R-2523

_. . -.,.s
State of North Carolina 37A
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4?
Division of Environmental Management -+?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary - C)E H N r1.
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. Director
May 21, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
0
Through: John Dorn
4
1
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb 4
Subject: EA/FONSI US21-221 from Twin Oaks to VA Line
Allegheny County
State Project DOT No. 6.701003, TIP #R-2523
EHNR # 93-0874
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA/FONSI prepared
for this project which will impact 0.3 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
2. Endorsement of the EA/FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
us221 al.ea
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equd Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer %% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Departmeni of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment U project located in 7th floor iigrery
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline).
'7J
This project Is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area
ff??
t.
.
Asheville
J ? All RIO Areas
tt
--
--
II
Fayetteville ? Air

ill
? M ID Water
ooresv
e
? Groundwater
? Raleign ? Land Ouality Engineer
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant

? Wilmington ?Coastal Management Consultant
?Others
? Winston-Salem

WAY I n tnn?
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
WATER QUALI
SECTION
Date:
Response (check all applicable)
In-House Review
Xsoll and Water
Coastal Management
? ater Resources
'wildlife
Forest Resources
XLand Resources
tqq6
Parks and Recreation
Environmental Management
? Marine Fisheries
Q Water Planning
? Environmental Health
? Solid Waste Managemen
? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
?Other (specify)
In•House Reviewer/Agency:
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
d Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development If specific & substantive
changes Incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response-
El Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated In attached comments (autnorlty(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Appilcant has not been contacted
El Pro)ect Controversial (comments attached)
C1 Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
n Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO.
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
PS1W
US 21-221
From Twin Oaks to
the Virginia State Line
State Project Number 6.701003
T.I.P. Number R-2523
Alleghany County

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. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
ate Ward, P. E., Manager
/ +lanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
US 21-221
From Twin Oaks to
the Virginia State Line
State Project Number 6.701003
T.I:P. Number R-2523
Alleghany County
r
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
r
e4 A&-X.S
Christa L. Atkins
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Unit Head
If. r nklin Vick, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
CA

7754
3 T?lP3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Right of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
6. Intersection Treatment and Type ofControl . . . . 1
7. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Required Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
10. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 2
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. Length of Studied Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Right of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Sight Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
8. Intersecting Roads and Type ofControl . . . . . . 3
9. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10. Utilities .
? 4
Development.
11. Type of Roadside 4
12. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Accident History. . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . . 5
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
r
A. Alternative 1 . . . 5
B. Alternative 2 . . 6
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended). 6
D. "No-Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
a
TABLE OF-CONTENTS (Continued)
. PAGE
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Topography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
E. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Plant Communities . . . . . . 11
2. Wildlife Communities. . . . . . 13
G. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Federally Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. State Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
H. Surface Water and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Floodplain Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
J. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
K. Contaminated Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
L. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
M. Noise Impacts 21
N. Construction Impacts 25
0. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
P. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI). . . . . . . . . . 28
FIGURES
TABLES
APPENDIX
US 21-221
From Twin Oaks to
the Virginia State Line
State Project Number 6.701003
T.I.P. Number R-2523
Alleghany County
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen and improve
the alignment of US 21-221 from Twin Oaks to the Virginia State Line
(See Figure 1). This Division Design Construct Project is listed in
the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) which calls
for upgrading the existing two-lane facility. The proposed
improvement (Alternative 3) is 3.4 miles in length and will widen the
existing facility in addition to reducing three sharp horizontal
curves (22 degrees each) along the project (See Figure 3). The
recommended cross section is a two-lane, 28-foot pavement section
(two 12-foot lanes plus 2 feet of paved shoulder on each side) with 6
to 8-foot usable shoulders (See Figure 4). The proposed right of
width along the existing alignment is 60 feet. Portions of the
roadway on new location will have a right-of-way width of 100 feet.
In addition to this right of way width, temporary easements will be
necessary during construction. The estimated cost listed for this
project in the 1993-1999 T.I.P. is $ 3,515,000 ($ 965,000 for right
of way and $ 2,550,000 for construction).
2. Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive
impact by improving the safety of US 21-221. However, there are 11
residences that will be relocated as a result of this project (See
Tables R1-R5). There may also be some soil erosion and siltation
during construction, but standard erosion control measures will
minimize these impacts. No significant impacts to plant or animal
life are expected. Approximately 0.3 total acres of wetland will be
impacted. It is anticipated that Nationwide Permits 33 CFR
330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26), a Section 401 General Water
Quality Certification, and a letter of approval from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are likely to be applicable
for proposed. construction. There will be no impact to any
architectural or archaeological resource listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Traffic noise and impacts to air
quality will not be significant.
3. Environmental Commitments - NCDOT will prepare and submit an
application for permits as required by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. If a mitigation plan is needed, the project will be
further coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to
permitting. Two geodetic survey markers may be impacted by the
proposed project. NCDOT will contact the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior
to construction so affected markers can be relocated. Existing
stream sections will be surveyed to determine slope, depth, and
average width characteristics so that relocated stream sections will
closely match existing stream sections wherever possible. Efforts
should be made to avoid the areas of the hardwood dominated forests
or at least minimize impacts in the steepest sloped sites because of
the high erosion potential. If impacts in the hardwood forest
community are inevitable, then efforts should be made to relocate any
plant species before construction occurs. The N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission will be consulted prior to construction.
4. Coordination - Federal, state, regional, and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Additional Information - Additional information concerning the
proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting the following:
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen and improve the alignment of US 21-221 from
Twin Oaks to the Virginia State Line (See Figure 1). This Division Design
Construct Project is approximately 3.4 miles in length. The recommended
cross section is a two-lane, 28-foot pavement section with 6 to 8-foot
usable shoulders (See Figure 4).
B. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The total length of the studied section is 3.4 miles. The
project's southern terminus is located at the US 21 and US 221
intersection in Twin Oaks. The northern terminus is located at the
Virginia State Line.
2. Cross Section
The proposed cross section is a two-lane, 28-foot pavement
section (two 12-foot lanes plus 2 feet of paved shoulder on each
side) with 6 to 8-foot usable shoulders (See Figure 4).
3. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width along the existing alignment is
60 feet. Portions of the roadway on new location will have a right
of way width of 100 feet.
4. Access Control
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
5. Curvature
The proposed project is located substantially along the existing
alignment. However, horizontal alignment improvements on new
location will reduce three 22 degree curves to less than 7 degrees.
This improved curvature will increase the sight distance that
currently exists at intersecting roads and driveways (See Figure 3).
. 6. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the project will remain at-grade and
stop sign controlled. No intersections are expected to be realigned
as part of this project.
2
7. Design Speed
The design speed for the roadway will be 55 miles per hour. A
posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour will be recommended along the
first 0.8 mile of the project starting from the southern project
limit. The recommended speed limit along the remaining section of
the project is 55 miles per hour.
8. Required Structures
Several small drainage structures (24" or less) are used to
accommodate runoff along the subject project. Pipe extensions will
be added where necessary to provide for the improved cross section.
In addition to these small drainage structures, there are three box
culverts (3'x3', 3'x4', and 4'x5') located along the project. They
will be replaced with new box culverts of the same dimensions as a
part of the proposed construction.
There will be no major structures involved in this project;
however, two bridges, one on SR 1404 (Lon Mac Reeves Road) and
another on SR 1403 (New River Church Road), are located just east of
the proposed improvements. Widening will be done to the west side of
the existing facility to avoid interference with the tributary which
is crossed by these bridges.
9. Utilities
Telephone and electric lines are located along the east side of
the project and will be accommodated during and after construction of
the project.
10. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected cost as follows:
Construction $ 2,815,000
Right of Way $ 700,000
Total $ 3,515,000
The right of way estimate includes the cost of acquisition and
utilities. Construction cost includes engineering and contingencies.
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section
The length of the project is 3.4 miles
2. Existing Cross Section
The studied section of US 21-221 consists of an 18-foot pavement
section with 4-foot variable shoulders.
3
3. Right of Way
The maintained right of way width varies between 30 feet and 40
feet.. A width of 36 feet symmetrical about the centerline is claimed
along the project.
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along US 21-221.
5. Curvature
This 3.4 mile segment of US 21-221 consists mostly of short
grades (less than 1000 feet) which range from 0% to 6%. This section
contains nine curves (six of the curves vary between six and nine
degrees, the remaining three are twenty two degrees each).
6. Sight Distance
According to the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1900 feet is the minimum safe
passing distance for a two-lane highway with a 55 mph design speed.
Approximately 1% of the subject portion of US 21-221 has a passing
sight distance greater than 1900 feet. Most of the remaining portion
has a passing sight distance of at least 400 feet, with the typical
distance ranging from 400 to 1000 feet.
7. Speed Zones
A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is posted along the first 0.8
mile of the project starting from the southern project limit. The
speed limit along the remaining section of the project is posted at
55 miles per hour.
8. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following roads intersect US 21-221 at-grade and are stop
sign controlled.
SR 1405 (Neck Road)
SR 1348 (Kilby-Reeves Road)
SR 1404 (Lon Mac Reeves Road)
SR 1403 (New River Church Road)
9. Structures
Several small drainage structures (24" or less) are used to
accommodate runoff along the studied portion of US 21-221. In
addition to these small drainage structures, there are three box
culverts (3'x3', 3'x4', and 4'x5') located along the project.
There are no bridges located along the project. However, two
bridges, one located on SR 1403 and another on SR 1404, are located
just east of the proposed realignment.
4
10. Utilities
Telephone and electric lines are located along the east side of
the project.
11. Type of Roadside Development
The existing development along the project is primarily
residential with several small businesses.
12. Geodetic Markers
There are two geodetic survey markers that may be impacted by
the project. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted
prior to any construction activities (see Appendix for address and
phone number).
13. School Buses
A total of 4 school buses (8 trips per day) use the studied
section of US 21-221 daily.
B. Functional Classification
US 21-221 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial Route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System and a Primary Rural Route in
the Federal Aid System (FAP #90-1).
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
US 21-221 is a two-lane roadway linking the community of Twin Oaks
with Sparta and Jefferson to the south and Independence, Virginia to the
north. The 1994 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 2300 vehicles per day
(vpd). The projected ADT for the year 2014 is expected to be 5100 vpd
(See Figure 5).
With current traffic volumes, US 21-221 is operating at Level of
Service B. However, assuming the current level of traffic growth
continues, US 21-221 will be operating at a Level of Service C by the end
of the planning period.
D. Accident History
During the period from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1991,
there were a total of 28 accidents reported on the studied portion of _
US 21-221. This results in a total accident rate of 301.4 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm) for this section. This rate
exceeds the statewide average of 176.5 acc/100 mvm for similar routes over
that same time period.
5
Over half of the reported. accidents (57%) involved vehicles running
off the road. The large proportion of vehicles running off the road may
be attributed to the poor horizontal alignment along the existing roadway.
The proposed alignment will improve the worst of these curves and improve
the overall accident rate along the project.
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The widening and realignment of US 21-221 will provide safer and more
efficient access for travelers along the subject corridor.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
All alternatives studied for the proposed project (Alternatives 1, 2,
and 3) consist of widening and realigning US 21-221 from Twin Oaks to the
Virginia State Line (See Figure 3). The proposed cross section is a
two-lane, 28-foot pavement section (two 12-foot lanes plus 2 feet of paved
shoulder on each side) with 6 to 8-foot usable shoulders (See Figure 4).
Accident studies indicate this section of US 21-221 is in need of safety
improvements. These improvements will come in the form of widening the
existing roadway and realigning several hazardous curves. Currently,
there are three 22 degree horizontal curves in addition to six other
lesser degree curves located along the project. Safety along the roadway
will improve as the width of pavement increases and the degree of
curvature decreases.
A. Alternative 1
This alternative is divided into three sections : A, B1, & C (See
Figure 2). Each section is discussed in detail in the following:
Section A
Section A is 2.3 miles in length. The improvements in this
section consist primarily of upgrading the existing facility. There
is one area of new location in this section that will reduce a sharp
horizontal curve from 22 degrees to less than 7 degrees. The
alignment of Section A will displace 11 residences based on current
functional designs. This number may be reduced when preliminary
designs are available.
Section B1
Section B1 is 0.8 mile in length and is located east of Sections
B2 and B3. The improvements in this section are to replace six sharp
horizontal curves with two lesser degree curves.
This alignment will displace no residences, but will take some
valuable bottomland which lies next to an unnamed creek that flows
into the New River.
6
Section C
Section C is 0.4 mile in length. The improvements in this
section consist entirely of upgrading the existing facility along the
existing alignment. This alignment will replace no residences or
businesses.
The total estimated cost of Alternative 1 (sections A, B1, and
C) is as follows:
Construction $2,905,000
Right of Way $ 690,000
Total $3,595,000
B. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 (Sections A, B2, and C) is identical to Alternative 1
with the exception of Section B.
Section B2 is discussed in detail in the following:
Section B2
Section B2 is 0.8 mile in length and is located west of Sections
B2 and B3. The improvements in this section are to replace five
sharp horizontal curves with three lesser degree curves. This
alignment will displace one residence.
The total estimated cost of Alternative 2 (sections A, B2, and
C) is as follows:
Construction $2,950,000
Right of Way $ 715,000
Total $3,665,000
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Alternative 3 (Sections A, B3, and C) is identical to Alternative 1
with the exception of Section B.
Section B3 is discussed in detail in the following:
Cartinn Al
Section B3 is 0.8 mile in length and is located between Sections
B1 and B2. The improvements in this section are to replace five
sharp horizontal curves with three lesser degree curves. This
alignment will displace one barn, but no residences.
The total estimated cost of Alternative 3 (sections A, B3, and C) is
as follows:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
$2,815,000
$ 700,000
$3,515,000
The recommended alternative (Alternative 3) has the least number
of relocatees and the least total project cost. This alignment also
has the least impact on plant communities. Section B3 most closely
follows the existing roadway which minimizes impacts to the human and
natural environment. No historic structures will be affected by the
project.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative would increase the accident potential
along the existing roadway as traffic volumes continue to increase. For
this reason, the "No-Build" alternative is not desirable.
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Relocation 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 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 arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for 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
8
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 Expenses 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
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
9
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.
B. Land Use
The proposed alignment lies in the jurisdiction of Alleghany County.
The county does not have a recent land use plan. The project is located
in a rural area where the land uses are typically single-family structures
along the roadway and a few small businesses.
C. Topography and Geology
The project is located from Twin Oaks to the Virginia state line in
Alleghany County in the Mountain Physiographic Province. The study area
is located in an rural setting. The majority of the study area is
disturbed pasture or agricultural field with scattered residential
homesites. Topography in the area ranges from gently to strongly sloping.
Elevation ranges from 2400 feet to 2600 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
D. Soils
Soils information was obtained from the Alleghany County Soil Survey
(Soil Conservation Service, 1973). Eleven soil mapping units are located
in the study area.
Table 1 Soil Summary, Alleghany County
Name.
Alluvial land, wet
Chandler silt loam
Codorus complex
Fannin silt loam
Fannin silt loam
Gullied land
Tate loam
Tusquitee loam
Tusquitee loam
Tusquitee loam
Watauga loam
Slope Classification
- Hydric
25-45 Non-Hydric
- Hydric
10-25 Non-Hydric
25-45 Non-Hydric
- Non-Hydric
6-10 Non-Hydric
6-10 Non-Hydric
10-15 Non-Hydric
15-25 Non-Hydric
10-25 Non-Hydric
10
The most common soil units. mapped in the study area include Chandler
silt loam, Codorus complex and Tusquitee loam. Descriptions of each of
these units as they relate to the proposed project follows.
Chandler s i l t loam (CaF symbol) is a micaceous soil unit that is
somewhat excessively drained. This soil formed under vegetation in
residuum from mica schist or phyllite. It occurs in bands on side slopes
that border drainageways.
Codorus complex (Cx symbol) is a somewhat poorly drained to poorly
drained soil unit that occurs on floodplains and are subject to frequent
flooding. Tusquitee loam (TIC symbol) is a well drained soil unit that
formed under vegetation in alluvium from surrounding upland soils.
Tusquitee loam is found in upland drainage basins and foot slopes.
E. Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
Although this is a State funded road improvement project, the
State Historic Preservation Office recommended that "a comprehensive
survey be conducted" of the project to "identify the presence and
significance of archaeological remains that may be damage or
destroyed" (See SHPO letter dated 6/16/92 in the Appendix). The
presence of two previously recorded prehistoric sites adjacent to the
project area, and the terminus of the project at the archaeologically
sensitive New River Valley raise the possibility that the
improvements might disturb prehistoric archaeological sites.
One archaeological site, 31WA51, will potentially be damaged by
Section B1 of this improvement project. This site lacks diagnostic
artifacts and intact subsurface deposits and was not deemed eligible
for the National Register. No additional archaeological
investigation is recommended as a consequence of the proposed highway
improvement project (See letter of SHPO concurrence in the Appendix).
2. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12(a) which requires that if a state action will
have an 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 area of potential effect on historic architectural .
properties for this project was delineated, and the maps and files of
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted. This
search revealed no properties listed in the National Register located
within the area of potential effect. It should be noted that the Old
Twin Oaks Hotel has not been evaluated for National Register
eligibility. Since this is a state funded project, an evaluation to
determine eligibility is unnecessary.
11
These results were conveyed to the SHPO and they concurred with
these findings (See letter of SHPO concurrence in the Appendix).
This completes compliance with GS 121-12(a).
F. Ecological Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four plant communities were identified in the study area:
Disturbed Shrub/Scrub, White Pine Forest, Hardwood Forest, and
Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland. A description of each plant
community, in order of dominance, follows.
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub
Disturbed communities are located in the following areas: along
roadsides, utility corridors and residential areas. The vegetation
is maintained in low growing condition and dominated by Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), Joe pye weed (Eupatorium sp.), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), Verbesina (Verbesina sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), smooth sumac (Rhus lg abra), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), catbrier (Smilax sp.), swamp rose
(Rosa palustris), nightshade (Solanum carolinense), chicory
(Cichorium intybus), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Soloman's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), mint
(Prunella vulgaris), and tramps spurge (Euphorbia corollata var.
corollata).
Trees that occur in residential areas are Black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar maple
Acer saccharum), apple (Malus umila), red maple (Acer rubrum),
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), white pine (Pinus strobus), dogwood
(Cornus florida), and red spruce (Picea rubens).
White Pine Forest
This community is located on sloping uplands and several areas
have been planted as a pine plantation. The canopy is primarily
white pine (Pinus strobus), with lesser amounts of red maple (Acer
rubrum), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), and black cherry.
Sassafras is present and in addition the following herbaceous
species: spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), touch me-not
(Impatiens alp lida), Verbesina, Erigeron (Erigeron sp.), sericea
(Lespedeza cuneata), and Queen Anne's lace. Honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and poison ivy are typical ground cover species.
Hardwood Forest
The hardwood dominated forest is located on steeply sloping
uplands. Plant diversity, especially the herb and shrub layer, is
very high. Canopy species encountered during the field survey
include scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), tulip poplar, white oak
12
( uercus alba), buckeye (Aesculus octandra), sugar maple, sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum),.tulip poplar, chestnut oak ( uercus montana),
scarlet oak, and beech (Fagus grandifolia). Typical shrub and
herbaceous species are smooth sumac, liverleaf (Hepatica americana),
maidenhair fern (Adiantum ep datum), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides),
bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), downy rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens
mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum
thalictroides), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), and broad
beech fern (Thelypteris hexagonoptera).
Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland
Disturbed wetlands are located in depressions, or associated
with creeks or streams. Various forms of disturbance, such as
grazing and utility corridor maintenance, are prominent in this
community. Dominant species include tulip poplar, tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), spotted touch-me-not, touch-me-not, goldenrod (Solidago
sp.), and rush (Juncus sp.).
Construction will impact the Disturbed Shrub/Scrub, White Pine
Forest, Hardwood Forest, and Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland
communities. Plant community impacts are presented in Table 2.
These estimates are preliminary and may change with final design.
Table 2. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community Sec A Sec B Sec B Sec B Sec
Disturbed Shrub/Scrub 10.3 13.6 15.0 13.5 1.1
White Pine Forest 0.4 - - - 0.1
Hardwood Forest 0.5 8.9 7.6 7.6 0.2
Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.2 0.1 - 0.1 -
TOTAL ACRES 11.4 22.6 22.6 21.2 1.4
Note: Anticipated impacts are based on right of way widths of 60'. Impact
widths for new location sections located in Alternate A are 230' and
impact widths for the Sections B1, B2, and B3 are 280'. Values shown are
in acres.
Proposed widening and new location will directly result in
vegetation loss. If the new location sections are constructed, the
likely result is fragmentation of the existing vegetative
communities. Exposed bedrock is present within the study corridor in
Sections B1, B2, and B3. Efforts should be made to avoid areas of
extreme topography. Construction should follow Best Management
Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines to minimize erosion.
13
2. Wildlife Communities
Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will be impacted by
proposed construction. Limited descriptions of fauna, which are
likely to occur in each ecosystem, are presented.
Mammals anticipated in the study area include red bat (Lasiurus
borealis), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), long-tailed weasel
(Mustela frenata), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), meadow
jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Avian fauna likely to inhabit the study area are house finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus),
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
Amphibian and reptilian fauna common in the study area include
American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei),
redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander (Plethodon
gluttinosus), Jordon sT salamander (Plethodon jordonii), Yonahlossee
salamander (Plethodon yonahlossee), wood frog (Rana sylvatica), worm
snake (Carphophis amoenus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus), corn snake (Elaphe utg tata), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces
laticeps), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (Storeria
occipitomaculata), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
In addition, fish species that are found in the New River and
may occur in smaller streams located in the study corridor include
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), rosyside
dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), bigmouth chub (Nocomis platyrhynchus), various
shiners (Notropis spp.), mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus oreas),
blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys
cataractae), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans),
rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), redbrest sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), several darters (Etheostoma spp.), and mottle sculpin
(Cottis bairdi).
The proposed project will reduce wildlife habitat. Proposed new
location sections may fragment existing habitat by creating a barrier
or displacing certain terrestrial species because of new location
construction, increased crossing distance, increased noise factors or
other limitations. If possible, the new location sections should be
placed as close to the existing roadway as possible to minimize
fragmentation. Impacts to the Hardwood Forest and White Pine Forest
communities adjacent to Sections B1, B2, and B3 may decrease
utilization of these areas for foraging, cover and food. These
impacts may lead to changes in species diversity and community
dynamics.
14
If the new location sections are constructed, the existing
roadway should'be removed and graded to surrounding elevation and
planted with native vegetation. This will create new wildlife
habitat.
G. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species.
No federally protected species are listed by the USFWS in
Alleghany County as of August 28, 1992. A number of species are
listed by the USFWS as candidate species in Alleghany County (Table
3). These species are not afforded federal protection at this time
but their status may be upgraded in the future. The habitat column
indicates the potential for their occurrence (based on availability
of suitable habitat) in the study area.
Table 3. Federal Candidate species listed in
Alleghany County
Common Name
Bog turtle
Hellbender
Kanawha minnow
Midget snaketail dragonfly
Regal fritillary butterfly
Gammon's stenelmis riffle
beetle
Tall larkspur
Gray's lily
Gray's saxifrage
Sweet pinesap
Scientific Name
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
Phenacobius teretulus
Ophiogomphus howei
Speyeria idalia
Status Habitat
C2 Yes
C2 No
C2 Yes
C2 Yes
C2 Yes
Stenelmis ammoni C2 No
Delphinium exaltatum C2 No
Lilium grayi C2 No
Saxifraga caroliniana C2 No
Monotrposis odorata C2 Yes
C2: Candidate 2. A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as endangered or threatened at this time.
2. State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the study
area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal candidate species that
are state protected and may occur in the study area are presented in
Table 4.

15
Table 4. State Protected species listed in Alleghany County
Common Name
FAUNA
Bog turtle
Hellbender
Kanawha minnow
FLORA
Tall larkspur
Gray's lily
Scientific Name Status Habitat
Clemmys muhlenbergii T12 Yes
yptobranchus alleganiensis
Cr SC No
_
Phenacobius teretulus PSC Yes
Delphinium exaltatum E-SC 4
T-SC No
N
Lilium grayi o
Note: State protected species were identified from a list of Federal
Candidate species specified for Alleghany County.
Fauna Status Definitions
T1 - Threatened: Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.
SC2 - Special Concern: Any species of wild animal native or once-native
to North Carolina which is determined by the NCWRC to require monitoring.
PSC3 - Proposed Special Concern: Proposed for state listing.
Flora Status Definitions
E-SC 3 Endangered Special Concern and T-SC 4 Threatened-Special Concern: Any
species of plant which requires population monitoring, but which may be
collected and sold under specific regulations. Special Concern species
listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold
under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern
species which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or
sold under specific regulations.
Though all or some of these species may be present in the study area,
no surveys were conducted.
H. Surface Water and Water Quality
r The project is located in the New River Basin. An unnamed tributary
of the New River parallels US 21/US 221 to the east for the entire length
of the project, but falls within the impact area only once. This
tributary originates east of the south project terminus and empties into
the New River approximately 1000' south of the North Carolina / Virginia
state line. The tributary is approximately 10' wide and 1' deep. The
bottom is composed of sand, silt, gravel and cobble size rocks. One
smaller unnamed tributary, that drains into the larger tributary, will
16
also be impacted by the proposed project as a result of the 600'
rechannel ization proposed in Section A. The smaller tributary is
approximately 2' wide and several inches deep. The bottom is composed of
sand and silt. Several intermittent tributaries are also crossed by the
project. These drain into the above mentioned tributaries.
The unnamed tributaries are unclassified. The best usage
classification of these tributaries is the same as the river to which they
are tributaries. In this case the New River. This section of the New
River is classified as C HQW (DEM, 1991). Therefore, all tributaries
impacted by the project are classified as C HQW. Best usage
recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. High
Quality Waters (HQW) is a supplemental classification indicating a water
rated as excellent based on biological and physical /chemical through
division monitoring or special studies.
Since the proposed project is crossed by tributaries that drain into
a High Quality Water, proposed construction at all tributaries impact a
"High Quality Water Zone" which is defined as areas that are within 1 mile
and drain into an HQW. Construction that impacts a "High Quality Water
Zone" is required to follow Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in
the Sedimentation Control Guidelines (Title 15A.4B.0024).
Approximately 600' of stream rechannelization is proposed at the
small tributary in Alternate A located north of SR 1404. This stream
parallels the existing roadway and was apparently rechannelized in the
past to its current location. Efforts should be made to avoid or minimize
impact to this stream. If stream rechannel ization is likely, it should
match existing conditions such as width, velocity and flow. The length of
the stream rechannelization should be equal to (or similar) to the length
impacted by the proposed project. More information is located in
"Guidelines For Mountain Stream Relocations in North Carolina" (Wingate
P.J., et. al., 1979). In addition, if stream rechannel ization is
proposed, consultation with the appropriate agencies is required by the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d).
The New River is currently proposed for reclassification to an
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) status. Efforts should be made to plan
project under the assumption that the New River will be designated as an
ORW. Proposed construction in an freshwater ORW follows the same
restrictions as an HQW for stormwater controls and also follows other
management strategy components as stated in the Administrative Code
Section for the Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
Surface Waters of North Carolina Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0216 (Environmental
Management Commission, 1991)
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program. This network addresses
long term trends in water quality by measuring the taxa richness and
presence of intolerable organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. BMAN surveys conducted in the New River
near Amelia since 1983 have a bioclassification of excellent (except one
reading classified as good).
17
Alleghany County is located within a "Trout" county. The New River
is not classified as a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water.
I. Floodplain Involvement
Alleghany County is not participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program. No floodplain information is available in this area. It is
recommended that the roadway be widened to the west to avoid encroachment
on the tributary that runs along the east side of the proposed project.
Existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected by the
proposed improvement.
J. Wetlands
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities in
"Waters of the US" based on the following laws: Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344) and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1072, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any action that
proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers and a federal permit is required. Generally, "Waters
of the US" is defined as navigable waters, their tributaries and
associated wetlands and subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 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 that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of 'the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters and
wetlands are two subsets of "Waters of the US".
Impacts to Waters of the US are anticipated from proposed
construction. Surface waters and wetland impacts are anticipated at 3
sites in the study corridor. Wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is
hydrophytic based on composition and the soil color is hydric based on
color. Wetland hydrological characteristics include association with a
drainage system or a depression. Table 5 summarizes Waters of the US
impacts and Figure 7 indicates location of each site. These estimates are
preliminary and may change with project design.
18
Table 5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the US.
Site Section Community Total
1 A PSS 0.1
2 A PSS <0.1
3 B1, B3 PSS <0.1 l?
TOTAL ACRES <0.3
PSS - Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
These values are based on a 60-foot right of way width. Values
reported are in acres.
Site #1 occurs at the proposed stream rechannnelization located north
of SR 1404. Site #2 is located in a small depression and Site #3 is
associated with a creek that crosses SR 1403.
K. Contaminated Properties
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified no obvious
sites which contain underground storage tanks (UST's). A file search of
the Division of Solid Waste Management was also conducted to determine
whether any known unregulated dumps or other potentially contaminated
sites were within the corridor. After reviewing these files and the
DEM/Groundwater incident list, none of the known sites within the
Alleghany County area were identified within the project corridor.
L. Air Quality
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal,
forest fires and burning in general. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway
can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving
the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
19
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added to determine the total ambient CO concentration for comparison
to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help lower
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway
sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because
emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline
eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974
was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon.
20
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars
use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
"The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the sale, supply, or transport
of leaded gasoline or lead 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 lead 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 at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
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. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the design year 2014 and for ten years prior
(2004) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4.1 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban areas.
The "worst case" air quality receptor resulting from the proposed
project was determined to be a residence (R-15) located 27 feet from the
existing and proposed centerline. The "build" and "no build" one-hour CO
concentrations for years 2004 and 2014 for this receptor was 2.1 ppm. The
results exhibit no difference due to the low traffic volumes, the same
average operating speed for all scenarios, and the minor horizontal
improvements at this receptor.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results 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. The results also
show that the building of the project will not adversely effect air
quality conditions in the area. See Tables Al, A2, A3 and A4 for input
data.
K
The project is located in the Eastern Mountain Air Quality Control
Region. The ambient air quality for Alleghany County has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. ,
Since this project is located in an area where the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
21
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 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 that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance 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 in allaying the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists
or area residents.
M. Noise Impacts
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
improvements to US-21-221 in Alleghany County on noise levels in the
immediate project area from Twin Oaks to the Virginia State Line (See
Figure 1). 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.
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).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table N1.
Review of Table N1 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
22
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 where .
the noise is heard.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many of
these types of noises including airplane noises, 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.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria 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. 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.
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for
residences and businesses in the vicinity of the project. The existing
Leq noise level along US-21-221 as measured at 50 feet from the roadway
ranged from 58.4 to 59.5 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to predict existing noise
levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated
existing noise levels were within 1.2 to 2.3 dBA of the measured noise
levels for all of the locations for which noise measurements were
obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of
vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicle speed.
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
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. Obviously, to assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
25
years. Noise level increases would be on the order of 8-9 dBA. As
previously stated, a 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
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 passersby 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. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal, since the construction noise is relatively short
in duration and is generally restricted to daytime hours. Furthermore, the
transmission loss characteristics of surrounding man- made structures and
natural features are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise impacts
are an unavoidable consequence of roadway improvement projects. However,
based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement is
reasonable or feasible along this project and none is proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
reports are required for this project.
N. Construction Impacts
There are a number of environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration
and measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts.
Traffic along US 21-221 may experience brief periods of disruption
during construction. These will be of short duration.
Several major utilities are located on the project (telephone, water,
sewer, and electric). Methods to coordinate utility adjustments and to
minimize damage or rupture of existing service will be determined prior to
construction.
Some hardwood dominated forests will be impacted by the new location
sections identified in Sections A and B. These areas support a high
diversity of plant species that occur in steeply sloping areas. These
areas are aesthetically pleasing because of their vegetation and steep
slopes. Efforts should be made to avoid these areas or at least minimize
impacts in the steepest sloped sites because of the high erosion
potential. If impacts in the hardwood forest community are inevitable,
then efforts should be made to remove/relocate any plant species before
construction occurs.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
26
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 rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the N. C. Highway Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures together with the policies of the Division of
Highways regarding control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on
work performed by State Forces.
Waste or debris shall be disposed of in areas that are 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 responsible engineer.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken
not to block existing drainage ditches.
0. Permits
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) will
likely be required. Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) is likely to be
applicable at two sites along the project. This permit is authorized
under the following conditions: 1) The width of the fill is limited to the
minimum necessary for the actual crossing, 2) The fill placed in waters of
the US is limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre, 3) No more
than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway can occur in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands, 4) Crossing is culverted,
bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of, and to
withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and the movement of aquatic
organisms, 5) The crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project for
crossing of a water of the US.
Proposed construction at another site is likely to exceed 200 linear
feet and consequently will not qualify under 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14). A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) is likely to be applicable for
construction at site #1. This permit authorizes discharges of dredged or
fill material into headwaters and isolated wetlands provided: a) The
discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the
US. b) The NCDOT will notify the district engineer if the discharge will
cause the loss of waters of the US greater than one acre in accordance
with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a
delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. c) The
discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent,
is part of a single and complete project.
For the purposes of this Nationwide Permit, the acreage loss to
waters of the US includes the filled area plus waters of the US that are
adversely affected by flooding, excavation, or drainage as a result of the
project. Final permit decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
I.
27
In addition, the project, is located in a designated "trout" county
where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and provide it to the Corps of
Engineers. Final permit decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required. State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
P. Mitigation
Anticipated placement of fill into Waters of the US is likely to be
authorized under Nationwide Permits. Generally, no mitigation is required
according to the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency (1989). The final decision rests with the Corps of
Engineers.
28
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed improvements to US 21-221 in Alleghany
County were requested from the following federal, state, and local
agencies. An asterisk indicates that a written response was received. The
responses are included in the Appendix.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*N. C. State Clearinghouse
*N. C.. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region D Planning Agency
Alleghany County
The subject project was coordinated with the Division 11 Office
throughout the planning process. The Division Engineer concurs with the
recommendations for this project.
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. This FONSI completes the
environmental review. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be
prepared for this project.
CLA/plr
FIGURES
¢ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLAIqNING AND PNVfRONTMENTAI,
BRANCH
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
WIDEN US 21-US 221 AND IMPROVE
ALIGNMENT FROM TWIN OAKS
TO VIRGINA STATE LINE
R-2523
I FIGURE I
tC.?.. .. ? - Y '"tV+AV't ?,) ; ?' •?\?? ??\\- ,o° U 'rr ??? -\7???/s;'/ - ?? ?'?V? ?1 ? .y.?).\? ?,,,
?r ?/.• n Zf //' /v v? 7 ?j?:.' ?i? -. . ?:.?J r , ? ? f>,'. r ? .( ) i•%?r: ? ?;y;`?.?\
•ry? a a ! vv q >?', l i Y'' ? Y•'???a x;•!' v T' I f v ci.,
b?R I ND PROJECT
?/\ICL','-'_ ,.s `.3"y,,; , j/ '?•Y?J \\? £a ?? ?, i q / .-_J? I. r • ,?-•?vt,Ji 'b
a
rxy 7m , 1. /f } t I; •L. 8 / !r - \y , i /? 1 \\ (? ?:•.•+?W+? ?`• 184 I Ilill
VIRGINIA ?-
06
;x+, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION
' Cl ? - .,K'?> ` ' ?F? i ! -` _.\ `y p,9? a RC;y-ii ??=%\?3'.??:.' i ?? ? •? ? I J /tj?\.yn'?/O/ '•t
secT•IO
m' N B2 r /' J ?I v: 1
ON 13 i
2..• .
IIO f -_d
SECT
n. / II uA ': r ?Y- S l 111 ' /
? U I ?\° '?'• ?..? ? /_ - /. / ; 111; ` t_1 ? Y ?
.? .\ \ i / ^w? `11 IIt,?t.)??? n` \ .1• ?/? \i{)\1, ''rj`
, I i I ?', 2600. , I \ \
IK I'
ITM
SECT rst ?; \ J \ _\ ,/
ION A
n °)t t? . e < ° . _ ''rya .81? ?c V? ilewtl?ver Ch • ???.a ^}, %
CiD
• • l.; '`•- r-'', _ ? ` l?' 4 t +, ,v ?6.;xj J ' :r-/\'• / ?\ of '
746 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4•-.. \ ? ,}. jf '?', i . li +\ twin '.. ' ?{ 7? '? < TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS .
PLANNING AND ENVIRO
?? -J•''-" ?? S ? // BRANCH NMENTAL
1 ?
CE US 21-221
New R
'"ROM T
r ?),'-, C ,,• - WIN OAKS TO
Countriveb
y ?M - - `
?a1. c / `J'\` ew•Havefit J THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE
• ?? rw 4' \ M" ` .. \) ALLEGANY COUNTY
r` eM•?o ,( 11? R-2523
2624' h h to Plains
`? - G A P ,Q I Cem-J? feet 2000
FIG. 2
•?\2595/ \- \ ° ? J- ?/?? ? ?f? - -- •?? _ ll `•?
?•:? ?a?heater 1
'iv
Ill y,• ? 2,1 ?` ` \ 1 ,v? 1 ' ;? 1!\.yyr\?--
Chilob Twin Oak1
i BEGIN PROJECT??J "j \r
LL
0
A LLI

Alk

t?
"

t
c g
may. .•
co
LL
8
N
II
I
8
d
d
O
OI
It
z ?E F q'
r
g
>
m
AV IV
?I
a? / >?• x;?,,? ,?" ?' ? ?}fir; s • a .
4. d g (r vt qtr
IT,
?.... ?,?
pl?
g, n
JIM
x
v
a t
5 to z
u a F r%?T
y i
?? ay A ?
Y ? _ 1
R
. „_ _ ?. , 'A?zr,` L w t4 A? ...Y?'e ."•> :: .- i v ,*<'.. •• ' ' x?c.?L" ?C'??ffilE `? ?.i .:74.
r r?r
OAK-; 01 NO"
lain; ?v
" a qtr _' ark 3Nf 1
rm6?I
A w
r F a,,
VOW in, w.
?• a
1 '41
ant
ozz
OFM
1 Al
R
41
r
a
A, nol
qIq
t z
?
*R `' vJi-. qq??. 4-i?s E` .µ, ! "r ,G." v 3 v
set
All
?MO
r s .? ? ?' e _ ^? n
Aww
n. `
?? r r
Awl"
? M
rll L -- =
41

i
;???`
?{ J
i
.°_

A

Z
0
F-
U
w
U)
U
C J T
oN
? N
U T!
W N
Z C)
00
LL
I---
0
rW
v
0
C L
0
oc
a.
Q
U-
O
1--
w
J
in
Q
O
O
r
I
O
w
J
D m
1 Q
io ¢
N
w
00 J
co
I Q
is oc

? w
? o
Q J
_
C7 =
U)
cc
w
Q J
O O
T
W
t
N
r
N
r
V)
w
fl
J
O
Cl)
XZ
0
w
aa
N
CD
m
w
0
J
% :3
2
w
Q
a
N

ui
C)
LL
D
a
f
N US 21-221 Protiect R-2523
From Twin Oaks to Alleghany County
Virginia State Line
Est. 1 994/2014 ADT in hundreds
Virginia State Line
19
42
9 10
2-l 1 21
9 -1
20 1

N I 1
T 10 1 11?3
CM 20 2
11

3 2
s
10 1 11 SR 1403
22 22
10 -1
21 1 ?--'7?'7
-1
1

?
1 SR 1404
11 -1 2
22 1
10I 111
22 23

1
10
21 5

11
?-- ? 8
4 18

J
II
SR 1348 5 cvl? 3 9
1 1 roll 71-9
11 1262
?
25 .
. 1
r
N 10 1
23 2 Z--IN
2

N ?-'•- IN 4-L 4
8

1?1 4 SR 1405
24 2
11 I t12
25 i 126

27 14
31
+- 20 o, c?
.-N
d 4 22
48
42
59 14- T) N
1- ?-- 92
US 221 13
--?
j 20 US 21
28 '-
am' 44
FIGURE f
Project R-2523
Alleghany County
Project R-2523
Percent TTST, DUALS, DHV, and Direction

ROUTE 1994 2014
EST ADT
in hundreds 0
TTST %
DUAL %
DHV
DIR
SR 1403 2 6 1 2 10 60
SR 1404 1 3 1 2 10 60
SR 1348 10 21 1 2 10 60
SR 1405 4 8 1 2 10 60
US 221 27 59 3 5 13 60
US 21 42 92 3 5 13 60
US 21-221 23 51 3 5 13 60
FIGURE 5A
y r ?_ , o s WETLAND LOCATIONS/
"Air
1 `C (. e '' S?`l:- C? ;• o?. a;?r,. °. ?+.(r: ?f (" END PROJECT
llL\ 11`/
•? y. :rx ;Cem `794 _ ,:, •r
z -rr ;f ?'J ` i' ' ,?' : ' •, ?'? ` `? ?_. ,t'' VIRGINIA -
=//I 1 ?Zr1?t?
1 ? §l'?` ? ? il y.?? ?'- ?.`• ii %? Skr to !1i
CAROLIN
W
il `7r?.-?? SECTION C /.:i. /f / \ s>::i+'f `_ % f.
' 1111111.. "`` . y , .s, 4 . .lP (•f((??j?y??y..''jj - \ :Z.fY• r ' r7 l ,? ^ / '(
P. J ..? ? ??.'?,? i ^?{''4? 4?. ? ., y' ?lyl,1\\'\,`?(?1?. +G•; S •.?'.Z".'?.?,' ? ?` nn... * .` ?.?.-"? ? ?•' ? I :I ? (./I'?\
, 07
' ' ``J SECTION 2
SITE 3 SECTION B
B
( /
' 1, ',:... , rte.'. \ a ,'• = `• 1. '?
SITE Z ;fir : ?' I? %..?• :?;
(,\?,` ? `J .. -', ? ,'? r? .? ? ` 0•:5•x• , / ? ? 1 ?• `
/• ?l t \
;"F. ``; • J '( e^ ' VAS. w .-.? i ( 1 '00-
hr
x`15 c xf ?''?k7ThLa?+??r??'P.- P? Y: ? :' ?' : .? r r y? •'7/ '` - . ? ? l^•:: l ? ,
?; . Y 1'(.r• -'{ZOO. k '?? ` ?/ ' •. .'S `. .1 ?i .` ??,./ i v?'?\. 1 r,? ?? }?r/ ;.
?, rr ^ p,^+ a"a`,,. t t ` ,fir ? /? r•`'.,??7 1<,i\\,`?"'"?
iy ; I ? '/` is// ?•f?.1'`? ?•?a ???'?' ?:; e\._ '' . ( - ??. -'f" .\ ', J.. •^._?'. %% ?. \1'
1T
SECTION A r_..,.._ l .?; ; v? •\\. /, ?c:'J
CIV
. ' ,? `r?"?: ' s } ,,,5 ? -?'.il ? f? ' h • , ?? ? 1?:? ~Z •r q ;:'• ?.. •-?-? - +.??. '1?5? 1 \ r
1' ? 1r% .; ate' 4 ?,? ~ ,, ,y ?.YSSr'• n'.f•.:I? -???'• .`\ "'New?vef•Ch`???"1t?•.'..'•k4?.
SITE I Gj?
?momw. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
P no\ y'' \ TRANSPORTATION
r e :?,I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
r £? 3 BRANCH
US 21-221
- New River\? . 1. ;?•?;? FROM TWIN OAKS TO
Country Club -. -,
\ a.
\ `- `?? Ne«r.Havefis THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE
v rGy:., ?: - 11. i LEGANY COUNTY
. R-2523
25211; 1,?Yhue PJi ns n-.? :JJ
cN f
-(;Cm J? 0 feet 2000
• •;, ?•.t IJ.. I I FIG. 6
-_ G A Y? 221
X7595
/•' ?, ? Theater rx"? !
\\
c'.J o n TY?In Oaks BEGIN PR ?/' f 1 I I 1 N ?,
TABLES
3
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 1
JOB: R-2523: US-21-221, Alleghany County RUN: Year 2004, Build, 45-mph
DATE: 10/05/1992 TIME: 15:18:09.55
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM - .60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 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 * 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 332. 3.6 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 332. 3.6 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R15, 271Rt CL, RES * -6.4 .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.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
j MAX * 2.1
DEGR. * 0
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 2
JOB: R-2523: US-21-221, Alleghany County RUN: Year 2014, Build, 45-mph
DATE: 10/05/1992 TIME: 15:21:53.21
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 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 * 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 332. 3.3 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 332. 3.3 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------ *-------------------------------------*
1. R15, 271Rt CL, RES * -6.4 .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.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.1
DEGR. * 0
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 3
JOB: R-2523: US-21-22 1, Alleghany County RUN: Year 2004, No-Build, 45-mph
I DATE: 10/05/1992 TIME: 15:25:35.60
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------
---------------------
VS = .0 CM/S ----
VD = .0 CM/S Z0 = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1. 9 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)
---------------------- -- *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------- ---------------------
l. Far Lane Link * 3.0 -804.7 3.0 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 332. 3.6 .0 9.1
2. Near Lane Link * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 332. 3.6 .0 9.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
----------------------- -- *-------------------------------------*
1. R15, 271Rt CL, RES * -6.7 .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.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
f MAX * 2.1
DEGR. * 0

TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 4
JOB: R-2523: US-21-221, Alleghany County RUN: Year 2014, No-Build, 45-mph
DATE: 10/05/1992 TIME: 15:29:18.49
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 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 * 3.0 -804.7 3.0 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 332. 3.3 .0 9.1
2. Near Lane Link * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 332. 3.3 .0 9.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R15, 27'Rt CL, RES * -6.7 .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.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
r MAX * 2.1
DEGR. * 0
1
a
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft 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 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. 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 5 feet 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 Americana, "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
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
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and
where the preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories 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 (CRF), Part 772, USDOT,
Federal Highway Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines.

TABLE N3
FEWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
US 21-221 From 500' North of SR-1405 in Twin Oaks to
Virginia State Line, Alleghaney County,
Project A 6.701003, TIP N R-2523
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
Description 50' 100' 200'
US-21-221, From SR-1405 to SR-1348 66 62 56
US-21-221, From SR-1348 to VA Line 68 64 58
Contour
Distances
(Maximum)
72 dBA 67 dBA
<31' 46'
<31' 64'
Approximate Number of Receptors
Approaching or Exceeding FHwA
Noise Abatement Criteria
A B C D E
0 13 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 17 0 0 0
Notes:
1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N4
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
US 21-221 From 500' North of SR-1405 in Twin Oaks to
Virginia State Line, Alleghaney County,
Project # 6.701003, TIP N R-2523
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Noise Level
Increases
Section <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >- 25 >- 15 dBA
US-21-221, From SR-1405 to 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR-1348
US-21-221, From SR-1348 to 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VA Line
-----
----
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
------------
TOTAL 0 0 0 1 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TABLE Rl
R E L O C A T I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= .6.701003 COINTY: Alleghany Alternate .1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2523 F.A. PROJECT: N/A SECTION "A" (RED)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 21/221 FROM TWIN OAKS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE (3 .4 MILES)
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
:5:0 ;LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 11 0 11 0 2 6 3 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLIE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 _
0-20M 0 0-15D ? 0-20M 0 `h 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS 20-40M 7 150-250 0 20-40M
6 150-250 N/A
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 4 250-400 0 40-70M 7 250-400 N/A
X 1
Will
.
special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 5 400-600 N/A
services be necessary

X
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
2
600 UP _
N/A
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 11 0 20 N/A
be available after project

X 4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size REMARKS (Respond by Number)
type, estimated number of 3. NONE AFFECTED.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
H 6. VISUAL SURVEY, LOCAL NEWSPAPER & REALTORS.
ousing shortage
x 6. Source for available hous- 8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
Ins (list)
X 7. Will additional housing 9. THERE MAY BE 2-3 ELDERLY, HOWEVER, NO MAJOR PROBLEM
programs be needed ARE FORESEEN

X
8. Should Last Resort Housing .
be considered 11. IN TOWN.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,

elderly, etc. families 12. SEE AVAILABLE HOUSING LIST.
?T X ANS6ER THESE AM FOR DESIGN
10.
will public ousing a NOTE: THREE (3) OF THE ELEVEN (11) RESIDENTIAL ARE
needed for project BEETEVED TO OCCLPY MOBILE HOMES

X
1
11. Is public housing avail- .

able
12. Is it felt there will be ad- S p? ?{ Av j ??
MA Y 5
?? itLT 3- TMILESAFjIIBJECTNROJECTCINE
W

X
equate DDS housing available TO
N
OF SPARTA. IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE IN RURAL AREAS
during relocation period
13
Will th
b THAT MANY DISPLACEE'S WILL ELECT TO RETAIN HOMES AND
.
ere
e a problem of MOVE BACK OR BUILD ON REMAINING LAND

X
housing within financial .

means
N/A 14. Aresuitable business sites

available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION 18 -24
--.::L--F . MEADE 02-08-93
Relocation Ase Date Approved Date
"arm 15.4 Revised 0 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
i
TABLE R2 11
R E L O C A T I O N R E P C )R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 6.701003 COL4TY: _ Alleghany Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2523 F.A. PROJECT= N/A SECTION "B" - 1 (PLRPLE)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: LIS 21/221 FROM TWIN OAKS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE (3.4 MILES)
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
I
di
id
ls Total w 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 LF
n
v
ua 0 D 0 o 0 0 0 0 0
Famili
es
0
0
0
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
Businesses

Farms
Non-Profit 0

0
0 0

0
0 y 0

0
0 0

0
0 w Vp,LLE OF DWELLING

Owners Tenants
0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A _
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE I
For Sale- I For Rent
0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A

ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A 20-40M N/A X150-250 IN/A I
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M N/A. 250-400 N/A 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A 1
N/A 1. Will special relocation 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A

?_. services be necessary
N/A 2. Will schools or churches be
affected by displacement 100 LIP N/A 600 LP N/A 100 LP N/A 600 LP N/A
N/A 3. Will business services still TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A
be available after project

N/A .4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If soy indicate size
type, estimated number of REMARKS (Respond by Number)

N/A employees, minorities; etc.
S. Will relocation cause a

N/A housing shortage
6. Source for available hous- NO RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS DISPLACEE'S AFFECTED.
i

N/A ng (list)
7. Will additional housing

N/A programs be needed
B. Should Last Resort Housing
b
e considered
N/A 9. Are there large, disabled,

elderly, etc. families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
N/A 10. i pu is ousing e

N/A needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-

able

N/A 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available

during relocation period

N/A 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

N/A means
14. Are suitable business sites

available (list source)

N/A 15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
J. F. MEADE ^ 02-OB-93 040 Z - Jc - 3
- Relocation Age Date Approved Date
rorm 15.4 Revised 0 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
TABLE R3
R E L O C A T I O" R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.701003 COUNTY: AIIe9hany Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2523 F.A. PROJECT= N/A SECTION 080- 2 (BLUE)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 21/221 FROM TWIN OAKS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE (3.4 MILES)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
.Displaces Owners
Individuals 0
Families 1
Businesses 0
Farms 0
Non-Profit 1 0

enants
Total Minor-
ities
0 0 0
0
- 1 0
0 0 0

0 0 0
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M SO U'
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
VALLE OF. DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
-is
0-20M 0 0-150 1]
0 0-20M 0 `h 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0
ES NO CAIN ALL "YES"_ANSWMS
µT 40-70M 1 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 ? 400-600 0
services be necessary _
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 0 600 UP 0
affected by displacement --
X 3. Will business services still
b TOTAL 1 D
e aua i I ab I e of ter project
4. Will any business b d
' - -•-•- _ _
i
e s REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. NONE AFFECTED.
20-40M 6 150-250 N/A
40-70M 7 250-400 N/A
70-100 5 400-600 N/A
100 UP 2 600 LP N/A
20
N/A
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 6. VISUAL SURVEY, LOCAL NEWSPAPER & REALTORS.
housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- 8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
ing (list)
X 7. Will additional housing 11. IN TOWN.
programs be needed
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing 12. SEE AVAILABLE HOUSING LIST.
be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
X 10.
pu is ousing e
needed for project
X 11. Is public housing avail-
able COMMENT: MOST OF THE AVAILABLE HOUSING IS LOCATED
12. Is it felt there will be ad- APPRDXTMATELY 3-5 MILES FROM SUBJEC PROJECT IN TOWN
X equate DDS housing available OF SPARTA. IT HAS BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE IN RURAL AREAS
during relocation period THAT MANY DISPLACEE'S WILL ELECT TO RETAIN HOMES AND
13. Will there be a problem of MOVE BACK OR BUILD ON REMAINING LAND.
X housing within financial
means
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION 18 -24
Kelocation
Form 15.4 Revis
ent
5/90
DZ-08-93 J(?/ 2 _,9
Date Approve Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RELOCprI" i 4N
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJECT: 6.701003
I.D. ND.: R-2523
TABLE R4
R E P 0- R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
- DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY: Alleghany Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: N/A SECTION "B" - 3 (GREEN)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT US 21/221 FROM TWIN OAKS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE.(3.4 MILES)
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses a 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING _
i DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL QLESTIONS 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A 20-40M N/A 150-2
50 N/A 1
YES
N/A NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
I. Will special relocation 40-70M
70-100 N/A
N/A 250-400
400-600 N/A
N/A 40-70M N/A
70-100 N/A 250-400
400-600 N/A
N/A

N/A services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 U'
N/A
600 UP
N/A
100 UP N/A
600 UP
N/A
affected by displacement
-
__
N/A 3. Will business services still TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A
be available after project

N/A 4. Will any business be dis-
placed
If so
i
di
t
i REMARKS (Respond by Number)
.
,
n
ca
e s
ze
types estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
N/A 5. Will relocation cause a
h

N/A ousing shortage NO RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS DISPLACEE'S AFFECTED.
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list)
N/A 7. Will additional housing
programs be needed
N/A 8. Should Last Resort Housing

H be considered
N/A
9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
N/A AN55I.EER RM FOR DESIGN Will
1D
bl
.
pu
ic housing e
needed for project
N/A It. Is public housing avail-

able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
N/A equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
N/A housing within financial
means
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
N/A complete RELOCATION

J. F. MEADE a
Relocation Age
Form 15.4 Revised 5
02-08-93 L'/ ; --? 3
Date Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

TABLE R5
R i1= L_ 0 CAT I O IN R E iP O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 6.701003 COINTY= Alleghany Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO., R-2523 F.A. PROJECT= N/A SECTION "C" (YELLOW)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT US 21/221 FROM TWIN OAKS TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE (3.4 MILES)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total
w Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-S M
SO LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0
M 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAIL.A LE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale x For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 -0 0 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" _ANSWERS 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A
N/A 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A 70-100 N/A 400-600
- _
N/A
N/A serv
ces be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
affected by displacement 100 LP N/A 600 LP N/A 1
100 LP N/A ---
600 LP? N/A

N/A
3. Will business services still
b
ila
l
TOTAL
N/A
N/A
N/A ---
N/A
e ava
b
e after project

N/A 4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size REMARKS (Respond by Number)
type, estimated number of
l
i
emp
oyees) m
norities etc.
N/A 5. Will relocation cause a
h
i
h
ous
ng s
ortage NO RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS DISPLACEE'S AFFECTED.
N/A 6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
)
ns
st
N/A 7. Will additional housing

programs be needed
N/A 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be
i
cons
dered
N/A 9. Are there large, disabled)
ld
l
e
er
y, etc. families
r 7
N/A 1- 1 ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
.10. Will public housing be
d
d
nee
e
for project
N/A 11. Is public housing.avall-
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
N/A equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
N/A housing within financial

means
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
(li
ava
a
e
st source)
15. Number months estimated to
N/A complete f ELOCATION pp

J. F. MEADS UIT4 +A_ .02-08-93 Relocation Ag n Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 0 Original & 1 Copy= State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
W REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
June 23, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

JUN 251992
N
DIVISION OF Z
HIGHWAYS
&ESEARGN
We have reviewed your letter of May 11, 1992, requesting
comments on the "Twin Oaks, proposed widening and realignment
of US 21-221, from 500 feet north of SR 1405 to the Virginia
State line, Alleghany County, State Project No. 6.701003, TIP
Project R-2523."
The proposed improvements do not cross any U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers constructed flood control or navigation projects.
Alleghany County does not participate in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program at this time. The widened and/or relocated
roadway and any additions to or additional drainage structures
within the flood plain should be designed to prevent significant
upstream flood stage increases with no more that a 1.0-foot flood
surcharge in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes.
Executive Order 11988 should be reviewed and complied with.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with your proposed improvements, including disposal
of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to
wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then
consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our
Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review those
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the
Army permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please
contact Mr. John Thomas of our Regulatory Branch, Wake Forest,
North Carolina, at [phone], extension 037.
I
-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on potential _
environmental impacts of your proposed project. If we can be of
further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
1
Lawr ce-W Saunders
Chief, 1 ning Division
i

T OF ly
O y
ui p
b
4RCH 3 1gp9

? l U _.?A_.tCa
v/ O
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
June 26, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
PRIDE IN
AMERICA??

Subject: Twin Oaks, proposed widening and realignment of US 21-221,
north,of SR 1405 to.the Virginia State Line, Alleghany County,
North Carolina, State Project No. 6.701003, TIP Project R-2523
This responds to your letter of May 11, 1992 (received May 18, 1992),
requesting our comments on the subject project. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed actions may have on Federal
candidate species and on the unnamed stream and associated'riparian area
running parallel to US 21-221 within the project impact area. Preference
should be given to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures,
and construction techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and
impacts to these resources. Mitigation and/or compensation, on a habitat
value basis, will be required for all unavoidable stream (including
riparian habitat) and wetland losses associated with the proposed action.
The enclosure contains a list of Federal candidate species which are
currently under status review by the Service that may occur in the
project impact area (there are no federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Alleghany County). Candidate species are
not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are
including these species in our response to give you advance notification.

In the spirit of the Federal Highway Administration's April 20, 1990,
Environmental Policy Statement (...environmental consideration to be
given equal weight with engineering, social, and economic factors in
e.
project decision making...) and their commitment to satisfy Federal law
relating to environmental issues, we look forward to working with you to
develop a plan to prevent or lessen further impacts to wetland areas or,
as a last 'resort, to identify appropriate mitigation/compensation areas.
We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our concerns. We have
assigned Log Number 4-2-92-064 to this project. Please refer to this
number in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this
matter. If you have any questions, please-contact Ms. Janice Nicholls at
704/665-1195, Ext. 227. '
Sincerely,
40?J4?
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina.Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, Habitat Conservation Section, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611

IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-92-064
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
CANDIDATE SPECIES
` REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)*
FISHES
Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus)
INSECTS
Midget snaketail dragonfly (Ophiogomphus howei)
Regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia)
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle (Stenelmis gammoni)
PLANTS
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum)*
Gray's lily (Lilium grayi)
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana)*
*Indicates no specimen from Alleghany County in at least 20 years.

i
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATI !
116 WEST JONES STREET
? RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA ?11 4?*
MAY 201992 x
ISION OF
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DV
GHWAYS Q?
,?b
MAILED TO FROM p,P?
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE TOMC
L.J. WARD CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF
PLANNING 6 ENV BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG/ INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT OF US 21-221s FROM
550 FEET NORTH OF SR 1405 TO THE VIRGINIA SPATE LINE, TWIN OAKS,
NC (TIP R-2523)
TYPE - SCOP I4 G
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 92E42200866. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 06/19/92.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
i
NORTH CAROLINASTATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 HEST JONES STREET
1 ?Crt' RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
06-19-92
INTERGDVERNMENTAL -REVI..EW COMMENTS
HAILED' TO FROM
NC :DEPT-OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD - DIRECTOR
-PLANNING C, ENV BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDGf INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING ry-PROPOSED WIDENING AND. REALIGNMENT OF, US '21-Z=21s. FROM
55D -FEET NORTH OF SR 1405'TO: THE VIRGINIA STATE' LINE* °T:WIN OAKS
NC t T IR R-2523I
SAI NO 92E42200866 PROGRAM TITLE. •' SCOP ING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW :PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF ITHE. REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED t ) NO C3MMENTS WERE RECEIVED
t X I COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION'S* PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE, #919) 733-0499.:
C.C... REGION 0

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTER.GUVERNMENFAL REVIEW
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
.lEPT OF EHNR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPT OF CC&PS - NFP
„TATE PLANNING REGION D
STATE NUMBER 92-E-4220- 0866
F02
DATE RECEIVED OS 14 92
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 06 17 92
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE 06 16 92
REVIEW CLOSED 06 19 92
PROJECT
APPL NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
CFDA 00001
DESC SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT OF US 21-221, FROM
550 FEET NORTH OF SR 1405 TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE, TWIN OAKS,
NC {TIP R-2523)
CROSS-REFERENCE NUMBER
REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
DATE. IF ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS OFFICE.
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLL014ING IS SUBMITTED
( ) NO COMMENT
V COMMENTS ATTACHED
S i GNED 3Y
DATE
?M
s?
/7

M` ' 2
RECEN D ,, 992
U I -
;?'1819?D
UPI 1992
STATE o
i °
v
l? '4y Guw ?' .-?`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch P 192!J??
Division of Highways c
Department of Transportation j JUN 1
,f .. 992
FROM: David Brook //?' {(- _
Deputy State His(o Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 21-221 from north of SR 1405 to u
the Virginia State Line, Twin Oaks,
Alleghany County, R-2523, 6.701003,
CH 92-E-4220-0866
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National Register-
listed properties listed within the area of potential effect. However, we have
located the following structure of historical or architectural importance within the
area of potential effect:
Old Twin Oaks Hotel. Southeast corner of US 21 with US 221, Twin Oaks.
This property has not been evaluated for National Register-eligibility.
Archaeological sites 31 AL43 and 31 AL51 are located in the project vicinity.
Therefore, we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an
experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the Society of Professional Archaeologists, or contact the society's
109 EastJones Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
June 16, 1992, Page 2
1_
current secretary/treasurer, J. Barto Arnold, lll, P.O. Box 13265, Austin, Texas
78711-3265. Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist,
may be contacted to conduct the recommended investigation.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosures
.cc: ate Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett

1,
-? JUN 1992

is STATE o
n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 21, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas J. Padgett
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ????'?..V_LA
Deputy State r?tonc Preservation
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
l?
Officer
SUBJECT: Widen and realign US 21-221, Twin Oaks, R-2523,
Alleghany County, CH 92-E-4220-0866, GS 93-0010
Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1992, concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two previously recorded sites were visited and
evaluated. Site 31 AL51 was found to be not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, and site 31 AL43 was determined to be outside of the area of
potential effect. We concur with the findings and do not recommend further
archaeological investigations. If the project plans should change we request the
opportunity to review the new plans with respect to 31 AL43.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
109 EastJones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
AAT( o
a
iz? tea.: ?•.•' `?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh; North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee Imo"
Project Review Coordinator

?. A
c• . `!
d
li.

Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment

92-0866 - Scoping, Widening and Realignment
of US 21-221, Alleghany County
June 12, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, 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.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
RO. Boa 2760.RWeigh North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Forestry
44
R Y
N. C. - Where it all began
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey,.Jr., Secretary Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
May 28, 1992
^?zc??111 i,3
? S
MEMORANDUM cc_ J (? "! 7 "9 2
u EMT:),
TO • Melba McGee ?.
• Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins n?
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for the Proposed Widening and Realignment of US
21-221 from SR 1405 to the Virginia State Line in the Twin Oaks Area
of Alleghany County
PROJECT #92-0866
DUE DATE 6-10-92

To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following information
concerning the proposed improvements for the possible right-of-way purchases
for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of this project.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the.proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Project #92--0866
Page 2
4. The provisions that the contractor will take . to sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice is
encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits.
Trees outside construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR : la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File

:

r

r
711
State of N '
orth Carolina '```°?• -?
Department of Environment, H
ealth, and Natural Re' ources?-.•=Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CommENTS s
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary V s Gardner
Director
Project Number:, f ?- (??(a(D County:
S cc ., - Pra•p&i. 0, i (.2i '10' h.c..h:d 4YUW"5 63T?
Project Name: /Y 1, $ 14DC fU r
rCrGs? i u h}z??L i ,,,, 4Jz?, ra AL 07?
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact 2_ 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)MA,PX-ED o,- P.P'oTEcT
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
?- 2r?
Reviewer Date
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
f
o
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
inc
d
,
rease
design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
/
?
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
h
s
ould be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from th
e
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
)-22-92
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

?A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
.,a. •:,^ gin, ??, ?.:...
James G. Martin, Governor t' '' Ua W Sides
.F
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary irector
May 22, 1992
17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee -f
FROM: David Harr ison-Z?rA/-
SUBJECT: 'Proposed widening of US 21-221 in Alleghany County.
Project No. 92-0866
This proposal is to widen an existing road and improve the
existing horizontal alignment through several hazardous curves.
The Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime,
or important farmland that would be impacted. A wetlands
evaluation should be included. Actions that minimize impacts are
desired.
DH/tl
PO Box 27687 fZdngh..?orth Carolina 27611-7687 Tdcphonc )19.733 2302

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission -0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Pr
DATE: June 11, 1992
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 92-0866, Proposed widening and
realignment of US 21-221 from 550 feet north of SR 1405 to the Virginia
State Line, Twin Oaks, Alleghany County, State Project #6.701003, TIP
Project R-2523
This correspondence responds to a request by Mr. L. J. Ward of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our preliminary comments regarding the
proposed widening and realignment of US 21-221. Due to the large number of project
documents that we must review each month, we have prepared a standard response for
pro ects determined to have insufficient information for an evaluation of impacts on fish
an?wildlife resources. This correspondences provides a comprehensive perspective of our
information requirements for a broad range of project types. Consequently, some of the
requested information and comments will not be applicable for certain projects.
To provide a meaningful review of proposed project impacts on fisheries and
wildlife resources, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests
that consultants, project sponsors, or permit applicants provide the following information:
1) Descr,ption of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or
special concern species. A listing of designated plant species can be
developed through consultation with the Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
Division of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611, (919)
733-7795 and Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator of the NCDA Plant Conservation
Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611, [phone].
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of vertebrate wildlife species. While there
is no charge for the list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager,
Nongame & Endangered Species Section, Division of Wildlife Management,
NCWRC, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188, [phone].
k
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
(COE). If the COE 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.
S) 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.
It is the =aor f the NCW RC that impacts to wetlands be avoided. Wetlands are
important to a iety of terrestrial, avian, and semi-aquatic wildlife species as
nesting, feeding, and resting areas, as well as key travel corridors. Wetlands also act as a
buffer between surface waters and adjacent uplands and serve to filter sediment and other
pollutants associated with runoff. Wetland and riparian areas are especially important in
urban and developing areas as they often represent vestigial wildlife habitat. Non-wetland
and non-riparian alternatives should be examined durin&,project design. Where wetland
losses are unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation of the losses.
. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information request in the early
planning stages of this project. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 10
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chri.sta L. Atkins, Project Planning Engineer
N. ice', Department of Transportation
r='f•;CJM : Stephanie E. uoudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Pr o r'ai8
DATE: November 6, 1997'
SUBJECT ; Wcoping comments for proposed widening and realignment
o t= US 21--221 from Twin Oaks to the Virginia State Line,
All 'gitany County (State Project *5.701003, 11P #R-2523)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments on proposed improvements to a 3.t}'-ofi.a
1C
section of L!':_, 21--221 in Allegl'any County. The project is divided
into three soctionr_ designated A, N•, and C. Starting at the
southernmost end of the project, Section A (2. miles) will be
widened along the existing roadway except for one location just
west of the roadway where it will be realigned to remove a curve.
Section B (0.8 mile section north of A) has three alternatives
(BIT Bc, and 23), all of which are on new location. Section C
(0.3 mile) is located at the northernmost portion of the project
and will involve the existing roadway being widened.
I conducted a site visit on November r, 992 in order to
better assess - potential impacts to e resources
eL'' fish and WiiCJ.?if
resulting from this project. Wildlife habitat consists of
grassed yards, agricultural fields and pasture, white }Dine
stands, and mixed hardwood forest stands. H _>mal.l amount of
wetlands are cis'>C1I:"iate?C
i with streams in the project area.
Streams in the project area include the New River, which is
designated as IiTai-, iOva.lity Waters by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management and supports a good smallmouth bass
fishery along with various ±t,hei•' g_•.mefis 7. An unnamed tributary
to the New River parallels US 21-221 ve%'.'ty closely and is
vulnerable to sedimentation resulting from this project. This
stream has a bankful l width of 10-12 feet at its widest point.
Two small streams will also be impacted by the project if channel
relocation i. required as discussed in the Natural. Resources
®..
Technical Report. These streams have bankfu11 widths of -Feet
Unfortunately, water levels were extremely high at the time of. my
site visit and it was difficult to evaluate fish habitat.
Although the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
does not have any historical fish data from these streams, it is
possible that the large unnamed tributary supports wild trout and a
the smaller streams serve as trout nurser=y streams. Pers=onnel
from the NCWRC will conduct fish sampling in the streams as soon
as possible to determine if wild trout are a concern in the
project area.
1 have the following preliminary recommendations regarding
this project:
1) The NCWRC prefers that stream relocation
possible. When relocation cannot be avo
channel should match the old in terns of
depth, length, slope, and meanders. The
appropriate agencies should be consulted
design.
be avoided if
ided, the new
average width,
NC.WR and of -!'er
on the final.
2) The NCWRC prefers that the roadway be widened alone the
existing alignment as much as possible so that a minimum
amount of wildlife habitat is disturbed. Where the 'r•Qad!way
must be realigned in Section P, it is likely that we will
prefer Alternative B3 because that alternative most closely
follows the existing roadway. However, at this point we
have not keen information like that found in Table 1 on page
b of the Natural Resources Technical Report for B. so we
cannot state our final preference. The Environmental
Assessment should contain describe plant community :lrilri<'::tMs
for all alternatives.
Areas where pavement will be abandoned and removed should he
seeded with vegetation beneficial to wildlife. The
following plant species should be added to the seeding
mixture normally used: ladlno clever, Ko're n le_ pedr.za, VA----
70 lespedeza, partridge pea, switchgr•ass, and/or orchard
grass.
4) As stated in the Natarzal Resources Techni.cal. Report;
sedimentation has the potential to severely impact st:rec'tm ---
in the project area. Therefore, we reiterate the need to
install, stringent sedimentation control measures before
construction begins and to maintain them throughout the life
of the project. If possible, short road sections should he
completed (paved and right-o'i=--w ay seeded) rather than
grading the entire 3.4-mile of roadway and leaving a maximum
amount of soil bare before beginning to pave and seed. `'

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during
the early stages of this project. I anticipate taking a fish
sample this month or in early December as our work load permits
and will provide you with the results. If you have any questions
regarding these comment=., please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc. Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist

R
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 21-221 FROM TWIN OAKS
TO THE VIRGINIA STATE LINE
Project 6.701003 R-2523 Alleghany County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the
above Public Meeting on April 20, 1993 at the Higgins Center,
Alleghany County Fairgrounds, Highway 21 North, Sparta
between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M.
This will be an open house meeting and interested citizens
may attend at their convenience during the above hours.
Department of Transportation representatives will be present
to answer questions and receive comments concerning the
project.
The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to a
24 ft. facility with two ft. paved shoulders as well as
relocate portions of the roadway to eliminate sharp curves.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes will be
required for this project.
Anyone desiring additional information about the workshop may
contact Carl McCann at P.O. Box 250, North Wilkesboro, NC or
at [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids
and services for any qualified disabled person interested in
attending the workshop. To request the above you may call
Mr. McCann at the above number no later than seven days prior
to the date of the workshop.