indirect impacts
through non point source runoff from project construction have the potential to occur.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction
interval must also be strictly enforced.
5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and
follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Potter, et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk
(*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna
expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
One terrestrial community is identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed. Several habitats are included in this description: road shoulders,
and residential, institutional, and business landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly
maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide applications. Residential and
business landscapes are the dominant habitat within the project area and receive more
frequent mowing and general maintenance.
Road shoulders normally act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding
communities by filtering stormwater run-off. However, road shoulders within the
project area are sparsely vegetated and are largely composed of concrete, asphalt and
gravel. Therefore, little opportunity exists for stormwater filtration. Vegetation
occurring here includes fescue (Festuca spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), red
sorrel (Rumex crispus.), clover (Trifolium spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), path rush
(Juncus tenuis), and plantain (Plantago rugelii).
Vegetation associated with residential, institutional and business landscapes
includes: flowering dogwood (Cornus jlorida), azalea (Rhododendron spp.), sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia),
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), arbor vitae (Thuja spp.) and eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). Lawn areas are dominated by fescue clover, plantains and
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.). Floral components of this landscape include daylily
(Hemerocallis fulva), begonia (Begonia semperjlorens-cultorum) and gladiola
(Gladiolus spp.).
6
Small mammals that commonly occur within the maintained/disturbed
community are the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), least
shrew (Cryptotis parva) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus). The house mouse is
found in association with human activities where it finds food and shelter in barns,
houses, restaurants and warehouses. It does equally as well in weedy and overgrown
fields. Eastern moles excavate extensive tunnels and feed upon earthworms, insects and
plant material. The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor) are very adaptive mammals that will frequent this habitat for foraging
opportunities. ,
Avian species likely to utilize this habitat for refuge and foraging opportunities
include downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), mourning dove* (Zenaida
macroura), and American robin* (Turdus migratorius). Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and house sparrow (Passer
domesticus). These species will take advantage of feeders and nesting sites provided by
human settlement. The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) will forage on small birds
and mammals in this community.
Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and black racer (Coluber constrictor)
frequent open and disturbed habitats. They will find suitable shelter and foraging
opportunities in proximity with human activities.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Approximately 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) of maintained/disturbed community will be
impacted by the proposed project. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire
proposed right of way width of 30 in (100 ft) minus the width of the existing roadway
[11.2 in (37.0 ft)]. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening US 321 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal
numbers. However, since the project area is dominated by disturbed habitats, it is
anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," which include lakes, ponds, streams (including intermittent streams),
rivers, creeks springs, wetlands, territorial seas, tidal waters and other bodies of open
water as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
No Jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters are present within the project
area. Therefore, no permit to fill jurisdictional surface waters will be necessary
according to current roadway design parameters. However, if roadway design
parameters change the project will need to be re-evaluated.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 02 May 1997, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species
for Watauga County (Table 1). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Watauga County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle
: P T/SA
............................. .... ........ .......... ..-- -- ---..
....... ............... ........ -•----........_.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel .................... ?.............
E
.........................................................
Geum radiatum .............................................. ............................................. .
spreading avens ..... ........................
E
... ......... ........... -- ....................................
Houstonia montana _...................................................................----- _.
Roan Mountain bluet ........................
E
....... ..........................................- ....... .......... .............----------• --....•---................_•
Liatris hellert Heller... ..'s blaz.. ---ing star-- ... .- ••-•••----•-••••-
T
' P T/SA denotes proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance.
2 E denotes Endangered: a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
3 T denotes Threatened: a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Proposed Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4
in) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and black plastron. The bright orange or
yellow blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It
inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris
when disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms snails, amphibians and seeds.
In June or July three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The
eggs hatch in about fifty five days. (Bernard S. Martof, et. al., 1980).
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A). This is due to its similarity of appearance to another rare specie that is listed
for protection. T S/A species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to Section 7 consultation. (USFWS, 01 May 1997).
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 01 July 1985
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along
either side of its body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and
at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern
flying squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark
eyes.
9
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the
western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found
above 1517 meters (5000 ft) in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and
coniferous forests. Both forest types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest
is used for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of hardwood and coniferous forests does not exist
within the project area. Project elevation is 975 m (3200 ft), which is below elevations
where this species is normally found. Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program
data base of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of the Carolina northern
flying squirrel within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no
affect on the Carolina northern flying squirrel.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 05 April 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of
bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from
June to early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd- pinnately
compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets,
which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of
the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs
and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations of this plant have
been found to occur at elevations of 1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747
meters (5680-5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for
this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat suitable for spreading avens in the form of scarps, bluffs, cliffs and
escarpments is not present within the project area. Project elevation is 975 m (3200 ft),
which is below elevations where this species is normally found. Additionally, the NC
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats contains no
listing of spreading avens within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction
will have no affect on the spreading avens.
10
Houstonia montana (mountain purple or Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: 05 April 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial species with roots and grows in low tufts.
Roan Mountain bluet has several bright purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme.
This plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the gravelly talus
associated with cliffs. Known populations of Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations
of 1400-1900 meters (4600-6200 ft). It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full
sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and
metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat suitable for Roan Mountain bluet in the form of cliffs, outcrops, steep
slopes and gravelly talus is not present within the project area. Project elevation is 975
m (3200 ft), which is below elevations where this species is normally found.
Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique
habitats contains no listing of Roan Mountain bluet within the project vicinity.
Therefore, project construction will have no affect on the Roan Mountain bluet.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 19 November 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
Heller's blazing star is a short, stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that
arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are accuminate and diminish
in size and breadth upward on the stem. Heller's blazing star has small lavender flowers
and its fruits appear from September to November.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the
northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Known populations of this plant
occur at elevations of 1067-1829 meters (3500-6000 ft). Heller's blazing star is an early
pioneer species growing on grassy rock outcrops where it is exposed to full sunlight.
Heller's blazing star prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat suitable for Heller's blazing star in the form of high elevation ledges of
rock outcrops is not present within the project area. Project elevation is 975 m (3200 ft),
which is below elevations where this species is normally found. Additionally, the NC
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats contains no
11
listing of Heller's blazing star within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction
will have no affect on the Heller's blazing star.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 17 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Watauga County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those
species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 2 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state
status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 2. Federal Candidate Species for Watauga County
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis hellbender SC No
Dendroica cerulea
Neotoma magister
.................. ..............................................
Phenocobius teretulus
.............................................................................
Sorex palustris punctulatus
.............................................................................
Sylivilagus obscurus
cerulean warbler
.................. ....... .................
Alleghany woodrat
.........................................................
Kanawha minnow
.........................................................
southern water shrew
.........................................................
Appalachian cottontail
SR No
...................
SC ...................
No
...................
SC ....................
No
...................
Sc ...................
No
...................
SR ...................
No
Lasmigona subviridus green floater E No
.............................................................................
Speyeria diana .............................................---....--------..................................
Diana fritillary butterfly .................-----..........
SR ..---........-----------...
No
...........................................
Abies fraseri ....----.....-- --- ..
Fraser fir r
C ............
No
Cardamine clematitis mountain bittercress C No
.............................................................................
Delphinium exaltatum .............................................................................................
tall larkspur ................................
E-SC ...........................
No
.............................................................................
Euphorbia purpurea .............................................................................................
glade spurge ................................
C ...........................
No
..... .. ... .. ........................................
Geum geniculatum .................................... ...........
bent avens
T
No
................................................. ....................
Juglans ci . nerea ..................... ............ ._..----- ...........................
butternut ................ Z
WS .--
No
.............................................................................
Lilium grayi ...............................................................................................
Gray's lily ................................
T-SC ...........................
No
.............................................................................
Poa paludigena .............................................................................................
bog bluegrass ................................
E ...........................
No
Brazzania nudicaulis liverwort C No
C denotes candidate. W denotes watch list.
12
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of
the rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, Jame L., 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina" North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, Lewis M., et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983- 1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins. Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1994. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document, New
River Basin. Raleigh.
13
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Correspondence: soil information for the project area,
Haywood County, Natural Resource Conservation Service. North Carolina Agriculture
Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.

Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date: 3 Q f r, L
MEMORAND Q ' " ? -
t MAR 6 t
TO- Env. Sciences Branch (WSZ babl
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
ji/Syndi Bell (DOT)
Eric Fleek (dredging)
0 Eric Galamb (other)
DENR #
DWQ #
3 El Buchen (Archdale 9th)
" _aLtnt McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh 0 Wilmington
0 Winston -Salem
Plannine Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
0 Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
0 Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Lisa Martin, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch, 12th Floor, Archdale
PROJECT:
Z/ -
S_F_
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
? NO CON'IMENT ` COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date: -?
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 565
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version

? i
US 321
From River Street to US 421- NC 194
Boone
Watauga County
State Project 9.8110455
. TIP Project U-3800
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
0
APPROVED:

and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
US 321
From River Street to US 421- NC 194
Boone
Watauga County
State Project 9.8110455
TIP Project U-3800

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
February, 1998

Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Yvonjf G. o dbl tt, EIT
ProjElft Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer Unit Head ••'"`+?+????'''?
0 \ CARpt '
rr ?'..?FESSIp?; . 9 e
i SEAL
R. B. Da M , .E., CPM Assis t ger 6944
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT OfNEA
?`'?e°
US 321
From River Street to US 421- NC 194
Boone.
Watauga County
State Project 9.8110455
TIP Project U-3800
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL COMMITMENTS
A. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control will be strictly enforced. during the construction stage of the project to
reduce sedimentation within off-project surface waters.
B. If it is determined right of way will be acquired from areas with the potential for
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste, preliminary site assessments for soil and
groundwater contamination will be performed prior to right of way acquisition. The current land
owner or the NCDOT will take appropriate action to decontaminate the area.
US 321
From River Street to US 421- NC 194
Boone
Watauga County
State Project 9.8110455
TIP Project U-3800
SUMMARY
1. Tyne of Action
This is an Administrative Action, State Environmental Assessment/
Finding Of No Significant Impact.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 321 (Hardin Street) in Boone from relocated Rivers Street
(SR 1163) to US 421-NC 194 (King Street) (see Figures 1A and 1B for project
location), a distance of 0.6 km (0.4 miles). The project will widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter section with sidewalks on both
sides of the facility. See Figure 4 for a sketch of the typical cross-section.
The estimated cost in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP) includes $1,000,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,000,000 for
construction, totaling $2,000,000. The total estimated cost of the proposed project
is $3,300,000. This includes $800,000 for construction and $2,500,000 for right
of way (includes $45,000 for utilities). Appalachian State University (ASU)
properties involved in right of way acquisition total $510,000. NCDOT will
coordinate with the Town of Boone for funding arrangements for sidewalks on the
project, in accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy.
3. Alternatives Considered
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
All construction alternatives consist of a five-lane cub and gutter cross-
section.
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended)- Asymmetrical widening beginning
on the west-side at the southern terminal and ending on the east-side at the
northern terminal.
2. Alternative 2- Asymmetrical widening to the east-side for the
length of the project.
3. Alternative 3- Asymmetrical widening to the west-side for the
length of the project.
4. Alternative 4- Asymmetrical widening beginning on the east-side
at the southern terminal and ending on the west-side at the northern
terminal.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
C. Public Transportation Alternative
D. Transportation System Management Alternative and Other Alternatives to
Improve Traffic Capacity of Existing Roads
4. Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will alleviate congestion and improve safety conditions in
the area of US 321 (Hardin Street). Hardin Street provides access to ASU as well as area
retail facilities and residences. US 321 is a minor radial route linking northern and
southern areas of Boone. The route connects to US 421-NC 194 (King Street), an east-
west radial accessing downtown Boone and Rivers Street, which links ASU and the
Boone Business District.
The 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a project
(U-3406) to widen a short section of US 321 from existing Rivers Street to the southern
terminal of TIP Project No. U-3800. Upon completion of both TIP projects, US 321 will
be a five-lane curb and gutter facility from the southern Boone town limits to King Street,
approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi).
The recommended facility will improve traffic flow, increase safety, and provide
more efficient vehicle operation by eliminating a bottleneck beginning at Rivers Street
and continuing to King Street. Wide outside travel lanes [4.2-m (14-ft)] will provide an
opportunity for bicyclists to "share the road" with motor vehicles while sidewalks on both
sides of the facility will accommodate pedestrian traffic.
No adverse effects on historic structures and properties, archaeological sites,
streams, wetlands, federally protected species, hazardous waste sites, or community
cohesion are expected as a result of project construction. Impacts on noise levels and air
quality in the project area will be insignificant. No High Quality Waters, Outstanding
Resource Water, or waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located within the project
limits, or within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. No jurisdictional wetlands or
surface waters are present within the project area. The majority of the project area
consists of disturbed habitats; therefore, impacts to fauna are anticipated to be minimal.
Implementing the project will have some negative impacts on the human
environment. Fourteen (14) residences and five (5) businesses will be relocated by the
project. The proposed alignment was chosen to minimize cost while adhering to design
standards. This alignment also avoids impacting dwellings and important public interest
sites where possible. The remaining impacts are unavoidable and have been minimized
to every extent possible.
5. Coordination
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following federal,
state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
* N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Watauga County Commissioners
* Town of Boone
Mayor of Boone
* Appalachian State University
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
6. Basis for State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it
was determined the proposed action will not have significant adverse effects upon the
human or natural environment. The project has been reviewed by appropriate state and
local agencies and no objections have been raised. Therefore, a State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
PAGE
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................1
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ...............................................................1
B. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................1
1. Cross-Sections .................................................................................... 1
2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit .......................................... 2
3. Right of Way ...................................................................................... 2
4. Structures ........................................................................................... 2
5. Bicycle Provisions ............................................................................. 2
6. Sidewalks ........................................................................................... 2
7. Access Control ................................................................................... 3
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ...................................... 3
9. Special Permits Required ................................................................... 4
10. Changes in the State Highway System .............................................. 4
11. Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 5
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.........
5
A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY ...............................................5
1. Existing Cross-Section .......................................................................5
2. Existing Right of Way .......................................................................5
3. Degree of Roadside Interference ........................................................5
4. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ............................................6
5. Speed Limit ........................................................................................6
6. Utilities ...............................................................................................6
7. Public Transportation .........................................................................6
8. School Bus Data .................................................................................7

B. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS .............................7
1. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis ....................................................8
a. Hardin Street/Dauph Blan Street ...........................................8
b. Hardin Street/Locust Street ....................................................9
C. Hardin Street/Howard Street ..................................................9
2. Signalized Intersection Analysis ......................................................:.10
a. Hardin Street/Rivers Street-Clement Street ...........................10
b. Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street ...................................11
C. Hardin Street/Dauph Blan Street-Pine Street .........................I l
d. Hardin Street/King Street .......................................................13
C. ACCIDENT RECORD .........................................................................................13
D. THOROUGHFARE. PLAN AND ROUTE FUNCTION ........................ ....................14 •
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................15
A. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES .....................................................15
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended Alternative) ........................................15
2. Alternative 2 .......................................................................................16
3. Alternative 3 .......................................................................................16
4. Alternative 4 .......................................................................................17
B. "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................17
C. ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION .....................................................18
D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER
ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADS ........... 18
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................19
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS .............................................................................................19
1. Land Use ............................................................................................19
a. Existing Land Use ..................................................................19
b. Existing Zoning ......................................................................19
C. Proposed Land Use ................................................................20
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use ..........................20
2. Neighborhood Analysis .....................................................................20
3. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................21
4. Public and Private Facilities ...............................................................21
5. Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................21
a. Architectural/Historical Resources ........................................21
b. Archaeological Resources ......................................................22
B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS ........................................................................................22
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................................................22
1. Physical Resources .............................................................................24
a. Soils .......................................................................................24
b. Water Resources ....................................................................24
i. Waters Impacted and Characteristics .........................24
ii. Best Usage Classification ..........................................25
• iii. Water Quality 25
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..............................26
2. Biotic Resources ................................................................................27
a. Terrestrial Community ...........................................................27
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................................28
3. Permits ...............................................................................................29
4. Rare and Protected Species ................................................................29
a. Federally-Protected Species ...................................................29
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............ 33
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification ............... ........... 34 Y°
6. Farmland ............................................................................................ 35
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ....................... 35
a. Characteristics of Noise ......................................................... 35
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ...................................................... 36
C. Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................ 36
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ....................... 37
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ............................ 38
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ....................................... 39
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative ...................................................... 3 9
h. Construction Noise ................................................................. 39
i. Summary ................................................................................ 39
8. Air Quality Analysis .......................................................................... 40
9. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts .................................. 42
10. Construction Impacts ......................................................................... 44
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................................... 45
A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ....................................................................................45
1. Government Response .......................................................................45
2. Public Response .................................................................................45
B. COORDINATION ...............................................................................................46
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................46
TABLES
TABLE 1 LOS: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES ....,:. ........................10
TABLE 2 LOS: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES ...................................12
TABLE 3 ACCIDENT RATES ................................................................................14
TABLE 4 ALTERNATIVE COST AND RELOCATES SUMMARY ...............................17
TABLE 5 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WATAUGA COUNTY ................30
TABLE 6 FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR WATAUGA COUNTY ....................34
FIGURES
Figure IA Vicinity Map
Figure 1B Vicinity Map Inset
Figure 2A Appalachian State University Existing Conditions Map
Figure 2B Appalachian State University Proposed Conditions Map
Figure 2C Boone Thoroughfare Map
Figure 3 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 4 Cross-Section
Figure 5A Intersection Diagram: Hardin Street/Rivers Street-Clement Street
Figure 5B Intersection Diagram: Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street
Figure 5C Intersection Diagram: Hardin Street/Dauph-Blan-Pine Street
Figure 5D Intersection Diagram: Hardin Street/King Street
Figure 6A 1997 Vehicles Per Day: Existing Road System
Figure 6B 2025 Vehicles Per Day: Existing Road System
Figure 6C 2025 Vehicles Per Day: Existing and Committed Road System
Figure 7 Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Relocation Assistance Reports and Programs
Appendix B - Agency and Municipal Comments
Appendix C - Air Quality and Traffic Noise Tables

US 321
From River Street to US 421- NC 194
Boone
Watauga County
State Project 9.8110455
TIP Project U-3800
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommends
widening US 321 (Hardin Street) to a five-lane curb and gutter facility between relocated
Rivers Street (SR 1163) and US 421- NC 194 (King Street) in Boone (see Figures IA and
1B for project location) to improve traffic capacity and safety. The studied length of US
321 is 0.6 km (0.4 mi), all located within the Boone town limits. This improvement will
provide access to the new Appalachian State University (ASU) main entrance and new
convocation center being constructed at the intersection of existing Rivers Street and US
321 (see Figures 2A and 2B).
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are crucial in this area as ASU is a major
pedestrian/bicyclist generator. For this reason, it is recommended that wide outside travel
lanes [4.2 m (14 ft)] be constructed to accommodate bicycle traffic over the length of the
project. Sidewalks are also recommended on both sides of the proposed facility to
accommodate pedestrian traffic.
Project U-3800 is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998 and
construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999. The TIP lists a total project cost of
$2,000,000 which includes $1,000,000 for right of way and $1,000,000 for construction.
The total estimated project cost is $3,300,000 including $2,500,000 for right of way and
$800,000 for construction. ASU properties involved in right of way acquisition total
$510,000. The cost of additional sidewalks ($25,300) will be funded according to the
NCDOT Pedestrian Guidelines. Under this policy, NCDOT will contribute 70% of the
cost based on the population of Boone (12,900) up to 2% of the total construction cost.
The Town of Boone will be responsible for the remainder of the sidewalk cost.
B. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
1. Cross-Sections
The proposed project will widen Hardin Street to a five-lane curb and
gutter cross-section. The anticipated face to face of curbs width is 20.4 m (68 ft)
including two 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel lanes, two 3.6-m (12-ft) inside travel
lanes, one 3.6-m (12-ft) center turning lane, and two 0.6-m (2-ft) curbs (see Figure
4 for a sketch of the proposed cross-section). The 4.2-m (14-ft) outside lanes
provide width for bicycle traffic to "share the road" with automobiles, buses, and
trucks. The middle 3.6-m (12-ft) lane is a center two way left turn lane which
provides storage for traffic turning left.
2. Proposed Design Speed and Speed Limit
The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 65 kph (40
mph). The anticipated posted speed limit is 60 kph (35 mph).
3. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width will vary between 27 and 30 m (90 and
100 ft). Temporary construction easements and permanent drainage easements
may be required in some areas along the project.
4. Structures
There are no major stream crossings along the proposed project; therefore,
no bridges or culverts are required for this project. Existing pipe culverts will be
extended to accommodate the proposed improvements.
5. Bicycle Provisions
This section of US 321 is listed in the Boone/Blowing Rock Alternative
Transportation Plan as parrof the bikeways in Boone, and is one of the roads
scheduled to accommodate bicycle traffic. Wide outside travel lanes [4.2 m (14
ft)] are proposed on the project to provide adequate width for bicycles to share the
road with automobiles and trucks.
6. Sidewalks
A 1.5-m (5-ft) sidewalk is proposed for both the east and west side of the
facility for the entire project length. The sidewalk on the west side will replace
existing sidewalk which will be removed during project construction. The
sidewalk on the east side has been requested by the Town of Boone. In
accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, the Town of Boone has qualified
and quantified the need for pedestrian facilities in the project area. The total cost
of replacing sidewalk removed from the west side of the project will be covered
by NCDOT. The additional sidewalk cost will be funded jointly by NCDOT and
the Town of Boone, according to the Pedestrian Policy funding agreement.
The cost of additional sidewalks is approximately $25,300. According to
the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, NCDOT will contribute 70 % of the total cost
based on the Boone population of 12,900, up to 2% of the total cost of
2
construction. The Town of Boone will be responsible for the remaining costs
associated with sidewalk construction and installation.
NCDOT and the Town of Boone are currently coordinating on the
inclusion of pedestrian crosswalks and crossing signals as a part of this project.
The cost of these facilities will be included in the cost of sidewalks and funding
will be determined in accordance with the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy as
previously outlined.
7. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the proposed project will remain at grade. The
intersection of Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street is scheduled to be signalized
as part of TIP project U-3406. The existing intersections of Hardin StreevRivers
Street-Clement Street and Hardin Street/King Street will remain signalized. The
Hardin Street/Dauph Blan/Pine Street intersection, which is currently signalized,
will be converted to a `T' intersection due to the existing unsafe vertical grade.
The signal will be removed and access from Pine Street will be eliminated. A
turn-out will be provided at the end of Pine Street. The recommended lane
treatment for each of these intersections follows:
Rivers Street-Clement Street
This intersection is being constructed and restriped as part of TIP Project
U-3406. The restriping configuration was discussed with Division 11 personnel.
The recommended northbound intersection approach includes one (1) left-turn
lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1) shared through-right turn lane. The
recommended westbound approach consists of one (1) shared left-through-right
turn lane. The southbound approach includes one (1) left-turn lane, one (1)
through lane, and one (1) shared through-right turn lane. The eastbound approach
includes one (1) shared left-through lane and one (1) right-turn lane. See Figure
5A for a sketch of the recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
Relocated Rivers Street
This intersection is being constructed and signalized as part of an ASU
project. It will be a `T' intersection comprised of relocated Rivers Street and
Hardin Street. The northbound approach, constructed under TIP Project U-3406,
will include one (1) left turn lane and two (2) through lanes. The southbound
approach will include one (1) through lane and one (1) combined through-right
turn lane. The eastbound approach on relocated Rivers Street will include one (1)
3
left turn lane, one (1) shared left-right turn lane, and one (1) right turn lane. See
Figure 5B for a sketch of the recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
DMWh Blan/Pine Street
The existing signal at this intersection will be removed as part of the
project with significant geometric changes implemented to improve safety. The
existing intersection is an offset four-leg intersection with Dauph Blan creating
the eastbound approach, Pine Street creating the westbound approach, and Hardin
Street as the northbound and southbound legs.
The proposed intersection will be an unsignalized `T' intersection with
Dauph Blan Street being the eastbound approach and Hardin Street being the
northbound and southbound approaches. Pine Street will be eliminated from this
intersection and terminated before reaching Hardin Street. The grade of Pine
Street is greater than the maximum allowed under the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design standards,
creating an unsafe situation at this intersection.
The southbound approach will include one (1) through lane and one (1)
shared through-right turn lane. The northbound approach will include two (2)
through lanes and one (1) left turn lane. The eastbound approach will include one
(1) shared right-left turn lane. See Figure 5C for the existing and proposed
intersection configurations.
King Street
This will remain a signalized four-leg intersection. The northbound
approach will include one (1) left turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right
turn lane. The westbound approach will include one (1) left turn lane and one
shared through-left turn lane. The southbound approach will include one (1)
shared left-through-right turn lane. The eastbound approach will include one (1)
shared left-through-right turn lane. See Figure 5D for the proposed intersection
configuration.
9. Special Permits Required
Field surveys revealed no jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters located
within the project area. It is anticipated that no special permits will be required
during the construction of the subject project. However, final permit decisions are
left to the discretionary authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
10. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are currently anticipated.
4
11. Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost for the preferred widening alternative of US 321 is
$3,300,000, with $2,500,000 for right of way and $800,000 for construction.
ASU properties involved in right of way acquisition total $510,000. The cost of
additional sidewalks is approximately $25,300.
According to the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy, NCDOT will contribute 70%
of the total cost of sidewalk. construction based on the Boone population of
12,900, up to 2% of the cost of construction. The Town of Boone will be
responsible for the remaining costs.
NCDOT and the Town of Boone are currently coordinating on the
inclusion of pedestrian crosswalks and crossing signals as a part of this project.
Funding for these facilities will be determined in accordance with the NCDOT
Pedestrian Policy, as previously outlined.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY
1. Existing Cross-Section
The existing cross-section of US 321 between Rivers Street and King
Street is a two-lane facility with lane widths that vary from 3.0 to 3.6 m (10 to
12 ft) and shoulder widths varying from 0.0 to 1.0 m (0.0 to 3.0 ft).
2. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way along US 321 from existing Rivers Street to
King Street varies between 12 and 14 m (40 and 46 ft).
3. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside development is heavy along the subject section of Hardin Street.
Included in the development are the main entrance to ASU as well as two
residence halls, apartment/condominium buildings, restaurants, small strip
shopping areas, general retail stores, and gas stations. Several private residences
are also located along Hardin Street within the project area. ASU is in the process
of constructing a 20,937 sq. m. (225,250 sq. ft.) convocation center on the
southern end of the project. The Grace Lutheran Church is located at the northern
terminal of the project, at the intersection of Hardin Street and King Street.
5
4.
noted:
5.
Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following streets intersect Hardin Street at grade and are controlled as
Relocated Rivers Street
Pine Street
Dauph Blan Street
Locust Street
King Street
Speed Limit
Signalized
Signalized
Stop-sign (on cross street)
Stop-sign (on cross street)
Signalized
The speed limit on Hardin Street between Rivers Street and King Street is
not posted, but is within the limits of the Town of Boone. The speed limit within
the town limits, if not posted, is 56 kph (35 mph).
6. Utilities
All major utilities (electric, water, sanitary sewer, telecommunications,
and natural gas) are located on the project and will. be accommodated during and
after construction of the project. Utility conflicts are anticipated to be high. .
7. Public Transportation
Current public transportation services include the AppalCART line and the
Mountaineer Escort Service. The Appa1CART line serves all of Watauga County
including government offices and ASU. Fixed route/fixed schedule buses,
variable schedule buses, parking lot shuttles, paratransit, stadium shuttles, and ski
shuttles are all part of the services provided by AppalCART.
The ASU routes provide the highest ridership percentage of the posted
routes. Seven (7) of the ten (10) posted routes are scheduled in conjunction with
the ASU calendar.
ASU runs the Mountaineer Escort Service, an evening shuttle for students
from the main campus to the outlying ASU parking lots. This service runs from
7:00 p.m to 3:00 a.m for ASU students only. This service is provided for the
safety of ASU students.
6
8. School Bus Data
Three (3) school buses make two (2) trips each along US 321 in the project
area. These buses all serve the Hardin Park Elementary School.
B. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along Hardin Street range from
17,000 vehicles per day (vpd) near the south end of the project to 11,500 vpd near the
north end. Projected design year (2025) volumes in these same locations range from
20,300 vpd to 38,600 vpd. The estimated traffic volumes are shown in Figures 6A, 6B,
and 6C. These estimates of average daily traffic include I% TTST (truck tractor semi-
trailer) and 2%-3% DT (dual trucks). The traffic volumes are based on the urban model
that includes the effects of widening NC 105 (TIP U-2202) and Blowing Rock Road (TIP
U-3406).
Levels of service are used to describe the operating conditions on a street or
highway. When traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of a roadway or
intersection, operating levels of service (LOS) are diminished and congestion results.
Simply defined, level of service is a qualitative measure which describes operational
conditions of traffic along a roadway or at an intersection of two roadways. Six (6) levels
of service are defined from A to F, with LOS A the best and LOS F the worst. Each level
of service represents a range of operating conditions.
For free flowing sections of roadway, level of service is a measure of traffic
density and speed. For signalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of
stopped delay. Generally, in suburban areas with traffic signals spaced less than 1.6 km
(1.0 miles) apart, the traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is determined by the ability of
the signalized intersections to accommodate the traffic volumes. The studied section of
Hardin Street has traffic signals at Rivers Street, Dauph Blan Street/Pine Street, and King
Street, and its traffic carrying capacity is dependent upon the ability of the intersections to
accommodate traffic volumes.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Service A - Level A describes operations with delay times of less than
5 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when vehicle
progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles
arrive during the green phase of the traffic signal. Most
vehicles do not stop at all.
Level of Service B - Level B describes operations with delay in the range of 5 to
15 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good
progression and short signal cycle lengths. More vehicles
stop than for level A, causing higher levels of average
delay.
7
Level of Service C - Level C describes operations with delay in the range of 15
to 25 seconds per vehicle. Vehicle progression is generally
fair. Individual. cycle failures may begin to appear at this
level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant,
although many pass through the intersection without
stopping.
Level of Service D - Level D describes operations with delay in the range of 25
to 40 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of
congestion is more noticeable. Longer delays may result
from a combination of unfavorable progression and long
cycle lengths. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles that do not stop declines. Individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
Level of Service E - Level E describes operations with delay between 40 and 60
seconds per vehicle. This is the limit of acceptable delay.
The high delay values indicate poor progression and long
cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
Level of Service F - Level F describes operations with delay in excess of 60
seconds per vehicle. This level is considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. This condition occurs when
arriving vehicles exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be
contributing causes to such delay levels.
1. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
For unsignalized intersections, there is no overall level of service
calculated; instead, levels of service are analyzed by individual movements. No
level of service is calculated for the mainline through and right turning
movements for unsignalized intersections. Since mainline through and right turn
movements are the priority moves, their flow is considered to be basically
unaffected by the intersection.
Unsignalized analyses were performed for the current year (1997) without
the project in place and for the design year (2025) with and without the project in
place. The level of service at the unsignalized intersections remained constant or
slightly decreased in the design year. Though the level of service does not
increase, the area will benefit from the project through minimization of accident
occurrences (see subsequent section II.C). "The results of the unsignalized
intersection analyses are summarized in Table 1.
a. Hardin Street/Dauph Blan Street
This intersection is currently a skewed four-leg, signalized
intersection with Dauph Blan Street creating the eastbound approach and
Pine Street creating the westbound approach. The intersection is running
8
at a LOS C in the current year (see Table 2). In the design year, the
existing intersection fails if the project is not implemented (see Table 2).
NCDOT proposes to install a turnout on Pine Street before it
intersects Hardin Street due to the severe grade on the Pine Street
approach. The signal will be removed, resulting in a stop-sign controlled,
three-leg intersection (see Figure C for existing and proposed intersection
configuration diagrams). The level of service at the proposed intersection
maintains an acceptable operational setting through the design year 2025
(see Table 1 for level of service ratings for specific movements).
b. Hardin Street/Locust Street
The intersection of Hardin Street and Locust Street forms a three-
leg intersection with Locust street approaching Hardin Street from the
west. The eastbound Locust Street movement is currently operating at
LOS F. The project results in a decline in one (1) of LOS of individual
moves, but the overall intersection LOS is improved in the year 2025 (see
Table 1). The Hardin Street movements will operate at a LOS D in the
design year with the project in place.
C. Hardin Street/Howard Street
The intersection of Hardin Street and Howard Street forms a three-
leg intersection with Howard Street approaching Hardin Street from the
west. The level of service at this intersection remains constant in the
design year, with and without the project in place (see Table 1). Though
this intersection is operating at a LOS F, signalization is not recommended
due to the proximity to the intersection of Hardin Street and King Street.
The two (2) intersections are 76.2 m (250 ft) apart.
9
TABLE 1: LOS: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
1997 2025

INTERSECTION
APPROACH ....
MOVEMENT .................................
WITHOUT ..... ................................
WITHOUT ..................
WITH
HARDIN/DAUPH BLAN € EB L/R N/A N/A D
............ _......... __._ ....... ......................... .. ... ............................ _._

NB ..... ................................... ....

L/R ........... ......................

N/A ..... . ......... ...................... .

N/A ......
...... ...
A
HARDiN/LOCUST €
i EB
i L/R
L F
i F F
.................................................................
.....................................
-....................................
.........................................
.
NB L B ................................
C ..................
D
HARDIN/HOWARD
: EB
: L/R E F F
....................................... _..... ......... __... ..
.. ....._........................
NB ..
.. .........._.......................:....
L .............................._.
B ....:. ................................
F ...................
F
NOTE: `WITHOUT' denotes without the project in place
`WITH' denotes with the project in place
Peak hour volumes used for all analyses
2. Signalized Intersection Analysis
For signalized intersections, the level of service is calculated for the entire
intersection as well as for individual movements. A signalized intersection
analysis was performed on the Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street intersection
with 2025 volumes only as construction of this intersection will not be completed
by the current year. The Hardin Street/Dauph Blan-Pine Street intersection was
analyzed as a signalized intersection in the current year and the design year
without the project. Part of the construction of the subject project includes the
removal of the signal at this intersection and the elimination of the Pine Street leg.
The Hardin Street/King Street intersection was analyzed with 1997 and 2025
volumes. The results of the signalized intersection analyses are summarized in
Table 2.
a. Hardin Street/Rivers Street-Clement Street
This intersection is beyond the project limits, however, it is still
affected by the project due to its proximity. Division personnel have been
contacted and the following recommendations were discussed. This
intersection currently operates at LOS D. In the design year, traffic
increases cause the intersection to degrade to LOS F. Major through
movements on Hardin Street operate at LOS F without the project in place.
Although the intersection operates at LOS F with the project constructed,
the westbound shared left-through-right turn lane is the only failing
movement. The project provides an overall improvement in the operation
of this intersection. See Table 2 for a summary of the level of service
ratings for specific movements. See Figure 5A for a sketch of the
recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
10
b. Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street
The intersection of Hardin Street and Relocated Rivers Street will
be constructed as part of an ASU project and TIP Project U-3406. This
construction will not be completed by the current year, therefore, analysis
was only performed for the design year.
In the design year (2025), this intersection operates at an overall
LOS F without the project in place. The through movements on Hardin
Street are over capacity. With the added through capacity the project
provides on Hardin Street, the intersection operates at an overall LOS D.
See Table 2 for the results of the signalized analysis. See Figure 5B for a
sketch of the recommended lane treatments for this intersection.
C. Hardin Street/Dauph Blan-Pine Street
This intersection is currently signalized. As part of the proposed
widening of Hardin Street, access from Pine Street will be eliminated by
constructing a turnout before its intersection with Hardin Street. The
signal will be removed resulting in a three-leg, unsignalized intersection.
For this reason, this intersection was only analyzed as signalized in the
current and design year without the project. The analysis shows the
intersection currently operating at LOS C. In the design year, the through
moves on Hardin Street are over capacity, causing the intersection to fail.
Recommended improvements will provide better, safer operation at this
intersection as described in Section II.B.2.a. See Table 2 for a summary of
the results of the signalized analysis. See Figure 5C for the existing and
proposed intersection configurations.
11
TABLE 2: LOS: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
1997 2025

INTERSECTION g
APPROACH
MOVEMENT ............................................................
€ WITHOUT: WITHOUT ..... ..................
WITH
HARDIN/RIVERS/
.._..---.»....... ..__.«...........»........_....
......: EB
: LT C
: B
i D

CLEMENT
»........._.._ .................... .

........ .»...._ ........................

................................. ....
.....
....;..... .................................
R
... ...... .......

. ....... ...........
A .......
...... ...... .....
A ..
.. .
A

............. _.__...«.«.. ... »....._»._
..

i
WB ..............................
LTR ......
.......
i ..----............
D ............-• ---..................
E .... ..................
F
»
..

..« ................ ........«.«_.......... »..... ...». ....
...................._....».......... o..........»«........................
NB L
i
? ..._.
.............. .D.............. 1..............................i..
E €
- ......
............
E
......
..».._..».
......................._..».._.._............................._.......... ...
..»...........
. N/A

...._......._....._.__ »....__.. _.....«....

...... ... ........._..»........

................. .._......

€
. ........».......................

TR ......
...»... ..................

N/A .......
......
.....................
N/A
..:..
11-
..................
E

............ .....................................
......
i ... _.... ..... ....
.....
i .__._......................».
R «............. ..................
A ............. A N/A
.
.... «..
...
................................................................... ............ .......................
....«.............«.......................i.............. .................. .......
SB L C
............................
. «............«.....
C ..i.. ..................
C
.
............

.......................».......................................
.......................................... »................................

T
............»......
_................................... ..............................
D F N/A

...................... «.................................. .

..........

..:.
. ..... ..................................

TR ... .... ....

N/A ... ..... .......

N/A

€
......... .
.. ..
E

............... _..

i .
................... _. .. .... .... ..................................
R ...... ........ ..................
A ............... ........... .........
A .. ...

i ..................
N/A
..............................................
........................................ .............................................i...... »
OVERALL ........................i...................... ........
....................
D F
HARDIN/RELOCATED
.................. »....................................... .... EB L i

RIVERS . ....

i..« ....«..........................

.. .... ...... .......»L ........... .....
....
€
i
C
....D.....

..... »........... _ ............. _............................. .... ............................................«................................
........
R
.......... ........................i........ ......................i....................
C D
j
.................
«...........................................................
NB L
..........
.»
-• ......................................................._......._....................................
:
........................ ......... _ ...................
....................
N/A B E

................................._....................
...... ....
.........................._.... .

. .
..................._....
T .....
..._.. .................. .............. .....................
F .:... .................
N/A

......... _................... ..................-•---...

..»i.«.

........ ..
...

i »........ ...

N/A

B

........... ......... ......«..._................. _....... ..........._..............
........_».....................».........i....._.._.....................i..............................i....._....._......
SB TR F E
....M............_.
..
{
.
OVERALL ..
..._........«......
.»......._«_...........».......... .....?. N/A F D
HARDiN/DAUPH
.
..... _........ .... _ ................_.....«...__.
i EB
i LTR C C
i
_
.......
....
BLAN/PINE
_ ._.»......_._ .._..»»_.._ ___ _»..«......_.....................
.........«.«.......».».»_...«..«._.i.....».
WB LTR
. . ».»........».»
C ......?....................._._...
C .
.........._..»....

......... »....... _ ......................... _..
: _»........_.... _ _ m.. _ ....«...... __...__._.._....... . NB LTR C F N/A
.»..... «

...---....«..._ .............»..........»........... ....
..
€
...»..... ......_.»..«....._..._....
SB
......__.............»....
. «»:.._ ......__................_...
LTR ...:...»... ««._..........
C ...»_------ .....................
F .:... ..._..........

OVERALL
': » .«;.__ .... _......_.....__.. ..«.:..._

C

F
...........
N/A
HARDIN/KING
..................... _........ _.........................
.... .
. _. EB
........ _................... ....................
.
. LTR F F F

.....» ............................................. _..... .

... _.....
WB
......_...».......«.».._.. .
.
.. ..
. ...... .......................
L ... ......... ..................
C ............ . ........
E ..

............... ««............ .....

i .. ...
......
3 ._...............................
TR .... ......... .._.........
B .....:......... ....................
C .i... .................
F
.......... .............

..... »..._..._»..__ ............. _._...... _.
.. . ...
..« ..... _..... .«..._..... »........
»i...«...........................i------------- ....--------- ....i............ ........
NB L F F F
._
.......
............................. ».............. _........ «.«..... .... »...»............................. ...._ _...........»..........»......... ...........................
T N/A
.
.».
_...... _.............. ...................................
N/A B

.......... »...... «........... »..... _....... «.... _...

.. .... »
.
.
......... _._............ «.... ... ...... _
'
. _...
... ..... »..................... _..
TR
. ......... ....

: ................. .
C ............

i
N/A

... »_ ......................... »»..... »»...«.......

...i.....

.
.
.. .

i ....._............. «..._..»

R ....
..._....

i ..... _.. .

N/A
.........
.....................

N/A

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . _ . . . .
A

......... _........ »---«« ...............» ............ .
»
...»..............__._
SB
......... ...
........................»...».......».
........«......................i................... .........»
LTR B F i.... «......_......
C

OVERALL «..« ..._»....»..... »..._._...._...........«_.._............_..._..................
F F
F
NOTE: ' WITHOUT` denotes without the project in place
`WITH' denotes with the project in place
Peak hour volumes used for all analyses
12
d. Hardin Street/King Street
This intersection is currently signalized and will remain signalized
with the construction of the subject project. The intersection is over
capacity and movements operate at LOS F (see Table 2 for specific
analyses results). With the project in place, the Hardin Street movements
improve. See Figure 5D for the proposed intersection configuration.
In order to raise this intersection to an operating status (LOS D),
additional lanes will need to be added to all intersection approaches. Dual
left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane are needed on the
northbound Hardin Street approach. On the westbound approach of King
Street, dual (2) left turn lanes will adequately handle the traffic. Exclusive
right and left turn lanes will be required on the eastbound approach of
King Street. An exclusive left turn lane on the southbound approach of
Hardin Street will also be necessary. The intersection operates at LOS D
in 2025 with these improvements.
These improvements are beyond the scope of this project. TIP
Project R-2615 (see subsequent section H.D for further description) will
address this intersection, and the necessary improvements to King Street to
improve operating conditions at this intersection.
C. ACCIDENT RECORD
During the three (3) year period from April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1997, there
were 121 accidents on US 321 between Rivers Street and King Street. The accident rate
along the project is evaluated against the statewide average rates for urban two-lane US
routes. The total accident rate on Hardin Street is five (5) times greater than the statewide
average for similar facilities. Table 3 is a comparison between the statewide average
accident rates for urban two-lane US routes and the those of the subject project.
Further investigation into the specific types and locations of the accidents in the
project area indicate the majority (62%) of the accidents were rear end collisions at
intersections. This leads to the conclusion that most accidents in this area occur when
motorists on Hardin Street slow in preparation for a turn. Constructing an additional
through-lane and a two-way-left-turn-lane will minimize the potential for such accidents
by providing extra lanes for through traffic to bypass turning vehicles.
13
TABLE 3: ACCIDENT RATES
ACCIDENT ACCIDENT RATES ALONG US 321 STATEWIDE AVERAGE FOR TWO-LANE
TYPE
.... _._ .................................................................... . URBAN US ROUTES (1992-1994)

PER 100 MVK PER 100 MVM _
PER 100 MVK
€ PER 100 MVM
TOTAL RATE 1353.47 (839.15) 266.8 ` (165.82)
....... ........................

FATAL
.................. _... .._............................................... ....................................................

.............. _.......... _..................... ..............................._......
.......
.
. .
_ ...........................................................................................
1.1 ; (0.68)
.
.
.

NON-FATAL
................... ................ _....... .
.
..
223.71 € (138.70)
....................... _........................... ....................................._.........
.
. ....
.
.
.......................................... ...........................
110.3 (68.55
.
.
:

NIGHT
.....
........................ .
.
201.34 124.83)
..............................
..
........................................
. ....
..............
.............................. .
...............................................
44.9
:(27.91)

WET ......
.
223.71 (138.70) ................................................................................
56.3 (34.99)
CONDITIONS
NOTE: `MVK' represents Million Vehicle Kilometers
`MVM' represents Million Vehicle Miles.
D. THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND ROUTE FUNCTION
The Thoroughfare Plan for the Town of Boone was mutually adopted in 1991 by
the N.C. Board of Transportation and the Town of Boone. In the current plan, US 321 is
considered a major radial route linking the northern and southern areas of Boone. Rivers
Street, a major thoroughfare and the main entrance to Appalachian State University,
provides access to ASU as well as the Boone Business District, and will intersect the
proposed project at the southern terminal. King Street, also a major thoroughfare, is an
east-west radial accessing the traditional downtown area of Boone and the outlying
developments. King Street intersects the proposed project at the northern terminal. The
thoroughfare plan lists the widening of Hardin Street to a typical five-lane cross-section
as a first priority project. See Figure 2C for the thoroughfare plan showing route
classifications.
Under the functional classification plan, US 321 is designated a minor arterial,
Rivers Street is designated a collector, and King Street is designated an other principal
arterial.
The proposed Hardin Street widening is a vital link in the development of a
network of roads that will provide more efficient traffic movement within Boone and
central Watauga County. Several area improvements are listed in the TIP and on the area
Thoroughfare Plan. TIP Project U-3406 calls for the widening of US 321 (Hardin Street)
to a five-lane curb and gutter cross-section from existing Rivers Street (SR 1163) to the
new Rivers Street alignment 0.2 km (0.1 mi) north of the existing intersection. TIP
Project U-2202 calls for the widening of US 221 from west of US 221-321 on NC 105 to
King Street. This project is currently under construction. TIP Project B-2658 calls for
the replacement of Bridge # 10 which carries SR 1547 over Boone Creek. This project is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in FY 2001 and construction in FY 2002. TIP
Project R-2615 calls for the widening of US 421-321 from the Tennessee state line to US
221 in Boone. This project has been identified as future need. See Figure 2C for area
14
TIP project locations. Together, these projects will enhance traffic flow throughout
Boone and the region.
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
The construction alternatives consist of four (4) asymmetrical widening options.
The recommended cross-section for each alternative is a five-lane curb and gutter section.
The outside lanes are proposed as 4.2 m (14 ft) creating opportunities for bicyclists to
share the road with automobiles, buses, and trucks. The center turn lane will
accommodate left turn moves into side roads, retail establishments, and residences. Curb
and gutter drainage treatment is recommended to reduce right of way impacts and
maintain consistency with the existing curb and gutter facilities at each end of the project.
See Table 4 for a summary of the four (4) alternatives, associated costs, and relocatees.
1. Alternative 1 (Recommended Alternative)
Alternative 1, the recommended alternative, consists of asymmetrical
widening beginning on the west-side at the southern terminal and ending on the
east-side at the northern terminal. See Figure 3 for a copy of an aerial mosaic
showing Alternative 1.
The recommended cross-section is a five-lane, 20.4-m (68-ft) curb and
gutter section with signalized intersections at relocated Rivers St. and King St.
The cross-section will contain a 3.6-m (12-ft) center two way left turn lane, a 3.6-
m (12-ft) inside travel lane in each direction, and a 4.2-m (14-ft) outside travel
lane in each direction. Two (2) 0.6-m (2 ft) curbs and 3.0-m (10-ft) berms will be
provided on each side of the roadway.
Existing sidewalks on the west-side of the project length will be replaced,
and the Town of Boone has requested additional sidewalks to be constructed on
the east-side of the project. Sidewalks have been justified by existing pedestrian
traffic and pedestrian traffic generators. The cost of the replacement sidewalk will
be covered by NCDOT, the additional sidewalk cost will be covered under the
NCDOT Pedestrian Policy funding agreement. According to this policy, NCDOT
will contribute 70% of the total cost of sidewalk construction based on the
population of Boone (12,900) up to 2% of the total project construction cost. The
Town of Boone will be responsible for the remaining associated costs. See Figure
4 for a sketch of the typical cross-section recommended for the project.
From the southern project limit at relocated Rivers Street, Hardin Street
will be widened to the west to mesh with TIP Project U-3406, which is widening
the southern section of Hardin Street to the west. The cross-section will flatten
the sharp horizontal curve at the Pine Street intersection, making it necessary to
15
construct a turnout on Pine Street before it intersects with Hardin Street to
eliminate the extreme vertical grade of Pine Street and the existing unsafe
intersection. The signal at this intersection will be removed. Widening will shift
back to the west, until reaching Howard Street, where it will shift back to the east,
avoiding the Daniel Boone Inn. The five-lane cross-section will then tie in at the
King Street intersection, which will remain signalized.
There are fourteen (14) residential and five (5) business relocatees
associated with this alternate. The total estimated cost for Alternative 1 is
$3,300,000, with $2,500,000 for right of way and $800,000 for construction.
ASU properties involved in right of way acquisition total $510,000. These
properties may be transferred to NCDOT. If this occurs, right of way costs will
be adjusted accordingly (see letter from ASU, Appendix B).
2. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of widening Hardin Street asymmetrically beginning
to the west, from TIP Project U-3406 which is widening the southern section of
Hardin Street to the west. The widening then shifts to the east, at Pine Street, to
the northern terminal of the project. The recommended cross-section is the same
as that recommended for Alternative 1.
There are twenty (20) residential and seven (7) businesses relocatees
associated with this alternate. The cost of Alternative 2 is $4,150,000 including
$850,000 for construction and $3,300,000 for right of way. ASU properties
involved in right of way acquisition total $275,000. These properties may be
transferred to NCDOT. If this occurs, right of way costs will be adjusted
accordingly (see letter from ASU, Appendix B).
3. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of widening Hardin Street asymmetrically beginning
to the west, from TIP Project U-3406 which is widening the southern section of
Hardin Street to the west. The cross-section remains to the west side the length of
the project. This alternative requires right of way be acquired from the Daniel
Boone Inn. The Town of Boone and some of its residents have requested that this
site, a restaurant, regional site of interest, and meeting site for local and state
organizations, be avoided in the widening of Hardin Street, due to its significance
in the community and region. The recommended cross-section is the same as that
recommended for Alternative 1.
There are thirteen (13) residential and two (2) businesses relocatees
associated with this alternate. The cost of Alternative 3 is $3,325,000 including
$825,000 for construction and $2,500,000 for right of way. ASU properties
involved in right of way acquisition total $285,000. These properties may be
16
transferred to NCDOT. If this occurs, right of way costs will be adjusted
accordingly (see letter from ASU, Appendix B).
4. Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of widening Hardin Street asymmetrically beginning
to the west, from TIP Project U-3406 which is widening the southern section of
Hardin Street to the west. The widening then shifts to the east until Locust Street,
where the alignment then shifts back to the west. This alternative requires right of
way be acquired from the Daniel Boone Inn. The recommended cross-section is
the same as that recommended for Alternative 1.
There are twenty (20) residential and four (4) businesses relocatees
associated with this alternate. The cost of Alternative 4 is $5,455,000 including
$825,000 for construction and $4,700,000 for right of way. ASU properties
involved in right of way acquisition total $385,000. These properties may be
transferred to NCDOT. If this occurs, right of way costs will be adjusted
accordingly (see letter from ASU, Appendix B).
TABLE 4: ALTERNATIVE COST AND RELOCATEE SUMMARY
ALT 1 (REC.) ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
CONSTRUCTION
....... .......................................
RIGHT OF WAY $800,000 $850,000 $825,000
............................................. ...............................................i.............................................
$2,500,000 $3,300,000 $2,500,000 $825,000
.............................................
$4,700,000
TOTAL $3,300,000 $4,150,000 $3,325,000 $5,455,000
INCLUDED ASU
COST
$510,000
$275,000
$285,000
$385,000
RELOCATEES
RESIDENTIAL
.........................................................
BUSINESS 14
..........................................
5
.... 20
.._....._...................
7
_......... 13
..... _.................................
2 20
. ........................... _................
4
TOTAL 19 27 15 24
NOTE: `ALT" represents Alternative
`REC.' represents Recommended
B. "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The "do nothing" alternative would avoid any potential adverse impacts to the
natural environmental that will occur as a result of widening Hardin Street, however,
failure to build the road will hinder the development of ASU and the surrounding
community. Additionally, the "do nothing" alternative would facilitate the deterioration
of safety and capacity on the subject project to an unacceptable level. Therefore, the "do
nothing" alternative is not recommended.
17
C. ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
Selective use of public transportation, in conjunction with the proposed lane
additions, can enhance the effectiveness of the proposed project. However, public
transportation alone will not address the capacity needs of the corridor.
Current public transportation services include the following:
Anna1CART
AppalCART serves all of Watauga County including government offices and
ASU. Fixed route/fixed schedule buses, variable schedule buses, parking lot shuttles,
paratransit, stadium shuttles, and ski shuttles are all part of the services provided by
AppalCART. More service is provide during the regular ASU school year and during ski
season (by way of the ski shuttle). Appa1CART buses are equipped with bicycle racks to
accommodate up to two (2) bicycles per bus. ASU students may ride with a valid ASU
ID, and multi-trip passes may be purchased at a discount.
The ASU route provides the highest ridership percentage of the posted routes.
Seven of the ten posted routes are scheduled in conjunction with the ASU calendar.
Mountaineer Escort Service
ASU provides an evening shuttle service for students from the main campus to the
outlying ASU parking lots. This service runs from 7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. for ASU
students only.
The Town of Boone has addressed the need to continue updating transit services
in conjunction with the road improvements scheduled in the Thoroughfare Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan. It is important for the Town of Boone to maintain and increase
transit service to the corridor in addition to the proposed project improvements to ensure
adequate service to the public.
D. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER
ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADS
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative includes limited
construction activities designed to maximize the efficiency of the present transportation
system. TSM measures enhance the operations of a facility, while minimizing capital
outlay. These measures can include physical improvements to the roadway network as
well as operational improvements.
Potential TSM options within the study area that have not been considered in
previously discussed alternatives include optimizing traffic signal phases and
coordinating signal operations. Projected traffic volumes for this area exceed the capacity
18
of existing roadways. Generally, if traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the roadways,
minor improvements to signal phases or optimization of signal timings will not improve
the level of service.
Although TSM measures will improve traffic safety and operations, they will not
eliminate the need for additional capacity on the roadway network. Therefore, TSM
techniques are eliminated from further consideration as an alternative to new roadway
construction or large-scale improvements to the existing roadway.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. SOCIAL EFFECTS
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The project area is a highly developed urban tract encompassing
university, residential, retail, and service land uses. The southwestern
project area is occupied by ASU including the main campus entrance
(Rivers Street), two (2) dormitories, and a social hall. Currently, ASU is
constructing a natural area in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
the new campus entrance,(Rivers Street) and Hardin Street (US 321) and a
new convocation center planned to accommodate 10,000 people. These
improvements are presently under construction.
. Also located at the southern end of the project, on the eastern side
of Hardin Street, are two small strip developments housing various retail
and restaurant establishments. On the central portion of the subject
project, there are several private residences and two (2)
apartment/condominium complexes. The remainder of the development
along the project is retail, restaurant, and service [two (2) gas/service
stations]. The Daniel Boone Inn is located at the northern terminal of the
project. This establishment is a family style restaurant frequented by
locals and tourists with catering services available. State and local groups
use the restaurant as a meeting place as well.
b. Existing Zoning
The project area is zoned for neighborhood/business development
(medium density development), multi-family development
(apartment/condominium development), and university development.
19
C. Proposed Land Use
According to local planning officials, the project area is already
developed to the point of high saturation. There are practically no tracts in
the project area which are not developed or being used for university
purposes, therefore the immediate area is not anticipated to experience
future growth beyond what is already planned.
The Boone Town Council and the Blowing Rock Town
Commission have jointly adopted an Alternative Transportation Plan for
the two (2) towns and routes joining them. This plan includes goals for
regional pedestrian and bike traffic in the form of area walkway plans, area
and regional bikeway plans, proposed crosswalks, and transit plans.
For the project area, the walkway plan includes additional
sidewalks that link existing sidewalks on Hardin Street, Rivers Street, and
King Street. The bikeway plan contains bike lanes on Hardin Street,
Rivers Street, and King Street (US 421-321). These bike lanes will
connect existing bike lanes to the proposed greenway located south of the
subject project. Crosswalks are proposed for King Street, Pine Street, and
Rivers Street.
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use
The proposed improvement is located in the Primary Growth Area,
as designated in the Boone Comprehensive Plan. Widening Hardin Street
(US 321) to a five-lane curb and gutter facility will coincide with
improvements to Blowing Rock Road (US 321), designated under TIP
Project No. U-3406. Hardin Street is also being widened to a five-lane
curb and gutter cross-section. This area is also targeted in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Alternative Transportation Plan as pedestrian
sensitive, requiring bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
2. Neighborhood Analysis
Watauga County is located in the western section of the state and is
bounded by Ashe, Avery, Caldwell, and Wilkes Counties. Watauga County has a
population of 36,952. There are 18,001 males in the county and 18,951 females.
Racial composition consists of the following: 35,932 white; 789 blacks; 61
American Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts; 142 Asians or Pacific Islanders; and 28 in
a category classified as Other Race. The Town of Boone has a total population of
12,915. There are 6,127 males in the town and 6,788 females. Racial composition
consists of the following: 12,169 white; 615 blacks; 29 American Indians,
Eskimos, or Aleuts; 93 Asians or Pacific Islanders; and 9 in a category classified
as Other Race.
20
The project area consists of a mix of commercial, office, institutional, and
residential land uses. Appalachian State University properties dominate the west
side of the corridor, with commercial and residential uses making up the
remainder of the west and the total east side corridor development. Beyond the
project corridor, to the east side, is residential development.
3. Relocation Impacts
The proposed action will relocate fourteen (14) residences and five (5)
businesses on Hardin Street. Of the fourteen (14) families, one (1) is an owner
and thirteen (13) are tenants. Some minority residences will be affected by the
project due to the demographics of the area, however, it is not believed to
disproportionately impact any minority populations. The majority (93%) of the
displaced families are estimated to have annual incomes below $15,000 per year.
This high percentage of low income relocatees is composed primarily of
university students. Although the project is disruptive to the student population, it
provides a desirable, economic alignment that minimizes adverse impacts.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted
projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the
following three (3) programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
1. Relocation Assistance,
2. Relocation Moving Payments, and
3. Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
See Appendix A for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs.
4. Public and Private Facilities
Facilities in the area include the Appalachian State University Campus,
two (2) dormitories, the Grace Lutheran Church, the Daniel Boone Inn, and
several restaurants and service facilities. The public facilities near or in the
proposed path will benefit through improved access following construction of the
project. Therefore, public facilities will not be adversely impacted.
5. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General
Statue 121.12a which requires that, if a proposed state action will have an
21
adverse effect upon a property listed in the National Register of Historic
Places, the North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
The project's area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties was investigated through field visits and consultation with the
maps and files of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). No properties in the area of potential effect were found to be
listed or eligible for the National Register. SHPO concurred with these
findings. SHPO and NCDOT staff signed a concurrence form (see
Appendix B) documenting the finding of no impacts to eligible or
potentially eligible properties.
b. Archaeological Resources
The NCDOT archaeologists have contacted the Office of State
Archaeology and found no recorded archaeological sites in the project area
and no National Register listed properties in the area of potential effect.
The ASU and the Department of Anthropology were also contacted for
information on possible archaeological sites in the area. No information
was found. The project is therefore in compliance with North Carolina
General Statutes 121.12a.
B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS
According to North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates,
Watauga County has a labor force of 19,158. Out of this total, 18,224 persons are
gainfully employed. This leaves an unemployment total of 934 or 4.88 %. The Town of
Boone has a labor force of 6,250. Of this total, 5,769 persons are gainfully employed,
leaving an unemployment total of 481 or 7.75 %.
The proposed project will have a negative impact on some of the business owners
along the project corridor by subjecting them to relocation. Those businesses remaining
will benefit from the project through smoother traffic flow on Hardin Street, and more
easily facilitated turning movements from Hardin Street into business and residential
driveways. Additionally, the project will improve university access.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The purpose of this section is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This section also attempts
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
22
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations will need to be conducted.
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Boone), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Watauga,
Avery, and Caldwell Counties, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of federal
and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and federal species of concern, and
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Dale Suiter and Chris Rivenbark on July 15, 1997. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active search and capture,
visual observation (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks, and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Oualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University College of
Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994. Lake and
watershed management; natural resource investigations, water quality;
stream bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; Section 7 field
investigations; NEPA investigations.
Definitions for the terminology used in area descriptions contained in this report
are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction
limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the
project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
23
1. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed in
this section. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Mountain Physiographic Province of
North Carolina. The topography within the project region is characterized by
mountainous areas frequently dissected by streams. The entire project area lies
within the town of Boone, and it is adjacent to ASU. The project area is relatively
flat and is situated in a small valley associated with Boone Creek. Elevations
within the project average approximately 975 in (3200 ft) above mean sea level
(amsl). Higher hilltops within the project region vary between 1097 in and
1347 in (3600 ft and 4420 ft) amsl.
a. Soils
A modem soil survey of Watauga County is not available at this
time. However, soils within the project area would likely be classified as
urban land. Urban land is described by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) as those soils that are covered with streets,
buildings, parking lots, railroad yards, and airports. The natural soils were
greatly altered by cutting, filling, grading, and shaping during the process
of urbanization. Commonly, the original landscape, topography, and the
drainage pattern have been changed. Due the presence of impermeable
surfaces, surface runoff is high and erosion is a hazard with unprotected
soils.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major
water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
No surface waters are located within the project area. However, an
unnamed tributary to Boone Creek has the potential to receive runoff from
project construction.
L Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources present within the project vicinity are
located in the South Fork of the New River drainage basin (sub
24
basin no. 050701). Most of the South Fork of the New River
watershed is forested with areas of pasture, crop production, and
development. Boone is the largest urban area within this
watershed (Division of Environmental Management, 1994).
An unnamed tributary to Boone Creek runs parallel and to
the west of the project area. The tributary originates approximately
1.3 km (0.8 mi) north of the project, on the south slope of Howard
Knob (Blowing Rock). As the tributary travels through the town
of Boone it becomes channelized and enclosed in pipe to
accommodate development.
ii. Best Usage Classification
. Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The classification of Boone
Creek (index no. 10-14-4) is C Tr +. Class C uses include aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification Tr
denotes freshwater protected for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. The + symbol identifies waters that are
subject to a special management strategy in order to protect other
downstream waters designated as Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). ORW are unique and special waters of exceptional state
or national recreational or ecological significance which require
special protection to maintain existing uses. The New River and
lower portions of the South Fork of the New River have ORW
designations.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
iii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by the DWQ (formerly the Division of Environmental
Management) and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle
that can last from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse
effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next
25
generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different
tolerances to pollution, therefore, long term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from
pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa).
Overall, the species present, the population diversity, and the
biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions. No
BMAN stations are situated on Boone Creek or its unnamed
tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. No point source dischargers are listed for Boone
Creek or its unnamed tributaries.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater or snowmelt (DWQ). In urban areas, high
concentrations of impervious surfaces greatly increases runoff rates
and volumes. Stormwater collection systems then transport runoff
waters quickly to receiving streams with little or no filtering by
vegetated surfaces (DWQ). Contaminants originating from urban
development include: lawn care products such as pesticides and
fertilizers; automobile related pollutants that include lubricants,
abraded tire, and brake linings; lawn and household wastes; and
fecal coliform bacteria from animals and failing septic systems
(DWQ). The high velocity and volumes of runoff can also cause
increased erosion of stream channels .through physical scouring of
the stream banks and flood plain.
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will not impact water
resources directly by installation of culverts, bridges or stream
channelization. However, there is potential for indirect impacts
through non point source runoff from project construction.

.Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances
during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
26
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution
of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed or likely to
occur in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally
follows Radford, et al (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al (1980),
Potter, et al (1980), and Webster, et al (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site
visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat
analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project
area.
a. Terrestrial Communities
One terrestrial community, maintained/disturbed, is identified in
the project study area. Several habitats are included in this community
including road shoulders and residential, institutional, and business
landscapes. Road shoulders are irregularly maintained, receiving only
periodic mowing and herbicide applications. Residential and business
landscapes are the dominant habitat within the project area and receive
more frequent mowing and general maintenance.
Road shoulders normally act as buffers between the roadway and
surrounding communities by filtering stormwater run-off, however, road
shoulders within the project area are sparsely vegetated and are largely
composed of concrete, asphalt, and gravel. Little opportunity exists for
stormwater filtration. Vegetation occurring here includes fescue (Festuca
spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), red sorrel (Rumex crispus.),
clover (Trifolium spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), path rush (Juncus
tenuis), and plantain (Plantago rugelii).
Vegetation associated with residential, institutional and business
landscapes includes: flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), azalea
(Rhododendron spp.), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), pignut hickory
(Carya glabra), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), arbor vitae (Thuja spp.), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
27
virginiana). Lawn areas are dominated by fescue clover, plantains, and
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.). Floral components of this landscape include
daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), begonia (Begonia semperflorens-cultorum),
and gladiola (Gladiolus spp.).
Small mammals that commonly occur within the
maintained/disturbed community. are the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus),
house mouse (Mus musculus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and eastern
mole (Scalopus aquaticus). The house mouse is associated with human
activities where it finds food and shelter in barns, houses, restaurants, and
warehouses. It does equally as well in weedy and overgrown fields.
Eastern moles excavate extensive tunnels and feed upon earthworms,
insects, and plant material. The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are very adaptive mammals that will frequent
this habitat for foraging opportunities.
Avian species likely to utilize this habitat for refuge and foraging
opportunities include downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens),
mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), American robin* (Turdus
migratorius), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).
These species will take advantage of feeders and nesting sites provided by
human settlement. The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) will forage
on small birds and mammals in this community.
Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and black racer
(Coluber constrictor) frequent open and disturbed habitats. They will find
suitable shelter and foraging opportunities in proximity with human
activities.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Constructing the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Approximately 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) of maintained/disturbed community
will be impacted by the proposed project. Estimated impacts are derived
using the entire proposed right of way width of 30 m (100 ft) minus the
width of the existing roadway [11.2 m (37.0 ft)]. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
28
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Widening US 321 and
its associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species thereby
diminishing faunal numbers. However, since the project area is dominated
by disturbed habitats, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be
minimal.
3. Permits
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," which include lakes, ponds, streams (including intermittent
streams), rivers, creeks, springs, wetlands, territorial seas, tidal waters, and other
bodies of open water as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
No jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters are present within the
project area. Therefore, no permit to fill jurisdictional surface waters will be
necessary according to current roadway design parameters. If roadway design
parameters change the project will need to be re-evaluated.
4. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are in the process of
decline due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally-protected be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 02, 1997, the
USFWS lists the following federally-protected species for Watauga
County (Table 5). A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
29
TABLE 5. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WATAUGA COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle P T/SA
;................................. ,.
.................... Z
...................
laucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel € E
_ ..................................... ......_....? _......:......_....................................................................................::......... ..........
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
........................................................................................................................s..........
Houstonia montana Roan Mountain bluet E
..... ................... ......_............................_..._.................. ................................................................................................ Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T3
P T/SA denotes Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
` E denotes Endangered: a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
3 T denotes Threatened: a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Proposed Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: May 01, 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to
10 cm (3 to 4 in) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and black
plastron. The bright orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head and
neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It inhabits damp grassy fields,
bogs, and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud
or debris when disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms snails,
amphibians and seeds. In June or July three to five eggs are laid in a
shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about fifty five days.
(Bernard S. Martof, et al, 1980).
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (P USA). This is due to its similarity of appearance to
another rare specie that is listed for protection. P T/SA species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.. (USFWS, May 01, 1997).
• Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel)
Endangered
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: July 01, 1985
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large, well furred flap
of skin along either side of its body. This furred flap of skin is connected
30
at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its
broad flattened tail allow the Carolina northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern
flying squirrel in the western part of North Carolina along the Tennessee
border. This squirrel is found above 1,517 m (5,000 ft) in the vegetation
transition zone, between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest
types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of hardwood and coniferous forests
does not exist within the project area. Project elevation is 975 m (3,200
ft), which is below elevations where this species is normally found.
Additionally, the NCNHP data base of rare species and unique habitats
contains no listing of the Carolina northern flying squirrel within the
project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no affect on the
Carolina northern flying squirrel.
• Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 05, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Spreading avers is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite
cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading
avens are present from June to early July. Spreading avens has basal
leaves which are an odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney
shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets which are reduced or
absent.
Spreading avers is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee
sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs
on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges.
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1,535-1,541 m (5,060-5,080 ft), 1,723-1,747 m (5,680-5,760 ft) and
1,759 m (5,800 ft). Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of
sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, and clay loam. Most populations are
pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
31
Habitat suitable for spreading avens in the form of scarps, bluffs,
cliffs, and escarpments are not present within the project area. Project
elevation is 975 m (3,200 ft), which is below elevations where this species
is normally found. Additionally, the NCNHP data base of rare species and
unique habitats contains no listing of spreading avens within the project
vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no affect on the
spreading avers.
• Houstonia montana (mountain purple or Roan Mountain bluet)
Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 05, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial species with roots which grows
in low tufts. Roan Mountain bluet has several bright purple flowers
arranged in a terminal cyme. This plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops,
steep slopes, and in the gravely talus associated with cliffs. Known
populations of Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations of 1,400-1,900 m
(4,600-6,200 ft). It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full sunlight
and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic,
and metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat suitable for Roan Mountain bluet in the form of cliffs,
outcrops, steep slopes, and gravely talus is not present within the project
area. Project elevation is 975 m (3,200 ft), which is below elevations
where this species is normally found. Additionally, the NCNHP data base
of rare species and unique habitats contains no listing of Roan Mountain
bluet within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have
no affect on the Roan Mountain bluet.
• Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June August
Heller's blazing star is a short, stocky plant that has one or more
erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves.
Leaves are accuminate and diminish in size and breadth upward on the
stem. Heller's blazing star has small lavender flowers and its fruits appear
from September to November.
32
Heller's blazing star is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock
outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Known
populations of this plant occur at elevations of 1,067-1,829 m (3,500-
6,000 ft). Heller's blazing star is an early pioneer species growing on
grassy rock outcrops where it is exposed to full sunlight. Heller's blazing
star prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat suitable for Heller's blazing star in the form of high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops is not present within the project area.
Project elevation is 975 m (3,200 ft), which is below elevations where this
species is normally found. Additionally, the NCNHP data base of rare
species and unique habitats contains no listing of Heller's blazing star
within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no
affect on the Heller's blazing star.
b. - Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 17 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Watauga
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection
under the State Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are
defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing, for which there was insufficient information to
support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR), or Special Concern (SC) by the
NCNHP list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection
under the ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species,
the species state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
33
TABLE 6. FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR WATAUGA COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATE
STATUS HABIT
AT
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
................._._............._..................._.._. hellbender
..... _........... ............ _..................................... SC
.... ..................................... No
.......................
:
Dendroica cerulea cerulean warbler SR No
.........._ ............. ......................... _.................... _........ _.....
Neotoma magister
..... .......................................................................
Alleghany woodrat
..................................................................... .... _................................... _
SC
.... _................................... - ......................
No
-.....................
Phenocobius teretulus Kanawha minnow SC No
Sorex palustris punctulatus southern water shrew SC No
Sylivilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR No
---- .:.._..._.__......_.._. _._.....
Lasmigona subviridus ._:......_......._..................................................
green floater ...._..................:................ _
E ....... ...............
No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR No
............................._...._...._....._..._

Abies fraseri ........_........_.............
....................................
Fraser fir
.._.
C

No
Cardamine clematitis mountain bittercress C No
............................-.._.-.._................_..
Delphinium exaltatum ___........_........._........_.....----- ...._..._...
tall larkspur .... _.................................. _
E-SC ......................
No
................_..._............... ..._.....__.__...
Euphorbia purpurea ... _...__ . _........................_....................
glade spurge _
.. ..._. .._................... _
_ C ..._................
No
.....
Geum geniculatum .........._.........._..............._.............................
bent avens .... _............................... _...
T .....................
No
_
..............._...._._.......................
...._......................_....................
Juglans cinerea butt emit W5?

No
Lilium grayi Grays lily T-SC No

Poa paludigena ...........................................

bog bluegrass .... _......... _..._................... _

E
...
...... .............
No
Brazzania nudicaulis liverwort
C
No

L. uc11VLcb l:aLIUMULc
z W denotes watch list; 5 denotes Category 5 (rare because of severe decline)
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the NCNHP data
base of the rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification
Watauga County and the Town of Boone are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Program. Existing floodplain mapping shows that the project is
adjacent to a designated flood hazard zone along Boone Creek, which is located
along the west side of Hardin Street from south of Dauph Blan Street for a
distance of approximately 365 in (1,200 ft). Boone Creek is included in a detailed
flood study with an established 100-year floodplain and floodway. The
established limits of the 100-year floodplain are delineated on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (Figure 7), however the floodway is not shown. TIP Project No. U-
3406 improvements, specifically the new reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC)
with dimensions 4 @ 3.0 in X 3.0 m (10 R X 10 ft), will contain the new 100-year
floodplain limits. It is anticipated that the proposed widening of Hardin Street
will have no significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain or on the
34
associated flood hazards. NCDOT will coordinate with Federal Emergency
Management Agency and local authorities in final design to ensure compliance
with applicable floodplain ordinances.
6. Farmland
The North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of
land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service according to crop
yield and the level of resources expended. Land which is committed to urban
development is not subject to the level of consideration afforded other rural and
agricultural areas. The project area is currently void of agricultural uses and
urbanized land uses saturate the area. Therefore, further consideration of impacts
to prime and important farmland and farmland mitigation is not necessary.
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of Hardin Street on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a
field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine
if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project.
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the-
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772
of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise or traffic noise is usually a
composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually
the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales
(A, B, C, or D).
35
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 (Appendix Q.
Review of Table NI (Appendix C) indicates that most individuals
in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many
sources as they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance
or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise,
2) the relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible
with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways.. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2 (Appendix Q. The Leq, or equivalent
sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and
time period, has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other
words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms
of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine ambient noise levels for the identified land uses. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of
36
noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along Hardin Street as
measured at 15 m (49.2 ft) from the nearest roadway was 65.8 dBA. The
ambient measurement location was just north of the Hardin Street/Pine
Street intersection.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate the
existing noise level for comparison with the noise level actually measured.
The modeled existing noise level was 0.1 dBA higher than the measured
noise level for the location where a noise measurement was obtained.
Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise
levels. The differences in dBA levels are attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds through
a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain.
Due to its complexity, certain assumptions and simplifications must be
made to predict highway traffic noise. The procedure used to predict
future noise levels in this study was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction
(BCR) procedure, STAMINA 2.0, and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction
model uses the number and types of vehicles on the planned roadway,
their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that the preliminary alignment was
used in this noise analysis. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise
predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for
the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and LOS C volumes were compared and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed
posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels
will be no greater than those indicated in this report. The STAMINA 2.0
computer model was used to determine the number of land uses (by type)
which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2025. A
37
land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria [with
"approach" meaning within 1.0 dBA of the Table N2 (Appendix C) value]
or substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition
of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2
(Appendix Q. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given
to receptors which fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are
issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date
of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the CE, FONSI,
ROD, or Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are
responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are used along the
proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that is
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N3
(Appendix Q. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23
CFR Part 772, no receptors are anticipated to be impacted by highway
traffic noise in the project area, due to the noise transmission loss
characteristics of the structures. The maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours are < 14.7 and 28.6 in (48 and 94 ft),
respectively, from the center of the proposed roadway. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and
• land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N4 (Appendix C) indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors of the proposed project by roadway
section. No impacts by a substantial increase are predicted for the
identified receptors in the vicinity of the project. The predicted noise level
38
increases for this project range up to +7 dBA. When real-life noises are
heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA and a
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or halving of the loudness of the sound.
L Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts-are predicted, examination and evaluation
of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement
measures must be given to all impacted receptors. Since, no receptors are
predicted to be impacted by highway traffic noise in the project area,
consideration of noise abatement is not warranted for this project.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
two (2) residential receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels up to 2 dBA.
As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of
2-3 dBA and a 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project can be expected, particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
L Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772 and, unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
39
8. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact
resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The traffic is the
primary concern when determining the impact of widening an existing highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb), (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are the major source of CO in
the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with
determining expected CO levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
To determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway,
two (2) concentration components must be used: local and background. The local
concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in
the near vicinity [i.e., distances within 100 in (325 ft)] of the receptor location.
The background concentration is defined by the NCDENR as "the concentration
of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity;
that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the
background component was obtained from the NCDENR. Once the two (2)
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of HC and NO. HC and NO emitted
from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone (03) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-
wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form 03 and NO2 require several hours
to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of 03 generally occur 10 to 20 km (6.2
to 12.4 mi) downwind of the source of HC emissions. Urban areas, as a whole,
are regarded as sources of HC, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere. In the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form 03, NO2, and other photochemical
oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms
in Los Angeles, California.
40
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and S02. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of S02 emissions.
Particulate matter and S02 emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway
sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and S02 from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and S02 to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
Burning regular gasoline emits Pb since regular gasoline contains tetraethyl lead
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline, eliminating Pb emissions. Also, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction
in the Pb content of leaded gasolines. The overall average Pb content of gasoline
in 1974 was approximately 0.53 g/L. By 1989, this composite average had
dropped to 0.003 g/L. In the future, Pb emissions are expected to decrease as
more cars use unleaded fuels and as the Pb content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of
leaded gasoline or Pb additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of
these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
NAAQS for Pb to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC
- A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near
Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive
receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters.
The traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. CO
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 2005 and the design year
of 2025 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Division of Air Quality
(DAQ), NCDENR indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is
suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario for the build alternative was
determined to be with the receptor located along the right-of-way at a distance of
41
15 m (50 ft) from the proposed centerline, and for the no-build alternative, the
receptor was located at a distance of 6 m (20 ft) from the existing centerline. The
predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the build scenario are 3.0 and
3.3 ppm for the years of 2005 and 2025, respectively. The predicted 1-hour
average CO concentrations for the no-build scenario are 6.1 and 9.5 ppm for the
years of 2005 and 2025, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations of the build scenario with
the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the
result of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4
(Appendix C) for sample input/output data.
The project is located in Watauga county; which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part
51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical
from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort
of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
NEPA/SEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
9. Hazardous Material and Geotechnical Impacts
Based on field reconnaissance survey, two (2) operational facilities and
one (1) non-operational facility have been found with the possibility for UST's
within the proposed corridor alignment. Descriptions of these facilities follow:
1) Phil's Citgo, Inc.
This facility is located in the south western quadrant of the intersection of
Hardin Street and Howard Street. According to the field reconnaissance and the
DWQ registry, three (3) UST's are in use at this facility. The field reconnaissance
42
also found evidence of a fourth UST located behind the building. This tank is
probably used for storing heating oil or waste oil. The active gasoline tanks are
situated approximately 19.8 m (65 ft) and 5.5 m (18 ft) from the centerlines of
Hardin Street and Howard Street, respectively. The site does not appear to be
under remediation at this time. It is anticipated the recommended improvements
to Hardin Street will not require additional right of way from the tank pit area.
2) Boone BP Service
This active gasoline station/service garage is located in the southeastern
quadrant of the intersection of Hardin Street and King Street. According to the
field reconnaissance and the DWQ registry, five (5) UST's are in use at this
facility. The active gasoline tanks are situated approximately 12.2 m (40 ft) from
the existing centerline of Hardin Street. There is a groundwater monitoring well
situated near the current tank bed. It is possible that this site may have
contamination associated with the removal of four (4) other UST's in 1979-1988.
It is anticipated the recommended improvements to Hardin Street will require
additional right of way from the tank pit area.
3) The Outdoorsman, Inc.
This former gasoline station/convenience store is located in the
northwestern quadrant of the Hardin Street/King Street intersection. There is an
abandoned pump island location situated approximately 10.7 m (35 ft) from the
centerline of US 321-NC 194. The field reconnaissance also found evidence of at
least four (4) inactive UST's on the property. These tanks are located
approximately 15.2 m (50 ft) from the US 421-NC 194 centerline. The site does
not appear to be under remediation at this time. It is anticipated the recommended
improvements to Hardin Street will not require additional right of way from the
tank pit area.
If right of way from the above properties needs to be acquired, preliminary
site assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior
to right of way purchase. If contaminants are located on the proposed right of
way, the current tank owner or the NCDOT will take appropriate action to
decontaminate the area. These site assessments of pre-existing property
conditions will also be used by the Department to estimate the associated clean up
costs.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor to assess the presence of landfills and other potentially contaminated
properties. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or
dumpsites occur within the-project limits. No additional pollution sources are
noted along the project corridor.
43
10. Construction Impacts
Environmental impacts normally associated with highway construction are
generally of short term duration. The NCDOT will implement measures to
minimize anticipated construction impacts.
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project,
burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in
accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
The general requirements concerning erosions and siltation are covered in
Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution." The N.C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This
program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together with the policies
of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion and
sedimentation on work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation
or pollution.
NCDOT's general contract for right of way clearing allows the contractor
to market merchantable timber during construction to minimize the need for piling
and burning. This contract also includes specifications to protect trees outside the
construction limits.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
44
Construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious service
disruptions to utilities serving the area. Prior to construction, a determination will
be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the
project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this will be made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is
required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this work will
occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any damages to water lines
incurred during the construction processes. This procedure will insure that water
lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with minimal disruption in service to
the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the
transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. COMMENTs RECEIVED
1. Government Response
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following
federal, state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies
noted with an asterisk (*).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
* N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Watauga County Commissioners
* Town of Boone
Mayor of Boone
Appalachian State University
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix B.
2. Public Response
In addition to written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, an informal citizens' informational workshop was held on
45
August 26, 1997 at the Town of Boone Council Chambers to discuss the subject
project. The NCDOT Citizens Participation Unit advertised the meeting in the
major local media prior to its being held and the meeting was covered by The
Watauga Democrat, The Mountain Times, and The Winston-Salem Journal..
Approximately 50 persons attended the informal workshop in addition to
representatives from NCDOT, the Town of Boone, and Appalachian State
University. The project corridor and possible widening scenarios were discussed
with the public. Additionally, the possibility of eliminating the Hardin Street/Pine
Street intersection and terminating Pine Street was discussed.
The majority of citizens attending the workshop were residents, business
owners, and students from the project area. The participants were concerned
about the impact the proposed five-lane curb and gutter cross-section would have
on the adjacent properties. Pedestrian accommodations were another common
concern among the workshop participants; striping for pedestrian crosswalks and
possible pedestrian crossing signals were mentioned. It was recognized that the
traffic present warrants capacity improvements.
B. COORDINATION
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, other meetings and conferences were held to discuss planning and
design aspects of the project. These interactions included representatives from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Appalachian State University, and the Town of
Boone. The resulting preliminary plans for the proposed facility addressed major
concerns of the landowners in the project area.
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the project as proposed in this report, and upon comments received from state
and local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the
project will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment. The proposed
action will not have a significant adverse impact on air, noise, or water quality in Watauga
County. The proposed project is consistent with plans and goals that have been adopted by the
Town of Boone, Watauga County, and the State of North Carolina. Therefore, an environmental
impact statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
46
_/f \, w o r
iA? _.4 `•e?Y4 ?Ti?':NE ?0.,• r• _x° y• °xt i1,2
M.. STONE P •? ?,, i.`i` ?.:. \
i•- 9AI.J MTN. ,F•. ?.•\ , w - t' -j 9AlC \1
•? "!y?tb \Y -LEV. X939
as :? •. .t 1 J
:231^.5
-.?? 'f' .] •b1 SNAMTN. ELK KNOB \•
r , A. ELEv. 55741 ELEV. 5555 1 °??•
- - BUCKETS KNOB. y191+ \
-.ELEV. 4400 13W 5 tl.? \ ?a 1 ?• ? •\ 5
JPk. ^' y _ i RIC-. MTN. I?
/ '216ry - r Sb 'T: PlwsPnl i RITP O MTN. ,.? •'r • \
m RICH MTN. -• +ON7Y Cn.. \ _ 1
OELEV.5372 ',? .•' l ?J
1 {° I? •
F . 'a 1 1 ,765 $ 6 ' T•61 ,
• ?••.]/y y t--.. 3 x9
-'.?'l05 1J6A :?0'K.:T A11r C?• ! :34 \
1 ? ?f _ 33 aq
2 -S \ c
23 POTATO
1 4a HILL -? • ?•a ` ?,? 13N 3 •\
372 K a l
39 .r 1213 :2t Alr 1305 ?.6 ' y ? ] 1339 '•-' .J: .2 'm3 r i
- _ 121 ' L 6 2 ry-C:» •306 \:. \ 13-19 ' a Ix9 3- \\
1305 +?\ 1338 - .5 u ? \
2.1 J- 1217a ' 2731311v .?' - ?Y16 \.. •']37 ?a,_'r •\
121 ] - \ 707 13.17 - 1370
1 iy •- 1J7 1732 ': `•ni•??
2 \ i:y '8 or
'36e\ 1102 .i °
Z Ge' 3r P
'.+ 1212 i 371 1Yl6 ' SUGARLOAF 132a
7
'?' `lp1 y? - 'hN .. MTN.apy
2]9 :236 ( •312 ' 73 323- '315
421
`. A '3M - a u 137 3733 :30:
f J: r2> xi,
1325 ? S ? of
A 211 6SAW
w ?b1 ,` 131 ?•7Tr .q l -1.5 - •]2S m 1333
_ \ 3
I N SETS sY - :3311 6 • 'a MER .P
J • - ? ?' ?
0. 1326 ' 131 1 ' 313 ?Q• 1T3,051 13.0 375 . ? • 7JZ 135. J
\' -
- _ ' /. ` ®, Awi 13ss • > °' I .
MAST • ` \ '? :l •. 1713 SEE FIGURE 1B
3 0^? 1 1 1n GAP 1 167 b?' ry 1377 - _ ?Y\ - .n
•• - '-• ry '. ? v - ?\"W28' ? .? ?? .? '373
ad v r J r,n i yq / 4001! \T b' : Sp/IH 1331 /
1 , ' ..a ,/• 10'.11771 HARD KNO?B' j''- ? \•? ..may'
1!20 117
40r 4?
1119 A`IM •377 13557„
:293 . • ! -_. \ • 1 131 141 1 :1 :1` _ _V 1 • 9 •/1?`? /
7] G e•? [( ! ? 1 _ _ ? R .? ? ? `l \ 2b : ?.; 1• 6 A. . a ?. S- `7 .
i •, 11'5 \ 1 $1 ROCKY MTN
1129 ;7 r S1{1 V 1 a ELEV. 07
1 _?\ 3
ROCKY FACE __¢ ,+': a I N -,,3j •/ •\• ,?\ ! r I ,
r 1 MSGAH 1 11a I y .2b - ?.
1130 3? ?ny!? ?? .6 1150 ? _ _ /• \
132 • '32 \'05
'593 500
? 1 1211 ^ /? _ -. b.
1 a 5 dp I"11a ? ?-?_>6 ? y ?_? -. -. :• •- y r?.:?' 6x ,. ?..? Soe.
510
< 3 _
r`- NATIONAL 0? - 7sz P ??"' ,
11]0 11]1 .1137 '590 Iyaq +J 1 1 1516, n 1605.'
j ?? 6 5a5
0 d r'' \`"(?Vy 15N 'b i '673 9 -
" O•ERS f1JY-0 `J I +A( '5-1 0. '732
GAP y \ C
\ 'Y Ys1131 "37% ? l ?.. ? ?/ t, I - ?'S1 0 1 'SBI ?;i "? • (? 'l . SM
.T• ? '? ? cS l\\\l?f:•?? ( i' J E ??'C
'!l x? 0 1710.6 ?'S31 ?.$ .t?m
1517
53s? ?V
1G9+G ROCK ld ? I-_. ?5.. i1 1?? Isa • ` :1' LAi TOP MTN
.2
dl -
-TN. 1115• f .a '772
l1 ? 536 ' l At.
• 7 v c .ei6° JuGGER
.LEv. 5218 - ^ ?? •? dYi.1, 4595
?•• \'llt1?(' 1637 - MAST KNOB +iy MiY.IM
1.6 1530, :. y'1o KR i.r
FORM ?/ •MI+'., \5 / /• I '607' -\: ,d
• 1 1 t'}7' J + \ ?\ ` SAMPSON MTN. ` M
? -a
6 •.. tM1 6avat / t ?,lE • J ! loK•1o ADQ ,'A, - ?_"r ern ••.?, _?a
•• 10. OA 'J b.1>W 721
OS 1 X598 (wMWW Ai 1 1551 -/•1762\ -, N? It* 8u, t \ \
AS 9 1563 _. -. -. aT ` i
- ter.
GRANDFATHER MTN.
ELEv.5964 J
I ?
I-WA GA COUNTY
1
\ =4 i
C 7 \
Ctiq `9oi ' G T"AgER
OG? FS s sr D OR TRA;L o?1 DR
luuwsu 1 \ /
Fy SUMMi oe o MRK E VIEW DR G:
S
S T
t3`R/ST ZQ - y Op y., `= M/T
\ ,r?• O v ST 'r ?
421 O Fti STKINO aocus¢ ??P C `?C9Tti ?/q Fp O ,NOUNT41 VIEW
¦ GFF yti. S v I a OKS\?
4, r I
POPLAR CITY y 0 Q? a a+p H GLENDALE s
GRO?F ?P 'WST ?= ST CyFARy ~ OR. _ H\ OR 0Z;
N ?? ?y01yq a1 Q?'p PROJECT LIMITS o o T ACY W4T4?G m '? E
r O ST 90 V2 4 4 Z rAAP\ G
\ T STS p oo p? C;q , AR Z^
r^ Q. -. ov ti F <e ??o y CREST Oq dUENA ? c°? V ?
\ = MORETL p S/YQaO 114 1 p I
ACE TRQCI CIR VI A .?
\ u?i I AiLr c=i.. ( COU
aR I y Qav rn rueLIC 'ORK! S .
y HAMBY ALLEY O I d21 1100p Clq?q?F
a? \ !? HO% RD ST GR.
?? ST Sr y ?? Fy?STp_,o T WOODPECKER
BOD HEIM/i I O OR Q DOVE LN. I ?PALAC
APPALACHIAN STA UNIVERSI H a o x s? ?? I
1 4Pp4 , LOCUS Y pOv " m w J?\l D ! G^//
0
(q / T o e 4N EW
3 OE??\ N l•FgS
_ QV C4pEMY 3 HOOD AV
KIM BRENER Q
sraouM S PINE ST I =
o ? o yam' s I
?? R/VF ?f qK ?
BOONE "? V 2
c ? `? Cq? G s?? HpRN ? P?• r c Q
4 i3 f i
ti4?Tyo?NF A ?Q 4y ,9 SeF py HORN IN N T IIE`GBO KEYS 19 HORN SAT m Q2
TNEa'RE 22 6 VF
Aoa PL.Aq SU CH 1 DR. W
<y? "'M7 ST PROJECT LIMITS ?'VF <??F C4URrC
?+ 2 N 4UR n
t?4.` y 9 1fF HI Ahp4LE pP c DR c"Xr 8 ;
R
aCAO ' Tn-y O 6? RO Ni $ 9 321 s w ° c:
c
? n ZO 9 9 G2S
f C
9
v? G??'y ___ ?C Fr I
Q?pLA H\LL DR. o ci h/G Fq
h4Np
% pR kf YSl o' a CIR.. ST ap Op I 0.y??
105
v .E• O F,F
t1 APPALC.RTw -
\ P - .Ki JG- ?..
BOONE MALL
GH WATAUGA Z p
?• ' NIGH SCH. - O
DR. POLICE
• I L9 C:TY ?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
BOONE TRANSPORTATION
6 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
_ VICINITY MAP
CREEK US 321 (HARDIN STREET) WIDENING
FROM RIVERS STREET TO US 421-NC 194
o ..
_ BOONE
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3800
0 toot 1000 FIGURE 113

r
g
z ?
0 211

4 69
1
? J?
POpO

QY J //
J ?
OVAol---

z
w2
C d
?w
am
vm
N
En I
Z o
O ba_
Z
U ga
Z lo
V) W
R
W
? v
Q a?
w .?
4
N
Z o
O ,r
I-- _
o Cl
M
z
MOON W o
in
C
cr-
0 a
i
co k
Ra
OAP e C14 11
w ¦
13,
rALD e ?
e
<
am
v?
H
g
W ?
T_
0
C
70
m
N
n
--1
1?1
u
'W
v 1
U
a
H
W
TW
r 1
0
CIO
0
W
a
? o
M

N .? O

Q
3
LT.
M
?

N

G.
a•

? M

a ?
O N E N
M
N ?
~ E
?c (V
O

E°
0 3
o b
b ?
O ?
O ?
? U
L
"? dp
U "C7
o?
O ?
? U
0
?o
a 'v
O
0
00
M
i
V
W
ti
0/
W
a
a.
H
W
C7
[L
Proposed Signalized Intersection
Hardin Street/Rivers Street-Clement Street
Hardin Street

Clement Street
Hardin Street 2
N
¦
Figure 5A
Rivers Street
Proposed Signalized Intersection
Hardin Street/Relocated Rivers Street
Hardin Street
fly
Relocated Rivers Street
Figure 5B
Hardin Street/Dauph Blan-Pine Street

Dauph-B Ian Street
0
a
a?
a
L
C3
x
EXISTING
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION

Pine Street
7777-7
PARKING
PROPOSED
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
1
Dauph - Blan Street
V
72
14
x
Figure 5C
Proposed Signalized Intersection
Hardin Street/King Street
Council Street
King Street
Hardin Street 2
N
¦
Figure 5D
King Street

? F

(n C) o? m e
to '? M
O (? N
Cl) (n (? ?
L Z?
rn 0-
a _ 0) CD
>
N ~ t4 C t4 O
'X m 4.0
W
a)
r
O
v v
O
t0

J
005Z
1
O =
U r-
0
atv
0
N
f")
U .J
•J ?
T
00511 00OZ1 OOLSI
w Q

..r 72
..
O
O

N
?D fn
(c
> u
L

y

?
L

o?
a?
o

c o Cl)
U p ai 0
!Z

ZSf 2 C) L.L

f4 = °

U
_
T-
C

J 1 ° O
F- r= L. • j
i- 2 (V >
L) o a) Q) 0

II 11 II II II ?-
O > !] M N

O ?
O
v? r
O
s0
w
v
J
f
U
=
VY
r I
w
w
V
U
0
0
N
M
O
C? N
O
t0
0
oozrz
Opp{, ??
oml oots p09?? ,
0
1 ? I 1 ? 1 e
V (` j 09 v
OL r°'n (l'Z) '

'-)O
WO
Q
N
01. --IN, 09 =

??41 p9
(Wd) 09
O t (Wd) dal
0?
(Wd) `

O
40
p
40
O

t00

d N E ?
O. N ?
d N a N
o
o c
°
°

°

o

in o
'n
N t- .r
Q
?o
d
Q
m
U
Z
r
oo
te
r.
w
CJ ?
Z .O
j
c_
v

CU .?
?.O p m J ?G
O O
cD U.
co (V to
V m
t: 0
) a N u
U)
C (? N
M U)
= p c^-4 r
N m L
p U .-. .?
r
?_
IL IM0 .0 V J p 0L- O

L)
F- v> O
-
>
H' 2: 0 0 fII
O
N O Q Q? p
W m
C it 11 II II 11 r
N a N
C >
O !] Q

0
a v
O
t0
? O

J
009ti
•
? 1
O ?
U
O
tD
E r'
n v
O
r
N
t?'t
`n N
N
O
r 01 ?
V ?

O y N r: ?

.:r V] r
U .
U to

O
••" O
i.
;n U
>
.

CJ
J

I
?

?o
v ?v
O
t0
0
o.
v;
O
O
tD
0
in
J
J ` z
? p5q Lt
?o ? `dal
OOiOZ OOOZZ 00982 OSZLZ OSZ9Z 00482 p0{,8

0
z 0l -? 09 .. 0l ..-)o. 09 y, N 0 --IN, 09
(wd) (wd) (wd)
?dl
ON,

0
CL vi
a1N
a?C4
n e?

O
f
O
CD M in
N
7
r
0
PVO
Y
G?.U
? O
7
T o
N
? o
CIO?
? _o
U

W
= o
v
)
e,s ?
tz
O ,'
= etc w
O- ti
M = o
p
c?? Q
iii
C
1=
C)
CL

0
L)
N0:

U o °' p
N d M U N
M N V
d
? N

=?-j
m

OT W O
%
c o

UY
,, O ? Qv N ?
i U
Q) ?. > +..
O F..
> U ?_
?.C O
U c?
_
Q?Qp O Q Z

N t c>s ea
.
m
0
O
Q
II II i t 11 11
Q
>a .
r

N = ?
O > p
r
N
C = ?

W O Q
Q
(714
r^;
:n
v Q
.D 7
O ICI
a?v
O
N
u
L
N l?
o
0091, J eoz ooozz

a=o Wz)

(wd)
O
?D
E
O
r
'.7
O
M
oosta oszcz oszsz oszsz
r 1r 1
%n In
0 L --)I. C19
o L ?D9 (wd)
(wd)
0 ° 0
X
0 m 0

1
1 -Et
a N a a `r
O p O
O O
_ O i
?.
i f
r!

r
G ? O
O?

.r
L ?
to en 3
N
_
R
a?
U
o_
a? v
0
40
J
pol,
p0cxt . 1 11 00
p0?sz a ? ``? og
a l jI o9
0? `dal 0
v
v
O
tD
E
v v
1
O
r
O
%n
r4
0o
.. y
L
y
O ?
c
0
J

v

N O
V:
v
r, = ?

u
0>
N

911,
ZONE AE
SERVICE
ROAD
s
ROAD
82
ROAD 3172
ZONE 170
UNNAMED
ROAD
ZONE X
ZONE
ZONE X
V
uI
J?
NE X
HIGHLAND
AVENUE
N
,ZONE X
AE
kk. ZONE.
ZONE X
?M
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
US 321 (HARDIN STREET) WIDENING
FROM RIVERS STREET TO US 421-NC 194
BOONE, WATAUGA COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3800
FIGURE 7
X ZONE AE ZONE X 3145 R
ZONE X Hodges Creek
ZONE X
6) ?O IO 3157 °' 3751
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE REPORTS
AND PROGRAMS
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR f--? DESIGN
PROJECT:
O4S5
9.899
. I _COUNTY WATAUGA Alternate Iternat
e
--------- __ .? .-- -----------
I 0 NO : U-3800
_ - F.A. PROJECT
IDESCRiPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of US 321 (Hardin St.) from SR 1163 (Rivers ftget t4 "7121/194.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
.. IN cal%Rw
310N.?.
Type of
1 1
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minoritie 0-15M 15-25M .
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
s i
R_esidPntial 1 13 14 2 13 0 0 1 0
Businesses 0 4 _
,
4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
L
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners
Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit _- - - 0? -! 0 0 --- - 0 _
- 0-20M 0 S 0-150 - 0 0.2oM -0 $0.150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150.250 0 20-40M 2 ISO-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M I
13 250-400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 1 400-600 1 3 .- 7o-1ooM 38 400-600 10
1-
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 Lip - 0 600 up 0 10o ua 600 up 11
53
displacement? TOTAL 1 13 106 24
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number
project?
X I 4. Will any business be displaced? If so. 3. SIMILAR BUSINESS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA
indicate size. type. estimated number of
employees, minorities. etc. 4. A APPALACHIAN BP SERVICE STATION. 3 FULL TIME. 4
X i 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
6. Source for available housing (list). B. HULLY GULLY MUSIC. RETAIL OUTLET. 2 FULL TIME. 3
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed" PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS
X , 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? C. BASKET BOUTIOUE. RETAIL OUTLET. 2 FULL TIME, 4
I X 9 Are tyre large, disabled. elderly, etc. PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
families? D. BIG AL's RESTAURANT. 3 FULL TIME. 5 PART TIME. NOT A
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? MINORITY BUSINESS.
X 11. Is public housing available? E. DURANGO BAGEL. NOT IN OPERATION AT TIME OF
X 12. Is it left there oAll be adecpate DSS housing
I STUDY.
_
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
X 5. THIS IS A COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND APPROXIMATELY 75%
_
_
financial means? OF RENTAL MARKET IS RENTED TO STUDENTS ATTENDING
14. Are suitable business sites available (list UNIVERSITY. DURING THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTERS IT
- source). IS HARD TO FIND DESIRABLE HOUSING. DUE TO THE LARGE
15. Number months estimated to complete NUMBER OF DIsrLACEES. IT IS BEST TO DISPLACE THESE
RELOCATION? DISPLACEES DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY 8r AUGUST,
- WHICH IS SUMMER BREAK
6 LOCAL REALTORS. AVERY WATAUGA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND LOCAL NEWSPAPERS.

H. ALAN ROTHROCK 11-18-97
Relocation Agent Date i Approved b Date
Form 15 4 R-Ased 02!95 d vnginai w t t;opy Stare Reiocaaon Agerd
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
I:ts Ri?,f wr
^.4110155 ID!!: U-1900 WATAUGA CCt1 'NTT
P:\c;Fi 2 OF ALTERNATE i OF 1
R. wii i. Rr mirt.FNIENTTn AS Nt:CFS!: AR.\'. .
??. IT IS FELT TI IAT A KfAJORrrY, iF NOT ALL DISPLACEES ARf. STt?i)I:NTS AT T1 It- LOCAL
UNIVERSITY.
11. NORTW\\TSTERN RFt jTONAI. I1OUSiNG ALM.ToRITY.
12. SFE riT!li 15.
14. SFF rTF.Ai .96.
IF-RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. E] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT:— 9.8110455 COUNTY WATAUGA
_ Alternate
2
Lt Alternate
of
I.D NO. U-3800 F.A. PROJECT _ _
__-
-_
--.
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: Widening of US 321 (Hardin St.) from SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421/194.

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minoritie 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
S
RPCidential _ _0 _ 20 20 2 20 0 0 0 0
Busin esses 0 6 6 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners
Tenants For Sale For Rent
- -
-
-
--
-
_
Non-Profit
0-20M ?0 S 0450 0 0-20M 1 0 so-ISO
0
0
0
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 1S0-250 0 20?tOM 2 150-250 • 0
Fes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250 d00 0 40-70M 13 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.800 20 70.10oM t.. 38 400.800 10
X 2. tMll schools or churches be affect by _ 100 up 0 600 uP 0 100 ua 53 + us UP 11
displacement? TOTAL 0 20 106 24
X 1 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Respond b Number
project?
X 4. Win any business be displaced? It so. 3. SIMILAR BUSINESS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. A. APPALACHIAN SP SERVICE STATION. 3 FULL TIME. 4
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
6 Source for available housing (fist). B. HULLY GULLY MUSIC. RETAIL OUTLET. 2 FULL TIME. 3
i X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? C. BASKET BOUTIQUE. RETAIL OUTLET 2 FULL TIME. 4
X 9 Are there large. disabled, elderly, etc. PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS
families? D. BIG AL's RESTAURANT. 3 FULL TIME. 5 PART TIME. NOT A
I X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? MINORITY BUSINESS.
X. 11. Is public housing available? E. DURANGO BAGEL. NOT IN OPERATION AT TIME OF
I -X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing STUDY.
housing available during relocation period? F. HIGHLANDER CENTER LAUNDROMAT. 1 FULL TIME. NOT
X 13 Will there be a problem of housing within A MINORITY BUSINESS.
_
financial means? G. PRECISION PRINTING 2 FULL TIME. 3 PART TIME. NOT A
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (fist MINORITY BUSINESS.
-- -
source).
15. Number monttls estimated to complete
5. THIS IS A COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND APPROXIMATELY 75%
-
RELOCATION? F OF RENTAL MERKET IS RENTED TO STUDENTS ATTENDING
THE UNIVERSITY. DURING THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTERS IT IS HARD TO FIND DESIRABLE HOUSING. DUE TO THE
LARGE NUMBER OF DISPLACEES IT IS BEST TO DISPLACE THESE DISPLACEES DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY b AUGUST.
WHICH IS SUMMER BREAK
s !?`T7• ?f 5`7
H. ALAN ROTHROCK 11-18-97
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d
anginal & 1 Copy: 5tate Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
F.1S REPORT
l?.R110155 ID N: U-3800 WATAUGA COUNTY
PAGE 2 OF ALTERNATE 2 OF 2
6. LOCAL F.ALTORS, AVERY WATAUGA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND LOCAL
NEWSPAPERS.
R. Will RE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
?. IT IS FELT THAT A MAJORITY. IF NOT ALL DISPLACEES ARE MUDENTS AT TII[i LOCAL
1JNTVF.RSITY.
11. NORTITWESTERN REGIONAL HOUSING AUMORITY.
12 SF.F.ITEN105.
14. SEE ITEM M.
rRELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
PROJECT: 9.8110455 COUNTY _ WATAUGA
I. D. NO. U-3800 F.A. PROJECT
3 _ of _ 4_ _ Alternate
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of US 321 (Hardin St.) from SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 4211194.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minoritie
s
a•?.h••,nal 1
- 1 12
- 13
E?? ?essn I?__ 0 2 2
a?'^s 0 0 0

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
•+ ++? Explain all "YES" answers.
X t Wig special relocation services be necessar
X : Will schools or churches be affect by
dlsplacement7
X 3 11YQ business services still be available after
project?
x 4 Wn any business be displaced? If so,
Indicate size. type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6 Source for available housing (fist).
X 7 Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8 Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9 Are there large, disabled. elderly, etc.
families?
X 10 Wit public housing be needed for project?
X I t t Is public housing available?
- - X
- 12 Is It felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13 W11 there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X- -1
- - - 14 Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete t-
RELOCATION? r I
0-15M I 15-25M I 25-35M I 35-50M 1 50 UP
2 12 0 1 0 1 0
0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE .
0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
0 0-20m 0 S 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $0450 0
20.40ta D 150.250 p 20.40M 2 150.250 0
40-701a p 250-100 0 40-70ta 13 -- 250.400 3
70400M 1 400400 12 70-100M 38 400.600 10
100 UP 0 Boo up p 100 up 53 600 up 11
TOTAL 1 12 106 24
REMARKS (Res pond by Number)
3. SIMILAR BUSINESS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA
4. A. DANIEL BOONE RESTAURANT AND INN. 5 FULL TIME, 8
PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
B. CITGO GAS STATION. 3 FULL TIME. 3
PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
5. THIS IS A COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND APPROXIMATELY 75%
OF RENTAL MARKET IS RENTED TO STUDENTS ATTENDING
THE UNIVERSITY. DURING THE FALL AND SPRING
IT IS HARD TO FIND DESIRABLE HOUSING. DUE TO THE
LARGE NUMBER OF DISPLACEES IT IS BEST TO DISPLACE
THESE DISPLACEES DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY &
AUGUST, WHICH IS SUMMER BREAK
8. LOCAL REALTORS, AVERY, WATAUGA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS.
8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
9 IT IS FELT THAT A MAJORITY. IF NOT ALL DISPLACE[
STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY.
11 NORTHWESTERN REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY.
//l ! 379
H. ALAN ROTHROCK 11-18-97
Relocation Aaent Date
A
/N-
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
FIS REPORT
OR110155 1r) I/: U-1800 WATAUGA COUNTY
PAGE 2 OF ALTERNATE 3 OF d
12. CFF. "At f`5.
1.1 SEF iTM 46.

RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
a E.I.S. r-? CORRIDOR F-? DESIGN
PROJECT: 9.8110455 COUNTY WATAUGA Alternate Y. is of 4 Alternate
I n. NO.. U-3800 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of US 321 (Hardin St.) from SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421/194.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Tyre of !
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minoritie 0-15M 15-25M , 25-35M 35-50M
I 50 UP
1 s I
RP-md#-ntial 0 20 20 2 201 0 1 0 i 0 0
.. ... -- -- - .-- ------
Businesses- - - 0 ? 4 _4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
-
Farms 0 I 0
0 0 Owners
Tenants For Sale For Rent
_
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 S 0-150 0 720M 1 0 S 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 0 150.750 j 0 20-10M 2 150-250 0
-
r es No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M ! 13 250-400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.600 20 MAMA 3$ 400.600 10
j
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 UP 1 0 100 up
53 000 UP 11
displacement? TOTAL I 0 20 106 24
X ( 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Respond b Number
project?
X j 4 Wlfi any bUnIness be displaced? If so, 3. SIMILAR BUSINESS SERVICE) ARE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA
Indicate size. type. estimated number of
employees. minorities. etc. 4. A. DANIEL BOONE RESTAURANT AND INN. 5 FULL TIME, 8
X 5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BU INESS.
6. Source for available housing (fist). B. CITGO GAS STATION. 3 FULL TIME. 3
j X 7 Will additional housing programs be needed? PART TIME NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? C. HIGHLANDER CENTER LAUNDP,OMAT. 1 FULL TIME, 2
! X 9. Are there large. disabled, elderly. etc. PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY BUSINESS.
families? D. PRECISION PRINTING. 2 FULL TIME, 3 PART TIME. NOT A
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? MINORITY BUSINESS.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 5. THIS IS A COLLEGE COMMUNITY AND ArrROXIMATELY 75%
housing available during relocation period? OF RENTAL MARKET IS RENTED T STUDENTS ATTENDING
I X 13 Will there be a problem of housing within THE UNIVERSITY. DURING THE FALL AND SPRING
financial means? SEMESTERS IT IS HARD TO FIND DESIRABLE HOUSING. DUE
X ( 14 ArP silitable business sites available (fist TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF DISPLACEES, IT IS BEST TO
source). DISPLACE THESE DISrLACEES DURIf1G THE MONTHS OF
15. Number months estimated to complete MAY AND AUGUST, WHICH IS SUMMER BREAK.
RELOCATION? ---- - - - - ??
F LOCAL REALTORS. AVERY. WATAUGA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY

H ALAN ROTHROCK 11-18-97 - S
Relocation Agent Date I Approved b Date
Form 15 4 Revived 0:;'15 d 01inmal R 1 (")L"; Stale Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
TIC RT?P()R'f
II.R110155 TT) H; 11-IR00 WATAUGA COUNTY
PA(.;F 2 OF AI."fTRNA'TT •l OF •I
o. r iS FFLTTiIAT A NIAJORTTY. iF SOT AT.L 1)Trpi,A(:'FF.S :1RF «t?T )F": TS AT *1117
T TNIN'I:RST'T'}'.
1I *?!?P.'111«'F..?'T'EP.i`IRF.C[ON"r1I:Hn1!CiNt.:1TrT'iiURl'f1'
12. R F F ITF'11 "5.
1.1 Cf'T? t'['FA1 'gyn.
t
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAM
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will
be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore,
the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation assistance,
*Relocation moving payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement"
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law'91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and.farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also
supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to
displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may
not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be-eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displaces within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.
APPENDIX B
AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL COMMENTS
O?PP??ENt OF
A
4Rcm S
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 8, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Avib
N A'
Subject: US 321 improvements, Watauga County, North Carolina; State Project 9.8110455; TIP
No. U-3800.
In your letter of August 13, 1997, you requested our comments on the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided with your letter, the purpose of this project is to enhance
US 321 by constructing a five-lane curb and gutter facility along the same alignment from
SR 1163 to US 421-NC 194. The new cross-section would include two 4.2-meter (14-foot)
outside lanes and three 3.6-meter (12-foot) inner lanes, with total pavement width of 68 feet.
The proposed right-of-way for the project is 30 meters (100 feet).
The stream in this area is already impacted by activities on the Appalachian State University
campus and surrounding commercial area. However, if construction plans necessitate impacting
surface waters and wetlands, the Service suggests that these impacts be addressed in any
environmental document produced for the project and that mitigation be developed in
conjunction with the appropriate resource agencies.
Enclosed is a list of the federally endangered and threatened species known from Watauga
County. The list also includes species of Federal concern that are currently under status review by
the Service which may occur in the project impact area. Species of Federal concern are not legally
protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they
?1V
are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our
response to give you advance notification. The presence or absence of these species in the project
impact area should be addressed in any environmental document prepared for this project.
However, based upon our knowledge of the site and a review of our records, the Service does not
believe that any federally endangered or threatened species occur within the impact area of the
proposed action.
Thank you for notifying us about this project. In any future correspondence concerning the
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-220.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Joe Mickey, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Route 2, Box 278, State
Road, NC 28676
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue,
Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
V
<7
IN REPLY PLEASE REFERENCE
OUR LOG NUMBER 4-2-97-220
ENCLOSURE PAGE 1 OF 2
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
IN WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List.
It is a listing, by county, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered,
threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare
species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information on this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums
and herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program's database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as
new information is received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of
listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for
field surveys.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Proposed
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC*
Kanawha minnow Phenocobius teretulus FSC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC*
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC*
Invertebrates
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC**
Bent avens Geum geniculatum FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea Endangered
var. montana)
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Gray's lily
Bog bluegrass
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort
KEY:
Lilium grayi
Poa paludigena
Bazzania nudicaulis
FSC
FSC*
FSC
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
FSC A Federal species of concern - a species that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing).
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic - obscure and incidental record.
Federal Aid # TIP #
tA- 12* •o County "TAu W1-
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description U9 si2d (N PLvim ST) va m Sa. ilus, ( iuveL-, 'ST To
e
t,th all a? t?,d P7.eiJE.
On elsrm- 11 101011representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina Statc Historic Preservation Officc (SHPO)
Other
rcvicwcd the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review scssion/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there arc no properties ovcr fifty Fears old within the project's area of potential c5ects.
no-properties Iess than fifty scars old which arc considcrcd to meet Criterion
there arc'
Consideration G within the projects area of potcntial cricc:s.
? there arc propertics over fifty }'cars old (list attached) within the project's area of potcntial c5ccts,
but based on the historical information available and dic photograplis of each propcm, properties
identified as 1;>K+1tw, th-4F- tan ? yt4"AaAoc4- i ps6P•,. c to R-t3are considered not eligible
for National Rcgistcr and no further evaluation of them is ncccssarv.
there arc no National Rcgistcr-listed properties within the project's area of potcntial ericcts.
S iencd:
f-
kd"w Il l9-' -7
Da t
c
N/A
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Fcdcral Agcncy Datc
Representative,' SHPO
/
State Historic Preservation Officer
I !
ate
LZ 2 ;7
If a survey rgx)rt is prepared, a final copy or this roan and the attached lint will be included.
.-?
North Carolina
Department
of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh. NC 27603
Dear Sir. Vick:
?GEIVEd
Q
z
*51
-? OGZ 2 0
o .
z ,7 D?f ts? . c
2'Li``G
Katie G.
October 15, 1997
Pe SCH File # 98-E-4220-0165; Scoping Proposed Widening of US 321 (Hardin Street) from SR
1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421-NC 194 in Boone, Watauga County; TIP #U-3800
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Anached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
he addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
Questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
C 9Z . P?
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region D
Melba McGee, DEHNR
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / ARnnative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM
a, ?„av
4 .?
?ENFR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearing/house
FROM: Melba McGee 0-
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 98-0165 Scoping, US 321 from SR 1163 to US 421-NC 194, Boone,
Watauga County
DATE: September 30, 1997
The Department of Environment, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review. More
specific comments will be provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation of the
environmental document, additional information is needed, the applicant is
encouraged to notify our respective divisions.
attachments

OCT ; 1997

PO Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 • Telephone: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 10% Post-Consumer Paper
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: 1?Joe H. Mickey Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 26, 1997
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 98-0165, US 321 from SR 116,3 to US 421- NC
194, Boone, Watauga County, State Project 9.8110455, TIP Project U-3800
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project. These comments are provided
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1
through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is studying the proposed
improvements to US 321 (Hardin Street) in Boone, Watauga County. The project is included in
the 1998-2004 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way
in fiscal year 1998 and construction in fiscal year 1999.
In general, we have no objection to the project. In order for biological staff of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to provide a meaningful review, the environmental
document prepared for this project should include the following information:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern animal and plant
species. Contact is the Mr. Steven Hall of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(919/733-7701). -
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreages of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be listed.
Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps has been contacted to determine the
need for a 404 Permit under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr: Steve Chapin at
704/271-4857.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate for
unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's professional background and
qualifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 910/366-2982.
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?EHNf=1
September 29, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO, Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverlrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0165; WQS# 11755
US 321 - Hardin Street, Boone
TIP U-3800; Watauga County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document
A. Identity the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the followina contacts:
Liz Kovascldtz - Classifications - 919-733-5083. ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings -.919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/reiocations. If the original stream
bank were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
re•:e2etated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will pem. anent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
mainmmznce.
E. Identify the stornwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be Ihcluded in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Id: ntify the federd manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found. the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surve,,ring for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. F4,a wedmd impacts been minimized?
P.C. Ecx 2s"'. F.ale; h. Ncrth Carclina 27626-0535 Te echone 919-733-5083 FAX [phone]
?`ri ?.?ai r",,;: •'::: nii:f.: c::?e ?+.?.'?.. ?T.r.IGYEr .. ?°•e •'?lCIEdt 10% post-consumer paper
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Pase 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G. If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order. restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H . The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without new road construction or road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic
congestion management techniques.
The NNorth Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment- It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new roads, highways and interchanges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use fisures were used in this estimate)?
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary roads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project
Lx) Vy'har measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agr°.-d to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
wav, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What de g=ee of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
raay be significant in nature? Speccific to the regulatory authority of DWQ.
tL EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development
xi) A'hat re-valarions are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
dire.:. and indirect impact of the project. the document should define how
DOT (w-ith their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(»zth 1.:rd use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mid? these impacts to a level of insi-pificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FOtiSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be av mded. rrinimiied or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indir---: effe-..s of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going :a siignificantly impact the environme,,t including water quality. If
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 4
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specks of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and nm-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation. project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road and
interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater, in the project service area and along
connector stre`ts that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers,
pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters. These impacts
could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and
federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient sensitive, or
used for public water supply.
K. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
weland mitigation.
L. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC ISA: 01C.0402 (Limimdons on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been sinned off by the Department
Written conairrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project Appiicadons requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
m/s.\980163 Red Springs Bypass Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wedands/401 Unit
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
. & "_ I
ED E=_ F=1
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Number: 9g - ?) County: 1?1 cc.?acc.,g
Project Name: [.1S 32/_ S prt?,'eu q 9. 811C+SS
NC Office of State Planninc - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional
destruction of a-geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3836.
' n' j' ?? ^r c; r
Reviewerp, Date
U
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
t
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
Gt? 82537
Geological Survey Secgri ewer Land Quality Section Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equcl Opportunity Affirmative Action Emolover 50% recycled/ 1 C°b post-consumer occer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
I Reviewing Office: ?.5
Prct Number: Due Date:
o es-0165 0113
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
same
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the
.
Regional Office. Normal Process

- Time
PERMITS 7 SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

? Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (N!A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit•whichever is later.
n
L!
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N;A)
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issue 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
edge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Permit to construct 3 operate Air Pollution Abatement
il
/
i
f
E 60 days
ities and
or
ac
miss
on Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A f90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D:95Pf1.
? V
Demolition or renovations of-structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
( j NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
u prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820
(90 da
s)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800. y

y The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimentalio
R
.
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana' ouality Sec: ) at least 30 I
20 days
davs before becinnino activity A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or part must accomoanv Ine clan 130 davsi
f"I
L= The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bone amount
? uining Permit varies with type mine and number of-acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? I North Caroiina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit t day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)

? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit . 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "it more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections INIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

? 90.120 days
Oil Relining Facilities N/A (NIA)
It permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.

P Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
ermit
Dam Safety inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR aoprov
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing tee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
va ws ' Continued on reverse
Noma! Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of 55.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
tion form
li
d
N
d 10 days
NIA
.
ar
app
ca
o stan
Application by letter. (
)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
? descriptions 3 drawings of structure d proof of ownersnip (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Ouality Certification NIA (130 days)
Q
lication
an
a
m
00 f
t
0 55 days
(150 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development y
pp
p
ee mus
acco
525
.
22 days
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
? N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611 f
bandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
C otification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
!
? Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority):
sjzqeq.

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, INC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES _D --
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name 5Q r ( taS Type of Project Se
r ; The applicant should ..be advised that plans . and specifications for all water system
?-? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of fens of adjacent
?- waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regardin-e the shellfisR sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at (919) 726-68227.
r-, The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
?- For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
concact the Public Health Pest Manv ement Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an e-aessive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent- the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)
733-6407.
r The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
-' requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal- methods, contact, the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r--? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanita*y
?-? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated du'- the construction plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division oEnvironmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 73=-
2460.
JCS 91-z_ 17
Reviewer Section/Branch I Date
DE'-.iIlc. 313i (Rc/6cc 8l°3)
10/14/97 TUE 10:04 FAI 704 265 5439 REGION D COG aaa Chros Bassett
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Please review the attached notification and indicate your response. If your agency requires additional 'L"-Ion. contact
applicant directly or call Region D Council of Governments' Clearinghouse. Please submit your response to t to r VptIkv
the due date indicated
Phone: [phone]'
ifh
SCI/ Number 98-E-4220-0165 Date 8128/97 Response Date 1019197
Please Sign and Return
This Page Only To.
Region D Council of Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P.O. Box 1820
Boone, NC 28607
1
Reviewers:
Jim Ratchford-Watauga County Manager
Grcg Young-Boon Town Manager
Response: This agency has reviewed the notification and offers the following recommendation: (Check approprt.
responsc/morc than one can be checked)
No Comment
Favorable. The project is in agreement with the goals and objectives of this agency's programs.
Unfavorable. The project is not in agreement with the goals and objectives of this agency's programs.
Potential Problem (s). Identify:
Comments: - '
1
S?- be 'co.?,?' 1&4 r d S "i
"',V b
??t?,?r, clue
Reviewed by
Name: Agency: Date:
?,,- W,5
10:14/97 TUE 10:04 F.9.L 704 265 5439 REGION D COG -?++ Chrns Baggett ?tu
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Please review the attachcd notification and indicate your response. If your agency requires additional information. contact ii.
applicant directly or tail Region D Council of Governments' Clearinghouse. Please.submit your response to the address beto?%
the due date indicated
Phone: [phone]
SCH Number 98-E-4220-0165 Date 8!28/97 Response Date 10/9/97
Please Sign and Return
This Page Only To:
Region D Council of Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P.O. Box 1820
Boonc, NC 28607
Rc%icwers-
Jun Ratchford-Watauga County MmLager
Greg Young-Boone Town Manager
Response: This agency has reviewed the notification and offers the following recommendation: (Check appropn.
response/more than one can be checked)
No Comment
Favorable.
Unfavorable.
Potential Problem (s).
Comments-
The project is in agreement with the goals and objectives of this agency's programs.
The project is not in agreement with the goals and objectives of this agency's programs.
Identify:

Reviei.ed by
Name: Agency: I (al ? Date:
L 1 own
?Public
I?`.c.; 4'x•1
Schools. of North Carolina
* State Board of Education
Jay Robinson, Chairman
_ Department of Public Instruction
Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent
s
August 25, 1997
MEN[ORANDU M
G?I?F
- AUG 2 8 1991 i
L ISAIGN4 o,.
TO Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., NC Department of Trans ortation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: US 321 (Hardin Street), From SR 1163 (Rivers STreet to US 421-NC194, Boone,
Watauga County, State Project 9.8110455, TIP Project U-3800
Enclosed is the response from Wataugal County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure

301 N. Wilmington Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
i
Watauga County Board of Education
WNatan a OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
??? ? P.O. BOX 1790 BOONE N.C. 28607 TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
August 21, 1997
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA-
Section Chief
School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
Q
.'J/
51997
This is in response to your letter of August 15 regarding
the National environmental Policy Act. As far as we are
able to determine, there is no negative impact observed
with the proposed improvements for Hwy. 321 in Boone, North
Carolina. We are very supportive of the project.
If you need further information, please give me a call.
Best regards,
C. David Greene
Superintendent
lb
Educate for productive citizenship and life-long learning.
FROn ASU CHANCELLORS OFFICE
?? JAW dQ CJ ?.J `41'??
.nn ...-ea
A-P-Palachian
Jt3TATE UNIVERSITY
SOON, NORTH CAROLINA 40,908
ornc-c. or ttic cl,rmccnor
I-ourth Floc+r • Adndnist i-mt inn Dulld ing
[phone]
July 24, 1997
Mr. Sam Erby, Jr.
Board Member
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Drawer 230
Granite Falls, NC 28530
Dear Sam:
This is to confirm the commitments made when I met with you on April 23, 1997 relative to the
widening of Hardin Street in Boone (DOT project #U-3800).
First; please allow me, on behalf of the University, to express my gratilnida for the. prompt attention
giver this vital project by Governor Hunt, yourself and the DOT administration. This is a classic
example of how progress can be made when different state agencies work together. We thank you
and the DOT engineers for moving this project forward in such a rapid fashion. We feel it is
imperative that this improvement be completed by the time construction is finished on our
Convocation Center.
The University wishes to participate in any way possible to facilitate the project. We will grant al!
of the right-of-way available on University property without expectation of compensation. As the
project moves forward we hope you will let us know how we might aid the process. This is
important to the University, our students, our visitors and to the Town of Boone therefore we want
to help you.
Thank you again for your work and interest in improving the difficult traffic situation we face in
Boone.
Sincerely, Post-IY Fax Note 7671 sec, y u or
Francis T. Borkowski
Chancellor
Rot.
Phone 8
F regi Q-733-3
I
From
r" 6V Ire
?d -395-336
Fax i
FTB/kr
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY AND TRAFFIC NOISE
TABLES
TABLE Al
CAL3CHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 1
JOB: U-3800: US 321, Watauga County RUN: US 321, Year 2005, Build
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
;-S --Z .0 CM/S VD ---z .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
........................ •---------------------------------------- *-----------------------------------------•------•-------•-
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 890. 15.8 .0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link ' .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 890. 15.8 .0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR ' X Y 2
......................... '-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 15.Om From CL * -9.6 .0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE ' (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.9
OEGR. * 7
I THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.90 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A2
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-3800: US 321, Watauga County
SITE t METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS • .0 CM/S VD s .0 CM/S
U • 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
..............
RUN: US 321, Year 2025, Build
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M)
• X1 Y1 X2 Y2
........................ '----------------------------------------•.
1. For Lane Link ' 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0
2. Near Lane Link • .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 '
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
..................
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR • X Y Z
......................... *.....................................
*
1. RN, 15.0m From CL * -9.6 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE • (PPM)
(DEGR)' REC1
MAX 3.3
DEGR. • 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.30 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
PAGE 2
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/M0 (M) (M) (VEH)
----------- .................
1610. 360. AG 1375. 14.8 .0 13.2
1610. 180. AG 1375. 14.8 .0 13.2

r
1.
TABLE A3
CAL30MC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
* JOB: U-3800: US 321, Watauga County RUN: US 321, Year 2005, No-Build
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
----
------------------•--------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = log. CN
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 4 (D) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. N AMS = 1. 8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
..............
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* LENGTH BAG TYPE VPH
EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 *. (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ '-------------------------------- -------- '---------------------------- ------ ------ ------------------
1. For Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 890. 35.8 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 890. 35.8 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- -------------------------------------
1. R/W, 6.Om From CL ' -4.2 .0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: C.-360.
WIND • CONCENTRATION
ANGLE ' (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
s MAX * 5.8
DEGR. • 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.80 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
TABLE A4
CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 4 a
JOB: U-3800: US 321, Watauga County RUN: US 321, Year 2025, No-Build
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-- ----------------------------
VS a .0 CM/S VO a .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U a 1.0 M/S CLAS a 4 (D) ATIM a 60. MINUTES MIXH 2 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LI K DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ -----------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/M0 (M) (M) (VEH)
1610. 360. AG 1375. 71.6 .0 9.6
1610. 180. AG 1375. 71.6 .0 9.6
•
YZ
----------*.
805.0
-805.0
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
......................... *-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 6.Om From CL * -4.2 .0 1.8 *
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 14.2
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 14.20 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
r
r
A
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130-
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110-
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90-
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70-
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50-
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40-
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10-
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
r
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
F URLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
oise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
eq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
4
r
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
c
} O
E
Q m
L
L
Z U` in
r C
W
Co
W
W =
m ci
c
Q
in
O C
Z O
co
3U. ae
LL
G W O O O
W O
F-
az
r*% o 0 0 0
MoF-

a
OV
% U Q U O O O
U
Q
? cq
m o c4 m O O O
R a~ L

CL U
CL
Q
o
0
0
Q
Q A

cn
cc Lu m
-0 co
ao
N co
vi
N
to
u cc Q
O Z
~
n ^ O
<vc °Q° ~

v v
N
n
N CO
U w coo
t1)
In
>
0
W
a W Q
P
to m O -it cl
t7 Co co
Z

c
m
x a? M
-?
co n
co
U
m
.
O
L
C
.
Z
O
C
W
a m

U V
c N
cn 3
O cn
M
Q = O
o+
?
N
m ?

N M
N
I
cn
?
L L
TQ
i

0
L
L
LL U-
N
a
tp
O
L
(V
C m
f0 y
O
a
m o
L
N W
O
H L
m m
c ?
w m
O t
m E
C O
m
U
m ?
L L
N
E
O ?
L
m ?
7 ?
N M
tC m
E C)
C
tC1
FA
m
t!4
v 0
O
cc c
NC u
E m
0-0
CD
C
co c
o cc
P'1 m
Ia N
?N
r N
C
7
O
U
Q
2 E
O
? C
o m
W
cn
W O
CD
Z U in
W ? C
J M
W
H W =
J
W N
cn cn
ZZ?
vo
LLo
U. 00
?CV)
LL
W
a
cn ?
0
•
cnm
FW.,N
O O
O
0 U
a
s
J
Q W W
H N
Q W O O O
•
c~n Lnn v
?oz
z
cn
Ln
N
y 0 O O O
N ^
a
W
cr.
Z ,e

C

O O

O
- N
J
W
>
W
J
W .?
LA O O O
N
_
O

Z
_O o 0 0 0
F
W
H
X
W
O

2
? N O N
O
W of
et
La
W
cr-
0
?? o 0 0
v
n
N
J
:.
m a
N
0
O
L r
CL
Z
0 m c
O W

CL _
cn
_
U V C4
co
W 3 cn
O
Q = O
O ?

m N
.fin T
L
L
3
>
0
0
L
-
LL
U.
N
N
Z
W
J
m
a
0
0
O
m
cn
H N
?Z
m
V W
C J
c c
cc .?
..
N .`
.G
H ~
Lp U
> L
C O
O ?
m m
CC
m m
to 4A
• •
r N
s s
. `?' MAATFv -
a ram
46,, c
Olt,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA C'Fti
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION °Fs
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Yvonne Goldblatt, Project Planning Engineer .A.4ye-
Planning & Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Minutes for US 321 (Hardin Street) from relocated
SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421-NC 194, State Project No.
9.8110455, TIP Project U-3800
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on July 28, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. in the
Planning and Environmental Conference Room (Room 470). The following people attended:
Clyde Robbins Appalachian State University
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Carl McCann Division 11
Sid Autry Location & Surveys
Joseph Ishak Traffic Engineering - Traffic Control Section
Kenneth Milam Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometries
Johnathan Tyndall Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Derrick Lewis Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Nghi La Thieu Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Jay Bennett Roadway Design
Tony Houser Roadway Design
Jason Moore Roadway Design
Kipp Turner Roadway Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Don Sellers Right of Way
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Lanette Cook Program Development
Rynal Stephenson Program Development
Carl Storch Photogrammetry
Nancy Campanella Statewide Planning
Richard Davis Planning & Environmental
Linwood Stone Planning & Environmental
1:
2-0
Tom Padgett
Brian Yamamoto
Mark Davis
Yvonne Goldblatt
INTRODUCTION
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following general project description opened the meeting.
PROJECT STATUS
The 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for widening
US 321 to a five-lane facility beginning at its intersection with relocated SR 1163 (Rivers
Street) and ending at its intersection with US 421-NC 194. The TIP calls for right of way
acquisition to' begin in FY 1998 and for construction to begin in FY 1999. TIP funding
includes $1,000,000 for right of way and $1,000,000 for construction.
AREA PROJECTS
APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Appalachian State University projects affecting the subject project include the
Boiler Plant Replacement and Convocation Center projects. The Boiler Plant
Replacement project includes relocating Rivers Street and improving Boone Creek in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of relocated Rivers Street and Hardin Street. This
project is currently under construction. The Convocation Center project includes
constructing a convocation center in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of existing
Rivers Street and Hardin Street and culverting Boone Creek under the new convocation
center. The Convocation Center project is scheduled to begin in Fall 1997.
TIP PROJECT U-3406
TIP project U-3406 is a Division-Design-Construct project which will widen
US 321 to a multi-lane facility beginning at its intersection with existing Rivers Street
and ending at its intersection with relocated Rivers Street. This project is approximately
500 feet (150 meters) long. The northern terminal of U-3406 joins the southern terminal
of the subject project. U-3406 is scheduled in the TIP for construction in FY 1998 at a
total cost of $1,200,000. Construction of this project is scheduled to coincide with
construction of the Appalachian State University Convocation Center project.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the subject project is to improve the capacity and safety of the existing
facility. The project will also accommodate area improvements including those to the
2
Appalachian State University campus, US 321 south of the subject project, NC 105, and US 421-
NC 194.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The following environmental issues were discussed:
? Historic Structures
0 none located in the area
? Archeological Site
0 possible site on the ASU campus
? The Dan'l Boone Inn
0 a site of public interest
ALTERNATIVES TO STUDY
CROSS-SECTION
It was agreed to study a five-lane curb and gutter section due to the urban nature
of the project area. Wide outside lanes [14 feet (4.2 meters)] will be provided to
accommodate bicycles due to proximity to Appalachian State University.
ALIGNMENTS
For discussion purposes, the project was divided into two (2) sections.
Section 1 extends from relocated Rivers Street to just south of the Cannon
Residence Hall, a distance of approximately 220 feet (66 meters). This section will join
the improvements proposed under project U-3406. An alignment which improves the
poor horizontal curve at Pine Street, minimizes impacts to existing businesses, and joins
the proposed west-side widening of U-3406 at the southern terminal, will be developed
for Section 1.
Section 2 extends from just south of the Cannon Residence Hall to US 421-
NC 194. Three study alignments (west-side, east-side, and symmetrical) will be studied
for this section. Right of way costs and associated relocatees will determine the preferred
alignment for this section.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Other considerations to be addressed in the design phase include potentially
eliminating the Pine Street/Hardin Street intersection and creating a cul-de-sac at the
western end of Pine Street. This will allow more alignment options on Hardin Street.
3
Division 11 personnel and the Roadway Design Unit agreed to coordinate the
junction of the northern terminal of U-3406 with the southern terminal of U-3800 to
insure project compatibility.
The Planning and Environmental Branch will contact the Town of Boone for
comments on the incorporation of sidewalks on the east-side of Hardin Street. The Office
of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation will be contacted for their comments regarding
potential bicycle accommodations on the project. ASU supported including bicycle
accommodations on the project.
APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
The majority of the property on the west-side of the subject project is owned by
Appalachian State University (ASU). It was agreed that NCDOT will consider the needs of ASU
during project planning for improving Hardin Street. The ASU representative (Dr. Robbins)
expressed the university's desire to cooperate with NCDOT to expedite completion of the subject
project. The loss of parking located in front of the ASU dormitories facing Hardin Street is a
major concern to the university. This will be considered when choosing the preferred alignment.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office stated that no historic structures
have been found in the project area, but archeological surveys will be required due to a potential
archeological site on the ASU campus.
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality sent comments prior to the scoping meeting
regarding Boone Creek and an Unnamed Tributary in the area. These are classified as Class C
Trout waters. Avoidance to the greatest extent possible is encouraged, however, urbanization of
the stream area has rendered it a poor supporter of aquatic life.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys with NCDOT sent comments regarding the subject
project. In his comments, utilities including water, sewer, telephone, electric, and cable were
noted at various locations in the project area. Existing conditions were inventoried.
Recommendations include a five-lane curb and gutter section with 14-foot (4.2-meter) outside
lanes to accommodate bicycles.
Jay King of the Geotechnical Unit with NCDOT sent comments regarding the
geoenvironmental impacts of the subject project. Three (3) service stations with underground
storage tanks were noted in the project area. One (1) of these sites was noted as a possible
contamination site. It was recommended that site assessments be performed prior to right of way
acquisition.
After the scoping meeting, a letter was received from the chancellor of Appalachian State
University (ASU) (see attached) outlining the University's position on the subject project. ASU
"will grant all right-of-way available on University property without expectation of
4
compensation." This position was confirmed in a phone conversation with Dr. Robbins, of ASU,
on July 29, 1997.
Comments from the Town of Boone were also received after the scoping meeting. The
town expressed interest in additional sidewalks being included on the east-side of Hardin Street.
The town was also interested in information regarding the effect the project will have on existing
lighting and utilities along Hardin Street.
SCHEDULE
The following milestones were established to ensure adherence to the document schedule.
MILESTONES (RESPONSIBLE
Roadway Surveys (Location & Surveys):
Environmental Information (Planning & Environmental):
Roadway Preliminary Designs/Cost Estimates (Roadway Design):
Complete Traffic Counts (Statewide Planning):
Right of Way Estimates (Right of Way):
Document Completion (Planning & Environmental):
cc: Scoping Participants
DATE DUE
August 1
September 17
October 1
October 17
November 30
February l
5
?... arr. ?. J. Jl fU`rJ 70.77??
FROM ASU CHPpiCELLORS OFFICE
LXBYA550CINC PAGE 01
nn? ..•? P. I
'`
Avpalachian
XBTATE UNIVERSITY
ROON£, NORTH CAROLINA 29609
July 24, 1997
Mr. Sam Erby, Jr.
Board Member
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Drawer 230
Granite Falls; NC 28630
Dear Sam:
orn(:r of tiie cii mrotlor
fourth Flc,?r • AdnillSlstridititS lfidk}tr??
[phone]
This is to confirm the commitments made when I met with you on April 23, 1997 relative to the
widening of Hardin Street in Boone (DOT Project #U-3800)First. please allow me, on behalf of the University, to express my Sratit:Ide for the prompt attention
given this vital project by Governor Hunt, yourself and the DOT administration. This is a classic
example of how progress can be made when different state agencies work together. We thank you
and the DOT engineers for moving this project forward in such a rapid fashion. We feel it is
imperative that this improvement be completed by the time construction is finished on our
Convocation Center.
The I Jniversity wishes to participate in any way possible to facilitate the project. We will grant all
of the right-of-way available on University property without expectation of compensation. As the
project moves forward we hope you will let us know how we might aid the process. This is
important to the Univorsity, our students, our visitors and to the Town of Boone therefore wo want
to help you.
Thank you again for your work and interest in improving the difficult traffic situation we face in
Boone.
Sincerely,
Francis T. Borkowski
Chancellor
FTB/kr
Post-(t* Fax Note
F-- 7671
..v.jr i k
C
Phone #
i8k 91 73
i
i
7 ? ? ii or ?
ages
Erfo„
d -39 4?,-Z3i:,
f?
.l
?N
zaxw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
SUBJECT: US 321 (Hardin Street), From SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421-
NC 194, Boone, Watauga County, State Project 9.8110455,
TIP Project U-3800
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to US 321 (Hardin Street). The project is included in the 1998-2004
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1998 and construction in fiscal year 1999.
It is recommended that US 321 (Hardin Street) be widened to a five-lane, curb and gutter
facility from relocated SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421-NC 194. A combination of
symmetrical and asymmetrical widening is being considered for this project. The proposed
cross-section will include 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside lanes to accommodate bicycle travel, and
3 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside lanes for a total pavement width of 21 meters (68 feet). The total
project length is approximately 0.6 km (0.4 miles). The proposed right of way for the project is
30 meters (100 feet).
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a state funded EA/FONSI. This document will be prepared in accordance with the
State Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by October 17, 1997 so
that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Yvonne Goldblatt,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 217.
HFV/plr
Attachment
C?4

' F4
• ? ,344 (1
• •1343 '
,
? ?
? 4P \ -
?

/
^• \
9B r
' to `
1341 <??;
?
6TAC'TAE LINE
NT Ate _ 1 t
3.6 34o 9 y 342
•? /

? BALD MTN. '?`' .?.•\ \ i-- '-
421 /
_ OLO FIELD BALD
•
• ? ^? 245 _ `• •? ? \ / ELEV. 4939
122 21225 I,
•• / \ 340 1 1 '\ \
,i
1 1226 . La1r11e s \
,
/
I
203
v •s 9?--\ 13170-•-J
123, .

..
1 1
:
? 1233 1301' 1
\
\
z? %j ?' q
123p P _
2-? SNAKE MTN,'• ELK KNOB
\-
to
a
BUCKEYS KNOB ELEV. 5574 1

' ELEV. 5555

1346-
p
1 m _ -.ELEV. 4400 C,,, h • d
2 .6
, 2 '\ °s 1
130.3
_
See
• \
\
.9 \
\ 5

m
/ 1
7
7
AW ?
-
RICH
MTN.
4
1300
0 \..
GAP1 .
\
,
1
r
/ \
\ \ 1340
1222 ,21e N 1
1221
.6 01303}
RICH MTN. \ Pleasant / RITTLO MTN.
valley Ch., '

a 1

194
/ ELEV.5372-
1 194 1369 'b" . \ 6
'r m 4P

. 1219
• o
- - 1399
-
N ? I 4 365 -? ._- I t l 2 6 \
- 6.. 1305 `6 \ 13 1349
1340
111 1201
121 3
0 1384
* 6 1
134
I
1201 ,
,233
121 •r POTATO (
'6 m
130 'I -' HILL 1348
i \
'• 232 372
1 ` 3
6
>
1
0
'09 9 m
12
• E 1213
• 1306 Sr 5 1396
Aug s . _.
't' 3: 2 1403 /
1339 1
1
,X . 1244 6
121
121 • Q. . 6 •? -2 .
N .21383 1306 \ _ -
" - 1. 7
\ 1339 \
1349 347
h 7
1308
`, 233
' f ?
\
\
: f .
13T/
1336
1 1215 1
. \ -. 01335 64 a
1211
a
a 1371
\ 1213 \ m
9
\ ? 307 r 1337 ' 1
/ 0 i 1i; 1350 1352 -
.

121
'
121 3 .'
6 1368 \ 1102 P
• a
1336 R 135 ' d
? .3,
; :-•, '.N 1212
'?•, \ 371 SUGARLOAF -
0 ?'?. MTN. '•?'• e i '0
'. 1324 ?b ,9
N 209 1238\ 1241
' _
9rMead 1312 1373 1323y 1306 1 322 1 1395 _,
`
/
?•
• 921 - / '
4qy• m 6 ? 1351 Q
"? 1324 '
6 9 p
6
8 i
1325 N 1
8
2

121
SIIOYf
V
321
131
'
X13 _ - 4
6

1325 1327 .
1351
1333
. A - - 1102 INSET N 1355
1331 g •6 NER
112 •0 __'
i; „55 2 e\ ,31,1 -
- 1313 ° ? - 1,3061
y 13 SEE FIGURE 1B 1326
1320 - .4 356 1392
a4 > 4i 63N S? 3553 > 1354
: :?

3.0 _ > 174 MAST 1313
121 116 GAP S 1165 : ??1' ry 1375 _
_ v\ C:. j 1332 1392
NE
194 1,4 _7 F4P Ipl? / 0001 6
;,
\
1720
, V
t
' ' 7
15
O 3
321
F
421 . _
EL 4445.
2
?
'"
-•8 1119 'S .
Ades
194
4293 .1 t;
4
' 1113 / 141 1
' - -
-- -
'•1 ?
.1170
1116 s
2 / 1 1 ,'?- •-1
l29 }2
6 1 n66:
ROCKY FACE
•'
-'
/ AP .3
'
'
\?•
,
?•_
y `5
x;
1128 /%
PISGAH P 'S .1114 \ 4?
?
221
1 122 Qf
•;°g-o
'7
6 v
.6 1160
1152

- 1.8
/ _
? ? i
- 2 321 •-
\p \
1. ?? 132 ';,? 1112 ? F'4P
105 )0
ry
' s 1?Ip/b 1122 pS •
/ 1 1136 J 5 qp
•
/I 1•`.
`
113
'.?
•1.2 .-"
1169 ,L.? :l'. 0 • .; , s? 134 1553 5
,"6 ,112
?,
05 4
-•
O4 ^ .- 550
'? .
? -
\

1130
'
NAT I ZONAL 1 1552 n N
1550 6
31
/
1133
0
}?
\ 1549 1
221
0 C
2• ry
1138
,. ' •
-. J" 2 ; _ 1547 3
21 6
3 `O
1
/ ShWIF Ali .
( -
OWERS
4 GAP 2 1134
' \• / 113
•

/'

) 1541
.q O 1581
/ ?`(•' ? 1538 /
'
it
P 6
/ \, 1541
' 4p \ . .-.-
0
1540 1531
"
1 \ ( O
1 ` - - ' /
? 1617
-

NGING ROCK 1 -_
A
ATN.

11 1
11-6e 1
1580
6 5 alk.
t 1647'
( ',a ? " 15
4 - 15 1539
LAT TOP TN. .2
52
52 2
q
ELEV. 5218 - ' a .. Ads. 2
Sat ELEV. 4595
1 \
1637
aka` o
?1 Qd 1560 > > 559 \

/ 9 ( 'm 6
2
7
FOREST
?
P ?
y \
/ y ( N 6
We'
`•? _ _ ? / 1 559 Q N 221 .9 F4S
•
1
?•••

`
, Sr4m Dr4u
POP. 120

• O
/
'J 6
s
A)\Ve4O ROdC `'l 4S
f01
1235
BYP •`
321

1
/ _
3 . _
-
105
1 AT-
1516 [AYA9Y ZI' .\ 1561 2 - 1562 \ ?v WAI
12121 ?F

6•
9
L - '?H 't 331 ?j
11
POP. 12,9n WARD KNOB \
$
'.°l
-
-.1y 1• - - ` 1.2 FAS 1563 ?.?. 4S •6
GRANDFATHER MTN. •`•32
ELEV.5964
6
WATAUGA COUNTY
.6
1367
\'P .357
• e 1391
0
• 3 ? 1355
i
151 .9 1357

hAwvaed 2

3

ROCKY
ELEV. MTN
078
Qv

f
1508/

P 1 1
?
Q ?? 1156
y
1593 1508 '
1514 9 1634 ' _. - `??
O4mheo;'?' • 2 .. / 1508 :6
1.z -
1sz3 1. s ,
15 s,o
1514
Pl 1646
1
.
4
2 .
.11645
a'
16019
? - .7
1511.3 1511
6
/,'` ?.

y m ? 1651
I -
- ? •,X 1514 1578
1639 aO?
b ?.
1514
Al* ,-?-
1616y
MAST KNOB DUGGER
MTN.*
,526

SAMPSON MTN. 1526
.f"ba
\1 529 ' .
1 \ \ M
I 1
TM NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 321 (HARDIN STREET) WIDENING
FROM RIVERS STREET TO US 421-NC 194
BOONE
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3800
0 MILES 2
FIGURE 1A
_ 2 ? I v? 1
o N .
O ?? S -A ANNKK TRAIL o? I DR.
GCn FS ST 7 O JUNALU§KA
PARK j
E2 > SUMMI OQ' , E VIEW DR\ / GF
D r Su,.. a m C? P i O
cr,
ST0 ?t?, O S T 00 5 v S T o? :.,+ ?
F O G
421 ?_? ?? SrK1NG O O?P? cJQyOhT 9cy ST ?p A MOUNTAI VIEW
-_` HOUSE OL S Fh,O SL N z 504.
FF1 ?`? h my ?O ? > OQpOK S
POPLAR CITY GLENDAL
GRO pie SST 2= Ra ST c?rn" ?ZC CHERRy 7-' DR. -- N\ TpR
?y01y9TA `' Q?'? PROJECT LINIITS LACY WgTgU ' `tea E`?2
\ r 90 ST ?'? r0 ST 3J? Av oo PJ??? C!R GD z R. Z ?R. Ga
N _
\ = MORET O? oFO ys?4g0 Q Wq ACE ?9Q Uo v CREST OR G)
N ;p. T ?zh ( CIR. COU ST TRACY CIR. BUENA VISTA -?
;
OR I S QQ I PUBLIC WORK! Ilk
\ l RD Llt-Ey" 11
RD
o I 421 HOW, C!R OOpOc°
OCUS ST m GRgH ya
O a, m f. F TOWARD _i il? " S7' goy
ST T J
s? p ST ° z WOODPECKER
BODEtiHEIME I 1 z O DR. wo DOVF LN. I PQPALACNIgh
APPALACHIAN STA UNIVLRSI 0 y R62,%
4Apq//W ,, COST Q o0 LI EW 3 oJP? N DR G?J?` R c
KIDC BREWER hy/g ACADEMY O 3 e gNH'OOD AV-
STADIUM ST PINE ST O
ST
I
? I
0 41
? R
FV
Nfl H LY ?c Q ?
C? v T G? SOONE h PV. J V 2 Q
m ?? q ?s a 0
cA' ° c?
hQKT °? Z G/? ysS '? Rly ?`' STgTf
{ hORNI' °o ?? HqY F p 1 HORN IN ANIEL BBOONE B TMORN IN
HE WEST m i 2
0 Y NATIVE GARDENS THEATRE 221
} o OPL.AR CH OR. C
j `9? SHMMIT ST PROJECT LIlMTS ANNF 0?F LAURE
s 2 u ?N -AOREL L v
( Sf? ?? P F Hl<<gNOgLE OR' c R.
EX] o
i? TRD. ??CLIE m y ° o
rG??0 G F? Rp 9 321 sG s0
pO '?r'+ v 20 T9 9 2S ?
T
1 / QOpLA N`LL ? yl Y F9
- OP?pR kfYST Q?DR. Zia GN?RD ST O oRR g\?y
0\R a? U 105 cpF,
APPALCART?
' BOONE MALL ------.._I.
z ,rT ?R?K
u 3
w m.
l ? Nigh Y \' \ TF SC,So. WATAUGA
HIGH SCH. Z --z O,
?fo of DR. POLICE
\ ?'p <F - LB CITY PL..
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
BOONE TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
CREEK US 321 (HARDIN STREET) WIDENING
FROM RIVERS STREET TO US 421-NC 194
BOONE _
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3800
0 feet 1000 FIGURE 1B
0

v
O
O
D
O
OJ ?
Q
v
O
0
D
&TtL& IGPWATFR \
?G C
? rS ;r, r TANK _TRAIC ?o r? I - DR
(" `S Sr O M-JUNALUSKa 'y \
?L s SUMMI Q PARK E VIEW DR G'-
? c- O O ? c
00
SM/T
POJ?F?L y p ?P VPy POPCyJ
S O a NOUNTAI
4-' 1 STKING z cccT ogTy F r o c;N
??` HCU-e®???? . S} ?
?
vC ?o arI' O?OOKc\O J
POPLAR c:rY q' P c
GM s? C'`, GLENDALE
??? Q. L`ST _? S ?m ?`_- FqR. DR. i -- , N1LC ?? ?',
e P ?Pe. a OA I k4 C,3
yCysT o PROJECT LI UTS T RACY l'4
m P 9q ?P °< U04 r ZMPF?E G
r a O ST O C? ? G O
• r c ? `?'O ST 3:? A\ AO00 QJ '? R DAR G '?R i
\ o C OF CQO y? ?rC/' < Y ?O Cpt G O O
_ 1CRETZ o? lvgq CACE 6Q c OR m
N S O Q QR. EUENA VISTA -A i '
\ ?rLT ST TRACY C1R
OR ! S QQQ 1+0 PUSLIC 'HORN' S 9y
Ha."d6Y ALLEY ?o 4 1 GOD Cla OOCO
CCC? HOWARD ST h G^AH FAO
/ Sr Sr u? ? F ry?• D.J =;STQM
J? c v - j h0, ST c z WOODPECKER
I BOD "' HEiMF ~ z OR cGIDOVF LN. PQFALAr_H/ A
APPALACHIAN STA ? UNIVERSI Y C-1) Ro
I r. 9Pp4 i COC?S` Q pv, ?\LIEN 31 G??\NDR i G'?Lc c
?ey4y4 Ca?FMY S, p p @IgN?JOD A`J I ????N Ad
Nrc e=_' Es
sTac c e i _. S 1- {
PINE S7 ?I
Sr -
cP
3 O,? O F,QS____--_-.. J': <c.? ' T PJ" eE'lfR
4? Nc CY Q
..a `I>Ni i c -?-
c`\L? T c
I c
ill ? J'? L? /?" 90CNE 3`H t''"av. "q^Y ? Q
I y4 0 4 s?AH? o y .? S7 ATE
?ThOq ? o H i9 S pRN IN' ??aslE cl HORN IN
: NE I NFr O ??? TCns ?Y NATIVE CAR JETS ©T HE 'NEST ( I /F
I TH-E
ATRE O
Z ?
cp, 022 DR. w .
I( pAC9 OP LAR S MMIr PROJECT LINIITS O?T? CaURc
9r ZC ST V (N d 'REL D
G
H
VDerr OR 'c C^.fXT o?c ?
?' ? JCLIE? CCd
RD
p F?a R ° 321 S
O a 2 c G? C
o A t ? a qc ,? s?, ?
? y ?L G T ? T
3
F4 Ca
QOP`A H\ L OR xo_ zip HG H.4
JD
?? vOFLA? KEYS o'I_ ;? ?C1R. S 0.p GQ a4??/
"c1a ?? r 10 - ago ??
_ U Pip ----- !y aPP_"a„T?•L- O,P CAF ? ?p?,
L/ \ - _ _ c? <FqS e-?cNE NALL ------
_ ? X j CR?cN
1 1 ? ' W m
\ H, Y D
-i' Hi;H SGH. - c
oJ? ?. 1 i \ \ ?OyACFyooL DR Pcuc_
9 CITY
BOONE
y? ORt-K
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
E DIVISION OF HIGMVAYS
3? 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
o, BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
US 321 (HARDIN STREET) WIDENING
FROM RIVERS STREET TO US 421-NC 194
BOONE
T.I.P. PROJECT U-3800
0 feet 1000 FIGURE t B
\ 1100
I •Q-1cI VED
JWM 2
6 4997
.
,
FNv
IRONfvfENT
A CIENCE$

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 20, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for US 321 (Hardin Street), From
SR 1163 (Rivers Street) to US 421-NC 194, Boone, Watauga
County, State Project No. 9.8110455, TIP Project No. U-3800
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project (see
attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure
is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and
thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is
scheduled for Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch
Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail
them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Yvonne Goldblatt, Project
Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 224.
YG/plr -?'-
Ck 1 50 S?-? v,, 0
Attachment i

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 6-20-97
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-3800
State Project # 9.81 10455
F.A. Project # N/A
Division 11
County Watauga
Route(s) US 321
Functional Classification Minor Arterial
Length 0.644 km (0.400 mi)
Purpose of Project To improve capacity on US 321 between SR 1163 (Rivers Street) and
US 421-NC 194 and to accompany improvements currently being made to Rivers Street
and the Appalachian State University campus.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: To widen the
existing 2-lane facility to a 5-lane facility from SR 1 163 (Rivers Street) to US 321-NC 194.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: State Environmental
Assessment/Finding Of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: SEA/FONSI due February, 1998
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or f%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: (Proposed) Full -
Number of Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section: Existing 2-lane facilit
Partial X None
Proposed 5-lane facility
Traffic (ADT): Current (1996) 16,000 Design Yr (2020) N/A %TTST N/A % Duals N/A
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Existing 64 km/h ( 40 mph)
Proposed 72 km/h ( 45 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies ...... $
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ....... $
Force Account Items ........................................................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ...........................................
Right of Way ...........................................
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE ..........
......................................... $ $1,000,000
......................................... $ $1,000,000
......................................... $ $2,000,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED N COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface ............................................................................... $
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
Shoulders
-Paved ................................................................................. $
Earthen ............................................................................... $
Earthwork ..................................................................................... $
Subsurface Items ......................................................................... $
Subgrade and Stabilization ........................................................ $
Drainage (list any special items) ............................................... $
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................... $
Structures
Bridge Rehab ..................................................................... $
New Bridge ........................................................................ $
Remove Bridge ................................................................. $
New Culvert ....................................................................... $
Culvert Extension ............................................................... $
Retaining Walls .................................................................. $
Noise Walls ......................................................................... $
Other Misc ......................................................................... $
Concrete Curb & Gutter ........................................................... $
Concrete Sidewalk ..................................................................... $
Guardrail ..................................................................................... $
Fencing
W.W .................................................................................... $
C.L ...................................................................................... $
Erosion Control ............................................................................
Landscaping ............................................................................... $
Lighting ........................................................................................ $
Traffic Control ............................................................................. $
Signing
New ................................................................................... $
Upgraded ......................................................................... $
Traffic Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................
With/without Arms ........................................................... $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
Pavement Markings
__Paint ................................................................................................. $
Thermoplastic ................................................................................. $
Raised Pavement Markers ................................................. ........... $
-Delineators ................................................................................................ $
Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) ....................................... $
CONTRACT COST Subtotal ..............................................
Engineering & Contingencies ........................................................................... It
PE Costs ............................................................................................................... $
Force Account .................................................................................................... $
Subtotal ............................................... $
Right-of-Way
Will contain within existing R/W?
Existing Width
New R/W needed
Easements: Type
Utilities ................................................
Yes
No
Estimated Cost .......................... $
Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $
.....................................................
Right-of-Way Subtotal ..................................................................... $
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $
Prepared by:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Ping & Environ.
Init. Date
B.O.T. Member
Mgr Program & Policy
Chief Engineer- Precon
Chief Engineer- Op
Sec Roads Officer
Construction Branch
Roadside Environ.
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engr.
Project Management
County Manager
City/ Municipality
Division Engineer
Biciycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
Init. Date
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
,Tk.W?FA
4 4010
A&I
Adft=
ID EE F=1
September 29, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator Vrr t
0
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator 12-?5 FNS/R?^r?FtiTq ?99j
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-0165; WQS# 11755 ts?/?N??s
US 321 - Hardin Street, Boone
TIP U-3800; Watauga County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 2
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G . If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-
kind mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-
kind mitigation.
c. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation.
H. The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without new road construction or road widening, such as mass-transit and traffic
congestion management techniques.
I. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new roads, highways and interchanges and resulting
inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at interchanges
and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-term
environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect impacts
of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary roads be influenced by
the access provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 4
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the new road and
interchanges if the project will be providing new or improved access to future
growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect water quality impacts of
induced development might include: increases in ground and surface water
withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in wastewater collection
and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in surface water discharges;
and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area and along
connector streets that experience increases in land development due to the project.
Land-disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development
may also result in increased stream sedimentation. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers,
pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters. These impacts
could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and
federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient sensitive, or
used for public water supply.
K. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
L. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0165 DOT Scoping
September 29, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mis.\980163 Red Springs Bypass Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit