20100752 All Versions_Complete File_20070201

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: I County:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
? J O A -8
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
Z 2i
lZ2
IT ` `U 1 0' a 31L
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: l/JJL? 'b i l
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas [oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
etteville
? Fa Air ? Coastal Management El Water Planning
y k'Water ? Water Resources environmental Health
? Mooresville groundwater 'Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh IR'fand Quality Engineer Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant & Parks and Recreation ? Other (spelRKEIVED
? Wilmington ? Others *nvironmental Management
t SE v 6 ???
S
ih
i
Winston-Salem PWS ar
w
Mon
ca
ENVIRONMENTAL scIENG

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)
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
? 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.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? 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 Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 3, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch. -
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed
Improvement of US 321 from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) to
US 221 in Blowing Rock, North Carolina; State Project No..
8.17731301; TIP No. R-2237C
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to improve US 321 for a distance of approximately 7.0
kilometers (4.3.miles) in Caldwell and Watauga Counties. Both a widening
alternative and a bypass alternative are being considered. The proposed
action would extend from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) north to US 221 in Blowing
Rock (See Figure 1). NCDOT has selected the firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, Inc. to evaluate alternatives and prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
This is the third scoping letter distributed for this project. The
first letter, sent in March 1990, solicited comments on a proposed widening
project extencLing from NC 268 at Patterson to US 221 in Blowing Rock. The
second letter was distributed in February 1991. It requested comments on
several Blowing Rock bypass alternatives. In August 1993, a Federal
Environmental Assessment was distributed. It listed the widening project as
the preferred alternative and concluded that a bypass alternative was not
reasonable. Following a public hearing, a Federal Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) was released in September 1994 for the widening project
between NC 268 and SR 1500 (Blackberry Road). Based on comments from the
State Historic Preservation Officer and the general public, the FONSI stated
that an EIS would be prepared for US 321 from SR 1500 to US 221 in Blowing
Rock and include consideration of a Blowing Rock bypass. At the public
hearings, representatives of government, businesses, Appalachian State
University, and the public all spoke in favor of a four-lane US 321 between
Lenoir and Boone. However, many citizens from Blowing Rock strongly
preferred a project that included a bypass around Blowing Rock. By the
preparation of a FONSI for the southern 10.8 miles and an EIS for the
northern 4.3 miles, the concerns in Blowing Rock can be thoroughly addressed
and the improvement of US 321 can continue on its Transportation Improvement
Program schedule.

` • August 3, 1995 - - -
Page 2
The 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for
construction for the southern 4.7 miles of the project (between NC 268 and
SR 1370) in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1997. Right-of-way acquisition for the
rest of the project (including the subject study area) is scheduled in fiscal
year 2002.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit comments, initiate coordination
for the subject project and provide notice of an interagency scoping meeting.
EIS STUDY WORK PROGRAM
Phases
The US 321 EIS study will be conducted in three phases. Phase I will
examine a comprehensive range of Blowing Rock Bypass alternatives. This
evaluation will be conducted at a level of environmental and design detail
sufficient to differentiate between alternatives and select reasonable
alternatives for detailed evaluation in the Environmental Impact Statement. -
Evaluation of Blowing Rock bypass alternatives in Phase I will contain the
following tasks: .
- Identification of sensitive social, cultural and natural features in the
Phase I study area.
- Preparation of traffic forecasts and an accident analysis.
- Identification of preliminary corridor alternatives based on comments
raised during the public involvement program, terrain and avoidance of
sensitive features.
- Preparation of a functional design for each preliminary corridor.
Alternative slope (cut-and-fill, retaining walls and bridges) and
drainage treatments (ditches and curb and gutter) will be considered.
- Comparison of the preliminary corridors from the perspective of
construction and right-of-way cost, extent of excavation waste and
potential for affecting sensitive features.
- Selection of reasonable bypass alternatives for detailed evaluation in
the Environmental Impact Statement.
Phase I also will contain several public and agency involvement programs
including a citizens advisory committee, a toll-free information line,
citizens informational workshops, newsletters, small group meetings, a
steering committee, and interagency meetings.
Phase II will be the preparation of a Draft EIS. This document will
compare in detail the merits of the widening alternative, the reasonable
bypass alternatives and the no-build alternative. Phase II also will include
a preliminary design for the reasonable bypass alternatives and additional
refinements to the widening alternative, The features of the Phase I public
• August 3, 1995 - -
Page 3
involvement program will be continued in Phase II. In addition, the Draft
EIS will be released for public and regulatory agency review and a public
hearing. The scope of Phase II will be finalized after Phase I is completed.
Phase III will be the preparation of a Final EIS, which will respond to
comments made regarding the Draft EIS and identify the preferred alternative.
Study Areas
The study area for Phase I is shown in Figure 1 and consists of: US 321
on the west and southwest; the Blue Ridge Parkway on the north; a line
between a point approximately one kilometer south of Falcon Crest Road and a
point on the Yadkin River approximately 1,000 meters due south of the
Watauga/Caldwell County line on the southeast, and the Yadkin River and Horse
Ridge on the northeast. The southern limits could be moved further south if
potential bypass alternatives that necessitate this change become apparent.
The Phase-II study area will
be reasonable during Phase I and
bypass alternatives extend south
study area will be extended, and
activities will take place in the
completion of the EIS and review
focus on specific bypass corridors found to
the widening alternative. If any reasonable
of SR 1500 (Blackberry Road), the Phase II
no right-of-way acquisition or construction
comparable widening segment until
process.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
Social
Land use in rural Caldwell County is primarily scattered single-family
residential with some commercial development along US 321. Development is
focused along US 321 and along streams where the terrain is not steep.
Agricultural lands are also found along streams.
Development along US 321 in the southern portion of Blowing Rock is
primarily single family residential. In this area, US 321 also passes
through the National Register-listed Green Park Historic District and passes
adjacent to the National Register-listed Green Park Inn and the Blowing Rock
Country Club. Commercial development and some vacant lands line the northern
portion of US 321 in Blowing Rock. Development in Blowing Rock east of
US 321 is primarily single-family residential. This development is
concentrated along a ridge line overlooking Caldwell County, around the
Blowing Rock Country Club, and near US 321 at its northern limits.
Development tends to become more sparse as one moves further east of US 321.
The range of social issues that will be addressed are: relocation, land
use plan compatibility, community cohesion, economic impacts, impacts to
social groups, changes in the need for community services, noise and air
quality impacts, visual change, use of prime or unique agricultural lands,
and avoidance of existing hazardous waste material spills and underground
w -?.-AAugust 3, 1995
Page 4
storage tanks.- Both long term and construction-related impacts will be
addressed. Certain social impacts are of particular concern with the
widening alternative, including:
- Loss of business during construction.
- Potential for blasting to damage structures in Blowing Rock.
- Presence of a four-lane road could lessen the desirability of Blowing
Rock to the vacationers it currently attracts,
- Change in the aesthetics of the roadway.
Cultural
The National Register-listed Green Park Historic District is a
Section 106 property that has been identified along existing US 321. The
National Register-listed Green Park Inn-is within the Green Park Historic
District and-adjacent to US 321. The Green Park Historic District will be
adversely affected by the widening alternative as defined in the criteria of
the US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 36, Part 800).
Preliminary historic architecture and archaeological studies will. be
conducted for the balance of the Phase I study area. Comprehensive Phase II
studies will be conducted, as appropriate, for the bypass alternatives
selected for analysis in the EIS.
Natural
Initial natural resource studies indicate that upland cove forest
dominates the undisturbed portions of the project area. Lands used for
pasture/agriculture do occur in valleys. The streams are classified as Class
C waters, which are best suited to aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The waters in the
area are supplementally classified as suitable for natural trout propagation
and maintenance of stocked trout. The following Federally protected species
are in Caldwell and/or Watauga Counties: Spruce-fir moss spider
(endangered), spreading Avens (endangered), Hellers blazing star
(threatened), Blue Ridge goldenrod (threatened), Roan Mountain bluet
(endangered), Virginia big-eared bat (endangered), and Carolina northern
flying squirrel (endangered). There are no documented sitings of these
species in the project area.
Natural resource issues addressed during the study will include impacts
to biotic communities, water quality, protected species, floodplains and
floodways, and wetlands. Several natural resource issues are of particular
importance to the evaluation of bypass alternatives. They include:
- Degradation of water quality on mountain streams.
Steep grades can increase the potential for erosion and sediments in
streams. Previous scoping responses indicate that streams classified as
trout waters are within the project area. Headwater reaches contain
• "-August 3, 1995 -
Page 5
wild trout populations. The Yadkin River supplies drinking water to
North Wilkesboro, Winston-Salem and several recreational areas in North
and South Carolina.
- Habitat fragmentation.
- Disposal of leftover excavated material.
NOTICES AND SCHEDULES
In order that we may fully evaluate the impact of the proposed project,
it is requested that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or
adverse impacts of the project relating to the interest of your agency
following the scoping meeting. In order for our study team to stay on
schedule, it will be appreciated if you can respond by September 18, 1995.
If you have any questions concerning this.-project, please contact
Ms. Leigh Cobb, NCDOT Project Coordinator, at [phone], Ext. 260.
Thank you for your cooperation.
HFV/wp
W, vv
' t ? L t ?- 1 J
} ? 1
L ? C.+•'?.?? L... r y ?« .? ? `?? } ? ? \ l:p ? ??•, 3 it ??15- •?5x r),?.
v+. -? 3 L.i (?--[RU Pjark ?a } r i 'dtl4 it ': n !1 ?r =?'A'; .,?j a
17,
??O«ITI?T Ut;?( x n_rp? _? of
:r
t
j i t t l ae1CY a sntx Jar r?u?
4.5
`, ???'r/"'-?i-- y t I S14 x; ? • ( J F Yt ?l iY L t ••? ?- _
?Z;
g At A
LEGEND
•? Phase I Stud Areaa jj r*Z^t `urt ^`l
0 .5 1 km
0 .5 1 mile
SCALE
-moo
YEARS
To:
From:
Date:
Meeting Participants, File 3145S 2.7.2
Reginald Scales
January 4, 2001
Memorandum
Subject: Meeting Summary - US 321 (R-2237C) NEPA/404 Merger Meeting held on
December 14, 2000
Attendees:
Missy Dickens NCDOT-PDEA
Tom Kendig NCDOT-PDEA
Bill Gilmore NCDOT-PDEA, Division Head
Felix Davila FHWA
Roy Shelton NCDOT-PDEA
Greg Brew NCDOT-Roadway Design
John Hennessy NC DWQ
April Alperin NC SHPO
Steve Lund Corps of Engineers
Ted Bisterfeld US EPA (via phone)
Murella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources
John Page Parsons Brinckerhoff
Reginald Scales Parsons Brinckerhoff
Missy Dickens opened the meeting with general discussion regarding the need for the
participants to sign off on Concurrence Point 1 (Project Purpose and Need) and Concurrence
Point 2 (Alternatives to be Considered) of the NEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Concurrence on
purpose and need was reached at a concurrence meeting in November 1999. Since that
time a new signature form was created, which the NCDOT now asked to be signed. The US
Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Resources Commission did not have representatives at
the 1999 meeting. Some of the participants indicated that they did not feel comfortable
completing the forms because they were unfamiliar with the project.
The discussion began with Purpose and Need. John Page distributed a 1997 newsletter with
a map showing the alternatives under consideration and orally reviewed the project's
Purpose and Need .
Copies of the purpose and need statement were then distributed to the group for review and
they all agreed to concur. Steve Lund suggested adding a date to the Concurrence Point 1
form.
Page began the discussion of alternatives with an overview of what was presented regarding
alternatives and the request for more water resource information made at the November 1999
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting. The additional information was provided in February 2000 to
those who participated in the November 1999 meeting. John Hennessy requested
information regarding the Functional Assessment of water resources performed by
Over a Century of
lk

-EARS
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
December 14, 2000
Page 2
EcoScience. After discussion it was agreed that he was sent the information in February
2000.
Page distributed an update of his February 2000 memorandum (attached) comparing the
widening alternative and four bypass alternatives, taking into account water resource
surveys. The memorandum notes that the design work completed since February 2000 has
reduced the water resource impacts associated with the Widening Alternative and Bypass
Alternatives 1 and 4. The discussion by the committee included:
Whether or not an adequate corridor was surveyed for water resources. In response to a
query by Lund, Page indicated that the water resources in a 1000-foot corridor had been
delineated for each alternative. [After the meeting Page determined that he had mis-
spoke. Delineations were done for the footprint of the widening alternative, Bypass
Alternative 1, and Bypass Alternative 4. The delineations were initially done in 1999 and
the survey area was expanded in 2000 after design changes for the two bypass
alternatives moved the footprint of these alternatives outside of the area where water
resources were delineated. The 1999 survey work also included the identification of
specific water resources along Bypass Alternatives 2 and 3. The results of the 1999
surveys were reported in EcoScience's February 2000 functional assessment report. As
a part of alternatives studies conducted from 1995 to 1997, bank-to-bank streams and
streams with adjacent wetlands were identified for the initial alternatives analysis study
area. This study area extended further south and east than the area that now
encompassed the remaining alternatives. It did not include the area north of the
Parkway. The area north of the Parkway was not surveyed until 1999. These 1995 water
resource determinations were done with a combination of field surveys and topographic
map review. Field work focused on observing areas where the terrain offered the
potential for the presence of wetlands and areas along the many alternatives under study
at that time.]
• Determined for entire study area with combination of walking and extrapolation focus on
lines and flat spots showed Lund what we moved
• The potential for a constructive use of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Lund stated that Bypass Alternative 4 is not reasonable because of impacts. Marella
concurred. Alperin noted the issue of access and secondary impacts from the bypass
alternatives. Page indicated that this issue will be addressed in the DEIS. Concern was
expressed by several members of the concurrence team that their concurrence with the
bypass alternatives would be an indication that they believed the alternatives were
reasonable and feasible. The team members did not want to limit their options during the
third concurrence decision, the preferred alternative. Page and Shelton discussed the
importance of evaluating the two bypass alternatives from the perspective of section 4(f)
avoidance (Bypass Alternative 1) and citizen preference (Bypass Alternative 4).
• Lund indicated that he would like to see the water resource use numbers for the new
preliminary designs. Hennessey asked for a map with all the stream crossings. Maps
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
Ll
-'oo
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
December 14, 2000
Page 3
showing the features of the new designs for the Widening Alternative and Bypass
Alternatives 1 and 4 were requested.
• Bisterfeld said that he was not sure of all the issues and would like a copy of the map
showing the five alternatives that was used at the meeting.
• The Team agreed to discuss concurrence on the alternatives to be evaluated in the DEIS
during a January 2001 Merger meeting at which time a decision would be made on the
alternatives to be evaluated in the DEIS (Concurrence Point 2).
The meeting was adjourned.
task no.: 3145S3-08.61
file no.: 3145-2.7.2
JA\PLANNING\US 321 EIS Part II\Correspondence\Meeting Minutes\NEPA-404 Merger Meeting Minutes - 11-5-99.doc
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

It
NEPA /404 Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 - Alternatives to be Studied in Detail
in the NEPA document.
Project No.
8.T731301
TIP Number
R 2237 C
Name
US 321 at Blowing Rock
Description:
The primary purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow and level of
service on US 321 from Blackberry Road to US 221. Without road
improvements, the forecast traffic along this section of US 321 will exceed
the road's capacity, creating undesirable levels of service. The proposed
improvement will provide congestion relief. Reduce accidents on US 321
within Blowing Rock. Additionally without road improvements, high
accident rates are expected to continue. The number of accidents will likely
rise as traffic volumes continue to rise.
Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA document (see attached
alternative maps):
1. Widening the existing US 321 Corridor
2. Alternative 1
3. Alternative 4

The concurrence team agrees that Bypass Alternative 4 should be addressed
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement so that a full range of
alternatives is considered and because it has support from members of the
public. The team, by signing below, makes no statement regarding the
practicality or the permittability of either Bypass 1 or Bypass 4.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of with the
"alternatives to be studied in detail" in the NEPA document as stated above.
USACE
USEPA
NCDOT
USFWS
r? NPS
DCM
NCWRC
NCDWQ
NCDC
1? FHWA

y

a 1
4 .F.;: a w

1
F

'['t1unde

1-
--

a
`?
Green , ?

` CA1,01
L . E? -.

f

LEGEND

•¦•¦¦¦¦ Widening Alternative

SCALE
0 1 km
0 5 1 mile ISAIc=

Widening Alternative

N
{
C

AVV 8 • r
amp
?

r

m

Thursde

Sur o! ??°?
? ''".,
???
a ,Dr?ue
' Echo

o \

GeC;3. i
UrE^e???IIt
f

6'
I ' J ."'lowing Rock .a#e.rr
r
'
•
. ?
4:?1
i / <)
zSI

CAI M

t`

Bk>wing Rock/J

r
?
LEGEND
F
sounno¦ Bypass Alternative - U 3
¦=¦ Bridge

SCALE
o 5 1 km
0 1 mile
Bypass Alternative 1 a

f, 9' .p

...? ?.wa
m
-?3
3

rt r ! - a?

Thunde

r
5
4'#e? -
Sua:"4 pri
. r
ve .
• Fchs> Pur.
i
n

?
1-1lo w Ilia..????
$s3z
'
?
f
?
r I
gs
? 6 1

BtowLr j,, Rack)
1
1
LEGEND
rlmommr¦ Bypass Alternative 3
l
F, e ;t
wi
¦=¦ Bridge

SCALE
0 5 1 km c
5 1 mile
0' 8 i{1€?y
ir
Bypass Alternative l b

t•
f?r7> s J 4 • /?
? d
¦
c
Tnur?de
Ech?) Park
''y ft(»Yr tr `?.
d
o ? •1r>
o' l1 r
Gfeen
¦
US 32 alUw III };tx''-
¢?? c:7
h ,w
'.
L U ? ?•
Blowing Rock/?
LEGEND
*¦¦¦¦¦¦ Bypass Alternative
¦C=F• Bridge ??? U ?32x 1
¦?m Tunnel
SCALE
0 z 1 km
0 ` 1 mile Ian?k,U.
Bypass Alternative 4a

11
N
D
e 1
J 5 , _ •\
TEL
?ryy °
10
Grerr
t
2 i„f'? s4
CAIA')
LEGEND j
i
....... Bypass Alternative
¦=¦ Bridge
¦ . Tunnel ?e
SCALE
0 1 km
0 1 mile. F3??eti'
Bypass Alternative 4b
too
To:
From:
Date:
Meeting Attendees, file 3145S3 2.7.2
Jennifer Lewis, Parsons Brinckerhoff
May 21, 2003
Alemorandum
?,
v , ??.
003
Subject: Meeting Summary - January 15, 2003 US 321 Improvements Project (R-
2237C) NEPA/404 Merger Meeting - Concurrence Point #3
Attendees:
Missy Dickens, Project Manager, PDEA, NCDOT
Greg Brew, Project Engineer, Roadway Design, NCDOT
Gregory Thorpe, Environmental Management Director, PDEA, NCDOT
Gail Grimes, Asst. Branch Manager, - PDEA, NCDOT
Teresa Hart, Unit Head, PDEA, NCDOT
Roy Shelton,PDEA, NCDOT
Sean Phillips, PDEA, NCDOT
Rachelle Beauregard, ONE-PDEA, NCDOT
Barbara Church,OHE-PDEA, NCDOT
Sharon Lipscomb, Deputy Secretary's Office, NCDOT
Randy Henegar, Hydraulics,,NCDOT
John Hennessy,:NC DWQ
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC SHPO
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Sarah McBride, NC SHPO
Ted Bisterfeld, US EPA
Chris Militscher, US EPA
Murella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources
Sandy Smith, EcoScience Corporation
Marla Chambers, NC WRS (via teleconference)
Gary Johnson, NPS-Blue Ridge Parkway (via telephone)
John Page, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Reginald Scales, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Jennifer Lewis, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Dean Hatfield, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
=tOo
YEARS
File 3145 -2.7.2
May 21, 2003
Page 2
The following is a summary of the NEPA/404 Merger Meeting held on January 15,
2003 at the Board Room in the Federal Highway Administration Building in
downtown Raleigh. The purpose of this meeting was to receive concurrence from
merger team members for the selection of a Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the US 321 Improvements Project in Blowing
Rock, NC.
Summary
Missy Dickens opened the meeting with introductions and pointed out that FHWA
was not present. She stated that NCDOT has decided to continue using state funds to
pay for the projects planning, design, right of way acquisition, and construction.
NCDOT had informed the FHWA of this intent, and FHWA consequently did not
attend the meeting. The NCDOT will prepare a State FEIS in compliance with
NCEPA. As a result of this decision, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) will
replace the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as lead agency for meeting the
requirements of Section 106 of the. Historic Preservation Act of 1966. She then
announced that the NCDOT intended to pursue the identification of the Widening
Alternative as the LEDPA at this meeting. Gail Grimes noted that the State Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project will be filed in the same
manner as other NCEPA documents. The project to date has been NCEPA compliant
and will require Section 404 and Section 401 permits. However the Corp's jurisdiction
is limited to the areas that fall under their Section 404 jurisdication. The current
federal process will be complete once the FHWA rescinds the Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register:
Missy Dickens also said that the NCDOT recognizes the value and importance of the
Green Park Inn to the community of Blowing Rock and stated that the NCDOT is
willing and prepared to address creative mitigation options designed to minimize
potential negative impacts of the Widening Alternative to the Inn. Missy pointed out
that it is her understanding that the Inn has experienced financial hardship during the
past few years, in part because of its deteriorated condition. Possible mitigation
options that NCDOT is willing to discuss as part of Section 106 consultation include
funding renovation of the inn or perhaps purchasing and donating it to an appropriate
and willing entity (e.g., Watauga County or Preservation North Carolina) that would
preserve its historic characteristics. The goal in doing so would be to reinvigorate the
Inn so that it might be even more of a destination than it is currently.
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
yoo
YEARS
File 3145 -2.7.2
May 21, 2003
Page 3
To address questions about why the NCDOT believes the Widening Alternative to be
the LEDPA, John Page of Parsons Brinckerhoff gave a presentation comparing and
contrasting the Widening Alternative with Bypass Alternative 1 (see Attachment).
Following this presentation, John identified three key considerations which guided
NCDOT's choice of a LEDPA:
• If the Green Park Historic District were not affected, the Widening
Alternative would clearly be the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
The magnitude of the impact to the Green Park Inn Historic District by
the Widening Alternative is not enough to outweigh the resulting
negative community and environmental impacts of either Bypass
Alternative 1 design.
• Mitigation opportunities exist with the Widening Alternative.
Landscaping, revegetation, replacement and installation of new rock
walls, and burying utilities are examples of initiatives to compensate
for impacts to the Town of Blowing Rock. However it would be
extremely difficult to mitigate the damage to the natural environment,
the surrounding hillside, and the local neighborhoods by a bypass
alternative.
(Note: Bypass Alternative 4 was not addressed in the above comparison nor at the
meeting because of two factors: 1) the inclusion of Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS
was at the initiative of the NCDOT and the FHWA but was not approved as a Detailed
Study Alternative by the Merger Team at concurrence point and 2) the NCDOT did
not plan to pursue Bypass Alternative 4 as its preferred corridor because of its
impacts to the natural environment, its impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway, its cost,
and the objection of the resource and regulatory agencies.)
Following questions about possible modifications to the Widening Alternative to
minimize its impacts to the Green Park Inn Historic District, Missy Dickens stated that
the NCDOT has already investigated several possibilities, including widening to a
three-lane road from south of the Green Park Inn north to Sunset Boulevard. After
analyzing this modified Widening Alternative, it was determined that the option would
still require the purchase of additional right-of-way in the Historic District; the option
would be unsafe because of the sharp curves and steep grade of the road just south of
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
100
YEARS
File 3145 -2.7.2
May 21, 2003
Page 4
the Town limits where the lane drops would have to occur; and the option would not
alleviate congestion through the corridor south of Sunset Drive and would lead to a
bottle neck south of the Green Park Inn.
During this discussion, Dean Hatfield of Parsons Brinckerhoff also addressed concerns
about the constructability of the current Widening Alternative south of town. He stated
that while the footprint of the four-lane Widening Alternative would be large, it would
also greatly increase safety along existing US 321.
Missy Dickens and other NCDOT members also addressed concerns raised about the
other possible impacts of a Widening Alternative. Responses were as follows:
• This project will have no impact upon the actual Blowing Rock landmark.
• A Widening Alternative will have minimal impact upon the view from the
Blue Ridge Parkway.
• Prior to construction (blasting), a biologist will check for the existence of the
Virginia Big-Eared Bat.
• It is feasible to construct a facility with four-lanes around Gideon Ridge. The
existing western edge of pavement will be maintained. Two additional lanes
will be added to the existing eastern edge of pavement.
It was also reemphasized that the NCDOT will look for as many opportunities as
possible to minimize the Widening Alternative's various impacts.
A request was made that in the future NCDOT should deliver their responses to
merger team members' comments prior to merger team meetings. Missy Dickens
acknowledged the statement; however she noted that submitting comments prior to
Merger Team members prior to the meeting was not a requirement of the Merger
Team process as currently defined.
Missy Dickens then presented copies of the Summary of Public Hearing Comments
for the Merger Team for their information. She noted that although these comments
were not a scientific survey, it appears that there was slightly more public support for
a Widening Alternative than any other alternative. In addition, Bypass Alternative 1
received virtually no support.
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
--too
YEARS
File 3145 -2.7.2
May 21, 2003
Page 5
John Hennessey raised concerns about how certain kinds of impacts (some not
regulated) are or are not addressed. Examples of these kinds of impacts include:
number of stream crossings, construction impacts, and pier locations, fill, and habitat
fragmentation. It was noted that the impacts referenced were a permitting discussion
and not a Merger issue. Nevertheless, John said that certain alternatives can look
better than they actually are when certain types of impacts are not quantified.
Missy Dickens then requested the signatures of those members of the Merger Team
willing to concur with the selection of a LEDPA. Team members from the following
Agencies agreed to sign the Concurrence Point #3 form:
• North Carolina Department of Transportation;
• Environmental Protection Agency
• US Fish and Wildlife Agency
• NC DENR Division of Water Quality
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission(teleconferenced, agreed to sign a fax)
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• National Park Service (phone conferenced, agreed to sign concurrence form
however they needed to determine who would be the appropriate individual
within the organization to sign the form).
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) could not concur because of the
impacts of the Widening Alternative upon historic properties. However, the SHPO is
willing move forward with the consultation process under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. A note stating this was written on the concurrence form.
Ted Bisterfeld of the EPA expressed regret that there was not more local government
involvement. John Page and Missy Dickens informed him that there had been several
opportunities for public involvement along every step of the process with this project
and that to date the Town had opted not to participate in discussions with the State
about any alternative.
The meeting was then adjourned.
(Note: It is the intent of NCDOT to move the project forward and initiate FEIS
activities within the next few weeks.)
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
Eoo
YEARS
File 3145 -2.7.2
May 21, 2003
Page 6
ATTACHMENT
• Summary of Contrasts between Widening Alternative with Bypass Alternative 1
PPLANNINGIUS 321EIS Part UTEMMager Team MeetinglUS 321 Merga Team Smnman' -2-20-03 Droll for Misscl Am
Over a Century of DRAFT
Engineering Excellence
Alternatives Evaluation Summaries
The information that follows is provided to aid you in answering each of the questions in the
above questionnaire. This is the, same information the study team is using in its comparison of
the potential bypass alternatives.
Question 1 Evaluation Information
Starting the bypass south of the "S" curves on US 321, like south end alternatives "A",
"B", "CC-A", and "CC-B"
Advantaaes
The further south the bypass begins, the less road construction US 321 users would
encounter. These alternatives start the furthest south. The NCDOT will, however, impose
a traffic management plan on its contractor and two lanes of travel will remain open
virtually all the time when the existing road is being widened.
The further south the bypass begins, the more opportunity exists for travelers to avoid six
to eight percent grades on the existing road. It is expected that 7,200 to 11,000 vehicles
will use the bypass on the average day in 2025. (Note: There is, however, only 0.6 mile
of grades greater than six percent between the starting point of these alternatives and
the starting point of the "C" and "CC-C" alternatives considered under question 2. The
balance of this portion of US 321 has grades of 1.5 to 5 percent, not as steep as a
bypass.)
Bypass users would avoid seven curves with less than a 50 mph design speed just
south of Blowing Rock. These curves would not be fully corrected with the widening
alternative. (Note: the "C" and "C-CC" alternatives also have this advantage.)
Displacement of existing land uses would be lower with these alternatives. For example,
most bypass alternatives that begin south of the "S" curves would displace only one or
two homes south of Blowing Rock. The "B" alternative would displace approximately
eight homes south of Blowing Rock. The widening alternative would displace 12 homes
south of Blowing Rock.
Diversion of traffic from existing US 321 to a bypass would reduce noise levels at homes
along existing US 321.
Disadvantages
Starting further south increases total project cost. For example, the non-tunnel bypass
locations studied to date using the "A", "CC-A", "B" and "CC-B" south end alternatives
would have a construction cost of $47.5 to $92.6 million. The bypass locations studied
to date using the "D" south end alternative, which begins near the Town Limits of
Blowing Rock, would cost $41.9 to 43.8 million.
The further south the bypass begins, the longer the distance drivers remaining on the
existing road south of Blowing Rock (4,400-7,500 vehicles on the average day in 2025)
would suffer from narrow lanes, sharp curves, and congestion. Such problems could be
corrected by widening the existing road and starting the bypass further north. The "A"
and "CC-A" alternatives would leave 3.5 miles of US 321 south of Blowing Rock
unimproved. The "B" and "CC-B" alternatives would leave 2.7 to 2.8 miles of US 321
south of Blowing Rock unimproved.
s
Bypass Alternatives 9 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
The further south the bypass begins, the more new thoroughfare that is introduced to
rural communities that now only have low levels of local traffic passing through them.
The further south the bypass begins, the greater the loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat.
While on the Blowing Rock flank, this alternative would pass through the property
containing the James Francis Matthews House. The bypass would be below the home.
This home is likely to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All bypass
alternatives would use land from this property, which extends down the Blue Ridge flank
to about 3,200 feet in elevation. If the property is eligible for the National Register, the
requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will apply.
Question la Evaluation Information
Starting the bypass south of the "S" curves on US 321 and crossing Bolick Road on a long
high level bridge, like south end alternatives "CC-A" and "CC-B"
Advantaaes -- None
Disadvantacies
This bridge would cross a valley. It would be 1,600 feet long, have an average height of
115 feet and a maximum height of 184 feet.
It adds $4.4 million to project costs over the;'A" alternative that does not cross the valley.
It would be a significant new visual feature in -the valley community served by Bolick
Road.
Question lb Evaluation Information
Starting the bypass south of the "S" curves on US 321 and bringing the bypass through
the Bailey Camp Church and cemetery area, like south end alternatives "A", "CC-A", and
"CC-B"
Advantaaes
It would displace six to eight fewer homes than the "B" alternative, the only other
alternative that starts south of the S" curves.
Disadvantaaes
Placing a bypass in this area would either displace the church and cemetery or place a
large fill or retaining wall adjacent to it. The large fill is needed because the road would
be shifted from the top of the ridge to the side of the ridge to save the church and
cemetery.
• Saving the church and cemetery would add approximately $15.0 million to the bypass'
earthwork costs, assuming the designs used for the "CC-A" and "CC-B" alternatives and
the "A" alternative associated with Alternative AJ. These designs assume a maximum
6.25 percent grade. With these alternatives, the elevation of the road fill would be 150
feet higher than the elevation of the church and cemetery. The fill height could be
lowered, decreasing the $15 million extra cost, if grades were increased north of this
point. For example, with an eight percent maximum grade, a design passing through
this area would be 50 feet above the elevation of the church and cemetery.
• Replacing the large fill on the side of the ridge with a bridge would cost $23.5 million.
Bypass Alternatives 10 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
Question 2 Evaluation Information
Starting the bypass north of the "S" curves but south of the sharp curves just below the
Town of Blowing Rock, like south end alternatives "C" and "CC-C"
Advantages
Construction costs tend to be in the middle when the bypass begins north of the "S"
curves but south of the sharp curves just below the Town Limits of Blowing Rock. (In the
table distributed at the December 17, 1996 Steering Committeelinteragency meeting,
however, Alternative C is shown as costing more than Alternatives A and B. This results
from variations in how these alternatives meet US 321 at Opossum Hollow Road and not
from the characteristics of the alternatives south of Blowing Rock. Variations at
Opossum Hollow Road are discussed later, where they are relevant to the decision-
making process.)
Bypass users would avoid seven curves with less than a 50 mph design speed. These
final curves before Blowing Rock would be improved but not fully corrected with the
widening alternative. (Note, the "A". "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" alternatives, considered
above, also have this advantage.)
These alternatives would leave only 1.5 miles of existing US 321 unimproved south of
Blowing Rock. For this distance, between 4,400 and 7,500 vehicles on the average day
in 2025 would suffer from the narrow lanes and congestion that could be corrected by
widening the existing road and starting the bypass further north. This distance is much
less than the unimproved distances left with the "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B"
alternatives (2.7 to 3.5 miles). Alternatives considered in question 3, however, reduce
this distance to zero or near zero.
The further south the bypass begins, the more new thoroughfare that is introduced to
rural communities that now only have low levels of local traffic passing through them. For
example, the "CC-C" alternative has 1.9 miles of new road below the top of the Blue
Ridge flank. The "CC-A" alternative has 3.8 miles of new road below the top of the Blue
Ridge flank.
The further south the bypass begins, the greater the loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat.
For example, with the "CC-C" alternative, 60 acres of land would be cleared and
grubbed below the top of the Blue Ridge flank. The "CC-A" alternative would require
120 acres of land to be cleared and grubbed below the top of the Blue Ridge flank,
although some of that area was clear-cut in recent years.
Disadvantages
• Traffic on US 321 would pass through 1.2 to 2.0 more miles of road construction than
with the "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" alternatives. The NCDOT, however, would impose
a traffic management plan on its contractor and two lanes of travel would remain open
virtually all the time during construction when the existing road is being widened.
• Less opportunity exists for travelers to avoid six to eight percent grades on the existing
road (0.6 mile more of six to eight percent grades with the "C" and "CC-C" alternatives
than the "A" and "CC-A" alternatives). It is expected that 7,200 to 11,000 vehicles will
use the bypass on the average day in 2025.
• Approximately 14 homes would be displaced south of Blowing Rock.
• Most noise impacts associated with the widening alternative would remain.
s
Bypass Alternatives 11 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
While on the Blowing Rock flank, this alternative would pass through the property
containing the James Francis Matthews House. The bypass would be below the home.
This home is likely to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All bypass
alternatives would use land from this property, which extends down the Blue Ridge flank
to about 3,200 feet in elevation. If the property is eligible for the National Register, the
requirements of SectionA(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will apply.
Question 3 Evaluation Information
Starting the bypass just south of Blowing Rock, like the "D" south end alternative and
Alternatives E and F
Advantages
Alternatives that begin at this point would have the lowest construction costs.
These alternatives would leave very little (0.0 to 0.25 miles) of existing US 321
unimproved south of Blowing Rock.
These alternatives best avoid rural communities and undisturbed natural areas south of
Blowing Rock.
Disadvantages
• With the "D" south end alternative, a bypass is created that is longer than the existing
road, making it less attractive to local traffic that might choose to use the bypass instead
of the existing road. This is not the case with Alternatives E and F or any other of
alternatives that end south of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
• Traffic on US 321 would pass through 2.5 to 3.5 more miles of road construction than
with "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" alternatives and 1.3 to 1.5 miles more than the "C" and
"CC-C" alternatives. The NCDOT, however, would impose a traffic management plan on
its contractor and two lanes of travel would remain open virtually all the time during
construction when the existing road is being widened.
• Less opportunity exists for travelers to avoid six to eight percent grades on the existing
road (1.9 to 2.1 miles more of six to eight percent grades with the "D" alternative than the
"A" and "CC-A" alternatives; 1.3 to 1.5 miles more of six to eight percent grades than the
"C" and "CC-C" alternatives). It is expected that 7,200 to 11,000 vehicles will use the
bypass on the average day in 2025.
• All of these alternatives would displace 12 homes along their widening section.
• The "D" south end alternative, as designed at this time, would displace the Blackberry
Ridge Condominiums. If the "D" alternative is carried forward into the EIS, the potential
for avoiding this displacement can be examined further.
• All traffic would pass through five ("D" alternatives) to seven (Alternatives E and F)
curves with less than a 50 mph design speed.
• The noise impacts south of Blowing Rock associated with the widening alternative would
remain.
• While on the Blowing Rock flank, these alternatives would pass through the property
containing the James Francis Matthews House. The "D" alternative would be below the
home on the Blue Ridge flank. Alternative E would use one corner of the property at
Green Hill Road. Alternative F would use a strip of land along Green Hill Road. This
home is likely to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All bypass
alternatives would use land from this property, which extends down the Blue Ridge flank
Bypass Alternatives 12 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
to about 3,200 feet in elevation. If the property is eligible for the National Register, the
requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will apply.
Question 4 Evaluation Information
A north end alternative, like Alternative E, that tops the Blue Ridge Flank just north of
Green Hill and takes a direct route to Opossum Hollow Road and US 321
Advantages
• It is the lowest cost bypass alternative, $34.5 million construction and $11.8 right-of-way
($46.3 total). The construction and right-of-way costs of the widening alternative total .
$32.7 million.
• Within Blowing Rock, it would require the least earthwork, have the narrowest footprint
(approximately 180 feet at its widest points), and be the shortest alternative.
• It diverts the most traffic from US 321.
• The National Park Service considers it to be the bypass alternative with the least visual
impact on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
• It affects the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds the least; it would pass by the Assembly
Grounds near its service entrance.
Disadvantaoes
• The potential for displacement is the second greatest, 20 homes. Displacement of
homes on top of Green Hill would be avoided.
• It would pass through the Green Hill Road, Wonderland Drive, and Opossum Hollow
Road communities. It would be closest to the most heavily developed areas of Blowing
Rock.
• It would result in the loss of 0.7 acre of wetland. C
• As noted under question 3, re-grading would occur at one corner of the property
containing the James Francis Matthews House, which is likely to be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. If the property is eligible for the National Register,
the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will
apply.
Question 5 Evaluation Information
A north end alternative, like Alternative F, that tops the Blue Ridge Flank just north of
Green Hill and passes north of the Blowing Rock Assembly Ground's lodge before ending
at US 321 in the Opossum Hollow Road area
Advantages
Alternative F's construction and right-of-way costs are only $5 million greater than
Alternative E's ($51.3 million versus $46.3 million). The total cost of Alternative F is
similar to the total cost of Alternatives D and DG ($51.3 million and $53.8 million,
respectively), as presented in the table distributed at the December 17, 1996 Steering
Committee/Interagency meeting
• It is second best (compared with Alternative E) in minimizing visual impact to the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
Bypass Alternatives 13 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
like many other north end alternatives, it does well in attracting traffic from existing US
321.
Disadvantages
• At the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds, this alternative replaces current forest views
from the lodge with views of the bypass. In addition, natural areas used by retreat
participants are used, a-marked trail is displaced, and the entrance to the grounds is
altered. This alternative and those discussed in question 6 have the greatest impact on
the Assembly Grounds.
• The potential for displacement is the greatest, 23 homes. Displacement of homes on top
of Green Hill would be avoided.
• It would pass through the Green Hill Road, Wonderland Drive, Goforth Road, and
Opossum Hollow Road communities.
• It results in the loss of 1.1 acres of wetland.
• As noted in question 3, re-grading would occur along US 321 on the property containing
the James Francis Matthews House, which is likely to be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. If the property is eligible for the National Register, the requirements of
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will apply.
Question 6 Evaluation Information
A north end alternative, like the study's original Alternatives A, B, C, and D, that passes
within view of the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds lodge and ends at Opossum Hollow
Road
Advantages
Like many other north end alternatives, it does well in attracting traffic from existing US
321.
Once one leaves the Blue Ridge flank and Craig family farm area, views from the Blue
Ridge Parkway are blocked by terrain.
Disadvantages
• The cost of this north end alternative could be the lowest of the corridors that top the
Blue Ridge flank near the Parkway, but only if an eight percent grade is maintained from
the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds to almost the US 321 intersection. If a shallow
grade were introduced approximately 1,100 feet from US 321, the earthwork would
increase and the cost would increase about $10 million.
• At the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds, this alternative would replace current forest
views from the lodge with views of the bypass. In addition, natural areas used by retreat
participants are used, a marked trail is displaced, and the entrance to the grounds is
altered. This alternative and Alternative F would have the greatest impact on the
Assembly Grounds.
• Up to 20 homes could be displaced. This number could be reduced substantially in the
Heather Ridge Lane area, but earthwork costs would increase.
• It would pass through the Craig family farm area on Green Hill Road, the Goforth Road
community, and the Opossum Hollow Road community.
Bypass Alternatives 14 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
It is within views from the Thunder Hill overlook and within views of the Green Hill Road
area from the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Question 7 Evaluation Information
A north end alternative, like the "G" alternative, that passes through the southeast part of
the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds and ends at Opossum Hollow Road
Advantages
• Like many other north end alternatives, it would do well in attracting traffic from existing
US 321.
• Once one leaves the Blue Ridge flank and Craig family farm area, views from the Blue
Ridge Parkway are blocked by terrain.
• It would have the least impact on the Blowing Rock Assembly Ground's operations of
any north end alternative that stays south of the Parkway except Alternative E.
• It would include shallower grades (6.5 percent maximum) at the lowest cost. Costs
associated with this alternative are only slightly higher than the alternative addressed in
question 6.
Disadvantages
• Re-grading would occur near Independent Baptist Church, which could be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, but the study's architectural historian is
recommending to the State Historic Preservation Office that they determine it to be
ineligible.
• Up to 19 homes could be displaced. This number could be reduced substantially in the
Heather Ridge Lane area, but earthwork costs would increase.
• It would pass through the Craig family farm area on Green Hill Road, the Goforth Road
community, and the Opossum Hollow Road community.
• It is within views from the Thunder Hill overlook and within views of the Green Hill Road
area from the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Question 8 Evaluation Information
A north end alternative, like the "H" alternative, that closely parallels the Blue Ridge
Parkway and ends at US 321 between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Moses Cone Park
Advantages
• Like many other north end alternatives, it would do well in attracting traffic from existing
US 321.
• Once one leaves the Blue Ridge flank and Craig family farm area, views from the Blue
Ridge Parkway are blocked by terrain.
• It would avoid most of the communities south of the Parkway. It would pass through the
Craig family farm area and undeveloped portions of Hillwinds Estates.
• It would displace only two homes and a restaurant/motel.
Bypass Alternatives 15 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
Disadvantages
Of all the north end alternatives, this one would pass through. higher terrain with the most
regularity, increasing the amount of earthwork and making it the most expensive north
end alternative that ends south of the Parkway. For example, the difference in non-tunnel
excavation costs between this north end alternative and one that crosses the Parkway is
$11.8 million. Steeper grades would reduce the amount of earthwork and the cost of this
alternative somewhat.
At the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds, natural areas used by retreat participants are
used and a marked trail is displaced. It is not within view of the lodge, but rather hidden
by the terrain.
It is within views from the Thunder Hill overlook and within views of the Green Hill Road
area from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Parkway officials consider this north end alternative
to have the greatest potential for visual impact because if the existing forest were to die,
the bypass would be readily visible from the Parkway for its full length parallel to the
Parkway.
Question 9 Evaluation Information
A north.end alternative, like the "I" and "J" alternatives, that crosses the Parkway in a
tunnel
Advantages
It would pass through only the Thunder Hill Road community.
It is in view of the Blue Ridge Parkway only as it moves along the Blue Ridge Flank.
There, it can be seen from the Thunder Hill overlook.
It would avoid the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds.
Disadvantages
This is the most expensive north end alternative because of the tunnel. A tunnel would
have a construction cost of approximately $32.3 to $35.4 million. In addition, a tunnel
would have on-going operations costs. The National Fire Protective Association
Standard 502 specifies a 24-hour-a-day immediate response capability for all new
tunnels over 800 feet long. A staff of 23 persons would be needed to meet this
specification. Emergency manpower near the tunnel also is important because of the
tunnel's remote location. Lives could be lost if there was a fire in the tunnel and trained
people were not on the scene to properly direct the smoke out of the tunnel using the
tunnel's mechanical ventilation system, rescue people trapped in the tunnel, and
extinguish the fire. In addition, subcontractors would be needed to provide janitorial
services in the operations building, computer maintenance, and major repair of tunnel
systems. A tunnel shorter than 800 feet cannot be built without encroaching on the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
This north end alternative would attract the least amount of traffic from US 321 to the
bypass. Only 7,200 vehicles a day (average annual traffic) would use the bypass in
2025. The other north end alternatives can attract up to 11,000 vehicles per day in 2025.
The primary negative effect of this change is that existing US 321 would carry enough
traffic to warrant its widening in the Green Park Historic District in 2026. A bypass that
ends south of the Parkway can attract enough traffic from US 321 to delay any
consideration of widening US 321 in the Historic District until 2040 (assuming current
average traffic growth continues beyond 2025).
Bypass Alternatives 16 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire

A trade-off exists between displacing homes and loss of wetlands. Two alternatives
north of the Parkway were examined, "I" and "J." The "I" alternative would displace 21
homes (including 19 mobile homes) and avoid wetlands. The, "J" alternative would avoid
the 21 homes but would displace approximately 3.4 acres of wetlands. The "J"
alternative also would pass near some older homes. A survey would be needed to
determine if they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
It passes through the Thunder Hill community.
Bypass Alternatives 17 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire

Ywr i? ??t 3 } ? T ! k"
?a
s a, f 'o'r , a 3 i ,P }
4 ruR ai, l
=v
1,''? ( g 31 r?
- ?1 \,.. iRt. -Mp4r r n'i1> ? a t i `J
s
f
ThL?erl , 0*-,
7 r
7W, 6
? s ,.Cr 3ah ris r^ a? t. r ` F ?Assembly ?. `y -.; r 1 flt
Grounds r' s 7 .t ?. i r,
Lodge Tunnel Under d
w ,?-- Blue Ridge tiro
Independent Parkway
Baptist Church
144
?''C
l a? Matthews < House
E --
Green
Blowin??J OCk Hlll
! we 4f(G't?._ ,, Y; `
u ll? l+'I -r
\; h` it&se. `
'fern ?e 4r ?-' . ?`?y E •i-?;? ?
'a7m ? to `' X41. 1.
Original AB/CID
v ? f ,?
`ttEBfiRtGYEO?s% ??. ,?,rrrri ?rm -
• ? ?? ? 1 X y?iG I ? •\
d`? n'r. v ` •'? ?6?
LEGEND
miimiim1 Alternative E.
0=6=0? Alternative F.
• • • • • • • Location associated with original
Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
Note: All north end alternatives except E and F merge into one
corridor on the Blue Ridge Flank. On the Blue Ridge Flank,
Alternatives E and F also merge. All alternatives except H, I, & J
merge into one corridor at Opposum Hollow Road.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 "G" alternative.
M M W alternaSve.
11111111111111 "I" and J" alternatives.
Areas where multiple alternatives merge.
North End Corridor Figure
Alternatives 2

c
Matthews J t E T «v `?
3 t o t , t > aj} . House
Green
. I31a?y?1?g`oc k' Hill r ` " 4 f ' fro ,' ) 1\
Jyj
$•. ?'?
Ali
i U. F -' r Bailey Camp FS }>
?5 1 Church-
i
Blowing Rock
/.i.4,,,,?
w,
Last curves
before
Blowing Rock amp e6 k
,
? ? C C-C bfYena Crtm , ? l??? ? :, ?
CC-A
Existing "S" 00' ?.
ZICurves
i _
1
j 4 set ?i >ti+ `i?i.?
R"bins Gad
CC-e ;? ??? E. a?•
L/
I c a .?
i
0 .5 1" ?? .rg
:5?? ?_? ." ?I ?;
00"
.?
; ? 1 mile" WO
SCALE 40
r.
LEGEND
1111111111111111111111 A" e" "CC-A", & "CC-B" alternatives.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ *C"& "CC-C" alternatives.
•••••••••••••• D"alternative.
• • Alternatives E & F.
Area where multiple alternatives merge.
Note: A" "B", "C; D" "CC-A"CC-C"alternatives South End Corridor Figure
all merge into one corridor on the Blue Ridge Flank. Alternatives 1
1 L
South End Alternatives
The South End Alternatives are shown in Figure 1. All the South End
Alternatives can be connected to any North End Alternative,
except Alternatives E and F.
1. Should Blowing Rock bypass alternatives that start south of the "S" curves on US 321 be
examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement ? See the evaluation
information on page 9. The "A", "B" "CC-A", and "CC-B" south end alternatives start
south of the "S" curves.
[J Yes, because:
1
No, because: CC
G ?oS RtS ??-•C?( G?/ S?!// ?JICv?(e ?C?C??'-I
Questions 1a and 1b ask additional questions about the alternatives that start
south of the "S" curves. Thus, if you answered "no" to question 1, rejecting all
such alternatives, you may choose to skip questions 1a and 1b.
1a. Should an alternative that begins south of the "S" curves and crosses Bolick Road on a
long high level bridge be examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement ? The
bridge would be 1,600 feet long and have an average height of 115 feet. See the
evaluation information on page 10. The "CC-A"and "CC-B" south end alternatives
include this bridge.
D Yes, because:

9 --'No, because:
Bypass Alternatives
Preference Questionnaire
2
January 23, 1997

1b. Should an alternative that begins south of the "S" curves and passes through the Bailey
Camp Church and cemetery area be examined further in the Environmental Impact
Statement ? See the evaluation information on page 10. The "A", "CC A" and "CC-B"
south end alternatives are in the area of this church and cemetery.
5 Yes, because:
0/"No, because:
2. Should Blowing Rock bypass alternatives that start north of the "S" curves but south of
the sharp curves just below the Town of Blowing Rock be examined further in the
Environmental Impact Statement ? See the evaluation information on page 11. The "C"
and "CC-C" south end alternatives have this characteristic.
D Yes, because:
]No, because:
3. Should Blowing Rock bypass alternatives that start just south of the Town Limits of
Blowing Rock be examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement ? See the
evaluation information on page 12. The "D" south end alternative and Alternatives E and
F have this characteristic.
[i Yes, because:
b
!f
No, because: ?UV

Bypass Alternatives
Preference Questionnaire
3
ct?r?-, c??CP/.?
C-j?S,
January 23, 1997

North End Alternatives
None of the north end alternatives would use lands from either the
Blue Ridge Parkway or Moses Cone Park. These alternatives are shown in
Figure 2. All the North End Alternatives can be connected to any South End
Alternative, except Alternatives E and F.
4. Should a north end alternative that tops the Blue Ridge Flank just north of Green Hill and
takes a direct route to Opossum Hollow Road and US 321 be examined further in the
Environmental Impact Statement? See the evaluation information on page 13.
Alternative E has these characteristics.
E? Yes, because:
No, because:
5. Should a north end alternative that tops the Blue Ridge Flank just north of Green Hill and
passes north of the Blowing Rock Assembly Ground's lodge before ending at US 321 in
the Opossum Hollow Road area be examined further in the Environmental Impact
Statement? See the evaluation information on page 13. Alternative Fhas these
characteristics.
[J Yes, because:
0 '/'No, because: 1 ?1 S G? ?`?e/??Ci ?i I/E- "1 T?-i
Bypass Alternatives 4 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire
H 6-
6. Should a north end alternative that tops the Blue Ridge Flank near the Blue Ridge
Parkway and passes north of the Blowing Rock Assembly Ground's lodge before ending
at US 321 in the Opossum Hollow Road area be examined further in the Environmental
Impact Statement? See the evaluation information on page 14. The north end location
associated with the study's original Alternatives A,. B, C, and D has these characteristics.
D Yes, because:
<No because:
7. Should a north end alternative that passes through the southeast part of the Blowing
Rock Assembly Grounds and ends at US 321 in the Opossum Hollow Road area be
examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement? See the evaluation information
on page 15. The "G" north end alternative has these characteristics.
a Yes, because:
No, because:
8. Should a north end alternative that closely parallels the Blue Ridge Parkway and ends at
US 321 between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Moses Cone Park be examined further in
the Environmental Impact Statement? See the evaluation information on page 15. The
H" north end alternative has these characteristics.
Yes, because:
R/No, because:
Bypass Alternatives 5 January 23, 1997
Preference Questionnaire

9. Should a north end alternative that includes a tunnel under the Parkway and ends at Aho
Road be examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement? See the evaluation
information on page 16. The and J" north end alternatives have these
characteristics.
[) Yes, because:
? No, because:
Further Thoughts
10. Look back over your questionnaire. If you answered "no" to every question, please
explain why you believe none of the potential bypass alternatives should be examined
further in the EIS.
:, ?-f?'e 5-Es v
a
do ?ca-F c,
w? ca -1 yrG? C
11.

411 11-7
6 vii 1ol'
LLol'c tras over y
uestions ur questionnaire. If ou answered " es" f the
q, p y you believe all or most of the ?ten al bypas s alternatives
should mned fu te1 The findings obypass studies to
will be included in the EIS.
12. Do you have any additional thoughts on how you answered these questions that you
would like to share with the study team? Please write them below.
e . G?QC v??
'7L/? C
?r P-ec-4 eel 4,
Bypass Alternatives b- SeS
Preference Questionnaire
J15
(,l r ?r ?k? L°? '?>°? lJ SvS
se c a--I ass NC 7-
-EL?a -? e-ki w e -?(Cvt,o? q ?c0 5 - 1'7

January 23, 1997
i
Conclusions on US 321 Improvement Alternatives
to Evaluate in DEIS
prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff
October 13, 1999
(NCDOT letter announcing this decision is attached)
? Enhanced Widening Alternative
- This is the least costly alternative.
- Although it takes property from hiss
district, the NCDOT believes it can
designed to be an asset to the con
- About half of the respondents to th
8 presentation favored this
alternative.
- The NCDOT prefers this
alternative at this time.
? Bypass Alternative 1 (Alternative E in 1997 Alternatives
Study)
- Although there is unanimous public disapproval for this alternative
because of its potential impacts to the community on Green Hill
Road., the NCDOT is studying this alternative because it avoids
impacts to historic properties. The FHWA is required by law to study
historic resources avoidance alternatives to determine if they are
feasible and prudent.
? Bypass Alternative 4 (Alternative CC-Al in 1997
Alternatives Study)
- The NCDOT is studying this alternative because of public support. In
the past, Blowing Rock public officials also have favored this
alternative. About half of the responses to the March 8 presentation
supported this alternative.
- The NCDOT does not prefer this alternative because of its high cost,
substantial natural resource impacts, substantial visual impacts, and
community impacts to the Blackberry Valli and Bailey Camp areas.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting
November 4, 1999
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
(
Fax:[phone]

Aug S '99 1006
STATE-OF•NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART OP TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR, P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N•G 29611-5201
GOVERNOR
July 20, 1999
Mr. rim Hipp
Manager, City of Lenoir
Post Office Box 958.
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
Dear Mr. Hipp:
P. 02
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
On March 8 at a meeting held-in Bldwing Rock, former Secretary Norris Tolson,
proposed that the US 321 project focus on ats enhanced widening alternative. This was a
good opportunity for staff to discuss the project and to listen to your interest and
concerns- Our staff presented a video that provided updated information on the bypass
alternatives and showed the enhanced widening-alt native. We asked for comments on
our proposal be submitted by May 10.
We received almost 200 responses to our enhanced widening proposal from
citizens concerned about the future of•Blowing Rock. The citizens included year-round
residents, seasonal residents, property owners, visitors, and organizations.
Approximately half of the respondents favored the enhanced widening option. The other
half preferred bypass alternative 4 that includes a tunnel underneath the Blue Ridge
Parkway. Some of the opponents to the enhanced widening option suggested that nothing
needed to be done to improve transportation mobility along US 321.
Based on the comments we received acid discussions with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), we have decided that`the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) will evaluate three alternatives in detail: the enhanced widening
alternative, bypass alternative 1, and:bypass alternative 4. Bypass alternatives 2 and 3
will not be studied further unless additional information supporting their continued
consideration becomes available. Alternatives 2 and 3 will be documented in the DEIS
with their current lever of detail as alternatives evaluated but dropped from consideration.
Alternative 4 has high cost, substantial natural: resource and visual impacts. Alternative 4
will be evaluated in detail because -it-minimizes -impacts to historic properties protected
by United States Department of Transportation/FHWA regulations [Section 4(f)] and has
public support. The enhanced widening alternative and bypass altemative 4 take property
from protected historio'resources. -Alternative bypass 1 avoids impacts to historic
properties. Consequently, the FHWA is required by law to study this alternative in detail
to determine if it is feasible and prudent.
NCDOT/P&E BRR CH Fax:[phone] Aug S '99 1007 P.03
-2-
The United States Department of Transportation/FHWA 4(f) regulation specifies
that the Secretary of the USDOT may approve federal transportation projects which take
historic or other resources protected under the regulation if there is iao feasible and
prudent alternative to such use, and the protect includes all possible planning to minimize
harm
The enhanced widening alternative-remains the North Carolina Department of
Transportatign's (NCDOT) preferred alternative and will be identified as such in the
DEIS. However, the selection of an alternative for implementation will not be made until
the impacts of each alternative, as-well as comments on the DEIS and from the public
hearing, have been fully evaluated. In addition the social, economic and environmental
impacts of each altemaNve, along with opportunities to reduce community, natural
resource, and other impacts, will be examined-for all three alternatives. Should the Town
of Blowing Rock, or any recognized citizen group desire to identify a preferred
alternative, we would indicate in the DEIS their respective preferred alternatives.
The primary reasons noted by respondents for opposing the enhanced widening
were the need to preserve Blowing Rock's •viHage character, historic resource impacts,
impacts to homes and businesses along the existing road, economic impacts, safety, fear
the project would quickly become-obsolete and increased traffic. These concerns were
given high priority when we made our proposal: Ve remain convinced that a carefully
crafted enhanced widening can address most of these concerns.
However, a federally acceptable alternative cannot be selected until a DEIS and a
Draft 4(f) Statement are made available to the public and to regulatory agencies for
comment and these comments have been evaluated. A public hearing will be held
subsequent to the release of the DEIS. The Anal decision on a federally-fundable selected
route would be made by the FHWA•based on the DEIS, an evaluatiod of all input
received, development of additional studies if necessary, and a recommendation by the
NCDOT.
Our offer to work with the Town of Blowing Rock to create a widening
alternative that will be an asset to Blowing Rock-remains open. We feel that we can
develop a project that addresses and relieves concerns that have been raised We look
forward to working with you and will keep you abreast of our progress.
Sincerely,
David McCoy
DWddk
cc: Sam Erby, Member, Board of Transportation
David Ding, Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Gene Cleckley, FHWA
Nick Graf, FHWA

- too
YEARS
To: file
From: Nicole Heckstall
Date: December 19, 1996
Memorandum
Subject: Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Meeting #2 held on December 17, 1996
Attendees:
Don Holycross Town Manager, Blowing Rock
Brent Graybear Watauga County
Phillip Trew Region D Council of Governments
Gary Everhardt Blue Ridge Parkway
Gary Johnson Blue Ridge Parkway
Carolyn Ewing Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock
Ginny Stevens Blowing Rock Historical Society
Carolyn Baucom NC Alliance for Transportation Reform
Jane Helm Appalachian State University
Mark Cantrell US Fish and Wildlife Service
Debbie Bevin NC Department of Cultural Resources (SHPO)
Renee Gledhill-Earley NC Department of Cultural Resources (SHPO)
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Eric Galamb NCDEHNR - Division of Water Quality
Roy Shelton FHWA
Don Voelker FHWA
Felix Davila FHWA
Tim A. Haugh FHWA - Region 4
Jennifer Kittle FHWA - Region 4
Everett Ward NCDOT - Planning and Programming
Leigh Cobb NCDOT - Planning and Environmental
David McDonald NCDOT- Statewide Planning
Jay Bissett NCDOT - Planning and Environmental
Wade Hoke NCDOT - Division 11
Carl Goode NCDOT - Citizen Participation
Richard Davis NCDOT - Planning and Environmental
Frank Vick NCDOT - Planning and Environmental
John Page Parsons Brinckerhoff
Dean Hatfield Parsons Brinckerhoff
Nicole Heckstall Parsons Brinckerhoff
Sandy Smith Environmental Services, Inc.
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
f
too
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 19, 1996
page 2
Leigh Cobb opened the meeting and explained the status of the project. Attendees introduced
themselves. John Page made a presentation. The presentation slides are attached.
CRITERIA USED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
John discussed the criteria used by the study team to identify bypass alternatives. He also
discussed additional criteria of the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock.
ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR KEY LOCATION DIFFERENCES
John presented the 17 potential bypass alternatives. The 10 initial alternatives are A and AG; B
and BG; C and CG; D and DG; and E and F. Seven alternatives were added since the Citizens
Informational Workshop in August. They are CC-AI, CC-AH, and AJ; CC-BI and CC-BH; and
CC-CI and CC-CH. All of the new alternatives, except for AJ, were developed by the
Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock.
All of the I-alternatives and AJ represent those that tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway. The
H-alternatives all closely parallel the Blue Ridge Parkway at the northern end and return to US
321 between Moses Cone Park and the Parkway.
The initial 10 alternatives all return to US 321 at the Opossum Hollow Road/Shoppes of the
Parkway intersection. The non-G alternatives pass between the Assembly Grounds lodge and
the Parkway and the G-alternatives and E pass south of the Assembly Grounds lodge.
Other key location differences are the southern end of the alternatives and where the
alternatives cross on the Blue Ridge flank (referred to as Blowing Rock flank in handout).
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
John noted that all comparisons assume equivalent projects. They all begin immediately south
of Falcon Crest and end at US 321 somewhere north of Blowing Rock. On the south, the
shorter bypasses include the applicable section of widening. He also noted that comparisons
will focus on corridors rather than each alignment within the corridors.
For the comparison, alternatives will be discussed in three parts, the southern end alternatives,
Blue Ridge flank alternatives, and northern end alternatives.
Construction Cost
John noted that the non-tunnel alternatives range from $37.5 million to $92.6 million, while the
tunnel alternatives range from $91.0 million to $122.0 million. He stated that the cost of the
tunnel alternative could be reduced if it were combined with a less costly south approach.
Travel Characteristics
The analysis revealed that the further south the bypass begins, the more benefits that will be
enjoyed by bypass users and less by those using existing US 321. Bypass users will avoid
more 6 to 8 percent grades and more sharp curves south of Blowing Rock with the alternatives
?r
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

==goo
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 19, 1996
page 3
that begin further south (As, Bs, and Cs) than those using existing US 321. Benefits are greater
for users of the existing road the further north the bypass starts primarily because more of the
existing road would be widened and improved by removing several of the sharper curves.
There is less use of the bypass by traffic with alternatives that end north of the Blue Ridge
Parkway. This occurs primarily because the bypass would be used less for local trips.
Therefore, for alternatives that cross the Parkway, there would be more traffic on existing US
321, particularly south of Sunset Drive.
Potential Displacement
John noted that bypass alternatives that begin further south have less displacement than those
that begin further north. This is because it is easier to avoid displacement in the area south of
Blowing Rock with a bypass. All of the bypass alternatives would affect rural communities east
of US 321; however, the longer bypass alternatives would have a greater effect on these
communities and would have less impact on homes along existing US 321.
John made the observation that the Concerned Citizens' alternatives and AJ avoid displacing
the homes lining the Blue Ridge Flank (in Green Hill), while A, AG, B, BG, C, CG, D, and DG
would displace 11 to 13 of these homes. There is, however, a trade-off associated with less
displacement - increased earthwork and cost. This trade-off would need to be pursued further
in the next phase of design.
For the northern end alternatives, the H-alternatives have the least potential for displacement.
The I-alternatives would displace a mobile home park and two homes. At its northern end, AJ
would displace a storage facility currently under construction on Aho Road near its intersection
with US 321. Alternative F would have the greatest potential for displacement. With all of the
northern end alternatives, through-traffic would be introduced to rural areas or second-home
areas that currently have only local roads. These areas would be affected least by the H-, 1-,
and J-alternatives.
Cost
In general, the bypass alternatives that start further south are more expensive than those that
start further north. The A-alternatives that contain the bridge over Bolick Road and that avoid
Bailey Camp Church and cemetery are particularly expensive.
For the northern end alternatives, those that stay in the valleys and have steeper grades (i.e.
less earthwork) are less expensive. The tunnel associated with the I-alternatives and AJ would
cost $32.3 million and $35.4 million, respectively, plus annual operating costs.
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
or
--too
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321
December 19, 1996
page 4
Visual Impacts
(R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
With the southern end alternatives, the bypass would become a visual element of the views
from Bailey Camp and Blackberry Valley. If a bridge were built across Bolick Road, it would be
a substantial new visual feature for those in the valley over which it crosses.
The H-alternatives have the greatest visual impact potential for the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Although much of the area through which these alternatives would pass is heavily forested,
representatives of the Parkway stated that one must consider the effect should something
happen to the trees. If the trees were not there, the H-alternatives, which closely parallel the
Parkway, would be visible from the Parkway for the greatest amount of time. Alternative E
would have the least effect on views from the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Alternatives A, B, C, D, and F would replace current forest views from the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds.
[HANDOUT ERRATA: Delete second bullet of first slide on page 7. Alternative A does not
follow Locust Ridge.]
Natural Resource Impacts
There are greater impacts to undisturbed natural areas with the alternatives that start further
south. The more southern alternatives also cross more streams.
Only alternatives E, F, and AJ affect wetlands. There is a trade-off associated with alternative
AJ. It would affect 3.4 acres of wetlands but would avoid the mobile home park and two homes
on Aho Road. The other tunnel alternatives, the Is, avoid the wetlands, but displace the mobile
home park and two homes.
Historic Resource Impacts
None of the alternatives displaces historic resources. There is regrading near the First
Independent Baptist Church (formerly the Blowing Rock Negro Community Church) associated
with the G-alternatives. E and F have regrading near the Matthews House. A survey is needed
to determine if a log cabin and another older home near AJ are historic.
QUESTION AND ANSWER/COMMENT SESSION
Leigh opened the discussion session by explaining why the new alternatives were developed.
She explained that no one on the Citizens Advisory Committee found the study team's initial
alternatives acceptable, whether they supported a bypass or not. The study team decided to
design the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock's alternatives exactly as the group proposed
them. The study team also decided to develop its own tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway
alternative. Leigh stated that the study team had received many letters supporting the
widening alternative.
Frank Vick explained that the Steering Committee needed to study the alternatives carefully and
pick those it considered reasonable for comparison with the widening alternative in the
tr
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

- rOo
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 19, 1996
page 5
environmental document. He commented that the cost of the tunnel alternatives could render
them unacceptable.
Gary Johnson offered the perspective of Parkway representatives. He explained that this
highway project cannot be considered in isolation, but rather the cumulative impacts of this
crossing plus the 114 or so other Parkway crossings in North Carolina and Virginia would have
to be considered cumulatively. Furthermore, the Blue Ridge Parkway must be considered as
part of the National Park Service.
Would a shorter tunnel be less expensive? Is this the least expensive tunnel that could be
developed? John Page answered that, according to Parsons Brinckerhoff's tunnel expert, a
shorter tunnel would increase the overall cost of the tunnel alternatives. A shorter tunnel would
lower tunnel costs but would increase portal and excavation costs by a greater amount than the
tunnel costs saved. The tunnel alternatives include the least cost combination of tunnel,
portals, and earthwork leading to the tunnel portal.
Gary Johnson commented that he was not sure about the Section 4(f) ramifications of a tunnel
under the Parkway versus an at-grade crossing. A tunnel could constitute a constructive use of
the Parkway.
In the evaluation of bypass alternatives, do those that start further north include the cost of
widening? John answered that all of the impacts include the appropriate section of widening,
therefore, all of the alternatives begin at the same point.
How many bypass alternatives will be evaluated? Frank Vick answered that he could not give a
specific number at this time, but we need to choose alternatives that meet the purpose and
need of the project and those whose benefit outweigh the cost. He commented that some of
the alternatives at this point do not meet or just barely meet those criteria. He further
commented that the Steering Committee and the study team need to ask themselves if the
tunnel alternatives are more feasible than the ones originally developed by the study team. He
is satisfied that the study team has done what the citizens asked. if the new alternatives are not
feasible, then they should be eliminated. if eliminated, they will be presented in the
environmental document and explained why they were eliminated.
Frank asked if there were ways to simplify the alternatives, so the committee would not have to
consider so many. John responded that the alternatives should be viewed as corridors rather
than individual alignments.
John commented that many of the locals supported the bypasses that started further south
because they believed that traffic during the construction period would force many tourists to
avoid Blowing Rock, thereby hurting the town's economy. He explained that many believed the
existing highway would be reduced to one lane during the construction period. Frank
responded that the highway would not be shutdown to one lane. A traffic control program
would be developed to maintain traffic in a safe manner during the construction period.
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

=1100
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 19, 1996
page 6
Eric Galamb asked what alternatives were considered to avoid impacts to wetlands north of the
Parkway (AJ). John answered that all of the other tunnel alternatives (l-alternatives) avoid the
wetlands, but they displace 21 homes. A? passes through the wetlands but avoids the homes.
Eric noted that mountain wetlands are very valuable and even a small impact is of concern.
Eric commented that significant cuts and fills, like those associated with the longer bypass
alternatives, probably would have major stream impacts. He asked if there were any
longitudinal encroachments into streams. Sandy Smith of Environmental Services, Inc.
responded that all stream crossings were perpendicular.
Eric added that he noticed that some of the alternatives cross fewer streams, but involve larger
areas than some with more stream crossings. Sandy responded that this was the case with E
and Fbecause they cross high up on the Blue Fudge flank and cross the streams at wider
points. A and AG in volve a substantial area of streams because they cross a stream in
Blackberry Valley at one of its wider points.
Eric asked if any of these alternatives were below the 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) line (a
Corps of Engineering term used for the permitting process). Sandy answered that he did not
think so. He added that such an analysis had not been considered at this point of the study.
Frank noted that he would like to see three or four alternatives because too many alternatives
would confuse the public. He suggested that Steering Committee members study the material
presented at this meeting and inform the NCDOT and FHWA of their preferences.
Leigh commented that local input has been a major emphasis of this project. The general
consensus is that the locals do not want a bypass through Blowing Rock. Don Holycross
added that the Town Council had not seen these alternatives when it made its official statement
in opposition to the bypass alternatives developed by the study team.
Ginny Stevens of the Blowing Rock Historical Society commented that she was skeptical about
the effectiveness of a traffic control program. She stated that local merchants are concerned
about their businesses remaining open and viable during the construction period. She stated
that the community would disappear if traffic no longer passed through it. She also commented
that residents are concerned about the historic resources. She stated that she appreciated the
constraints facing the study team, but she wanted the study team to understand how the locals
feel.
Carolyn Ewing of the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock and the Citizens Advisory Committee
commented that she wants to see an origin/destination study. She believes that such a study is
needed before the alternatives can be narrowed down to a few. She is not convinced of the
NCDOT's traffic numbers. She also commented that the argument about a longer bypass not
being used by the locals was a "bogus" argument. She said that a bypass is not designed for
local traffic. Its purpose instead is to offer efficient transportation for through-traffic. She stated
that right now there is a dangerous combination of eighteen wheelers and older drivers and that
t
Over a Century of
Engineering Exceiience
die
--goo
YEARS
Meeting Summary -- US 321 (R-2237C) EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 19, 1996
page 7
combination will continue and even worsen if the road is widened or if the bypass starts close to
Blowing Rock.
What is the Do-Nothing alternative? Is it possible to select it as an alternative? The Do-Nothing
Alternative must be included in the environmental document, according to NEPA requirements,
as a baseline against which to compare the build alternative. In rare instances, it has been the
preferred alternative. State law currently mandates that US 321 be widened (whether the
existing route or a bypass).
Carolyn Baucom asked John to explain again why the tunnel is so long. John reiterated the
explanation presented on page 5
Don Holycross commented that the presentation is not in a format that can be deciphered
easily. He would like to be able to choose which attributes of the various alternatives satisfy
those issues that are important to the Town Council. He understands that it was necessary for
the study team to present all of this information but he thinks it needs to be simplified before the
committee can begin choosing alternatives. John and Frank agreed that the information would
be simplified and given to NCDOT for review by mid-January. John asked Don if he would like
questions asking for decisions about features of the alternatives. For example, would you like a
bypass that starts further south? Would you like a tunnel alternative? Don said that would be
helpful.
Don asked Gary Johnson and Gary Everhardt what their reaction is to the alternatives that
parallel the Parkway (H-alternatives) versus those that tunnel under it. They responded that
those that parallel the Parkway have the greatest potential impact because they are only a few
feet from the Parkway boundary. They stated that, although the area is forested, more of these
alternatives would be visible and for a longer amount of time from the Parkway if the trees were
not there. if the alternative is perpendicular to the Parkway, depending on how high it is on the
ridge (Blue Ridge flank), it will be visible from the Parkway for a shorter period of time.
Frank closed the meeting by stating that the information would be simplified and distributed in
January. Steering committee members then can take up to two or three weeks to inform the
NCDOT or FHWA of their preferences.
Attachment (slide presentation)
c: H. Franklin Vick
Jay Bissett
Leigh Cobb
Everett Ward
Debbie Barbour
Felix Davila
Citizens Advisory Committee
task no.: 314552-1.77
file no.: 3145S2-2.7.1
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

Key Points Made in the March 8 Video
for the US 321 Improvements Study
Parsons Brinckerhoff
October 13, 1999
The March 8 video described the setting and history of the US 321 project and then focused on
four topics:
• The results of the Department's origin and destination and geotechnical studies, two studies
conducted since the last public and agency meetings
• The Department's concerns about the bypass alternatives, particularly taking into account
the findings of the geotechnical studies
• The introduction of the "Enhanced Widening Alternative."
• A proposal to the Town of Blowing Rock to drop all alternatives except Bypass Alternative 1,
as an historic resources avoidance alternative, and the Enhanced Widening Alternative
Following an eight-week comment period, the Department decided to retain Bypass Alternative
4 because of continued public interest, as well as retain the Enhanced Widening Alternative and
Bypass Alternative 1.
Origin and Destination Study
Daily traffic counts were made on US
321 at three locations. Volumes on
September 22, 1998 ranged from
6,600 vehicles just south of Blowing
Rock to 14,200 north of the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
In addition, a sample of drivers on US
321 was asked their origin, their
destination, and the purpose of their
trip. The Department found that
approximately 5,000 vehicles passed
through Blowing Rock on that day.
These trips neither began or ended in
Blowing Rock. Of the 5,000,
approximately 575 were trucks and
buses, including 275 heavy trucks.
The survey also found that almost 90 percent of the 5,000 through trips were local travelers from
Watauga, Caldwell, and the surrounding counties. Finally, the survey found that home or work
was the origin or destination for almost three quarters of the 5,000 through trips. Many of the
other trips were shopping trips to Boone and trips to Appalachian State University.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1 November 4, 1999

Geotechnical Studies
During geotechnical studies early in 1998, NCDOT
geologists walked every alignment, mapping the
characteristics of exposed geologic features.
The geotechnical studies found that in some locations, cut
slopes must be flatter than originally assumed. If the slope is
too steep, rock will slide onto the road. Cross section 1 from
bypass alternative 4 shows the steepness of cut slopes as
assumed in designs completed prior to the 1998
geotechnical studies. The flatter slopes recommended in
the 1998 study mean more earth will be removed and a
larger area is disturbed by excavation (cross section 2). Or a deep, flat cut can be replaced
with a tall, expensive retaining wall (cross section 3).
These geologic findings are of particular importance to the
bypass alternatives where they pass below homes
overlooking Blackberry Valley since the geologic features
in the project area that necessitate flatter slopes, tend to be
on these east facing slopes.
Bypass Concerns
The next two visualizations
of bypass 4 show the
imposing scale of the cuts
and fills that would be
involved, even with some
use of retaining walls to
minimize impacts to the
homes overlooking
Blackberry Valley.
Additional design studies
might reduce the size of
cuts and fills somewhat, but
tall cuts and fills are an
unavoidable consequence
of building a flat road on a
steep hillside.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 2 November 4, 1999
In addition to the visual impact,
bypass 4 and the other bypass
alternatives would require large
amounts of earthwork. Bypass
4, with the retaining walls
illustrated above and the tunnel,
would require the movement of
nearly 10 million cubic yards of
earth and rock. This amount of
material would fill over 150
football fields to the top of the
goal posts. Bypass 3 would
require over 12 million cubic
yards of earth and rock
movement. The widening
alternative requires the removal
of about 800,000 cubic yards,
almost all of which would be
outside of Blowing Rock.
Large amounts of
earthwork or retaining
walls translate into high
costs, with Bypass
Alternative 4, the tunnel
alternative, far and away
the most costly at well
over $100 million dollars.
The cost of the other
bypass alternatives
range from $44.4 to
$77.1 million. The
widening alternative
would cost about $23.5
million. These are new
1998 cost estimates that
take into account the
new geotechnical
findings
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 3 November 4, 1999
J
Enhanced Widening Alternative
While the concerns of cost, earthwork, natural resource loss, rural community disturbance, and
visual impact that are associated with the bypass alternatives are important, they are no less
important than the unique and historic character that makes Blowing Rock a valuable North
Carolina resource. The Department recognizes that the concerns associated with the widening
alternative must be directly and creatively addressed.
The widening alternative is
designed for a 35 mph speed limit
and the Department believes that
opportunities exist to enhance
Blowing Rock's small-town,
destination place-image with the
widening alternative.
Critical to an enhanced widening
project is the Green Park Historic
District. A simple four-lane-road
widening was proposed in 1994,
widened away from the Green Park
Inn. As shown in the adjoining
photo-realistic rendering, one
approach to an enhanced
widening project in the historic
district would include moving the
utilities underground. In front of the Inn, space exists for a landscaped median. Existing small
rock walls displaced by the widening would be replaced. As shown here, more could be
added. Stone could be used for the road's curbs. Period lampposts could be added to
enhance the historic feel and the pedestrian crossing could be accentuated with contrasting
paving materials.
On the existing downtown bypass,
the opportunity exists to bring this
area closer in line with the
character of the rest of the
community. In the adjoining
rendering of an enhanced project
the utilities are again
underground. Median
landscaping and rock wall
accents also are shown.
Sidewalks and accentuated
crosswalks could make this part of
US 321 more pedestrian-friendly.
These treatments can continue the
full length of the downtown
bypass. The amenities shown
would add about $6 million to the
cost of the widening alternative.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 4 November 4, 1999
Department's Proposal
The Department proposed for discussion that future US 321 studies and the Environmental
Impact Statement focus on the enhanced widening alternative, that bypass 1 serve as the
historic resource avoidance alternative that must be evaluated by Federal law, and that
bypasses 2, 3, and 4 be dropped from further consideration.
The Department of Transportation committed to the citizens of Blowing Rock that it would work
WITH the community to create a construction phasing and traffic management plan that will
minimize construction impacts. The Department said again that it would not alter Business US
321 through downtown Blowing Rock or use it as a construction detour and has never
contemplated doing either.
The Department offered to work with the Town Council and its appointees to create a widening
project that is an asset to Blowing Rock. The enhancements shown in the photo-realistic
renderings are only examples of what could be done. The Department stated that a final plan
only can be completed in partnership with the Blowing Rock community.
To help develop the enhanced widening alternative with the Town of Blowing Rock, the
Department offered to add historic resource and walkable community experts to the study team.
Finally, the Department and the Federal Highway Administration committed to funding project
amenities in recognition of the unique and historic character of Blowing Rock.
The proposal presented was described as only the first step. Based on comments received
over an eight week period, the Department decided to evaluate the Enhanced Widening
Alternative, Bypass Alternative 1, and Bypass Alternative 4 in full in the DEIS.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 5 November 4, 1999
N.
,ti
US 321 Improvements
1997 Bypass Alternatives Study
Summary and Conclusions
prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff
October 13, 1999
Purpose of the Alternatives Study
? To document the project's purpose and need
? To document the selection of reasonable bypass alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS with
the widening alternative
Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action Developed for 1997
Study
? Meet Objectives of County and State Plans
- 1981 Thoroughfare Plan for Caldwell County
- 1993 Thoroughfare Plan for Region D (Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga,
Wilkes, and Yancy counties) - adopted by Watauga County
- 1989 Highway Trust fund Act
? Improve future traffic flow
- Existing highway system lacks capacity to handle projected traffic in 2025
In 1997, the segment of US 321 south of Blowing Rock was operating at an undesirable
peak level of service E. Traffic in Blowing Rock was operating at a desirable peak hour level
of service C. Without improvements, the level of service will worsen and reach level of
service F south of Blowing Rock and E and F in Blowing Rock by 2025.
Either 4-lane existing road or bypass will relieve forecast congestion, but a bypass would be
less effective at reducing traffic congestion on existing US 321, which would remain two
lanes.
? Reduce accidents
- Accident rates along US 321 in project area substantially higher than average rates for
similar roads in North Carolina
- High accident rates reflect the design characteristics of the existing road, which include
steep grades, sharp curves, and narrow pavement widths
Improving the existing road would allow safe passing of slower moving vehicles, permit
smoother flow of traffic, allow vehicles to enter and exit the roadway more easily, and reduce
the chances of head-on and rear-end collisions. Traffic using a bypass would have these
same benefits. Accident rates, however, would remain the same on portions of US 321 that
remain unimproved with the bypass alternatives.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting
November 4, 1999
A
J
Potential Bypass Alternatives Evaluated
? Initially ten bypass location corridors were considered, all including a northern terminus at
Possum Hollow Road south of Blue Ridge Parkway (A, B, C, D, AG, BG, CG, DG, E, and F)
Four corridors that crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway added at the urging of Concerned
Citizens of Blowing Rock and Blowing Rock Town Council. Three (CC-AI, CC-BI, CC-CI)
were proposed by Concerned Citizens and one (AJ) was developed by study team)
? Concerned Citizens' concept for returning the bypass to US 321 south of the Parkway
(which they no longer support) also was added and connected to the southern termini of the
three Concerned Citizens' corridors (CC-AH, CC-BH, CC-CH).
A# of the corridors south of Blowing Flock, except Alternatives E and F could be mixed and
matched with any ending point on the north. Alternative F could be combined with the northern
ending point associated with alternatives CC AH, CC-BH, and CC-CH.
The alternatives are shown on the attached Figures 2 and Figures 9a and 9b from the
Alternatives Report. The comparison of alternatives is summarize in the attached Table > > from
the Alternatives Report.
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation in DEIS
South End Altemadves
? "A", "CC-A", "B", "CC-B" alternatives
Higher cost
Greater earthwork
Greater natural resource impacts
Social impacts to rural communities south of Blowing Rock
Substantial section of US 321 left unimproved
? "D" alternatives
- Did not bypass an approximately two-mile section of steep grades and sharp curves on
existing US 321 as it approaches Blowing Rock, an issue important to the Citizens
Advisory Committee
? "C" alternatives - selected CC-C over C because it was preferred by the Concerned Citizens
of Blowing Rock
North End Aftematives
? "Original A, B, C, and D Alternatives"
- Lack of public support for Possum Hollow Road terminus
- Impacts to Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds
? "G" Alternatives
- High displacement
- Visual impact on Blue Ridge Parkway
- Lack of public support for Possum Hollow Road terminus
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 2 November 4, 1999
Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation in the DEIS
? Alternative E (Bypass Alternative 1)
- Shortest and least expensive
- Avoids area historic resources
- Least visual impact on Blue Ridge Parkway
- Minimal impact on Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds
? Alternative FH (Bypass Alternative 2)
- Can be designed to avoid area historic resources
- Northern terminus is between Blue Ridge Parkway and northern-most residential
subdivision in Blowing Rock, unlike E, which terminates at Possum Hollow Road
? Alternative CC-CH (Bypass Alternative 3)
- Early in the study, the Concerned Citizens expressed interest in having a bypass that
remained as close to the Parkway as possible
- Bypasses final curves on existing US 321
? Alternative CC-1 (Bypass Alternative 4)
- Avoids Town of Blowing Rock, feature important to some members of Citizens Advisory
Committee
- Bypasses final curves on existing US 321 before Blowing Rock
In selecting these bypass alternatives for detailed evaluation /n the DE/S, the NCDOT and the
FHWA also concluded that based on the information known to date, they could not conclude at
that time that any of the bypass alternatives are reasonable alternatives. It was concluded that a
decision on the reasonableness, feasibility, and prudence of the widening alternatives wlll not be
made until after the DEIS has been released and reviewed by citizens and regulatory agencies.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 3 November 4, 1999

r

, po, rs
'.
' CC
All
}?
?
,
9
-
'
-
CC-BI/
CC-CI
,J
'
?'?,
-- ?
'y
"i
tp _?
.
i '
•,? { ice}
AJ r1 i( r x . ,

CC AH/
Tunnel
,
v
CC-BH/ 3 h? _
CC-CH
,!"
,
ay
`
,
_.
y
? ?
/
'
?
•
?
r
l?
?
7
t'? }t(`
, ,U....
{
Irs}?
iv
Sh
:
T,?
.?'f
R
_

? r7
as AG/BG/CG/DG
` ...
4
*
h P
. o ; j
nl;;?
p
l
AM/CID
,ry
s 9 AG/BG/CG/DG

}

AL
?
'
'
n
`"
84ackDerry Bridge
s
"
.
?c
r ??
I
,r
uu?g
a,cris»
?

B/BG

C/CG
A/AG/AJ
"- CC C
-
'

S 0 N
T
11 A
`
¦
61.
B/BG Y
_
L
? ,` ??? M? d' ste?re

CC-B CC A

/ 'n r
?
?R
p 5 _
I
,
?'? F21eon Crest _
0 5 ?RUCAyknob t mile Rd. (SR 1421)

SCALE!

LEGEND Potential Figure
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I Project Area Boundary Bypass Alternatives 2
4C -
` C3 f c c u l F l \ /?j,1yyl'J, r'
?,_ ??b f ??? r ` ?? ,? 1
r
Green
?. }i1UwIl'';iC)CK ` Hill
AUGA CD
Bailey Camp
Church
13;d ey,5 ?mM
fill,,I
Last curves
before
?r -? Y l3ailr? r r.»rP tir . t c*
Blowing Rock C --
/ `4f - y,
Ij{?u?p CC-A
t ' Existing
- ' Curves
y Ft?r,n?n Cam n .? .
j f v J
R 4bins Gap
5(r c n
o. Q 5 ` f'milo Falegn Crest
Scl ? Rid:-(SR' 1421) k Rocky?1?nob C/S+ ?Ir r
'", ? ?,okout ty rr
LEGEND
111 I I I i 111111 111111111 A"; B", TC-A", & "CC-B" alternatives.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ "C"& "CC-C",alternatives.
***9****oooooo "D" alternative.
• • Alternatives E & F.
Area where multiple alternatives merge.
Note: A", "B", T", D", TC-A"CC-C"alternatives
all merge into one corridor on the Blue Ridge Flank.
South End Corridor Figure
Alternatives 9a
E d?,
a11^?t?flbt _r t ?. f. ?, l .i.??? '1, 5f
Original A/B/C/D f j t4
j i
i H
j. r 4
fTr 1a?1'"• us y ,.\j i,, `, V'..?t
Ms ?t
} ??• ThurTder Ri 4 f 1r "??
0,0 4
Assembly
Grounds
Lodge Tunnel Under
.. +?* Blue Ridge `
Stl{ns? Parkway
Ilk'
t
_1
40
Echo P?rk
p
jpi
%
r
? r $' ?•: `_? Green
uvv,11 G
pock Hill f?
4
.r• N t Q, fu
017,`_, t? D ,ra
'G A Co
AVATA 1)
LEGEND
11 11 Alternative E.
OWOMOM Alternative F.
9 9 9 0 0 0 0 Location associated with original
Alternatives A, B, C, and D.
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 1 "G" alternative.
H" alternative.
11111111111111 "I" and "J" alternatives.
Areas where multiple alternatives merge.
Note: All north end alternatives except E and F merge into one
corridor on the Blue Ridge Flank. On the Blue Ridge Flank,
Alternatives E and F also merge. All alternatives except H, I, & J
merge into one corridor at Opposum Hollow Road.
North End Corridor Figure
Alternatives 9b

Table II
Comparison of Potential Bypass Alternatives
Potential Bypass CooidorAlternatives

Widening A AG CC-AH CC-AI AJ B BG CC-BH CC-BI C CG CC-CH CC-Cl r D DG OE OF

Cost (in millions)
• Construction
-Bypass NA $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $114.3 $45.5 $49.4 $89.1 $115.7 $39.4 $32.6 $53.9 $76.8 $23.0 $24.9 $15.4 $18.4
-Widening 4.5 0.0 ,$0.0 0.0 0.0 $00.0 ?$i.0 $?,Q 1.6 16 142 $142 $142 $142 $189 $18.9 $19.1 191
TOTAL $24.5 $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $114.3 $47.5 $51.4 $90.7 $117.3 $53.6 $46.8 $68.1 $91.0 $41.9 $43.8 $34.5 $37.5
• Right-of-Way $8.2 Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared Not Prepared $8.3 $8.1 Not Prepared Not Prepared $9.4 $10.0 $11.8 $13.8
Bypass Construction Cost Components
• Excavation $22.9 $23.3 $37.3 $25.5 $21.9 $20.8 $21.7 $36.6 $24.7 $19.0 $12.9 $28.0 $16.1 $7.6 $8.1 $2.4 $47
• Borrow $0.0 $0.0 $0.9 $10.0 $15.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $7.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.8 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0
• Tunnel $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $32.3 $35.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $32.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $32.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
• Bridges $0.2 $0.2 $16.2 $16.1 $0.5 $0.2 $0.2 $16.2 $16.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.5 $0.4 $1.5 $0.1 $0.1 $0.3
• Retaining Walls $0.0 $1.5 $1.4 $2.5 $3.2 $0.1 $1.6 $1.3 $2.5 $0.0 $1.5 $0.0 $1.2 $1.0 $27 $3.7 $2.9
• Other Components $10.9 $11.1 $11.3 $11.1 $11.7 $9.2 $9.4 $10.4 $10.4 $7.1 $7.1 $7.4 $7.3 $5.3 $5.6 $4.1 $4.4
• Mobilization & Misc. $10.3 $10.9 $15.4 $14.8 $15.8 $9.2 $10.0 $14.7 $13.6 $7.9 $6.6 $10.9 $8.9 $4.7 $5.1 $3.1 $3.7
• Engineering& 6.7 7.1 $10_0 $97 $10.3 $0 $S.S 9.5 888 5.7 43 $7.0 5.8 $3.0 3$ 3 $3.0 22.4
Contingencies
TOTAL $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $114.3 $45.5 $49.4 $89.1 $115.7 $39.4 $32.6 $53.9 $76.8 $23.0 $24.9 $15.4 $18.4
Earthwork
• Excavation In million 2.25 (2.95) 5.88 (7.69) 5.99 (7.83) 9.57 (12.51) 6.53 (8.54) 5.62 (7.35) 5.40 (7.06) 5.72 (1.48) 9.40 (12.29) 636 (8,31) 6.65 (8.69) 5.10 (8.67) 7.18 (9.39) 4.14 (5.41) 4.00 (h23) 3.85 (5.03) 2.74 (3.58) 2.92 (3.82)
cubic meters (million
cubic yards)
• Borrow In million 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.20 (0.26) 3.06 (4.00) 5.19 (6.78) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.24 (2.93) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.47 (1.92) 000 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
cubic meters (million
cubic yards)
Grades in kilometers (miles)
• Greater than or equal 3.4 (2.1) 5.9 (3.7) 5.5 (3.5) 4.2 (2.6) 5.2 (3.3) 5.4 (3.4) 5.2 (3.3) 5A (3.4) 4.4 (2.8) 5.4 (3.4) 5.6 (3.5) 5.6 (3.5) 3.2 (2.0) 4.2 (2.6) 4.7 12.9) 4.7 (2.9) 5.5 (3.4) 4.5 (2.8)
to 6% grade (8
percent maximum)
• Greater than 7% 3.4 (2.1) 5.8 (3.7) 4.1 (2.6) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 5.2 (32) 3.9 (2.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.3 (1.4) 1.1 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.1 (2.6) 2.7 (1.7) 5.0 (3.1) 4.5 (2.8)
grade (8% maximum)
Widening Horizontal Curve Exceptions to Design C riteria (number)
• Less than 75 kph (45 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 7
mph) posted speed
• Less than 50 kph (30 3 south of Blowing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3
mph) posted speed Rock and 2 in Blowing
Rock
2025 Average Daily Traffic
• Bypass NA 9,750-10,500 9,750-10,500 9,750-10,500 7,150 7,150 9,750-10,500 9,750-10,500 9,750-10,500 7,150 9,600-10,450 9,600-10,450 9,600-10,450 7,150 8,100-8,950 8,100-8,950 10,250.10,950 10,250.10,950
• Existing US 321 South 14,100 4,350 4,350 4,350 7,450 7,450 4,350 4,350 4,350 7,450 4,500 4,500 4,500 7,450 6,300 6,300 5,000 5,000
of Blowing Rock
• Existing US 321 in 15,675-24,900 5,950.20,950 5,950.20,950 5,950.20,950 9,050-18,850 9,050-18,850 5,950-20,950 5,950-20,950 5,950-20,950 9,05048,850 6,100-20.800 6,100-20.800 6,100.20.800 9,050-18,850 7,600-18,950 7,600.18,950 5,750-20,700 5,750-20,700
Blowing Rock
2025 Peak Hour Level of Service
• Bypass NA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
• Existing US 321 South A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
of Blowing Rock
• Existing US 321 in B-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D
Blowing Rock
Displacement'
• Homes 24 24 22 3 3 1 28 27 4 4 30 30 17 17 29 27 32 35
• Mobile Homes 0 1 0 19 0 0 1 0 19 0 1 0 19 0 3 3 0
• Businesses 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
• Churches 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• Cemeteries 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• Other (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q 0
TOTAL 29 26 25 4 22 1 29 28 5 24 30 31 18 37 29 30 35 35
Community Impacts
• Along Existing US 321 Highway traffic remains Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Hlghwaytrafflc Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highwaytrattic Highway traffic Highway traffic remains Highway traffic remains
in the communities remains in the remains in the remains in the remains in remains in remains in the remains in the remains in remains in remains in the remains in the remains in remains in remains in the remains in the in the communities in the communities
through which it now communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities through which it now through which it now
passes but is greater through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it through which it passes but is less than passes but is less than
than today now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is now passes but is the widening the widening
less than the less than the less than the less than with the less than with the less than the less than the less than with the less than with the less than the less than the less than with the less than with the less than the less than the alternative alternative
widening widening widening widening widening widening wldening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening
alternative alternative alternative alternative; more alternative; more alternative alternative alternative alternative; more alternative alternative alternative alternative; more alternative; - alternative;
traffic in Slowing traffic in Blowing traffic in Blowing traffic in Blowing however, less however, less
Rock south of Rock south of Rock south of Rock south of traffic would divert traffic would divert
Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than to bypass to bypass
with non-tunnel with non-tunnel with non-tunnel with non-tunnel because it is because it is
bypasses bypasses bypasses bypasses longer than the longer than the
existing route existing route
e
Table II
Comparison of Potential Bypass Alternatives
Widening A AG CC-AH CC-AI Ad B BG CC-BH CC-BI C CG CC-CH CC-CI D DG 0 0
• Along Bypass NA Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic Highway traffic
introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural i ntroduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to "ural introduced to rural introduced to introduced to
communities in communities in communities in communities in communities in communities in communities in communities in communities in community community community communities in community song community along subdivisions along subdivisions along
Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp and Bailey Camp and Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp, Bailey Camp and between Bailey between Bailey between Bailey Bailey Camp and Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road,
Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, along Thunder along Thunder Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, along Thunder Camp and Camp and Camp and along Thunder Goforth Road, Goforth Road, Wonderland Drive Wonderland Drive
Goforth Road, Goforth Road, and Forest Lane Mountain Road; Mountain Road Goforth Road, Goforth Road, and Forest Lane Mountain Read, Watauga County Watauga County Watauga County Mountain Road; and Opossum and Opossum area, golf course area, area, and Opossum
and Opossum and Opossum areas; greater mobile home park and Opossum and Opossum areas; greater mobile home park line, Green Hill line, Green Hill line and along mobile home park Hollow Road area, Hollow Road area; and Opossum Hollow Hollow Road area;
Hollow Road Hollow Road effects to at Aho Rd and US Hollow Road Hollow Road effects 9o at Aho Rd and US Road, Goforth Road, Goforth Green Hill Road at Aho Rd and US greater effects to in less used Road area; less effect greater effects to
areas; greater areas; in less Assembly 321 displaced areas; greater areas; in less Assembly 321 displaced Road, and Road, and and Forest Lane 321 displaced Assembly portion of on Assembly Grounds Assembly Grounds
effects to used portion of Grounds property effects to used portion of Grounds property Opossum Hollow Opossum Hollow area; greater Grounds property Assembly property and activities property and activities
Assembly Assembly and activities but Assembly Assembly and activities but Road areas; Road areas; in effects to and activities Grounds
Grounds property Grounds less than A Grounds property Grounds less than B greater effects to less used portion Assembly
and activities and activities Assembly of Assembly Grounds property
Grounds property Grounds and activities but
and activities less than C
Natural Resource Impacts
• Area of New Right-of-
Way - hectares
(acres)
Bypass
Widening
• Length of New Road -
kilometers (miles)
Wetlands
Crossed
- Area Taken - hectares
(acres)
Historic Resources
Visual
NA 69.0 (170.4) 70.0, (172.9) 81.0 (200.0) 78.7 (194.4) 81.4 (201.0) 59.0 (145.7) 60.0 (148.2) 75.2 (1857) 72.9 (180.0) 44.0 (108.7) 42.0 (103.7) 56.9 (140.5) 54.6 (134.8) 33.0 (815) 37.0 (91.4) 23.0 (56.8) 27.0 (66.7)
4.21 hectares (10.4 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 7.0 (17.3) 7.0 (17.3) 5.6 (13.8) 5.6 (13.8) 22.5 (55.6) 22.5 (55.6) 22.5 (55.6) 22.5 (55.6) 32.0 (79.0) 32.0 (19.0) 32.5 (80.3) 32.5 (80.3)
acres) of urban trees in
Blowing Rock and
36.57 hectares (90.31
acres) of new right-of-
way south of Blowing
Rock
0 (0) 8.8 (5.5) 9.1 (5.7) 8.4 (5.3) 8.4 (5.3) 8.7 (5.4) 7.4 (4.6) 7.7 (4.8) 7.8 (4.9) 7.8 (4.9) 5.7 (3.6) 6.0 (3.7) 5.3 (3.3) 5.3 (3.3) 4.2 (2.7) 4.5 (2.8) 3.4 (2.1) 3.7 (23)
3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.37 (0.91) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.39 (3.44) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.28 (0.69) 0.45 (1.11)
Within the Green Park Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading. on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading on Regrading iii Regrading on Regrading on Five Regrading on Five
Historic District and property property property property property property properly property property property property property property property property Points (A. L. Shuford) Points (A. L. Shuford)
adjacent to the Green containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containi%,Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Frye containing Fwe containing Five and Young-Shaw- and Estes-Craig
Park Inn; displaces Points(A.L, Points(A.L. Points(A.L. Points (A.L. Points (A.L. Points(A.L. Points (A.L. Points(A.L. Points(A.L, Points(A.L. Points (A.L. Points (A.L. Points (A.L. Points(A.L. Points (A.L. Steele properties; properties; however,
Bollinger-Hartley Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House Shuford) House however, the assessed the assessed design
House design can be can be adjusted to
adjusted to avoid these avoid these properties.
properties.
Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road Four-lane road
introduced to Blowing introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural i ntroduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural i ntroduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to rural introduced to introduced to
Rock with loss of area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large area with large neighborhoods near neighborhoods along
vegetation and cuts and fills, road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills, road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills, road cuts and fills; mad cuts and fills; road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills, road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills; road cuts and fills, road cuts and fills; road the golf course; road Green Hill Road; road
straighter curves in the viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from viewed from Blue viewed from Blue viewed Blue viewed from Blue viewed from Blue viewed from Blue seen in distance from seen in distance from
Country Club Green Hill Road Green Hill Road Green Hill Road Green Hill Road Green Hill Road Green HIII Road Green HIII Road Green Hill Road Green Hill Road Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkweyat Ridge Parkway at Blue Ridge Parkway at Blue Ridge Parkway at
Drive/Norwood Circle area, Blue Ridge area and Blue area and Blue area and Blue area and Blue area, Blue Ridge area and Blue area and.Blue area and Blue Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill, Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill Thunder Hill and
area Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Ridge Parkway at Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road Green Hill Road. approach roads Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road viewed from Assembly
Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill; Thunder Hill; Thunder HIII and Thunder HIII and Thunder HIII and Thunder Hill; and Assembly If trees lost, visible from and Assembly Grounds lodge
Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road Green Hill Road. approach roads appraach roads Green Hill Road, Green HIII Road Green Hill Road. approach roads Grounds lodge bypass in view of Parkway Grounds lodge
and Assembly If trees lost, visible from visible from and Assembly If trees lost, visible from Parkway from
Grounds lodge bypass in view of Parkway. Tall Parkway. Grounds lodge bypass in view of Parkway. Tell Green Hill Road to
Parkway from bridge 1,600 feet Parkwaylrom bridge 1,600 feet US 321
Green Hill Road to long across Bolick Green Hill Road to long across Bolick
US 321. Tall Road. US 321. Tall Road.
bridge 1,600 feet bridge 1,600 feet
long across Bolick long across Bolick
Road Road
'Displacement counts for A, AG, CC-AH, CC-AI, AJ, 8, BG, CC-BH, CC-BI, CC-CH, and CC-CI are based on available mapping and aerial photography. Counts for the other alternatives were made byNCDOT right-of-way staff.

Agenda
US 321 Improvements (R-2237C)
NEPA/404 Merger Meeting
November 4, 1999
10:30 am to 12 noon
Highway Design Conference Room
Objectives
Since the work on this project pre-dates the NCDOT's NEPA/404 merger agreement with the US
Army Corps of Engineers, much has already been accomplished. Thus, it is the objective of this
meeting to reach agreement on both the purpose and need statement and the alternatives to be
evaluated in detail in the R-2237C Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Topics
1. Introductions and Project History ------------------------------------------------- Leigh Lane
2. Summary of Purpose and Need --------------------------------------------------- John Page
Discussion of Purpose and Need and Concurrence
3. Summary of Alternatives Studies--------------------------------------------------John Page
Discussion of Alternatives and Concurrence
4. Next Steps ------------------------------------------------------- ------ --------------------John Page

P?O? Nd ? r;{ C,gROI `9
5~
qL
9f. 4SP
?iFNTOr SARTj5Y0
PARSONS
BRINCKERHOFF

-too
YEARS
To:
From:
Date:
ATTENDEES
Don Brown
November 5, 1999

Memorandum
Subject: Meeting Summary - US 321 (R-2237C) NEPA/404 Merger Meeting held on
November 4, 1999
Attendees:
David Anderson
Felix Davila
Leigh Lane
Greg Brew
Ed Davis
Jeff Lackey
John Hennessy
Renee Gledhill-Earley
April Alperin
Lee Tippett
Jay A. Bennett
Steve Lund
John Page
Don Brown
Ted Bisterfeld
Jay Tomlinson
Blue Ridge Parkway
FHWA
NCDOT -- PDEA
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT--PDEA
NCDOT -- REU
NC Division of Water Quality
SHPO
SHPO
NCDOT
NCDOT - Roadway Design
Corps of Engineers
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Parsons Brinckerhoff
US EPA (via phone)
NCSU
The meeting opened with introductions by everyone present. Leigh Lane then gave a brief
history of the project and described the status of the project. She also described the
NEPA/404 Merger process and introduced the merger team leaders (Leigh Lane - NCDOT,
Felix Davila - FHWA, and Steve Lund - Corps of Engineers).
Leigh described the alternatives studies conducted between 1995 and 1997. Several
bypass alternatives suggested by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock, who oppose the
widening alternative were examined as a part of that work. Four bypass alternatives were
selected in 1997 for evaluation in the DEIS. In 1997, the Town Council of Blowing Rock
indicated that they found all four alternatives unsatisfactory. Other stl1dies were conducted in
1998, including an Origin/Destination study and geotechnical studies. A video was
produced and presented on March 8, 1999 suggesting the US 321 study focus on a
widening alternative with amenities. This alternative was referred to as the enhanced
widening alternative. The information was available on a world wide web site, too. Public
comments were received. Half of the respondents favored Bypass 4 and half favored the
widening alternative. This led the NCDOT to narrow the alternatives to Bypass Alternative 1,
Bypass Alternative 4, and the Widening Alternative with amenities.
Several clarifications of the handout materials were requested, including the correspondence
between the alternative naming convention used 1995 to 1997 and the names assigned to
the bypass alternatives selected in 1997 for evaluation in the DEIS. The page in the
alternatives report where this is described was noted. It was also explained the Bypass
Over a. Century of
Engineering Excellence
--100
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
November 11, 1999
Page 2
Alternative 2 was a hybrid of parts of two of the 1997 alternatives. The hybrid was suggested
during the final selection process in 1997 and thus its features are not reflected in the 1997
report.
At Leigh's request John also reviewed the section of the March. video discussing the context
of US 321 in the regional highway system and the findings of the Origin and Destination
(O&D) Study. Jay Tomlinson provided input as to why 88 percent of the through traffic is
from the local region. Renee Gledhill-Earley asked if transit alternatives have been examined
to address this problem. Leigh Lane said that transit would be examined in the DEIS.
Steve Lund stated that he had the impression from what was said about the O&D study that
this section of US 321 is a local road and therefore a bypass will not work. It was clarified
that the road serves both local traffic and traffic generated in nearby towns and counties.
Renee then added that if the citizens do not want the road, then what was the purpose of the
project. Leigh Lane explained that the citizens did realize that there was a need to reduce
traffic congestion and accidents; however, they are against widening the road.
PURPOSE AND NEED
John Page summarized the Purpose and Need, increasing capacity and reducing accidents.
Renee Gledhill-Earley asked what the level of service would be on the road with the study
alternatives. John Page answered the question by referring to Table 11 of the 1997
Alternatives Report. Leigh Lane added some input and gave some handouts to Renee from
an earlier citizens advisory meeting that showed additional detail.
Leigh Lane asked whether we agree or not that transportation improvements are necessary
along this section of US 321. Ted Bisterfeld, John Hennessy, David Anderson, and Renee
Gledhill-Earley responded in the affirmative. Ted asked for more clarification about the level
of service because even with the improvements, there would still be a small section of
roadway that wo?!Id be at level of service D. John Page and Leigh Lane confirmed that this
was the case.
John Hennessy asked that the NCDOT put in writing that the widening alternative would not
be dropped at some later date because of the level of service D at the one section. Leigh
Lane assured him that it would not be dropped because of this finding. John Hennessy
asked that the minutes include this assurance.
Ted Bisterfeld asked if all of the bypass alternatives and widening alternatives will meet the
purpose and need of the project in some manner. John Page said this was the case. Leigh
noted that Bypass Alternative 4 would divert less traffic from the existing road than Bypass
Alternative 1.
Ted Bisterfeld then asked about an alternative in the 1993 EA that considered the
designation of another existing route as US 321 and how it would be handled in the DEIS.
John Page said that the DEIS would include the earlier study, and that his staff would double
check the current traffic volumes and drive the corridor to see if anything of substance has
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
==too
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
November 11, 1999
Page 3
changed. Ted asked if that alternative would meet the purpose and need and John Page
answered that it would not.
ALTERNATIVES
John Page and Leigh Lane presented the reasons why the NCDOT wanted to assess Bypass
Alternatives 1 and 4 and a widening alternative with amenities in the DEIS.
Renee Gledhill-Earley asked what the economic analysis would include and would it include
the construction impacts. John Page said this issue would be addressed in the DEIS.
Jay Tomlinson asked for clarification on the number of tunnels that will be cut with the tunnel
alternative. John Page stated that there would be two bores, one for each direction of travel.
The ventilation systems will be connected and therefore it is viewed as one tunnel.
Leigh Lane stated that the NCDOT prefers the widening alternative and the Concerned
Citizens of Blowing Rock group prefers Bypass Alternative 4. The public in Blowing Rock, in
general, are divided on their preferences.
Renee asked for the definition of the "enhanced widening" alternative (since March 8, the
term used to describe the widening alternative to be evaluated in the DEIS). It was clarified
by John Page and Leigh Lane that the widening would be four lanes with a left turn lane at
five intersections. Renee asked why it cannot be four lanes only along the full length of the
project. The turn lanes are needed to meet the capacity need. Renee also asked for the
design speed. John Page stated it would be 40 mph and posted as 35 mph.
David Anderson asked if the NCDOT had looked at consolidating any of the driveways along
the corridor with the widening alternative. Leigh answered that if the widening became a
selected alternative, the NCDOT would work with local entities on details of that nature.
Renee asked about the safety features that would need to be included and Jay Bennett
answered that the roadway meets safety requirements without a guardrail. Renee asked why
we are not looking at three lanes. John Page noted that it would not meet the purpose and
need. Renee said it did meet the accident need, but John noted that it did not meet the
reduction in traffic need.
John Hennessy asked to see the following for all five alternatives (widening and all four 1997
bypass alternatives): the location of streams and wetlands, water quality ratings, the area of
impact, and the linear impact of streams. Impacts should be by resource and the total
impact. John Hennessy asked that the methodology used be documented. This material will
be provided to meeting participants. It is hoped that this additional material will be adequate
for reaching concurrence on the alternatives without an additional meeting.
John Hennessy asked what the Town wants. John Page said that the Town wanted the
congestion and accident problem fixed without causing any adverse impact to any of its
residents or the Town. No alternative that can achieve this goal has been identified. Renee
referred to a letter from the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock that stated that there is
indeed a problem that needs to be addressed. John Hennessy added that he asked
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
-=loo
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
November 11, 1999
Page 4
because he wanted to be sure that all alternatives that the Town would like to see have been
addressed. Greg Brew noted that every alternative suggested has been examined. The
issue now is which ones do we want to carry forward for detailed evaluation the EIS.
Ted asked if the NCDOT was prepared to present Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS as
reasonable and feasible. Leigh stated that the NCDOT will not use the terms reasonable and
feasible in the DEIS. The NCDOT is including Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS because it
has public support and not because the NCDOT believes it is reasonable and feasible.
Ted also asked for a description of the extent of control of access. John described the extent
of control of access for each alternative (none for the widening, full for Bypass Alternative 4,
and full for Bypass Alternative 1 except where it joins Possum Hollow Road, where existing
access will be maintained).
Ted asked about the environmental justice issues for the project. Leigh stated that it will not
be an issue for this area because of the lack of minority and low-income areas near the
project, but environmental justice will be addressed in the document.
There was no concurrence on the Alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the DEIS and the
decision was postponed until the water resource information described above could be sent
to the Merger Team.
NEXT STEPS
John Page presented the next steps in the DEIS preparation process. The NCDOT wants to
have a DEIS out by next summer.
Ted asked if the costs of the amenities on the widening alternative would be fundable by the
federal government. Felix assured everyone that there should not be any problems with
funding. Leigh also stated that it is not an issue.
Renee recommended that the widening alternative not be referred to as the enhanced
widening alternative as was done in the March 8 video. She feels that what we are doing with
the widening is mitigation not enhancement. She felt the use of the term enhancements
could be construed as referring to the FHWA enhancement program. Leigh Lane agreed to
consider an alternative name.
The meeting was adjourned.
task no.: 3145S3-01.05
file no.: 3145-2.7.2
J:\PLANNING\US 321EIS Part II\CorrespondenceWeeting MinuteS\NEPA-404 Merger Meeting Minutes - 11-5-99.doc
over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
Sep 30 02 08:05a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Raleigh Office
Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse
310 New Bern Avenue
Room 206
Raleigh, N.C. 27601
FAX COVER SHEET
TO: 3o H,4 vksN??E.ssy Aw Q?
Fax #: X33 - ?? 9 3
CC (if any): Fax #:
FROM: Christopher A. Militscher, Sr. Environmental Scientist
Office of Environmental Assessment
919-856-4343 (phone/fax #)
919-856-4206 (phone)
MESSAGE:- Nn? : t?lok 0 kc rM U r n-,O.A C-a f" ,r+NQ r%
FOCLCV\ AT _ EP A VA Q d: A s toy- s m t- -Cur,,.,?? ?
OVE,I ? -Q C- FBDE?ZA L AC,tv?T ES 114 a1 "?s VEWI SQP411'ywv
-kb oh.. s!o ?r (A ?'1G?' pP1 5+'gr dor+ ,?,t3? loV?
1TiZZS Gw
vy-'k -k "A f?M P QT lac-TS nil,
l1 ize ow -4'v v? .+J a m.+s? n 5
l a M 1-e.??'??! ?h fat a..A ox`t
Number of Pages including Cover Sheet: S
Sep'30 02 08:06a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.2
September 23, 2002
Ms. L. Gail Grimes, P.E.
Assistant Manager, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
S JECT: US 321 Impro ents, C
nvironmental I
CEQ No. 020 7
Dear Ms. Grimes:
d Watauga Counties, North Carolina
Statement; TIP Project No. R-2237C; FHW-E40320-
In accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
providing comments on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Highway
improvements are proposed for this segment of US 321 in the vicinity of the Town of Blowing
Rock covering a distance of approximately 4.3 miles. Originally, this project involved a 15-mile
segment of US 321 improvements. Public concern with the scope of the alternatives for the
northern 4.3-mile section at the Town of Blowing Rock caused this section to be withheld from
proceeding to design and construction, and an EIS was determined to be necessary in 1994.
Purpose and Need for the Project
This section of US 321 has failing or near failing levels of service throughout the project'
s length resulting from mountainous terrain with steep grades and several severe curves without
safe passing zones. In addition, this section had a total of 118 accidents within a recent
three-year period which is 28% higher than comparable roadways statewide. The primary stated
purposes of the project is to improve the traffic flow and level of service and reduce the accident
rate for this roadway. EPA agrees with the purpose and need for these improvements to this
section of US 321 as described in the DEIS.
Alternatives
The DEIS documents the extensive efforts that have gone into the development of
preliminary alternatives, and the numerous meetings have been held with local and agency
officials. A total of 17 alternatives have been considered. There was consideration early on of
a complete rerouting of US 321 from the Lenoir area to Hampton, TN via NC 18 and US 19.
Sep 30 02 08:06a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.3
This alternative and the no-build alternative were found to not address either of the identified
needs for this project. Other build alternatives were eliminated from further consideration
because of environmental or construction costs, or because of their substantial similarity to those
alternatives retained. Within the project area, the Traffic Systems Management (TSM) option
was also considered along with two- and three-lane configurations, as was mass transit; however,
all were discarded because of their failure to address the identified needs. Geo-technical studies
and traffic studies were conducted to help define the environmental issues and appropriate
alternatives.
Both of the bypass alternatives have two variations. Alternative 1B would straighten two
sharp curves in the southern portion of the alignment, requiring substantial amount of additional
cut and fill work. Conversely, Alternative 4B includes a greater amount of bridging than 4A to
generally reduce the changes in terrain and impact to natural resources.
According to the DEIS all of the build-alternatives would meet the transportation purpose
and need of the project. However, only the Widening Alternative and bypass Alternatives IA
and B would address safety concerns with the existing roadway by eliminating sharp curves and
narrow pavement. Alternatives 4A and B would improve safety on the existing roadway
indirectly by reducing the traffic volume on existing US 321. However, it appears that some
improvements to existing US 321 to address safety and level of service needs would likely be
required in the future regardless of the construction of a bypass.
Some of the most important information in determining the degree that the various
alternatives would meet the project's purpose and need was obtained from the Origin and
Destination Study, which is discussed beginning on page 2-5. This study found that 75% of the
trips were from home to work and back, and 64% of the trips along US 321 in Blowing Rock
originated in Caldwell and Watauga counties. These findings demonstrate that the Widening
Alternative would provide the greatest transportation utility for these kinds of trips while
Alternatives 4A &B would provide the least.
Noise and Scenic
The alternatives with the greatest noise impacts are Alternatives IA and 1B with 69 and
61 residences impacted substantially (as defined by the DEIS of exceeding the noise abatement
criteria (NAC), having a substantial increase over existing levels or both). In comparison, the
Widening Alternative and Alternatives 4A and 4B would have very similar impacts, at 28, 25
and 24 residences with substantial impacts, respectively. We note that noise abatement measures
were not found to be cost effective for any of the residential areas expected to be impacted
substantially.
Since noise mitigation was not found to be cost effective, EPA encourages NCDOT to
consider landscaping enhancement and scenic screening measures such as earthen berms,
retaining walls and vegetative plantings as space allows. In particular, we strongly urge the
consideration of these measures for those residential areas expected to experience severe
increases in noise levels as a result of a selection of any of the four bypass alternatives on new
Sep 30 02 08:06.a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.4
alignment. Generally, for the Widening Alternative in the more urban area, we believe that such
measures can be best meshed with other historic and scenic enhancements.
Historic Resources
Impact to historic resources is a key issue on this project. Under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Widening Alternative would have an Adverse Effect,
requiring the taking of historic property, on the Green Park Historic District, and would result in
some noise and scenic view impacts to the Bollinger-Hartley House, which are not considered an
Adverse Effect under Section 106.
Since the purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway is to protect the scenic, natural and cultural
resources within the parkway corridor and conserve the vistas from the parkway, vistas are an
important part of the parkway experience. The views from the Thunderhill overlook, within the
project area, received exceptional quality ratings by the National Park Service. Also, according
to the DEIS, the parkway is being considered for National Landmark designation but the effect
of such designation on the parkway is not defined. All the Bypass Alternatives would impact the
Blue Ridge Parkway viewsbed; however, Alternatives 4A and 4B would have an Adverse Effect
under Section 106. The bridging proposed for 4B would lessen these effects. EPA defers to the
State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service, FHWA and NCDOT to address
these historic issues.
Natural Resources
Alternatives 4A&B would have the greatest adverse impact on resources associated with
the necessary crossing of 20 streams compared to 6 crossings for the Widening Alternative and 5
associated with Alternatives IA&B. Alternative 4B provides important bridging to minimize
this impact. While none of the directly impacted streams are assigned a critical water supply or
other high quality water designation, many could support trout populations. The resulting
removal of more tree canopy, associated mostly with the bypass alternatives and additional
development that may be induced, promotes water temperature increases that are detrimental to
trout habitat. The impact of stream crossings should be mitigated by the retention of vegetative
buffers wherever practicable.
Likewise, the impact to terrestrial wildlife from the Alternative 4A and 4B alignments is
greatest because of the remote, forested habitat that is bisected. Alternatives lA&B would have
an intermediate level of impact to natural resources because they would cross land experiencing
development on the east side of the Town of Blowing Rock.
In this project area, it is noted that wetland vegetated communities are limited in extent
and do not vary substantially between alternatives. EPA believes that because of the scarcity of
these wetlands (see the attached comments for the discussion of methodology) they should merit
very high functional ratings for diversity of wildlife habitat and be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable.
. Sep 30 02 08:07a FHWH NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.5
Cumulative Impacts
After reviewing the excellent analyses of potential indirect/cumulative impacts, we
believe that this project will not lead to substantial growth in the area and therefore will not
result in substantial alteration either through cumulative or indirect effects to the overall
environment of Blowing Rock. While bypass Alternatives 4A and B potentially improve
access for more development, the restricted access to the highway and the terrain would tend to
mute the roadway's impact. At the northern end of these alternatives, where the terrain is less
steeply sloped, some stimulation of development could result from a new roadway. The
long-term impacts of development on mountain views and natural resources will be determined
largely by how the municipalities and Watauga County guide and regulate growth.
Summary of Comments
All of the alternatives result in some direct environmental concerns; and there is not one
alternative that is clearly environmentally superior to all of the others. That said, one alternative
is clearly more damaging than the other alternatives. Therefore, we rate Alternative 4A more
severely than the other alternatives assigning it an "EO" rating (environmental objections). This
rating is assigned primarily because this configuration would present the greatest visual impact
relative to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and it would result the greatest impact on the natural habitat.
The placement of this alternative and its cut-and-fill configuration would bisect a generally
undisturbed forested Blue Ridge escarpment and greatly hinder wildlife movement. Crossing 14
of the 20 streams with fill and culverts make this alternative substantially more damaging than
Alternative 4B, which maximizes the use of bridging instead of cuts and fills.
Otherwise, there remain major tradeoffs between the alternatives that would result in
impacts to the natural environment or impacts to the various cultural and economic resources.
Accordingly, EPA is rating the Widening Alternative and the other bypass Alternatives 1A, 1B
and 4B as "EC" (environmental concerns). The Widening Alternative provides substantial
transportation benefits while generally minimizing environmental impacts, and therefore should
get continued consideration if the Town of Blowing Rock's and historic/cultural concerns can be
adequately addressed.
EPA is assigning the DEIS a sufficiency rating of "1" since we believe that the document
reflects a comprehensive and objective analysis of all pertinent environmental parameters.
However, as discussed above, we see the need for further coordination with the Town and other
stakeholders on the Widening Alternative to see if additional changes can be made in order to
address their concerns. Enclosed for consideration are additional comments pertaining to the
technical information and analyses.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS. If you have any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me or Ted Bisterfeld of my staff at 404/562-9621.
Sincerely,
Sep 30 02 08:08a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.6
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Office of Environmental Assessment
Enclosure: EIS Ratings System Criteria
Additional Comments
cc: Nick Graf, FHWA, Raleigh
Garland Pardue, USFWS Raleigh Field Office
Steve Lund, USACOE, Asheville Field Office
Additional Comments on the US 321 Blowing Rock DEIS
Socio-Economic
In 1999, EPA participated in the interagency Merger Team's deliberations about the
alternatives to be considered in detail in the EIS. The alternatives remaining under consideration
Sep 30 02 08:08a FHWR HC DIV 919-856-4353 p.7
at that time were: to widen existing US 321 on its present alignment; a bypass on new location
through the eastern portion of the Town of Blowing Rock (Alternative 1); and a complete
bypass to the east of the town on new location through forested land and tunneling under the
Blue Ridge Parkway (Alternative 4). The Widening Alternative already was receiving
considerable analysis by NCDOT. TSM provisions were applied as were enhancements for
making the project compatible with the surrounding development. EPA and the other
environmental resource agencies were presented with the results of the work by NCDOT.
However, although no concurrence was reached because of major environmental issues against
retaining Alternative 4 for further analysis, NCDOT decided to carry it forward along with the
Widening Alternative and Alternative) for more detailed analysis in the DEIS.
Data cited for population and economic trends rely on the 1990 Census and other data
from the 1990s. While there are estimates for year 2000 population, etc., this information should
have included the year 2000 Census data.
Community cohesion, according to the document, is a negative factor for the bypass
alternatives only. EPA considers the addition of two additional lanes to be a negative factor for
the Widening Alternative but not to the degree of impediment that a new, controlled access
roadway presents to existing communities. Two neighborhoods are identified as being impacted
by each of the bypass alternatives. Without more specific information, it seems likely that the
community cohesion impact along the Alternative 1 corridor would be more severe than along
Alternative 4.
Economic Impacts
This analysis evaluated the potential impact on businesses of the various alternatives. It
was very informative regarding one of the key project issues. This type of analysis should be
standard for all improvement projects considering a bypass of commercial business districts.
We agree with the findings that construction of the Widening Alternative would be
highly disruptive to US 321 businesses. The findings about business impact following
construction, however, are the most interesting and of greater importance. The key factor is the
differentiation of businesses by the proportion of opportunity and destination types of sales.
Blowing Rock, being a resort, has a destination-dominant economy. Bypass alternatives were
found to result in an overall loss of sales revenue just under 12 percent to existing US 321
businesses, while the incorporation of a landscaped median along a 4-lane US 321 would result
in lost sales of just under 3 percent. Please clarify what time frames are meant by
post-construction near term and longer term impacts in the analysis.
We note that the town desires to retain a "village appeal" which we assume would include
the commercial area of US 321. One factor to consider is how excessive traffic speed could
hinder this goal along this long, straight section of US 321. NCDOT has done an excellent job
addressing the appearance of a widened right-of-way, but has not fully addressed the importance
of speed control through the commercial district and the associated pedestrian safety issues.
There is an emphasis in the document to highlight the natural and historic attributes of this
Sep 30 02 08:09a FHWR NC DIV 919-856-4353 p.8
mountain community. The document strongly infers a direct relationship between the quality of
these attributes to the economic success and general appeal of the Blowing Rock community.
We agree with this relationship.
We note the substantive analysis of the potential economic impact to businesses along
present US 321. Given that Blowing Rock has a tourist-based economy, it was interesting that
the analysis concluded that the Widening Alternative (with landscaped median) would have
minimal adverse impact on sales revenue, and that all of the bypass alternatives would result in
greater loss of sales revenue. Part of the overall economic issue which NCDOT, FHWA must
deal with is the great disparity in the total costs of the alternatives.
Natural Resource Impacts
Discussed on page 3-66 is the NC Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) methodology,
which was utilized to assess the functional importance of the wetland resources. EPA has stated
in comments on other projects its disagreement with this methodology because of the unequal
and low weighting of factors for wildlife functional values. In this project area, it is noted that
wetland vegetated communities are limited in extent and do not vary substantially among
alternatives. We wish to note that the DWQ assessment methodology does not include any
factor for wetland scarcity, which is another shortcoming of the methodology. EPA believes that
because of the scarcity of wetlands in this project area, the impacted wetlands should merit very
high functional ratings for diversity of wildlife habitat.
Relocations
Regarding residential relocations, the Widening Alternative affects 16 residences,
Alternative IA affects 24, Alternative 1B affects 27 (not 24 as indicated in Table 4-1),
Alternative 4A affects 8 and Alternative 4B affects 6 residences. According to the DEIS,
replacement housing in the $40,000-100,000 price range may not be readily available in the area.
The issue of adequate replacement housing should be more fully addressed in the FEIS.

612 Wade Avenue Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoScience
620,00
November 15, 2000
Mr. Steve Lund
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5506
Re: Request for Approval of a Section 404 Jurisdictional Area Delineation 99-042
Concerning US Route 321 Bypass (TIP R-2237C) around Blowing
Rock in Caldwell and Watauga Counties.
Dear Steve Lund:
I am writing to confirm our meeting for fieldwork concerning US Route 321 Bypass around Blowing
Rock in Caldwell and Watauga Counties. A wetland and stream delineation for the three bypass
alternatives has been completed. We will be meeting at the Green Park Inn in Blowing Rock at 1:00
on Monday, December 4, 2000. Blowing Rock is located 6 miles south of Boone along US 321.
Please find the attached figure depicting the location of the Green Park Inn and the 3 widening
alternatives.
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve U.S. Highway
321 at Blowing Rock in Caldwell and Watauga Counties, North Carolina. Three road improvement
alternatives have been considered (see attached Figure). The alternatives include widening the
existing road alignment and two new alignments located east of the existing US 321. The three
alternatives include: 1) the Widening Alternative, which extends from a point on US 321,
approximately 2.0 miles south of Blowing Rock, to the intersection of US 321/Possum Hollow
Road, northeast of Blowing Rock; 2) Alternative 1, that begins at the last series of curves along US
321 approximately 0.2 miles south of Blowing Rock, tops the Blue Ridge escarpment just east of
Green Hill, and continues between a golf course and Assembly Grounds to Possum Hollow Road,
f
northeast of Blowing Rock; and 3) Alternative 4, that begins south of Blowing Rock near Greene
Cemetery, follows a northerly course along the escarpment, crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway in a
tunnel, and returns to existing US 321 at Aho Road following a route west of Thunder Mountain
Road.
Yours truly,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
J 4'nGeratz
Project Scientist
Enclosure
cc (with enclosure):
Marella Bunsick
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
John Hennessy
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
David Cox
Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Office
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522
John Page
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.
991 Aviation Parkway, Suite 500
Morrisville, NC 27560
_ °. _C ..T ? ' JI 1 ? t ?.4??`. ? fii _it ?? ° ? 3 r t •.,ll? ?11 _ _: +' y 11 ? ? 'A??.SSS ?-G: @1r'?/
_ / _ ?? ?'t? t? ,. !? •ti-./ , +?1? ??? rt '? 114 I? I?./_ ? r' ) + 4
_a.i,t?/ \ 14 tti fr M1` ??\ pit, ` v?f 1:'.f ,' .: I }?t - ?ti,• , I.
J
m to
r f ?_ • . 1 t,. •, ? i /` ? ? ? ? ? ?.-??_ ? ?\' ..ill ) ,^v,-_ _ ?f { ? I I, I I ') 7,. !
°o ?..l?l. ....,' 1 ..?¦'144 i ?\- r j I y. ?0... r_l.,J_?rl ? ?? Ir (((r//jj( / / r.?'??,t ?, r J - ?:? \`? \ ? ,?
? o N l , ?' ` * t s?1°,?tt5`y???. -° 'J,?+?1j."? - 1?•, ? ?/Jr?J -?``., ? I ' ` t 1 ?,??`,, fir' r',??,{ ',, ? \?\?? _r?f• 4
o _ .\ t *. __ \?? `./ r.f -? 4 ff L 51 Y y ,} (? rf/ f(? -36?
tips
DD$8 \ f
t -A
?` 14.. St }+4i
.`j
?
t •t r\. / / F ay
ar 1 t et 00(,* I
A- ie G1 Z
1 '' ?? _ \ j--v • I '?.v„ ?.`- ?I ?./: y "mot t ---_)? ?'\_ ?•,,{, I r
H Of,
.. b'i e Nv? `tJ Chu
Aii
¦° ? l?'I7f • ' ??,rl ! ??+'?? 1i 51 ? j t t all 4\? • ~ l
I``'7e,'.•y?'1 t -i ??`~'i '?' ?' SS ,? _r .i{• ?Yf. 1? ?_ ?~`?k`, _ 1r
a
!rt
•:JIN I??.iJ•t• ??.?j y t .4,?•• fJ? ?v}, 1??s V?if
• :}, ?, 4 ??1 00 atej } 1 •I`. wa I t` a? X r ! its' ` O i t
vo)
i• m
Y `1 , f r- -n r 1
N -7
1 • -'fi-? r i r? \ '•tF pit c O U rS •/ .. Z D m ? if j ?' P ?? {?
t??.1..Ml?? ??`=?? :.may ?.,? •{`f r%? '? ?
?l"_ /Jp p 1
i?1L1'

c
>
D --?
o CD CD CD IML

so > > (D
4
w 2

B
C
CD

m 4 t.

f
CD
A6 C
D
v r
m L
¦ `1
¦
Z
if
o '
O ¦O
¦ 1
¦
¦

N
m
m
0 0
$ 0
9
Client

o. CO CU
2 L
v7
T
Parsons Brinckerhoff

Quade & Douglas
Inc.
o N m ,
Raleigh, North Carolina
N IOU
0
`L O
O
7 0
?JJf?• ?/f? ???-`?'??0=':fit-,
\\ ? I
r? 1
J, \y?
? ,na ?A ?? i i ? ?/

J
Ili
,}41r
,
\ N-V
q -A
?- o?+' lit ?A?? ?? A'. • ?1, 7Z? ? _J J? - / \ _.,? I i?: ? ._`)? \t __
'°.._ s' l__-? J,n r.-•- .ti\ ?,t. •?S !r =- \S ,i. /? ?1 yam= ?/
'
flit I
?•r r ? J ) , I 1?? - ! ? /t, ICI R ? f r. I, '_`.:_.
;` i 1'11(` ^?. ?.1.'l qtI t `t y `\ ?
Project
BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
Blowing Rock Bypass
Watauga and Caldwell Counties, North Carolina
m°'N
l 1l?
m $
T = SID'
m D
0 O
1??y O
m
;
:, 4
.02
N
C'
?•
CD
o
m
mid=
?•?
p ? l Y
hZ r
Z'nn
OOc I.
C
O m - ~?
X ca
r
t \?'? ff
r
/! f
. I f f
t
?/??-?
Y
I
US 321 Improvements Study Chronology
October 1989 to July 199.
prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff F
'15-1
October 13, 1999 .u r
?, ,
? Study Initiated (1989)

The US 321 Improvements study began in late 1989 as strictly a widening project. The
desire for a Blowing Rock bypass was first expressed at the first Citizens Informational
Workshop on January 25, 1990 and again at a second workshop on June 21, 1990.
Numerous locations for a bypass were suggested.
2. In February 1991, a scoping letter was distributed to regulatory agencies requesting
comments on several Blowing Rock bypass alternatives. The corridors discussed were
based, in part, on citizen suggestions. They are discussed in the August 1993 Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA).
3. The bypass alternatives in the 1993 EA were evaluated in terms of length of new
construction versus widening, length in severe terrain, number of bridges, change in
travel distance, neighborhoods/communities affected, displacement, relationship to the
Blue Ridge Parkway, other community issues, forest wildlife habitat lost, and proximity to
streams. A single "most reasonable" bypass alternative was selected for comparison
with the widening alternative. Construction and right-of-way costs were estimated for
the "most reasonable" bypass alternative.
? Environmental Assessment (1993)/FONSI (1994)
4. In August 1993, the EA proposed that US 321 be improved to four lanes from NC 268 at
Patterson to US 221 in Blowing Rock. It listed a widening project as the preferred
alternative and concluded that a bypass around Blowing Rock was not reasonable.
5. Following a public hearing, a Federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
released in September 1994 for the widening project between NC 268 and SR 1500
(Blackberry Road). Based on hearing and agency comments, the FONSI stated that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared for US 321 improvements
from SR 1500 to US 221 in Blowing Rock and would include consideration of a Blowing
Rock bypass.
? Citizens Advisory Committee Formed/Bypass Alternatives Study (1995 -1997)
6. On July 12, 1995, the first meeting of a project Citizens Advisory Committee was held to
introduce the EIS study, review its three phases, and discuss key issues associated with
the study. The three phases are: 1) selection of reasonable bypass alternatives, 2)
preparation and distribution of a Draft EIS, and 3) selection of a preferred alternative and
preparation of a Final EIS.
In August 1995, a scoping letter was distributed to regulatory agencies to solicit
comments for the EIS study, initiate coordination for the project, and provide notice of an
interagency scoping meeting, held on February 7, 1996.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting
November 4, 1999
8. On August 29, 1995, a Citizens Informational Workshop was held in Blowing Rock to
present a land suitability map showing community, cultural, and natural features in the
project area and solicit comments on the study, alternatives, and potential environmental
impact issues. The desire for an alternative that crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway,
including a tunnel crossing, was expressed.
9. Conceptual design criteria were prepared, specifying grade and curve requirements,
and a roadway typical section. Potential bypass alternatives were developed by the
study team. They included four alternatives proposed by the Concerned Citizens of
Blowing Rock. None of the alternatives proposed crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway.
10. A second Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was held on November 11, 1995 to
review workshop and agency scoping comments, the land suitability map, and potential
bypass alternatives. The study team agreed to look further at the possibility of crossing
the Blue Ridge Parkway.
11. On February 7, 1996, an Interagency/Steering Committee meeting was held. Traffic
studies and potential bypass alternatives were presented.
12. A third Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was held on March 27, 1996 to review
traffic, level of service, and design criteria for the potential bypass corridors. The
feasibility of a Parkway crossing from a traffic perspective also was discussed.
13. Functional designs for 10 bypass alternatives were prepared. The alignments submitted
by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock were refined to form four corridors. A fifth
corridor was a refined version of the bypass alternative presented as the "most
reasonable" bypass alternative in the EA. Five additional corridors were developed by
the study team and reflected alternative ways for passing through the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds. The refinements to the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock's
alternatives allowed them to more closely follow the existing terrain, reducing the amount
of potential excavation and cost.
14. A fourth Citizens Advisory Committee meeting was held on July 31, 1996 to present the
potential bypass alternatives and discuss their potential traffic, social, natural resource,
and visual impacts. Committee members were asked to list the criteria they considered
important when selecting reasonable bypass corridors and to select the alternatives
they believed should be compared to the widening alternative in the DEIS. The factors
selected most by committee members, in order, were community impact, safety,
efficiency of traffic movement, and cost. The NCDOT re-affirmed its decision not to
pursue bypass alternatives that cross the Blue Ridge Parkway.
15. A second Citizens Informational Workshop was held on August 1, 1996 to present the
potential bypass alternatives and their potential traffic, social, natural resource, and
visual impacts to the general public. Opposition to the bypass alternatives proposed by
the study team was universal. Those who identified themselves as living in Caldwell
County and in the rural areas in Watauga County generally supported the widening
alternative. Most others indicated that crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway and building a
bypass that is completely out of Blowing Rock was the only reasonable option.
16. At the urging of the Blowing Rock Town Council, the Concerned Citizens of Blowing
Rock, and citizen comment, the study team decided to examine several new alternatives
proposed by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock. The Concerned Citizens
provided maps showing its preferred bypass locations and design parameters. The
study team met with representatives of the Concerned Citizens prior to completing its
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 2 November 4, 1999
G¦r
1
designs to affirm that the designs met their expectations The only expectation not met
was tunnel length.
The tunnels were made longer than desired by the Concerned Citizens for two reasons:
1) the width of the ridge through which the tunnel passes is greater than the tunnel
length desired by the Concerned Citizens and 2) a longer tunnel allows natural slopes to
be retained above the portal end wall. Experience with other tunnels in the southeastern
United States indicates that the height of portal cuts should be minimized to reduce the
possibility of significant stability problems both during construction and in service.
Stabilizing unstable cut slopes can be expensive. Stabilizing a cut slope above the
portal end wall is particularly important because unlike cut slopes that parallel a
highway, any rock that falls off slopes above the portal will fall directly on the highway or
a passing vehicle.
17. A second Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting was held on December 17, 1996. At
this meeting, the original alternatives and the additional alternatives proposed by the
Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock were presented along with an assessment of each.
A request was made that the assessment be restructured and mailed to members of the
Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting. It was thought that preferences could be
determined more easily if the information were in such a format.
18. A questionnaire was developed that presented the advantages and disadvantages of
the alternatives and asked for preferences. Copies were sent to members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee and representatives of various cultural and natural
resource agencies. Responses to the questionnaires were used to help the study team
select those bypass alternatives that will be compared to the widening alternative in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
19. In 1997, the NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration selected four bypass
alternatives to be evaluated in detail with the widening alternative in the DEIS. The
alternatives selected and the reasons why they were selected were:
• Bypass Alternative 1 (Alternative E)
- It is the shortest and least expensive bypass alternative.
- It can be designed to avoid area historic resources.
- It would have the least visual impact on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
- It would have a minimal impact on the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds.
Bypass Alternative 2 (Alternative FH)
- Like Bypass Alternative 1, this alternative can be designed to avoid area historic
resources.
- Unlike Bypass Alternative 1, its northern terminus is not at Possum Hollow Road,
but between the Parkway and the northern-most residential subdivision.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 3 November 4, 1999

• Bypass Alternative 3 (Alternative CC-CH)
- In the past, representatives from the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock have
indicated that the best corridor for returning a bypass to US 321 south of the
Parkway was one that remained as close to the Parkway as possible.
- It bypasses the final curves on existing US 321 before Blowing Rock, an area
where sharp curves and steep grades would remain with the widening
alternative, a feature also important to several citizen representatives.
• Bypass Alternative 4 (Alternative CC-I) (tunnel)
- It avoids the Town of Blowing Rock by ending north of the Parkway, a feature
important to the Town Council of Blowing Rock, the Concerned Citizens of
Blowing Rock, and several members of the project's Citizens Advisory
Committee.
- Like Bypass Alternative 3, it bypasses the final curves on existing US 321 before
Blowing Rock, an area where sharp curves and steep grades would remain with
the widening alternative.
None of the alternatives selected in 1997 for further study and comparison to the
widening alternative performed well on all evaluation criteria: engineering, cost, traffic,
and environmental (natural and social). Based in the information known to date, the
NCDOT could not conclude that any of the bypass alternatives are reasonable
alternatives. Each of the four selected for further evaluation offered a different set of
trade-offs, particularly between social and natural resource impacts. They, in
combination with the widening alternative, appeared to be a set of alternatives that best
represented the differing issues and concerns associated with the US 321
improvements project.
20. The decision to pursue the four bypass alternatives and the widening alternative was
presented for discussion at a fifth meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on June
24, 1997. Blowing Rock and other local officials also were invited to the meeting and
numerous citizens observed the meeting. The Blowing Town Council passed a
resolution on October 20, 1997 saying that all five alternatives were "unacceptable in
addressing the Town's transportation needs." They offered no other alternatives. A
subsequent conversation with the Town Manager discovered that the basis of the
conclusion was that all of the alternatives had the potential to affect properties within the
Town in some way.
? Geotechnical Investigation (1997) and Origin and Destination Study (1998)
21. In late 1997, a scope of work for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
developed for the four proposed bypass alternatives as well as widening existing
US 321 through Blowing Rock. However, the contract was delayed for execution
pending the results of a geotechnical investigation. This investigation provided
preliminary recommendations for slope requirements. It concluded that slopes,
primarily those facing east, need to be flatter that assumed in the previous design
studies. NCDOT staff revised the conceptual designs to reflect this requirement.
22. An Origin and Destination Study (O&D) was conducted in September of 1998 to
determine the amount of traffic going through Blowing Rock without stopping. There
were 5,000 through trips that passed through Blowing Rock on the day of the survey.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 4 November 4, 1999
Nearly 90 percent of the through trips were trips to or from Caldwell, Watauga, and the
surrounding counties. Nearly 75 percent were trips between home and work.
? Video Presentation (March 1999)
23. Meetings were held between NCDOT staff to review the results of the geotechnical
studies and the O&D study. A video presentation was prepared to present the results of
the new studies, the NCDOT's concerns related to the bypass alternatives, and propose
that project studies focus on an "enhanced" widening alternative. This presentation was
shown to various local officials and the Citizens Advisory Committee members on
March 8.
24. The NCDOT asked for comments on the presentation by May 10. Nearly 200 comments
were received. About half of the respondents favored the Enhanced Widening
Alternative, while the other half favored Bypass Alternative 4 (tunnel underneath Blue
Ridge Parkway).
? NCDOT Announces Decision to Study Three Alternatives in DEIS (July, 1999)
25. In a July 20 letter to various local officials and the Citizens Advisory Committee, the
NCDOT announced that it would evaluate the Enhanced Widening Alternative, Bypass
Alternative 1, and Bypass Alternative 4 in the Environmental Impact Statement.
26. Work to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement began in September, beginning
with updating the Purpose and Need. The NEPA/404 Merger Team meeting was
scheduled for November 4.
R-2237C NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 5 November 4, 1999

Q
PURPOSE AND NEED REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Proposed US 321 Improvements at Blowing Rock
Town of Blowing Rock
Watauga and Caldwell Counties
TIP No, R-2237C
State Project Number 83731301
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cooperatinq Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
November 4, 1999
Table of Contents
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Project Need 1-1
1.3 Project Purpose 1-2
1.4 Background Information 1-2
1.4.1 Setting and Land Use 1-2
1.4.2 Population Growth 1-2
1.4.3 Project History 1-4
1.5 Thoroughfare Planning 1-4
1.5.1 Overview of the Thoroughfare Planning Process 1-4
1.5.2 Caldwell and Watauga County Thoroughfare Planning 1-4
1.5.3 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program 1-5
1.6 Transportation Network and Operating Characterisitics 1-5
1.6.1 Existing Road Network 1-5
1.6.2 Roadway Characteristics and Posted Speeds 1-6
1.6.3 Sidewalks and Pedestrian Movements 1-6
1.6.4 Intersections and Access Control 1-6
1.6.5 Traffic Volumes 1-6
1.6.6 Level of Service 1-8
1.6.7 Accidents/Safety 1-11
1.7 Modal Interrelationships 1-13
1.8 Summary 1-13
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Existing (1998) and Forecast Average Daily Traff ic (ADT) and
Forecast Peak Hour Volume 1-8
Table 1-2 Level of Service Criteria 1-9
Table 1-3 Design Hour Roadway Level of Service 1-10
Table 1-4 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 1-11
Table 1-5 Accident Rates' 1-12
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Area 1-3
Figure 1-2 Existing and Forecast Average Daily Traffic 1-7
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT, 1999) 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes a highway improvement project in Caldwell and Watauga
counties at Blowing Rock from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) north to US 221 in Blowing Rock.
Consequently, studies are underway in accordance with the requirements set forth in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This Purpose and Need
Statement is the first phase in the preparation of an environmental document. Concurrence Point
No. 1 of the NEPA/404 Merger Process, developing the purpose and need for the proposed
action, should justify why the improvement must be implemented, should be as comprehensive
as possible, and should be updated as appropriate throughout the development process of the
proposed action.
1.2 PROJECT NEED
The primary needs of the proposed action include:
Traffic capacity deficiencies exist along US 321 within the project area and will
continue to worsen.
US 321 currently operates at a peak hour level of service (LOS) F between Blackberry
Road and Green Hill Road (in Blowing Rock). Since LOS F reflects traffic volumes
greater than the capacity of the road, it indicates high delays and basically no passing
opportunities exist during peak periods. A primary reason for this condition is the
mountainous terrain, which results in slow truck speeds. Within the balance of the
project area in Blowing Rock, the level of service is an unacceptable (LOS D/E) at all
locations along US 321.
In 2025, the road south of Green Hill Road would continue to operate at LOS F in the
peak periods, although delays will increase substantially as traffic grows. Operations on
US 321 through Blowing Rock would operate at LOS E between Green Hill Road and US
321 Business. Between US 321 Business and US 221, US 321 would operate at LOS F.
Traffic under these conditions would be extremely congested during peak periods.
Refer to Table 1-3 and Table 1-4 in section 1.6.6, "Level of Service," for the exact
locations expected to operate at undesirable levels of service and Table 1-2 for level of
service definitions.
Accident rates on existing US 321 within the Town of Blowing Rock are far higher
than statewide averages for similar roads.
The total accident rate for existing US 321 within Blowing Rock is 28 percent higher than
similar urban US routes in North Carolina. The non-fatal injury accident rate is 23 percent
higher, and the property damage accident rate is 30 percent higher than the state
comparative rate. One fatality occurred within the last three years. Narrow lanes and
poor sight distances, combined with turning vehicles at intersections and driveways
appear to explain the high levels of accidents on US 321 in Blowing Rock.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-1 November 4, 1999
Refer to Table 1-5 in section 1.6.7, "Accidents/Safety," for more specifics on the types
and locations of accidents.
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE
The primary purpose of the proposed action includes the following:
Improve traffic flow and level of service on US 321 from Blackberry Road to US 221.
Without road improvements, the forecast traffic along this section of US 321 will exceed
the road's capacity, creating undesirable levels of service. The proposed improvement
will provide congestion relief.
Reduce accidents on US 321 within Blowing Rock.
Without road improvements, high accident rates are expected to continue. The numbers
of accidents will likely rise as traffic volumes continue to rise. Improvements could
increase sight distances by straightening curves and could provide separate lanes for
drivers turning left or an additional through lane.
1.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.4.1 Setting and Land Use
The project area is in western North Carolina and encompasses the northern part of Caldwell
County and the southern part of Watauga County, including the resort community of Blowing
Rock. (See Figure 1-1.) The project area extends well east of US 321 to encompass the
locations of potential bypass alternatives. Land use in the project area includes scattered rural
residential development in Caldwell County and eastern Blowing Rock, as well as concentrated
low-density residential, commercial, and recreational development in Blowing Rock both east
and west of US 321. Within Blowing Rock, US 321 passes through a district that is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. US 321 passes adjacent to the Green Park Inn and the
Blowing Rock Country Club, which are included in the historic district. It also passes adjacent to
a residential structure individually listed on the National Register. Development along US 321 in
the southern portion of Blowing Rock is primarily low-density residential, while the primary
development along US 321 in the northern portion of Blowing Rock is highway commercial.
Development in Blowing Rock off of US 321 is primarily single-family residential with very few
commercial structures. The Blue Ridge Parkway is not crossed by the existing road but a
potential bypass alternative would pass under the Parkway in a tunnel.
1.4.2 Population Growth
Caldwell County's population grew 4.4 percent (67,746 to 70,709) from 1980 to 1990; between
1990 and 2000, the County is expecting a 4.4 percent growth in population (70,709 to 73,813).
The rate of growth within Caldwell County is slower than surrounding counties and the State of
North Carolina.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-2 November 4, 1999
+ "v ?. •Z:.1h ti,? `-ice..,..-? ../1 ? r ? 'i ? f? .
1: +
C?E
Road

y
411
l II - Q '
R?57RIG7F_O? , ;
?G •,n i,+m ?- ? ? 1
? J t ?. • ?;
\
k

T
?

A•3?ti?Ii„r ?''k
\ ThGrt
?
-'14a

%
d
sef 'A
L?
r
e
`;;.' r 3u 1?.
" s `y?S l
'Fdi'lU P
s31'k
n
O
.
dl?,.?r
%
A
1 Q
!K
t
tt ,?s .9
C

t? fz
Gri' lt - {
?
p?
?k31t??cing 5R°CZ sr t?
?"
?
t :?T R "' ,e 1 L?. U F, ll 1 V' Yr
p l S

CALI

} E~ _ } t Blackberry

n
r

T?ni1t•v CAP C

lmild PT
f SCALE

LEGEND Project Area Figure
¦ m¦ ¦ ¦ i Project Area Boundary 1-1
Watauga County's population grew by 16.7 percent from 1980 to 1990 (31,666 to 36,952); a 10.2
percent increase in population is projected for the period 1990 to 2000 (36,952 to 40,726). The
census population figures do not represent the seasonal/part-year residents. Blowing Rock's
population rises to about 10,000 persons in the summer months, as estimated by Blowing Rock
town planners.
1.4.3 Project History
In 1993, an Environmental Assessment (EA) (NCDOT, August 1993) was prepared that
recommended widening US 321 from NC 268 in Patterson to US 221 in Blowing Rock. Based on
comments from the State Historic Preservation Officer and the general public, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) (NCDOT, September 1994) was prepared for the southern 10.8 miles
of the project area, from NC 268 to SR 1500 (Blackberry Road). This section has independent
utility and its selection did not preclude consideration of alignments in the Blowing Rock area.
Because of the mountainous terrain, steep grades and poor alignment, improvements from NC
268 to SR 1500 are much needed from a safety and capacity standpoint. At public hearings,
representatives of government, businesses, Appalachian State University, and the public spoke
in favor of a four-lane US 321 between NC 268 and US 221. However, many citizens from
Blowing Rock strongly preferred a project that included a bypass around Blowing Rock. The
FONSI therefore indicated that an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared for the
northern 4.3 miles of the EA's project area [from SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) to US 221 in Blowing
Rock] that compared the widening alternative with several Blowing Rock bypass alternatives.
1.5 THOROUGHFARE PLANNING
1.5.1 Overview of the Thoroughfare Planning Process
The thoroughfare planning process is a comprehensive transportation planning process that
integrates urban area planning practices with local, regional, and statewide transportation
planning practices. The process identifies transportation planning needs by evaluating land
development and population growth trends in rural counties and urbanized areas. The process
begins through a cooperative effort between the NCDOT's Statewide Planning Branch and local
planning officials. Socio-economic data is collected, including business and residential area
inventories, existing street inventories, identification of environmental constraints, and historical
information of the area. A base year transportation model is built. Utilizing input from local
planning officials, land development and population growth trends are projected and applied to
the model. Through this modeling process and local knowledge of the area's socio-economic
conditions, the thoroughfare planning team identifies transportation deficiencies and determines
short- and long-term solutions for eliminating or diminishing those deficiencies.
1.5.2 Caldwell and Watauga County Thoroughfare Planning
The 1981 Thoroughfare Plan prepared by the NCDOT for Caldwell County states that the number
of lanes should be increased from two to four on US 321. When identifying future road
improvement needs, the 1993 Thoroughfare Plan for Region D (Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell,
Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancy Counties) assumes that US 321 is widened as specified in the
Transportation Improvement Program (see below). Watauga County adopted the Watauga
County component of the Region D plan.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-4 November 4, 1999
1.5.3 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
The project is included as TIP No. R-2237C in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (NCDOT, 1999) covering the period from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2000
to FFY 2006. Right-of-way acquisition and construction currently are not scheduled.
The following additional transportation improvement projects are near the project area:
R-2237A Widen US 321 to a multi-lane road from NC 268 at Patterson to SR 1370 (Nelson
Chapel Road) in Caldwell County. This project is under construction.
R-2237B Widen US 321 to a multi-lane road from SR 1370 (Nelson Chapel Road) to SR
1500 (Blackberry Road) in Caldwell County. Design is scheduled for FFY 2001,
right-of-way acquisition in FFY 2003, and construction in FFY 2005 or 2006.
R-529 Widen US 421 to a multi-lane road from NC 194 in Boone to two miles east of US
221 in Watauga County. This project is under construction.
U-3800 Widen to five lanes US 321 (Harden Street), Rivers Street (U-3406) to US 421/NC
194 in Boone. Design and right-of-way acquisition have started and construction
is scheduled for State FY 2000.
R-2566 Widen NC 105 to a multi-lane road from US 221 in Avery County to SR 1107 in
Boone. This project is identified as a future need only.
R-2615 Widen US 421 to a multi-lane road from US 221 in Boone to the Tennessee State
Line. This project is identified as a future need only.
1.6 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND OPERATING CHARACTERISITICS
1.6.1 Existing Road Network
US 321 is designated as a principal arterial in the statewide highway network and carries both
local and through traffic. It is a two-lane road within the project area and there is no control of
access. Other US routes in Watauga and northern Caldwell counties are US 421, which passes
east to north through Watauga County and Boone, and US 221, which passes southwest to
northeast through Watauga County via Blowing Rock and Boone. NC 105 and NC 194 also serve
Watauga county. 1-40 is the interstate highway nearest the project area, 40 miles southeast of
Blowing Rock at US 321's juncture with 1-40.
In the 1989 Highway Trust Fund Act, the North Carolina State legislature designated a network of
US and state highways as intrastate corridors. The Intrastate System was established to connect
major population centers and provide safe, convenient travel for motorists. The intrastate system
plan calls for the widening of the system's existing two-lane sections to at least four travel lanes.
US 321 from the South Carolina border south of Gastonia to its junction with US 421 west of
Boone, North Carolina is part of the Intrastate System. This corridor is defined as the principal
north-south route uniting the western Piedmont. US 421 is also a part of the Intrastate System.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-5 November 4, 1999
1.6.2 Roadway Characteristics and Posted Speeds
The roadway in the project area can be described best in three sections, each with common
characteristics:
The rural section south of Blowing Rock.
The urban section between Green Hill Road and US 321 Business in Blowing Rock.
The urban section between US 321 Business and US 221 in Blowing Rock.
The two-lane rural section south of Blowing Rock has a 22-foot paved travelway with a one-foot
paved shoulder on each side and a speed limit of 50 miles per hour (mph). The horizontal
alignment is poor with numerous sharp curves up to 30 degrees (design speed approximately 25
mph). In addition, the terrain is mountainous with nearly continuous grades between 6 and 8
percent uphill into Blowing Rock.
The two-lane urban section of US 321 between Green Hill Road and US 321 Business (which
passes through the Green Park Historic District) is approximately 0.8 mile long, with a 24-foot
pavement width and a travelway varying between 20 and 22 feet. The speed limit is 35 mph.
Grass shoulders are either non-existent or very narrow. The horizontal alignment is fair with a
series of four reverse curves up to 24 degrees (design speed approximately 30 mph). The
terrain is rolling with a maximum grade of 3.5 percent.
The 1.4-mile urban section between US 321 Business and US 221 has two lanes with a pavement
width varying between 20 and 22 feet and a speed limit of 35 mph. The northernmost 0.1 mile of
this section has four lanes. The alignment is generally straight on rolling terrain with a maximum
grade of five percent.
Passing opportunities along the entire project length are limited because of the terrain and sight
distance restrictions.
1.6.3 Sidewalks and Pedestrian Movements
There are no sidewalks along the project, except for a single existing sidewalk in front of the
Green Park Inn. Concentrations of pedestrian travel across US 321 occur at three points in
Blowing Rock -- Green Hill Road area, Sunset Drive, and Possum Hollow Road. In the Green Hill
Road area, pedestrians cross US 321 between the Green Park Inn and a parking lot opposite the
Inn.
1.6.4 Intersections and Access Control
The US 221, Sunset Drive, and Possum Hollow Road/Shoppes on the Parkway intersections, all in
Blowing Rock, are signalized. Traffic volumes on most intersecting roads are very light. No
restriction on access to abutting properties currently applies.
1.6.5 Traffic Volumes
Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1 show the 1998 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each major link on US
321 and the 2025 forecast ADT. The existing 1998 ADT was 7,525 vehicles south of Blowing
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-6 November 4, 1999
Shoppes
on the
Parkway 29100
3,050
US 221
14,525
26,150
4,775
8,350
11,750
20,800
4,625
7,550
US 321
Business
2,425
5,300
15,350
27,450
12,275
21,600
11,875
21,200
Possum Hollow Road
625
750
Food Lion
1,275
2,200
12,300
21,300
Sunset Drive
1,125
10,000 1,600
17,400
8,800
15,000
9,525
V6,900
8,975
15,900
8,925
15,900
1,175 Green Hill Road
2,000
i
325 7,525
450 149100 ?,0
o G?
Legend
1998 May Average Daily Traffic
2025 May Average Daily Traffic
Q
/ Goforth Road
250
300
Table 1-1
Existing (1998) and Forecast Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
and Forecast Peak Hour Volume
Link Maximum
Link Description
1998 2025
(AD T) (ADT)
2025 % Growth
(Peak 1998 to
Hour) 2025
South of Green Hill Road 7,525 14,100 1,970
Green Hill Road-Goforth Road 8,925 15,900 21230
Goforth Road-US 321 Business 9,525 16,900 2,370
US 321 Business-Sunset Drive 10,000 17,400 2,440
Sunset Drive-Food Lion Driveway 12,300 21,300 2,980
Food Lion Driveway-US 221 12,275 21,600 3,020
US 221-Possum Hollow Road 15,350 27,450 3,840
North of Possum Hollow Road 14,525 26,150 3,660
87.4%
78.2%
77.4%
74.0%
73.2%
76.0%
78.8%
80.0%
Rock, 8,325 to 10,000 vehicles south of Sunset Drive in Blowing Rock, and 11,750 to 15,350
vehicles north of Sunset Drive. The 1998 ADT figures are extrapolated volumes calculated by the
NCDOT between its 1994 traffic counts and its 2025 forecasts. The original 1994 figures were
actual counts taken in May as a part of preparation of a new Boone thoroughfare plan. May was
chosen for the counts by the NCDOT after consultation with local officials and represents an
"average" month. The forecast traffic volumes for the design year 2025 are based on local
population and employment growth trends and the NCDOT's 1998 Blowing Rock Origin and
Destination Study.
The 2025 May ADT is forecast to be 14,100 vehicles south of Blowing Rock,15,150 to 17,400
vehicles south of Sunset Drive in Blowing Rock, and 21,300 to 27,450 vehicles north of Sunset
Drive. Traffic is expected to grow between 73 and 87 percent between 1998 and 2025.
The traffic volumes include eight percent daily truck traffic on US 321, including three percent
tractor-trailers and five percent other trucks. Because non-truck traffic makes up a higher
percentage of total traffic during peak hours, the peak hour truck percentages are assumed to
be one-half of the daily percentage.
New or improved roads in North Carolina are designed to serve at an acceptable level of service
a "design hourly volume" or peak hour traff ic volume 20 to 25 years in the future. This volume is
usually expressed as a percent of the ADT. For existing US 321 in 2025, the peak hour volume is
forecast to be 14 percent of the ADT. The 2025 peak hour volumes for each US 321 link are
shown in Table 1-1 and range between 1,970 and 3,840 vehicles per hour depending on the link.
1.6.6 Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes the operational conditions
within a traffic stream and the perception of traffic service by motorists and passengers. The
different levels of service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-8 November 4, 1999
are used to measure level of service. They range from the letter A to F. For roadways, LOS A
indicates no congestion and LOS F represents more traffic demand than road capacity and
extreme delays.
Table 1-2 provides a general description of various level of service categories for roadways as
given in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as well as descriptions for signalized and
unsignalized intersections. Specific level of service definitions vary for two-lane highways, multi-
lane highways, and intersections. In addition, the level of service for signalized and unsignalized
intersections cannot be compared directly. In general, a poor level of service rating still can be
considered acceptable for an unsignalized intersection. This is because the unsignalized
intersection analysis is based upon the availability of gaps in traffic for minor street traffic, which
means an intersection can have a poor level of service despite no delays on the major street.
The signalized intersection analysis provides an overall average delay and level of service for the
entire intersection.
New or upgraded roads in rural areas in North Carolina typically are designed for LOS C for the
peak hour volume in the design year. This policy is based on pages 87 to 90 of A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1994). For urban areas, LOS D is typically acceptable when it is too
costly or environmentally damaging to design for a better level of service, but LOS C is preferred.
The goal for the US 321 improvements is LOS C or better in 2025.
Table 1.2
Level of Service Criteria

Level of
Service

Traffic Flow on Roadways Delay at
Signalized
Intersection Delay at Two-
Way Stop
Intersection
A Free flowing traffic with little or no delays <= 5 sec <=5 sec
B A stable flow with few congestion-related 5-15 sec 5-10 sec
restrictions on operating speed
C Stable flow but with more restrictions on speed 15-25 sec 10-20 sec
and changing lanes
D Approaches unstable conditions and passing 25-40 sec 20-30 sec
becomes extremely difficult. Motorists are delayed
an average of 75 percent of the time.
E The capacity of a roadway. Passing is virtually 40-60 sec 30-45 sec
impossible, speeds drop when slow vehicles or
other interruptions are encountered.
F Heavily congested flow with traffic demand >60 sec >45 sec
exceeding the capacity of the highway.

R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-9 November 4, 1999
1998. Table 1-3 presents the design hour level of service for each roadway link. As shown, US
321 currently operates at LOS F south of Green Hill Road (and Blowing Rock). Since LOS F
reflects traffic volumes greater than the capacity of the road, it indicates high delays and
basically no passing opportunities exist during peak periods. A primary reason for this condition
is the mountainous terrain, which results in slow truck speeds. Through Blowing Rock, the level
of service is unacceptable (LOS D/E) in all locations, except north of the signalized intersection of
US 221. The better level of service north of Possum Hollow Road occurs because US 321 is four
lanes north of that point.
Table 1-4 summarizes the level of service for each intersection. All signalized and unsignalized
intersections currently operate at LOS C or better. However, a few of the side-street movements
at the unsignalized intersections are experiencing long delays (LOS F) during peak periods.
2025. Table 1-3 also includes level of service for forecast 2025 traffic. The road south of Blowing
Rock would continue to operate at LOS F in the peak periods although delays will increase
substantially. Operations on US 321 through Blowing Rock would operate at LOS E between
Green Hill Road and US 321 Business. Between US 321 Business and Possum Hollow Road, US
321 would operate at LOS F. Traffic flow under these conditions would be extremely congested
during peak periods.
The level of service at all existing signalized intersections on US 321 would deteriorate to
conditions worse than LOS F, as shown in Table 1-4. The level of service of the unsignalized
intersections at Green Hill Road, US 321 Business, and the Food Lion entrance also would
deteriorate to F. A planning level signal warrant analysis (using ADT and peak hour-based
warrants and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (Kell and Fullerton, 1982) Manua/of Traffic
Signa/Design, Second Edition) indicates the need for traffic signals at these intersections by
2025, although not as a part of an initial improvement, although for two of the three, through
traffic would continue to operate at LOS F.
Table 1.3
Design Hour Roadway Level of Service
Link Description
1998 2025
South of Green Hill Road
Green Hill Road-Goforth Road
Goforth Road-US 321 Business
US 321 Business-Sunset Drive
Sunset Drive-Food Lion Driveway
Food Lion Driveway-US 221
US 221-Possom Hollow Road
North of Possom Hollow Road
F F
D E
D E
D F
E F
E F
C F
B C
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-10 November 4, 1999
Table 1.4
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Intersection 1998 2025
US 321/Green Hill Road (Unsignalized) A (D) F (F`)
(Signalized) - F3
US 321/Goforth Road A (C) A (F)
US 321/US 321 Business (Unsignalized) A (F) F (F*)'
(Signalized) - D
US 321/Food Lion (Unsignalized) A (F)2 F (F')2
(Signalized) - F3
US 321 /Sunset Drive (Signalized) C F-
US 321 /US 221 (Signalized) B F*
US 321/Shoppes on the Parkway (Signalized) B F`
Notes:
All intersections are unsignalized unless indicated otherwise. For unsignalized intersections - "F
indicates the overall level for the intersection LOS; "(F)" indicates the worst movement LOS F' indicates
level of service worse than F and V/C (volume/capacity ratio) greater than 1.2.
'Signal may be warranted.
2Traffic signals on either side of this intersection create large gaps. This may result in better levels of
service in reality than the levels of service analysis indicates.
3US 321 through traffic would operate at level of service F
1.6.7 Accidents/Safety
Accident data for the project area were assessed for the period between June 1, 1996 and April
30, 1999. Accident rates, categorized by fatal accidents, non-fatal injury accidents, property
damage accidents, and total number of reported accidents, were compared to average rates for
other roads with similar characteristics in North Carolina. Average crash rates for various roads
in North Carolina are also based on NCDOT data for the years 1996 through 1998.
The accident rates are summarized as accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles driven. For
example, if a 10-mile section of road carries an average of 10,000 vehicles per day, in one year
36.5 million vehicles-miles of travel would occur on that 10-mile stretch of road (10 miles times
10,000 vehicles per day times 365 days per year). If five accidents occur on this 10-mile section
of road in a three-year period the accident rate is 4.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles.
The 4.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles assumes that over the three-year period 109.5
million vehicle-miles of travel occur (36.5 million times 3) and five accidents. The 4.6 is
calculated by dividing 100 million vehicle-miles by 109.5 million and multiplying the result by 5).
If one were interested in the average number of accidents per year, one would divide 5 by 3 for
and average of 1.7 accidents per year.
Table 1-5 shows the number of accidents from 1996 to 1999 and accident rates for the existing
roadway compared with the average rates for similar US routes in North Carolina.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-11 November 4, 1999
Table 1-5
Accident Rates'
Accident Rate
Number of NCDOT3
Accidents on Average for
US 321(1996 Existing? 2 Lanes Percent
Accident Type to 1999) US 321 Undivided Difference
Rural Section South - Blackberry Road (SR 1500) to Blowing Rock Town Limits
Fatal 0 0* 2.60 N/A*
Non-Fatal 9 67.69 88.37 -23%
Property Damage Only 16 120.34 102.96 17%
Total 25 188.03 193.93 3%
Urban Section - Town Limits (south) to Town Limits (north of Possum Hollow Road)
Fatal 1 4.01 * 1.10 N/A*
Non-Fatal 37 148.32 120.35 23%
Property Damage Only 55 220.48 169.39 30%
Total 93 372.82 290.84 28%
'Rates based upon 100 million vehicle mile exposure
2NCDOT accident data 6/1/96 through 4/30/99
3Average rates provided by NCDOT for rural and urban two-lane US routes for 1996-1998
*Accident rate resulting from zero or one fatality and is not statistically significant
Rural Section
The rural portion of US 321 starts at SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) and ends at the Blowing Rock
town limits, 0.2 miles south of the intersection with Green Hill Road. It has a total length of 1.8
miles. As indicated in Table 1-5, the accident rate for the rural portion is comparable to the state
average for a rural roadway with similar characteristics. The rural portion of US 321 has a 23
percent lower non-fatal injury rate than the state as a whole, although the property damage only
accident rate is 17 percent higher, resulting in a similar overall rate with lower severity. There
were no reported fatal accidents during the reported period in this portion of US 321.
The majority of the accidents on the rural section were comprised of a few general types. Forty-
eight percent of the accidents involved single vehicles running off the road. In addition, 24
percent of the accidents were the result of vehicles striking the rear of a slower or stopped
vehicle and 20 percent were angle accidents. The provision of extra lanes and standard
shoulders could reduce these accidents substantially. Easing of the sharp curves could result in
fewer vehicles running off the road and improve visibility to decrease rear-end accidents.
While weather plays a factor in some accidents, no specific trends were noted in the accident
analysis. No data were available to measure the effect of fog on accidents.
Urban Section
The urban section of US 321 is a 2.3-mile route through the Town of Blowing Rock. It starts at the
town limits, just south of Green Hill Road, and ends just north of Possum Hollow Road. The
existing accident rates in the urban section are presented and compared with North Carolina
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-12 November 4, 1999
averages in Table 1-5. The total accident rate for existing US 321 through Blowing Rock is 28
percent higher than similar urban US routes in North Carolina. The non-fatal injury accident rate
is 23 percent higher and the property damage accident rate is 30 percent higher than the state
comparative rate.
One fatality did occur during the three year period. A high fatality rate resulted from only one
fatality because of the low exposure for the three-year accident study period. It takes more than
three years for 100 million miles of travel to occur on this segment of US 321 and the number of
fatal accidents in North Carolina is far lower than for other types of accidents. Thus, the
differences between Blowing Rock's three-year record of one fatality and the statewide averages
for the same period are not statistically significant. The high accident rate overall and the high
rates for the other two more common types of accidents, however, are indicative of a road that is
not as safe as it could be.
Accident records indicate that almost all intersections on this section of US 321 are prone to a
high number of accidents. A majority of these accidents, 48 percent of the total, involved
vehicles rear-ending slow or stopped vehicles. An additional 24 percent involved angle
collisions. Between US 321 Business and US 221 on the northern end of this section, accidents
often were related to traffic entering/exiting driveways. No weather-related trends were observed
in the urban section.
The analysis identified five specific high accident locations. Of the five locations identified, four
were individual intersections. The single roadway section identified includes a series of reverse
curves (curve in one direction that is followed almost immediately by a curve in the opposite
direction), as well as two closely spaced intersections with poor sight distance. The locations
are:
• Green Hill Road intersection - 6 total accidents, 5 injuries
• Road section that includes intersections with Pinnacle Avenue and Country Club Road -- 10
total accidents, 8 injuries, and 1 fatality.
• US 321 Business intersection -- 18 total accidents, 9 injuries.
• Sunset Drive signalized intersection -- 16 total accidents, 2 injuries.
• Possum Hollow Road/Shoppes on the Parkway signalized intersection -- 18 total accidents,
12 injuries.
1.7 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
The project area is not served by rail. An airport is in Boone. There is no relationship between
the proposed project and the airport in Boone.
1.8 SUMMARY
The proposed improvement is included in county thoroughfare plans and the NCDOT's 2000 to
2006 Transportation Improvement Plan. Without the proposed action, the forecast traffic along
this section of US 321 will exceed the road's capacity, creating undesirable levels of service.
Improvements are needed to provide congestion relief. In addition, without improvement, high
accident rates are expected to continue. The number of accidents will likely rise as traffic
volumes continue to rise. Improved sight distances can be created by straightening curves and
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 1-13 November 4, 1999
by providing separate lanes for drivers turning left or providing with an additional through lane an
opportunity for through traffic to pass those turning.
This portion of US 321 is part of the North Carolina Intrastate System. The US 321 corridor is
defined as the principal north-south route uniting the western Piedmont.
The proposed project is a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no additional
improvements are made.
2. REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1994. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Kell, J.H. and I.J. Fullerton. 1982. Manual of Traffic Signal Design, Second Edition. Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. August 1993. Administrative Action Environmental
Assessment and Drab` Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
& Douglas, Inc. in association with Wapora, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. September 1994. Administrative Action Finding of
No Significant Impact. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1981. Caldwell County Thoroughfare Plan.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1993. Region D Thoroughfare Plan (Alleghany,
Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, Wilkes, and Kancy Counties).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1999. Transportation Improvement Program 2000-
2006.
R-2237 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting 2-14 November 4, 1999
------ -- 100
February 7, 1997
RECEIVED
FEB 14 1997,
Eric Galamb EWIRONMENTALSCiENCES
NCDEHNR
Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
RE: Comparison of Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives Questionnaire (R-2237C)
Dear Eric:
Parsons
Brtnckerhoff
991 Aviation Parkway
Suite 500
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-7272
Fax: [phone]
At the December 17, 1996 Steering Committee/Interagency Meeting for the US 321 improvements
project (R-2237C), Don Holycross, Blowing Rock Town Manager, suggested the information presented
be reorganized. He wanted the information to emphasize further that almost all of the corridors south of
Blowing Rock can be mixed and matched with any ending point on the north and that many of the
corridors merge together. The US 321 study team agreed to prepare the requested material in order to
aid agency representatives in making comments on the alternatives.
As per these discussions, enclosed for your use is a questionnaire that you can use to help identify which
bypass alternatives you think should be evaluated further in the EIS. Leigh Cobb of the NCDOT asked
me to send it directly to you. Please return the completed questionnaire to me or Leigh Cobb by
February 28. If you prefer, feel free to send your comments in some other form.
Since the meeting, the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation Reform representative on our Citizens
Advisory Committee asked for additional information on why the tunnels were longer than they had
expected. The longer tunnel length was done at the recommendation of one of Parsons Brinckerhoff's
geotechnical and tunnel engineers based on currently available geotechnical information. A longer
tunnel allows natural slopes to be retained above the portal end wall. Experience with other tunnels in
the southeastern United States indicates that the height of portal cuts should be minimized to reduce the
possibility of significant stability problems both during construction and in service. An example of such
stability problems is the McCallie Tunnel in Chattanooga, Tennessee. At that tunnel, extensive slope
rehabilitation measures were designed to stabilize an active slide area above the west portal of this
tunnel beneath Missionary Ridge. A dramatic example was the failure of the slopes at the Sterling
Mountain tunnel on 1-40 in North Carolina. If a 1:1 cut slope above the Blowing Rock bypass tunnel end
walls is assumed, the length of the "I" alternative tunnel would drop by approximately 200 feet and the
length of the "J" alternative tunnel would drop by approximately 130 feet. Stabilizing unstable cut slopes
can be expensive. Stabilizing a cut slope above the portal end wall is particularly important because
unlike cut slopes that parallel the highway, any rock that falls off slopes above the portal will fall directly
on the highway or a passing vehicle.
If one crosses the Parkway property at a right angle in the area of the tunnels, the distance from
boundary to boundary is 800 feet. The tunnels do not cross at right angles; thus the "I" alternative tunnel
is under the Parkway for 850 feet and the "J" tunnel is under the Parkway for 940 feet. The meeting
handout refers to an approximately 1,000-foot distance. I have discovered since the Steering
Committee/ Interagency meeting that the property mapping I was using, which is based on tax maps, is
similar but not identical to the Parkway's property mapping. Applying the Parkway's mapping to the
tunnel design reduces the distance the "I" alternative is under the Parkway from 1,000 feet to the 850 feet
noted above. The "J" alternative's distance under the Parkway is unchanged. Since the minimum
distance across the Parkway is 800 feet, ventilation equipment and emergency manpower would be
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
==goo
YEARS
February 7, 1997
Page 2
needed for any tunnel under the Parkway in the Thunder Hill area. Emergency manpower near the tunnel
also is important because of the tunnel's remote location. Lives could be lost if there was a fire in the
tunnel and trained people were not on the scene to properly direct the smoke out of the tunnel using the
tunnel's mechanical ventilation system, rescue people trapped in the tunnel, and extinguish the fire.
Finally, since the meeting I have received a further update on the efforts of our architectural historian to
identify National Register-eligible properties in the vicinity of the bypass alternatives. We stated at the
meeting that only two potentially National Register-eligible sites occur near bypass alternatives south of
the Parkway, the Five Points/James Francis Matthews House and the First Independent Baptist Church.
(Both are shown on the maps included with the questionnaire.) The State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) requested additional study of both properties. The architectural historian just has told me that,
based on those additional studies, he plans to recommend to the NCDOT and the SHPO that the Five
Points/Matthews House be determined eligible and the First Independent Baptist Church be determined
ineligible. He also plans to recommend that the National Register boundaries of the Five Points/Matthews
House encompass its entire parcel of land. That parcel extends down the Blue Ridge flank (ridge
followed by Green Hill Road) to about 3,200 feet in elevation. Thus, every bypass alternative will use
land from this property. I had assumed, pending the completion of the additional studies, that the
recommended National Register boundary would be confined to the top of the ridge so most alternatives
could avoid it. If the recommended boundary is affirmed by the SHPO, then all of the alternatives in the
EIS will directly affect a Section 4(f) resource. The EIS will address methods for minimizing harm to all
historic resources and consider which Section 4(f) impact appears to be the most severe. This new
information is reflected in the questionnaire.
Call me at 919-468-2130 or send me an e-mail at [e-mail] if you have questions about
anything in this letter. I look forward to hearing from you by February 21.
Very truly yours,
ERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
e-mail: [e-mail]
rage, AICP, CEP
-t Manager
Enclosures
c: Leigh Cobb (NCDOT)
task no.: 314552-1.45
file no.: 3145-2.7.5
f:\p1anning\321\corr\321 I0 71.doc
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
X00
YEARS
October 15, 1999
John Hennessy
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
Wetland / 401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Parsons 909 Aviation Parkway
Brinckerhoff Suite 1500
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-7272
Fax: [phone]
4 °.,.,,,,...
n rl,? w
??pp,,?9gqgpyyqp_• ¢ ? S? i e
J
„ UYATEr7 '? t ' '? -`
RE: US 321 NEPA/404 Merger meeting for R-2237C -- US 321 Improvements at Blowing Rock
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Enclosed is the following for your use in preparing for our November 4 meeting on the US 321
improvement project at Blowing Rock (R-2237C):
• A project chronology describing the project's history and studies conducted since 1989.
• A Statement of Purpose and Need updated to include the most recent traffic forecasts and accident
statistics for the existing US 321.
A copy of the "Other Alternatives Considered" section presented in the 1993 Environmental
Assessment referenced in the chronology. It included examination of non-four lane improvement
alternatives and presented the NCDOT's earliest Blowing Rock bypass studies and conclusions. This
work will be updated for the Environmental Impact Statement, as needed. However, because
accident rates and traffic forecasts remain high on US 321, the conclusions regarding non-four-lane
alternatives are not expected to change substantially.
• A copy of the minutes from the last interagency meeting on December 17, 1996.
• A copy of the 1997 Bypass Alternatives Study Report and a summary of its findings. The purpose of
the 1997 study was to select bypass alternatives to compare with the widening alternative.
• A copy of a 1998 video prepared at the request of the NCDOT to present its concerns about the
bypass alternatives and propose an "enhanced" widening alternative. A written summary of its key
points is also enclosed.
• A listing of the three four-lane improvement alternatives the NCDOT proposes to assess in detail in a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including the reasons why they were selected, as well as a
letter to the Town of Blowing Rock explaining this decision. The letter also notes that at this time, the
NCDOT prefers the enhanced widening alternative.
Since the work on this project pre-dates the NCDOT's NEPA/404 merger agreement with the US Army
Corps of Engineers, much has already been accomplished. Thus, it is the objective of our November 4
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
? DO
NEPA/404 Merger Attendees
October 15, 1999
Page 2
meeting to answer your questions, discuss any concerns, and reach agreement on the purpose and
need and the alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
I look forward to seeing you at 10:30 am on November 4 at Century Center's Highway Design Conference
Room, room 187. The Century Center is at 1000 Birch Ridge Drive in Raleigh. Enter entrance 1A.
Very truly yours,
PARSONS RINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
Jo n Page, AICP, CEP
P oject Manager
Enclosure
c: Leigh Lane (NCDOT)
file no.: 3145-2.7.1
\WALF\ADMIN\ADMIN\MAiLLIST\321lt205 NEPA-404.doc
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
Parsons 909 Aviation F?.
Brinckerhoff Suite 1500
w, _?_w...._.... Morrisville, NC 27560
-- 919-467-7272
--100 Fax: [phone]
YEARS
March 15, 2000 MAR 2 3 2000
Mr. John Hennessy _
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality 'NET' Ares Utt4Ul'
Wetland / 401 Unit %TUI, QUALITY SECTION
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
RE: US 321 Improvements at Blowing Rock (TIP No. R-2237C) -- Alternatives Consensus
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
I am writing you at the request of Leigh Lane at the NCDOT's Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch. At the November 4, 1999 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting for R-2237C, John Hennessy
requested that the comparison of the widening alternative and four bypass alternatives presented be
augmented by a comparison of water resource impacts. We agreed that such a comparison was
essential to the completion of consensus on alternatives. Enclosed is that comparison in the form of: 1) a
memorandum comparing the five alternatives and 2) a Functional Assessment of water resources in the
project area. The water resource studies found that the widening and two bypass alternatives
recommended at the November meeting for detailed evaluation in the DEIS include both the low water
resource impact alternative (widening) and the low water resource impact bypass (Bypass Alternative 1).
Thus, our alternatives recommendation has not changed.
We also agreed at the November 4 meeting that it was possible that consensus on the alternatives to be
evaluated in the DEIS could be reached by the enclosed submission and that another meeting would
likely not be needed. It is my understanding that the next step is for the resource agencies to review
these materials and send their comments and recommendations to the Corps of Engineers'
representative. The Corps will then indicate to the FHWA and the NCDOT in writing whether they concur
with the NCDOT's and FHWA's recommendations for which alternatives to evaluate in detail in the DEIS.
If this is the case, please proceed with that review. The Corps letter should be sent directly to Leigh Lane
at the NCDOT. I am assuming that the review and concurrence process will take about 30 calendar
days. Please alert Leigh or I if you expect it to take much longer.
If you have any questions or concerns about the enclosed materials, please call me at 919-468-2130.
Very truly yours,
PARSON RINCKERHOFF QUADE A DOUGLAS, INC.
PeJhn Page , AICP, CEP
ct Manager
e-mail: pagej®pbworld.com
direct line: 919-468-2130
Enclosure (2)
task no.: 3145S3-03.23
file no.: 3145-2.7.1
C:\WINNT\Profiles\morganjVersonal\321lt225 Merger.doc
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
E00
YEARS
To: DISTRIBUTION
From: John Page
Date: March 15, 2000
Subject: Comparison of Alternatives
DISTRIBUTION: David Anderson
Felix Davila
Leigh Lane
Greg Brew
Ed Davis
Jeff Lackey
John Hennessy
Renee Gledhill-Earley
April Alperin
Lee Tippett
Tom Kendig
Steve Lund
Ted Bisterfeld
Jay Tomlinson
MAR 2 3 2000
y? DS,-,G R-0 U
"
_
7R _S E
Blue Ridge Parkway
FHWA
NCDOT -- PDEA
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT--PDEA
NCDOT -- REU
NC Division of Water Quality
SHPO
SHPO
NCDOT
NCDOT - Roadway Design
Corps of Engineers
US EPA
NCSU
Memorandum
At the November 4, 1999 NEPA/404 Merger Meeting, John Hennessy, the
representative from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, requested that the
comparison of the widening alternative and four bypass alternatives be augmented
by a comparison of water resource impacts. It was agreed by merger meeting
participants that such a comparison was essential to the completion of consensus
on alternatives. Attached is a Functional Assessment of water resource involvement
for the five alternatives.
The assessment notes 24 jurisdictional systems, including 34 streams and seven vegetated
wetlands and ponds along the five alternatives. The Division of Water Quality stream
classification and evaluation procedure was used to assess stream function. The streams
are defined as high gradient step-pool; low gradient riffle-pool; and headwater seep. None
of the three are more important than the other in terms of ecological functional attributes.
Thus, linear distance is appropriate for use in making both quantitative and qualitative
comparisons. Two methods were used to assess wetland functions, the General Wetland
Functional Procedure and the NC Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Wetland
Rating System. The General Assessment Procedure focuses on the ecological value of
jurisdictional systems, while the DEM procedure focuses on water quality.
The findings of the functional assessment in relation to the 1994 design for the
widening alternative and the 1998 designs for the bypass alternatives were used to
compare the five alternatives from a water resource impact perspective. Water
resource findings in combination with cost, earthwork, community impact, historic
resource impact, and visual impact findings from alternatives studies conducted
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

100
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
March 15, 2000
page 2
from 1995 to 1998 are presented as a comparison of alternatives in the paragraphs
below and in the attached table. This comparison is presented at a level of detail
appropriate for the selection of alternatives to be evaluated in full in a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
In summary, the water resource data in combination with the other comparison
factors re-affirms the NCDOT's recommendation at the November 4, 1999 meeting
that the widening alternative, bypass alternative 1, and bypass alternative 4 should
be evaluated in detail in the DEIS.
The widening would have the least impact on water resources. It is also the
alternative currently preferred by the NCDOT because is meets the purpose and
need at the lowest cost. It will, however, pass through the Green Park Historic
District. The potential exists for substantial short-term (during construction) and
long-term adverse social, economic, and visual impacts.
Bypass Alternative 1 would have the least impact on water resources of all the
bypass alternatives, although the wetland affected is one of the highest quality in
the project area, scoring 87 of 100 under the General Functional Analysis and 62 of
100 under the DEM rating system. Bypass Alternative 1 also would avoid impacts
to section 4(f) resources and the Federal Highway Administration wants to include
this alternative on those grounds. It is also the lowest cost bypass alternative,
involving the least earthwork. The public is universally concerned about the
associated community and visual impacts.
Bypass Alternative 2 also would avoid section 4(f) resources. It would have a
stream impact similar to Bypass Alternative 1, but the greatest wetland impact. The
wetland affected is also of high quality, scoring 81 of 100 under the General
Functional Analysis and 64 of 100 under the DEM rating system. Bypass Alternative
2 would involve substantially more earthwork and adversely affect the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds, a church camp. Much of the camp's woods and trail system
would be lost. One aspect of the camp's programs is environmental awareness
retreats. This function would be lost with Bypass Alternative 2. Also, the road
would be readily viewed from the camp's buildings. The public is universally
concerned about the associated community and visual impacts. Thus, the NCDOT
does not recommend that it be carried forward into the DEIS.
Bypass Alternatives 3 and 4 would have substantially greater impacts on steams
than the other alternatives, with 4 affecting the greatest length of stream.
Alternative 3 would not affect any jurisdictional wetlands. The quality of the
wetlands affected by alternative 4 would be less than those along the other bypass
alternatives. These alternatives would involve far more substantial cost and
earthwork, with associated habitat disturbance, than the other alternatives. Both
alternatives would be within the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway, including
Thunder Hill overlook. Parkway officials are very concerned about the potential
visual impact of these alternatives. Both alternatives will pass through the wooded
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
==too
YEARS
DISTRIBUTION
March 15, 2000
page 3
portion of the land associated with a National Register-eligible home. The public is
universally concerned about the community impacts associated with Bypass
Alternative 3. Bypass 3 would have the same church camp related impacts as
Bypass 2. Thus, the NCDOT does not recommend that Bypass Alternative 3 be
carried forward into the DEIS. The combination of cost, earthwork, and rural
community and visual impacts are also of concern to the NCDOT. The alternative,
however, has the support of a substantial segment of Blowing Rock stakeholders.
Thus, the NCDOT plans to evaluate it in detail in the DEIS.
e-mail: pagej®pbworld.com
direct line: 919-468-2130
Enclosure
W Reggie Scales
task no.: 3145-01.01.04
file no.: 3145-2.7.1
D.\C-Page\US321EIS\EIS\Alternatives Concurrence\Alternatives Comparison 2-OO.doc
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
O co CA 0 CD O 0)
U

O 0
C\j ? O 0
cr :3
O
d ° C
Y)
co
ca
C
4
p N
c 0)
Q9,
O O co O CO
Z)

4) O m
Z)
L
T N )
U)
CO
0) a)
T
0
-
T

r- CC)
r CO
r O
LO
N N
p
U U
O
U U
Lr- C O p= U p-
C O cr
N
E9 N W as p
ca p a) co
a) O O ca U
-> \
O \
O a)
O U) U U
,
,
cz
C a)

Co o
O) co CD O ?
`
m 2 a)
.0 oUm
a
N
fy0
CV
?
O
O
to
to O O co _
p U) w U a)
a to
U) CO T M N
0 N
C) c 0 0 7 E 0 _[ O
cm -0 0)
0
m CV E9 Cl) ca
M c0
O C's
co O co
76 0)2
O Q U O
C,j \ co a) to '3 C E C O L a)
?
O X
U
\

r O i
O 0 a) N
U
a) L U) a) Y Y 3
m
co
U)
L
2 ? ?.n 0
C
a)mU?

V
M
co
LO
U
to Y
p O co U p co
I;r
? co C\l
M
ca N
ca pp 0 0 7 0 U
O
co
N M 0) 0)
O Q
T o 3?'3cEi?
\
T
r a)?Mo D
CO ~
0
0
a)
= O c O a) m
O O U
C
U

> Ln
rn COT .Y
d O p LO LO
P- cn
O (D
O a)
(? c
U O 0 Co - O
_
lC

C
6F)
O

C O
r
co
M M U Y

U
co m (o O E c_ tE
U O O 0 0 0 -
j
:
c O

o .
0-0 a) cr
Co
caccao?a)Eicop?LO

O U 0 0 0 0
a) E
-
L
. co
_ M
- a) U C U Q..
a)
O
a)
co
16
w
O
O U N
U U
O U
co O N
O L

O
U)
O
Q
E
U
u)

w
co
cc E
Y
O p E o
Y ) s -0 S U
ca
w E

<5
Y
U
O
O O
N L w

U
+>'
O
U p
Li m
Z C
Jc O
(D
? C
0

E
a) N n
-O
V- Y
Z > a- co E
46
H co ca
LL >.
3:

0

0

0

0
O
0
r
O CO
C L 7 O •a
Co (1)ca
0 0 ? C 3
a
U
CO 0 c E 3 o
a
m Y'
CL U
CL
o
'
«s-
=

2=
c ?Y??=? m io
in 3
0
c -?5 Y-
LD v

C IL o
aS
O
as a)
N N L ` U> O (n
c c a) N a) 0
L O CO (n 3 a) Ca CD O
w w? 3
o., m? 2
CL ° ca in 3 Y cif d U > c?OC?
U'
O
L RS
_
fn O O += a a) O c0 >
co
oE ?? 3

O .-ca -o
O 0) o
o -0
-
ro= E C`
m
i
a M 0 C-2 a)
co-
o Q -
c ov
02:
i a
3
ai a
CL
?
ZZ
c ???o?.>o'w

0) a)
?? a) (0 a) OCOu
ia)?co?

o a a3) a) -a
a7
Y c
cll Z5 CL co in 3 co U - c? U > 0 ca CC
_
Q U Y C
N
CL

? ca CC
_V Q CL U

C:
O co
Ua`) C
cu 0-0 a) a) a) a)
E oa C
0 i
YOccwO
O

m
N aa)

a) A Y
co c
L a) a)
L

a) Y
a) a) 3= c0 - Q
0
0
O
C7
in c U C c 0 0 0
0 U? c0 O-0
c0 =?mU
?
a= N a) N U
0 CO C
L Y U "a ?o O
CO
?a :3
Q ao2 cCV v c° c cO0CUm? > 3 c-)
CO
Y
C
_ cis M
? Q C`
.2
C
U C
?o
co O -a a) ?' a) E
iO N in N O C C U O a)
?
in u) a) -c
L O O

N U
i i ? 3 = te a)
a? a
U O O O O a-p >,
C
U U
C=
(n
a= N a) O cif U
O
O of = L Fn
i-0 L 4d c
Oa) ?c>3a)
U
C/) co C O a)
o N aa))
Q " Q02 cu n LL C cErU"amC_
a) U
L
" ° s C

3 o Ca) ro a`) E
0) mo o 0 io - o U_ c C
5: 0 a) 3:
y C O '? "6 O Y
ca a --- m a)
0 U 3C--. ? N
of co
D
co - I C O
i"
CCD a) > •ca Rf C i (D 7s
Q a) C U U O !A a) Y U a) L D a)
a) w can O 'a U 1= (n
C? C'3 O c? Ii 2 ca U c U CL m 00) co m
U
U
ca
0-
E
a)
9

=
a U
U
c
n co
C
V) V _
m ,
=
O
7
w
N <n cn
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 17, 1997
R.C.RMA,
IT
A&4
ED FE F1
8E6F/VD
,I A!
Ms. Bonnie Amaral, Forester
USDA Forest Service
Grandfather Ranger District
Rt. 1, Box 110-A
I-40 Exit 90 (Nebo-Lake James)
Nebo, NC 28761-9707
APR R 1 199
ENV IRONUSNTAt SCIENCE
Subject: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service;
Two Proposed DOT Actions (Wilson Creek & Hwy 321)
DWQ # 11565; Caldwell County
Dear Ms. Amaral:
The following comments conclude DWQ's review of the scoping request for the
projects identified above:
a. The cover letter did not include enough project-specific information (i.e. site
drawings, project location map, scope of work, wetland survey information, etc.)
for our agency to comment on the potential effects of the projects on water quality.
If the USFS is requesting specific comments on the potential effects of these
projects on water quality in the two project areas, then further information should
be provided to our Division. Once the Environmental Assessments are prepared by
DOT for these projects, our Division will be providing detailed comments on the
potential impacts of these DOT projects on water quality.
b . If the purpose of this USFS correspondence is merely to relate to us that the Forest
Service is cooperating with NCDOT on these projects, then we will file this
information along with our project files for these DOT projects.
Please contact Cyndi Bell at [phone] if you have any questions regarding
these comments.
Sincerely,
./ -
Michelle L. Suverkrubbe, AICP
Environmental Specialist
mis-Vorest service\ 11565 - DOT Proposals
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - WQ Lab
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer paper
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Quality Section
-
4116 t
MEMORANDUM
1 161
TO: Env. Sciences Branch Technical Support Branch 'n
* Wetlands- ? Coleen Sullins, P&E `P0 GAO
? John Dorney (24,,6- El Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES 'yam
)(Htic &alrunb (D&r) ? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State 'sue
?_ Gre g Price (airports, coE) ? Bradley-Bennett, P&E, Stormwater - F?? -
? Steve Kroeger (utilities) ? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling
? - ? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
* Bt'o Resources Habitat End Species ? -
? Trish MacPherson -
Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
11
,-(?
Operations Branch
? Dtmff , t
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch ? Asheville ?Mooresville ? Washington
4 ? ? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FRONT: 'N c:,eIle Suverk--ubbe. Planning Brach
RE:
- < UI?
Attached is a copy of the above document- Subject to the requirements of the Noah Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential siQnincant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated
0
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: michelleC dem.ehnr.sta.e.nc.us
ms:`==ezno.doc z1 10r- 7 ??? 47-- Cc.) - rte- C<< / v 4_&I' C 6 e (/?.,....

United States Forest Grandfather Rt. 1, Box 110-A
Department of Service Ranger District I-40 Exit 90 (Nebo-Lake James)
Agriculture Nebo, NC 28761-9707
File Code: 1950
Date: April 2, 1997
S
Monica Swihart
N.C. DEHNR/Div. of Env. Mgt.
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1148
The U.S. Forest Service is considering two proposals by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. One of the proposed actions would be to repair a
slide in Caldwell County on State Road 1328, Wilson Creek, that borders
National Forest land. The project would repair the slide on the lower portion
of the road by removing part of the bank on the upper side. This project,
known as the Wilson Creek improvement project, is located in Management Area 2C
and is proposed to begin this spring.
The second proposed action would be to issue an easement to widen Highway 321
in Caldwell County that borders National Forest land. This proposed action
would result in widening the existing right-of-way to accommodate four lanes of
traffic. This project, known as the Highway 321 widening project, is located
in Management Area 4C and is scheduled to begin this summer.
A decision has not been made that these roads will be improved. We are in the
process of conducting surveys and/or assessments for rare spec--'es and heritage
resources and analyzing the environmental effects. To help us accomplish this,
please consider these proposals and their effects and let us have your comments
and suggestions by April 21, 1997.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. My office telephone number
is [phone]. We appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

BOPINIE P. AMARAL
Forester
FS-6200-28a (5/84)

`?
?i+era?g,?I eg ?1
--
'rL"w^ti?
As e ad -a
¦ Since Our Last Meeting and Current Scope of Work
¦ Potential Bypass Alternatives
- Origin
- Location
¦ Traffic Forecasts
¦ Level of Service Analysis
¦ Accident Analysis
¦ Median Safety Study
¦ Potential Bypass Alternatives
- Design Merits
- Other Location, Design, Traffic, Accident and Environmental
Considerations
u1 - Recommendations for Rest of Phase I Study
EIS
2

¦ EA released in August of 1993. It listed
widening US 321 as the preferred alternative.
¦ FONSI for widening US 321 from NC 268 to
Blackberry Road (SR 1500) released in
August 1994.
¦ US 321 EIS Study initiated in May of 1995 to
assess widening versus a bypass for US 321
from approximately Blackberry Road to
approximately US 221
4V-
3
EMS W: "fie elf, Work
¦ Phase I -- Bypass Alternatives Study
¦ Phase 11 -- Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
¦ Phase III -- Final Environmental Impact
Statement
LB ;3211
I
4
us- 2° 616 _.W o For
¦ Scoping, citizens informational workshop, and
two Citizens Advisory Committee meetings
¦ Prepared land suitability map
¦ Conducted Phase I Historic Architecture study
¦ Developed several potential bypass alternatives
¦ Prepared new traff ic forecasts, median safety
study, level of service analysis, and accident
study
¦ Begun revisions to statement of purpose and
need

5
.10 OWPOI 2' Mal-IM, ws--
¦ US 321 Improvements EA
¦ Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock (revised
to minimize loss of elevation and reduce
earthwork)
¦ Review of terrain and land suitability map
¦ Connections to allow all alternatives to use
two different ways of passing by Blowing
Rock
:321
EVS3
s
pass AAROAMOIUVOM,
Begins:
A(w) Just south of Falcon Crest
A(e) Just south of Falcon Crest
B Just north of Harrison Cemetery
C Near Greene Cemetery
D At last curves before Blowing Rock
?'I'A
l` ? 7f,J i?
I (6m

f
d
' / __° IC4

a
N
_

?w
`Q
Thunder ft?tt? ?}'.i 4
?
lii;- Rock

f
` ? 00
. h

. -L,IEO Park +r., ?? >
I

H ` ?\ r &
t e) ' `
r { ; ?
t 1. ?''

_ A1:11 1I G_i (`t?
FIJ, 0)

J
t A(w) 1
? 1
C

? 1. t aExp ?Cs
B
-
1 a
: r#u
?
: ,np
t
z
N
,

r
/
0 5 1 k Rgbbins Gaj?, '
m

!
-SCALE
j. ,
F?
LEGEND

Bypass Alternatives Study Area
?--
Preliminary Bypass Alternatives

US 321 EIS Study - TIP No. R-2237C Potential
2/1 /96
Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Bypass Alternatives
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Note: Corridors subject to change.
7
I'm - t t1?1' as- a A1, tera tE
E Begins at last curves before Blowing
Rock, leaves the hillside just east of
Green Hill and continues between the
golf course and the church assembly
grounds
F Same as E except passes closer to the
Parkway like A to D
G Same as D except passes west of
church assembly grounds like E (similar
;. alteration could be done with A to C)
ro?
8

South End (percent of 14,100 trips on US 321 in 2025 with
Widening
Without Intersections except
Forest Lane and Opposum
Hollow Road
With Intersections in Blowing
Rock
On US
321 On
Bypass
TOTAL On US
321 On
Bypass
TOTAL
Widening 100% NA 100% 100% NA 100%
A &B 31% 69% 100% 28% 72% 100%
C 32% 68% 100% 29% 71% 100%
D & G 45% 57% 02% 43% 63% 106%
E & F 355/6 73% i.,108% 35% 79% 114%
Ai 38% 84% 122%
i
L
:I 'J,
ONV

'MCI , leas
US
.0
North End (percent of 19,050 trips on US 321 in 2025 with
Widening)
Without intersections except
Forest Lane and Opposum
Hollow Road
With Intersections in Blowing
Rock
On US
321 On
Bypass
TOTAL On US
321 On
Bypass
TOTAL
Widening 100% NA 100% 100% NA 100%
A &B 70% 55% 125% 71% 61% 132%
C 69% 55% 124% 70% 61% 131%
D & G 65% 43% 107% 65% 53% 118%
E & F 68% 57% 125% 69% 61% 130%

1P, 68% 61% 129%
V i \\11?

Bypass Alternative
¦ LOS A on 4-lane bypass
¦ LOS E on US 321 between south
bypass intersection and Green Hill
Road (same as it is today)
¦ LO Green Hill Road to Sunset Drive
an U 221 to Shoppes on the Parkway
¦ LO Sunset Drive to US 221
9
10
11
12-1-012-1-51- L'01491: Ron
Widening Alternative
¦ LOS A outside Blowing Rock
¦ LOS B Green Hill Road to US 321
Business
¦ LOS C US 321 Business to US 221
¦ LOS D US 221 to Shoppes on the
Parkway (currently four lanes)

12
2,02 1400=0140#10 L - Re Suits
Bypass Alternative
¦ LOS D at bypass intersections except
Green Hill Road, which would be
sometimes D and sometimes E/F with
signal warrant
¦ LOS A to D at US 321 intersections
except at Food Lion (unsignalized)
where E to F
13
wiel." 11 -0 1 Re
Widening Alternative
¦ LOS B to D at signalized intersections
(3)
¦ LOS E to >F on unsignalized
intersections (4)
¦ New signal warranted at US 321
Business
T,
14
I 4"R O
¦ Done to respond to comment by the public that the
widened US 321 will become congested and a
bypass will be needed anyway
¦ Two analyses of the existing road for both bypass
and widening alternatives
- Assumed 2.5% average growth rate from 1994 to 2025
continues beyond 2025 and asked in what year would LOS
D and E occur on US 321
- Asked what average traffic growth rate would be required
for LOS D and E to occur on US 321 by 2025
15
When would More Capacity Improvements be Needed with Continued
25 Percent Traffic Growth Rate
Green Hill Road- US 321 Bus US 321 Bus-US 321 Bus/US 221
LOS D LOS E LOS D LOS E
With Widening, when 2057 2065 2040 _
would bypass be (22 years) (30 years) (10 years) (15 years)
needed
With Bypass, when 2030-2040 2045-2055 (ready at D 26 2030
would improvements to (5 to 15 years) (20 to 30 years) in 2025 (1 to 5 years}
existing US 321 be
Average Traffic Growth Rate Needed to Achieve an
Undesirable Level of Service on Existing US 321 by 2025
Green Hill Road- US 321 Bus US 321 Bus-US 321 BusJUS 221
LOS D LOS E LOS D LOS E
With Widenin 4.90% 5.50% 3.10% 3.60%
1 With Bypass 3.3-4.5% 4.5-5.8% At D with a 2.5% 2.5-3%
growth rate
- C
/?P?

?t
V_
16

Existing versus NC Average Rates
accidents1100 million vehicle kilometers
¦ Rural
- US 321 = 179.78
- NC 2-1ane 67% higher
undivided average = 107.77
¦ Urban (Blowing Rock)
- US 321 = 299.09
- NC 2-1ane 80% higher
undivided average = 165.82
rt
17
ACClet.gym
Type of Accidents
¦ Rural
- Running off the road
- Rear-ending another vehicle
¦ Urban (Blowing Rock)
- Rear-ending another vehicle at
intersections
- Entering and exiting driveways

18
Accident A nj .
High Accident Locations
¦ Rural
- 4-lane passing and reverse curve section
south of Blackberry Road
- Blackberry Road intersection
- Curves south of Blowing Rock Town Limits
¦ Urban (Blowing Rock) -- almost every
intersection

19
Accit Asmolys-10-
Total Accidents in 2025
¦ No-Build Alternative 131
¦ Widening Alternative 71
¦ Bypass Alternative 83 to 102
1, ;S..

20
M a. ,t e,ty tudy,
Accident Benefits/Construction Cost
Analysis of:
¦ Undivided road
¦ 4-foot flush median
¦ 4-foot flush median with rumble strips (same
as Widening Alternative in severe terrain)
¦ 16-foot grass median
¦ Jersey barrier

f rA
21

rumble strips $1,546,000 $1,014,000 1.52

(above is the cost per kilometer)

. z

22
?? fey u,
Findings
¦ 4-foot median with rumble strips
- Has best benefit-cost ratio
- Comparable to the widening alternative
¦ 16-foot grassy median (or raised)
- Benefit-cost ratio greater than 1
Benefits Costs
(Incremental (Incremental
Accident Roadway
Cost Cost Benefit/Cost
Median Type Reduction) Increase) Rario
0' Median
4' Median $777,000 $989,000 0.79
4' Median with

16' Grass Median $2,163,000 $1,840,000
Jerse Barrier $2,835,000 $3,310,000 0.86
- Debbie Barbour suggested that use of a 16-foot
raised median would be more in keeping with
higher design standards normally used with
bypasses
Z?i;
23
Median, SmA ty- Study.
¦ The design criteria being used in the
alternatives study, including median width, is
identical to that being used for the widening
alternative in its rural section
¦ If the 16-foot median is pursued in the EIS, a
4-foot alternative, with the same design
criteria as the rural widening alternative, also
should be developed and evaluated in full

24
'pi
44 a l

Length in kilometers miles Earthwork in million cubic meters
million cubic ands

Bypass Only Comparable
Bypass/Widening
Segment

Bypass Only Comparable
Bypass/Widening
Se ment
A w 8.8 5.5 8.8 5.5 5.9 7.7 5.9 7.7
A (e 9.1 (5.6 9.1 5.6 13.5 17.6 13.5 (17.6
B 7.4 4.6 8.9 5.5 5.3 6.9 5.4 7.1
C 5.7 3.5 8.8 5.5 4.9 6.4 6.7 8.8
D 4.2 2.6) 9.6 (6.0 1.9 2.5 4.0 5.2
E 3.4 2.1 9.0 5.6 0.7 0.9 2.8 3.7
F 3.7 2.3 9.2 5.7 1.1 1.4 2.9 3.8
G 4.5 2.8) 9.8 6.1 2.0 2.7 4.1 5.4
(preliminary and subject to change)
'T'
l ,
` 25
Grade
Greater than or equal to 6 percent
in kilometers miles Greater than or equal to 8 percent
in kilometers miles

Bypass Only Comparable
Bypass/Widening
Segment

Bypass Only Comparable
Bypass/Widening
Segment
A w 5.6 3.5 5.6 3.5 4.2 2.6 4.2 2.6
A (e) 6.1 (3.8) 6.1 (3.8) 4.5 (2.8 4.5 (2.8)
B 4.8 3.0 5.2 3.2 3.9 2.4 3.9 2.4
C 4.8 3.0 5.6 3.5 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.9
D 1.6 (1.0) 4.7 2.9) 0.0 (0.0 0.2 (0.1)
E 2.0 1.3 5.3 3.3 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.1
F 1.1 0.7 4.3 2.7 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.8
G 1.6 (1.0 4.7 2.9 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.1
s 321
EIS
(preliminary and subject to change)
26
Aferf o_, LQiri er ftpass rrl rs
¦ Starting farther south does not make reaching the crest of the
ridge below Blowing Rock easier; cannot crest the ridge line in
the Green Hill area if start south of last curves
¦ With the widening alternative:
- 5 horizontal curve exceptions (>6 ° 45') south of Blackberry
Road (7 ° to 7 030')`
- 12 horizontal curve exceptions north of Blackberry Road
(7 ° to 30 °)
¦ The farther south the bypass starts:
- the greater the earthwork
- the longer the segment of US 321 that would continue to have an
undesirable level of service
- the longer the segment of US 321 that would continue to have an
undesirable accident levels
US, ,}z 1.
3'
r0fi
P,dwn?
27
Other -sly
¦ Less diversion to bypass when bypass route is
longer than existing route
¦ Local intersections on bypass only decrease US 321
traffic 0 to 3 percent. Parkway representatives have
concerns about a bypass intersection with Green Hill
Road
¦ No visual impact on the Parkway if change blocked
from view or greater than 1.6 km (1 mile) away
¦ Alternatives closer to Parkway would force the
Church Assembly grounds to change its focus
because of loss of woodlands
28
Crass Parkway 1 Oft -a TO m, wat
k rn iV
¦ Expensive -- $30,000 per linear foot for twin two-lane
tunnels
¦ Still crosses parkway so all the same procedures
apply as crossing with a grade separation
¦ Park Service staff consider a tunnel an approach that
could help minimize the impacts of a crossing
¦ Traffic using US 321 to reach the parkway would not
use the bypass; local trips would not use the bypass

29
RIO, M ice. tIft for Rest O
Bypass After s, Stu.
¦ In the Phase I Report:
- Evaluate only alternatives that begin near Greene
Cemetery and further north since nothing to gain
from a geometric perspective and lose from the
perspectives of traffic flow and safety with termini
further south.
- With all alternatives evaluate both passing east
and west of the Assembly Grounds' buildings
¦ Give no further consideration to the Parkway tunnel
alternative for reasons given today
¦ Continue to use the 4-foot median during Phase I
ITIS 321 ]MIS

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RECEIVE(
AN 2 31996
ENV"CN&4ENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Galamb
• DEM
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Joint Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting (R-2237C)
The first joint Interagency/Steering Committee meeting for the US 321
improvements Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study (TIP No. R-2237C)
will be held on February 1, 1996 at 2:30 pm in the Planning and Environmental
Conference Room (Room 470) of the Transportation Building, 1 South
Wilmington, Raleigh. The planned EIS will assess the impacts of a widening
alternative and several reasonable bypass alternatives for creating a
four-lane US 321 in the Blowing Rock, North Carolina area.
For those of your who served on the original US 321 improvements (NC 268
in Patterson to US 221 in Blowing Rock) Steering Committee, this will be our
first meeting since September 5, 1991. Several of you attended the first
Citizens Informational Workshop for the current study on August 29, 1995 and
received a copy of the first newsletter, which described the EIS work
program.
Agency representatives received a scoping letter in early August
describing the proposed EIS work program and potential issues. The letter
requested scoping comments.
As you recall, the study team is presently engaged in the first phase of
the EIS study, the selection of reasonable Blowing Rock bypass alternatives
for evaluation in the EIS. The agenda for our first meeting will focus on
the project's scope of work, the alternatives study's land suitability or
constraints map, and several potential bypass alternatives. Following this
meeting and a March meeting of our Citizens Advisory Committee, the study
team will be preparing a quantitative comparison of several potential bypass
alternatives. The alternatives will be evaluated from both an engineering
and an environmental impact potential perspective. This comparison will be
presented at another interagency/steering committee meeting prior to the
selection of reasonable bypass alternatives.
Please call Leigh Cobb at 919-733-7844 x 260 if you have any questions.
LC/plr
?r
J
0
J
P1
H
7
?t
3
a a o Superfund
? 2
zoo ob=
proposals
z 'A.S
; Io W :? would h
•?' o-M 8 v
0 ?0 as ?? pot. ers
?°•°°?' ???? ?? c°?;t3.?? r?? ,mom
SW
t r?-
' y u G W For decades, wasOlin
? W7-ft GTON
'C7 ,OCorp. chemical Plantminat
W ed the Notch Fork oolsWn
17a y O ?' ' O t°. +- p ?j 'g V t? CL River Virgutia with mercury and
Q, .,. O C to O other toxic chemicals.
TJ W y >y W ° bW V?. More recently, the company has
4-1 O w W spent $20 million on capping and
N O W p s+ O
O CU r" a' isolating the lagoons and ponds
t ,
a t Cis W O q ?i y V ti used for waste disposal. But the
b0 W w Q 5 G4 ?, 4 total cleanup what now is s Sti?
rfund toxic-waste site has been
een
M ed gj y ' ?+ p ry +? py put at three times that amount.
3 4. E-? y y v1 V Now, under proposals gaining
p°p ww w b i°» % 'O ?. p support in Congress to change the
w C a O O W W td W W law, Olin and thousands of other
O pp
p ,O a + pj +a a4 .d corporations would get off the
W W y y [? CJ cW, (? a hook from having to clean up the
pollution they caused. Under some
Proposals. the government might
even have to reimburse Private par-
e 'C ties for costs already incurred.
,4=V t -5 "s Congress would let Olin Corp.
,n ''' bQ p, Lr O walk away and transfer the cost of
bQ .? A ^O. 7 O G cleaning u this site to the taxpay-
er," d
V ?? said Steven Herman, the e head
C. O v W ,p w
O y W w vi to of enforcement at the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
+- .? O C W like most Superfund protects,
O O O +?-? C Ct r° the Saltville site in the southwest
y0 O ?. +? +- b O .r tC comer of Virginia has been full of
v O W CL p t +O E 4:9 controversy, mostly disagreement
O ?? CL O Da W m y O ° over how to correct the damage
from the dumping that ended in the
1970s.
00 y W O 4J V O W V C13
%.S 'C p, V m O t• W y THE QUESTION OF whether
G Private companies responsible for
"? pq p y^ pollution decades ago should be
'O to W , 1 0. ? ? :: , ? ? O 'O V ? required to clean up the messes -
O 5,O ,2 S t,,., y a 00 W often when liability is in dispute -
03 V
.G ° .a " .b ° M ~ O " b has become a focus of intense de
J-"yi W X41 bate as Congress tries to rewrite
W W W t0 U O O O teS ?y O the controversial 1980 law.
O w t" y «S b The Clinton administration
O O C by W ,, O b4, s~ A w ; agrees that there are many things
c that need to be corrected make
W V V +? "C O?y p, '?r 'b?,? y • ° the law more equitable and
effi- cient. But EPA chief Carol Browner
tO?. ¢ r?'p " V 4 CI W tXy? W said, '"Chose who caused the prob
a .? v W O W O +? 'O e6 a lent should have the responsibility
W + O C t V C++-' Wes', , a O to clean up the problem.'
W W W W W 3 .' y G +? Freeing them from that responsi-
p t ?, C O SG O W W bility could result in higher taxes
Z.
tb p?
p, H w ? or, more likely, a rollback in clean-
y W t? G E m
W up work. said Browner and others
who oppose such changes.
But others argue that under Su
x j perfund, a law enacted in the after-
w y "? 'LL3 W math of the in toxie-waste western scandal at
U F°r ' ? 3 ? •? . Love Canal in western New York,
54
• ?1 Q a h °f1 v the issue is not over polluters Pay-
$.,R . ing or not paying -but about fair-
. (? Hess.
A IV
PON* 4
p s "'POLLUTER PAYS' is really
O t(/? •.1 w just a myth, a useful sound bite that
- b G ??' O doesn't square with common sense
Cd Q) •' y
09 ac
• V "? ?A W? pp ?W and fair play;' said Candace Sut-
.••1 , . O td W Qr. cliffe, a vice president of Liberty
Mutual Insurance Co.
to y ed y ?' Insurers stand to gain-billions of
OO dollars if private companies are re-
O 0000 ye fr om cleanup cost. Last
arly
0 0 ? flq O O ° ? ? W year, , as part of a bill that nearly
N •? U Z ° passed the Democratic-controlled
i+l ?a Congress, the insurance industry
4WA G/1 t?'J W.9 ? > U ? C offered to pay S800 million a year
into a special liability fund for Su-
(?? 1 Q y .G W O v perfund cases. Now that the Repub-
(? W C O V lican•led Congress is talking about
r.t Q ' W V getting rid of private-sector liability
4. 1W
v altogether, that offer is no longer
0 r p C3 O
^ ??•t O on the table.
414 i i•+•1 Instead, the insurance industry
has been at the forefront of getting
i = F. ?O O •p +? ?y Q Congress to scrap "retroactive Uri-
i••1 i••t O -+ W bility" - a core part of the law that
Cz p w C 1 V W C, .b b says those responsible for pollution
?••1 r' Z oTr CS before the 1980 enactment still
(0 0 g must clean it up,
YYyd . RECEIV
s DEC 2 1994
ENV'RONMENTAL sCiEfqCE.s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkWPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Galamb
DEM
FROM: Stacy Baldwin
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting, TIP No. R-2237C, US 321 from SR 1500 to
US 221, Caldwell and Watauga Counties, State Project No.
8.T731301, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-321(1)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
proposed improvements to US 321 from SR 1500 to US 221 may have reasonable
and prudent alternatives to widening along existing US 321. Therefore, the
FHWA has decided that the best way to analyze possible bypass alternatives is
by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this portion of the
project presented in the August, 1993 Environmental Assessment.
As a part of the scoping process, your input to determine the
significant issues to be analyzed in preparing the environmental impact
statement is requested. A pre-contract scoping meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, January JK, 1995, at 9:00 A. M. in Room 470 of the Transportation
Building. Any in`rmation you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environm ntal impacts is appreciated.
The environmentl study will be completed in two phases. The first
phase would result in the selection of reasonable and feasible alternatives
for evaluation in the DEIS. A study area broad enough to encompass the full
range of potential Blowing Rock alternatives would be used in the first phase
(see attached map).
If you can not attend the pre-contract scoping meeting, please send a
representative to discuss your concerns.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at
733-7842. [4 F 60
lr?
S B/ p1 r ? ?????
K
Scale: V= 3000'

.. ?iOl4a
1-:?'76, -t?
4 U4?
Ak l/D S -14 ?i r1 l 1.?-, t /Xt- C/,,? ®il/11?c1 Go

1
, ey

.?
V

- \

??

- ?. ..

UPS 3Z- 72 zz3?C

i t Lu w
<<;
,,
;ji
'??
Bypass Alternatives Preference Questionnaire
TIP No. R-2237C
January 23, 1997
Name of Person i'
Completing Questionnaire:
Agency or Organization ?
Representing: ,? \ x
Please use this questionnaire to indicate which bypass alternatives you would like to see
examined further in the US 321 Improvements Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and which
bypass alternatives should be discarded based on study findings to date. Responses to this
questionnaire will be considered when the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration select the bypass alternatives they will examine further in the
EIS.
The potential Blowing Rock bypass alternatives are shown on the attached figures. As illustrated
on the figures, this questionnaire divides the potential bypass alternatives into two geographic
areas: south end alternatives and north end alternatives. In each geographic area, the locations
of the alternatives have different advantages and disadvantages. The south end and north end
alternatives can be mixed and matched. With the exception of Alternatives E and F, any south
end alternative described in the questionnaire can be combined with any north end alternative.
Please answer the following questions by checking yes or no. "Yes" means you believe the
alternative should be examined further in the Environmental Impact Statement. This examination
will include additional design studies and a more detailed environmental impact assessment.
"No" means you believe the alternative should be dropped from consideration as a bypass
alternative based on the design work and evaluation done to date. To help you in answering
each question, an alternatives evaluation summary for each question is attached following the
figures.
Please explain your responses. It will help the study team know what important issues and
concerns led you to answer the way you did. If you disagree with any of the findings in the
attached evaluation summaries, please indicate where you disagree and why. You may submit
extra pages, if the space provided is inadequate.
Return your completed questionnaire to:
Mr. John Page
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas
991 Aviation Parkway, Suite 500
Morrisville, NC 27560
Or you may send it as a FAX to John at 1-919-467-7322.
Thank you.
• A ?
US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Comparison of 10 Potential Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives
July 24, 1996, revised December 16, 1996
Attached are six tables that present a comparison of the initial 10 potential bypass alternatives to
widening US 321 in northern Caldwell County and through Blowing Rock, North Carolina. They
are:
• Table 1: Engineering Considerations
• Table 2: Traffic Considerations
• Table 3: Social Considerations
• Table 4: Natural Resource Considerations
• Table 5: Historic"Resource Considerations
• Table 6: Visual Considerations
The alternatives are shown in the attached figure. The following paragraphs describe the study
team's observations on the findings contained in these tables. This information also was
provided to the project's Citizens Advisory Committee.
Table 1: Engineering Considerations
• Alternatives that include a bypass that leaves existing US 321 near the southern town
limits of Blowing Rock (D, DG, E, F) would have a lower construction cost and involve
less excavation than alternatives whose bypass portion begins further south (A, AG, B,
BG, C, and CG). This finding is reflected in the cost per unit of distance and the volume
of excavation per unit of distance lines of Table 1.
• Alternatives C, CG, D, and DG would have lower right-of-way costs than Alternatives E
and F. Right-of-way costs were not prepared for A, AG, B, and BG for reasons footnoted
on Table 1. Right-of-way costs for A, AG, B, and BG would be at least as much as C and
CG because most of the C and CG bypass corridors follow the same corridors as A, AG,
B, and BG.
• When right-of-way costs are added to construction costs Alternative E would be the least
costly alternative with CG, D, DG, and F ranging from $5 million to $8.6 million higher
than E. Alternative C would be $10.6 million higher in cost than E.
• The length of alternative with grades greater than six percent tends to be of the same
order of magnitude for most of the alternatives. D, DG, and F would have the least
amount of grade greater than six percent. For grades greater than seven percent,
alternatives AG, BG, CG, DG, and F would have shorter lengths of these steep grades
than their counterparts A, B, C, D, and E. Alternatives CG, C and D would have the least
length of grades greater than seven percent.
Alternatives whose bypass portion starts near the Blowing Rock Town Limits (D, DG, E
and F) would have several horizontal curves that do not meet the project's design
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project R-22370
a
US 321 EIS In Committee
Comparison of 10 Potential Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives --page 2
July 24, 1996, revised December 16, 1996
criteria. All of the deficient curves are associated with the widening portion of the
alternatives.
Alternatives D and DG would contain the most bridges, with five, because of the
positioning of these alternatives on the side of a ridge. Corridor E would have the fewest
number of bridges, with only one.
The number of intersections would vary by alternative and would depend on whether the
terrain would allow the bypass to cross each existing road at grade. All of the
alternatives would pass under Green Hill Road. There would be no connection between
Green Hill Road and the bypass. All alternatives would include intersections with Forest
Lane and Opossum Hollow Road.
Table 2: Traffic Considerations
Congestion would occur on any remaining two-lane section of US 321 south of Blowing
Rock because of steep grades. This effect would be less if the southern end of the
bypass were close to Blowing Rock, as with alternatives D, DG, E, and F.
Acceptable traffic flow would occur on the bypass and on existing US 321 within Blowing
Rock with any bypass alternative. Peak hour congestion would begin to occur in about
the year 2020 on existing US 321 north of Sunset Drive.
When it takes less time to use the bypass than to stay on the existing road, local trips
would use the bypass to travel to businesses in Blowing Rock, such as the Food Lion.
Traffic forecasts show that up to 10 to 19 percent fewer trips would shift to the bypass
from existing US 321 when the trip on the bypass is longer than the existing road. The
existing road is 9.4 kilometers (5.9 miles) in contrast to the total length (widening and
bypass) of the potential bypass alternatives shown in Table 1. Alternatives D and DG
are slightly longer than the existing road.
High accident rates would remain where no improvements are made to existing US 321.
This effect would be less if the south end of the bypass were close to Blowing Rock, like
alternatives D, DG, E, and F. (Accident study findings were presented in the handout for
Steering Committee/Interagency Meeting #1.)
Table 3: Social Considerations
Displacement. Displacement would be similar with Alternatives C, CG, D, DG, E,and F,
with E and F involving the greatest displacement. Displacement counts were not
prepared for the bypass portions of Alternatives A, AG, B, and BG. Alternatives A and
AG have no widening portion. The widening portion of B and BG would involve
displacement of one home.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project R-2237C
US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Comparison of 10 Potential Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives -- page 3
July 24, 1996, revised December 16, 1996
Community Cohesion.
Effects on communities in Caldwell County would be less with alternatives D,
DG, E, and F. All alternatives, however, would follow ridges in Caldwell County
and avoid valley communities. Development along ridges would be affpcted.
Corridors A and AG would cross Blackberry Road, displacing Bailey Camp
Baptist Church and its cemetery.
All alternatives would displace homes and introduce through traffic to
communities along Green Hill Road, but those affected and the extent of the
effect would differ among the alternatives.
The Wonderland Drive area is avoided by all but alternatives E and F, which
cross Green Hill Road just north of Green Hill.
A bypass between the Assembly Grounds' buildings and the Parkway (A, B, C,
D, and F) would have greater impacts on the activities at the Assembly Grounds
than other bypass alternatives. Alternatives A, B, C, D, and F would pass north of
the Assembly Grounds' main buildings through a natural area used for retreats.
These corridors would displace a marked nature trail (the blue trail) and would
pass adjacent to an open space used for recreation activities. The main
entrance to the Assembly Grounds would be altered. Alternative E would pass
south of the Assembly Grounds buildings, intersecting with Goforth Road near
the service entrance to the Assembly Grounds. Lands used from the Assembly
Grounds would be limited. Alternatives AG, BG, CG, and DG would use land
from the south side of the Assembly Grounds property but generally avoid
primary activity areas. As with E, the service entrance would be altered.
Through traffic would be introduced to the Opossum Hollow Road area.
Public Recreation Lands Affected. None of the alternatives would affect public
recreation lands. In addition, none of the alternatives would use lands from the private
Blowing Rock Country Club.
Noise Impact Potential. Only one to three houses would be within 40 meters (131.1 feet)
of the travel lanes with the bypass portion of any of the alternatives. Few homes would
be in proximity to the travel lanes because of the alternatives' wide cuts and fills. The
travel lanes of Alternatives AG, BG, CG, and DG would be within 40 meters (131.1 feet)
of the First Independent Baptist Church on Opossum Hollow Road. The travel lanes of
Alternatives A, B, C, D, and F would be within 40 meters (131.1 feet) of an Assembly
Grounds' recreational open area. The potential for noise impact would be greater for
those alternatives with more widening and less bypass since sensitive uses would
remain along US 321 after a widening is completed.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project R-2237C
US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Comparison of 10 Potential Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives -- page 4
July 24, 1996, revised December 16, 1996
Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks. There are no known hazardous
material spill sites adjacent to any of the alternatives. One potential underground
storage tank site is adjacent to the bypass portion of Alternatives B and BG and one is
adjacent to the widening portion of all the alternatives except A, AG, B, and BG.
Farmlands. Alternative E would use the most prime farmland, 2.2 hectares (5.3 acres),
while Alternative F would use the least, 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). The other alternatives
all would use less than or equal to 1.5 hectares (1.7 acres) of prime farmland.
Table 4: -Natural Resource Considerations
Loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat (cove forest biotic community) would be least with
shorter bypasses. Wildlife in the vicinity of Blowing Rock and its associated development
has adapted to the presence of man-made disturbances and, therefore, is not expected
to be adversely affected by construction of a bypass. However, on the Blue Ridge flank
(ridge below Green Hill and Green Hill Road) development is relatively scarce and
isolated, and construction of a new road in this region would have a substantial impact
on natural habitats in terms of forest fragmentation, conversion of interior forest to
ecotone (edge habitat, or a transition zone between two or more habitats), and
interruption of wildlife transportation corridors.
• Stream crossings would be least with shorter bypasses. These crossings would be
nearly perpendicular.
• Rare and unique natural areas would not be affected with any alternative.
• The length that an alternative extends along the Blue Ridge flank would be directly
related to the amount of highly erodible soils that may be affected by that corridor.
Alternatives E and F would include less linear distances through highly erodible soils.
• Alternatives C and CG would displace one pond.
• Alternatives E and F are the only ones that would dis lace wetlands, but the loss would
be small. singe is adjacent to Middle For immediately above the
golf course. This wetland system varies in width with the meandering of Middle Fork and
reaches a maximum width of approximately 52 meters (170 feet). The wetland area
disturbed is on one side by a maintained utility line right-of-way. This wetland system is
limited in length by a maintained pasture upstream and the golf course and utility line
downstream.
No federal-protected plant or animal species are expected to be affected by any of the
alternatives. Two state-protected species would be affected by Alternatives E and F.
The habitat of state-protected species is not protected by law from disturbance.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project R-2237C
US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Comparison of 10 Potential Blowing Rock Bypass Alternatives -- page 5
July 24, 1996, revised December 16, 1996
Table 5: Historic Resource Considerations
None of the corridors would affect the National Register-listed Green Park Historic
District or the Green Park Inn.
Minor regrading would occur at the edge of one potentially National Register-eligible
property would occur with Alternatives AG, BG, CG, and DG.
E and F would have regrading near a National Register-eligible house.
Table 6: Visual Considerations
With all alternatives, as the bypass approaches the top of the Blue Ridge flank, the
bypass becomes visible from the Green Hill or Green Hill Road area in the foreground of
views of the Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp area. When the bypass is lower on the Blue
Ridge flank, views probably would be blocked by vegetation. The bypass would be
visible in distant views of the Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp area with alternatives A, AG,
B, and BG.
With all alternatives except E and F, the bypass would be clearly within views from the
Blue Ridge Parkway's Thunder Hill overlook, particularly after it moves around Locus
Ridge and begins to approach the Parkway. The bypass would be within views of
Parkway users as it passes through farmland on Green Hill Road. For alternatives E and
F, the bypass would be present in distant views from the Parkway's Thunder Hill
overlook.
For alternatives A, B, C, D, and F, the bypass in cut would replace current forest views
from the north side of the Assembly Grounds' lodge and dormitories.
The bypass would be added to views in the study area communities through which it
passes.
Attachments: Tables 1 to 6
cAl page\us321 eis\involve\321 stc2a.doc
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project 1t-2237C
N
C
O
i
m
.a
.y
e
O
V
m
C
T
J2 Im
I- W
R a i ? ? E; ? a
Iv ?O a) O v ON

N
M O q O
J? (u?
1
OD
cr)
r cq
O
T (3?
O r
Q
r
?
y
e'?I fA fA fA Q
fA ?O
b9 N O
c u? ui
?7
Sri
c\i r (O
cm cm V OD
co ^ to co
co V O
y
l
O ? v
O M ri
W
C7 O Lo C? w r-
N U)
O N
f
9 69 62 O N O 1
? ? N N O O) n
O
? ci
I I
o
7 Oi (may 61 oc)
^
'o m
o' V O N
(A
f9 fA a 2 cl
i
r ch d I
N co

O N Q N co
O
O
O cD
?
p
_
o I I I

?cy)
N
64
?
?

m pp

ujO

N Co
C
^

Or
O
l i fffAA OI
Epl v O
^?
C^7 Lo N ?y
`:.? M O O ? N
cy)
U

o r r
co o) co
ao
C\1 (o m
'7
2 6% o°
'7
2
cl)
o a
c ?
? a{
o
2
?nl 6%
?
ri m
,-j ui
o
?

? G? Er F
^ a a G? d V
q
cd co v
1-:
U ?
?. m

LO OD v co

O) c7

r u o m

N

69 ?»I rn v ch n

eo ^ n m

'o o
r-- co

v c co

? LO n oooo?? m

c? c?i
2 vjl v co o

.4 A
Lo
v o cf N Q co ' O N R
ca ri (`
) cli N C\i
cl a
N _
m
1? N
V V Q O.
f? .-- Oi yp
LO r-
.O ui
(D
d V V) (O Cl)
N EA m I
co
_
ca
E

O
N
?

N
^

N ?_pp
O

OD

N
O
N
O N

T
?
T
? n (+j ? ('-1 v ? v
m 3 3
? o q c0 o co
C 'o
N
O
r-- r OD nc? L
O O?
N L
OI .--
.O Sri (O
O V K In
fA EA
n I L
,6 L6 0o co m N o O

U
6 10

o.
Q

_

a ?

o
(D q)
C W .A N V .
O
69 Y) N M I If) O I I
A
E N
E
? .I l
16
`i N

N H

m (o ?I O

(o .
^ n m

o) n ,I

oi n

vi n I
n
Co c6
Q 3 T
;
O O '? 2 m co
O
r
w co ( _ :
[
) L '
co c
0 . ?(j tf) . If)
? ¢

m C
O T
ca
3 U

c

o
7 m
N a d
Q a N 0= aN
U? v v a
C U v
E S C d
R
0 O i
o f
) Q
°'
L °'
3 v m m a
° o y U
W Z -> f
E i
a
m
fl "
c
o o C
m EE oC7WO -E 6 c
rn°Y o
E cm c

O)
Olt
H
Y

E

W J

"

U
C

0 -
` _

W
C
O)

p E _

]
N C O
' m C U) fn
O N
tO
C N
E W
c:
co C V C
6
O O m N
m a y m E
o O
L o..U J
' _ C C O. D of L
`o
° a D U
o Q
"
o Q Z
a
''i
o O
U Q.
>E=a°?- ip
^
m m C m
E m c,
mmw J o E
Q N m Q
av
Q
a
cm ?? m3o
-
oU F ¢ ¢
r t
m3 o
f U E ?c
o -
F- v E?o[? v c Em 30 E aE mt7 coo Em 0C7 m m 30
mi v uj
?
w

C7
6
0
c
r
R
16
m
'8 N
3 0
O C
? i
T
0 c
of c
F W
LL?
W
0
O N? O nco Cl)

m

c O co
U C
C
J = m .0
_
?
N E a O _
= -0 O a, (5 Co
` >
O N
" m O
3
`
L 0
0 c N 0 Co
0
`m o 0 0
? ¢
_
o ?l o cq co .- L a
0 =
p
o c
o. d
C7?? c, m
m
J
O uN 0 0-1- Lo
O OI O O OI O m
O OI O O OI O N
O OI O O OI O N
v
m
O
2
O
2
E
7
O
0
C
J
N
0
LL
0
cr
0
0
E
0
a
0
c
J
m
O
LL
m
C
ca -0
`O
O O
m ¢
00 3
U o
O =
¢ E
y
N 0
D °
Y a
N O
co
0
0
0 0
? o
U =
ED E
U 0
0 2 Cl
? 0
m c
D c
s c0
U J
m
CO N
L°
L L
E E v
D E E
c m 2
a a a _ c
m Y D Y m
Loo N D K C
U m N N c m N y CY) D w o
U m C J .L.. U N C J .C.. N
Co 0
cl 0 CL 'o
N J 0 ? 0 J 0-? 0 C W C
S
a
c0
0
O
0
co
0
N
m

0
L
0
0
m
0
2
N
0
T
O
0
ca
O
m
c7
co
O
(7
a
cr
N

U
co
c y c
C m c
m E
U U N
N 'O N
> C 'O
C O D
m 3
m
ai
L N 0
(p 0 U
'0 C CU
m `0 3
D C
0 - O N
Fa L N
n c d1
m m .`
E
aS
o m
c uci 0
o .° ami
m c
y c
E co
? U m y
m
C U N U
> N
C ca Ol
c c
E C_ m
m° m m
L C N 0
~ m L C
m
? L N
O L
N
N N L N
n 7 3
co
CO L
m
C D c
D m U ?
m
> mm m L
m c
c E a O1
Q) a U N
ca C 1
= Co m U
ID C
4
° O EO D
U U
co c
D O
C m 2 E
L m U O
p 6 >,
EA
N co 3 >1
m ro
m 0 m
m ¢ c E
° E R
Q Q = y n
m N m
> N
C ? > Q D
c p N D
C C m
0 R m J
° m C N
° y
m
m y ? 'c '0 D
c m m w c
1 .5 co
a4)°o.rn°
°m ma=ol m
'D ? o
m m c c
3 C m a`>
3 d d
rn O ° O
C_ '.C-.. N q N
m N N
C m E ?
° 0 N C E U
0 E m a m m
3 m c 3
E
m
E ° 0 °
0 O O) N N CD
cn ¢ o_ m r[

N
c
w
L
d
a
N
c
O
N ?
m
36
H !"
LL
W
U
O
O
U
U
m
m
Q)
2m
rn
W
d
N
O
d
d
O J
a
r`o 0
N
L Y
R
d d
a
c M
R c
Z 10
V N
r U)
? m
?
at
=
v 3
N
` N
D c
i x
W
41 Q O
¢ w U U U 0 0 U U <<<<<
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO M r V co N I? N
(O (O (O L9 C7 Ch r
00
00
0 0
0
0
0 LOLOLO
LO
+'- O r- V O) CO d1 ? M N c \l cl O)
V to to co (OrNO V
r r r N N
0r 0r r 000
r .-
Q w U U U O O D U Q Q Q¢¢
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO M V m N r N
CO CO CO to MM r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000
O Oto to O U) O O to to to to O LO
r 0 Il V O O (31 r- M N N N M O)
V to to Co (O r N O V
r r r N N 00000
r r r r r
Q w U U U U 0 U U ¢ Q Q¢ Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO N O) M to V N
LO to V LO V M N
C>00000000 o o O O o
0 0 0 0
0 0 LO'o O
O
0 _ _
0110
V CO il- M r- N N V
r r r r N Co 00 00 00 00
<W0000000 <<<<<
0 0 ? o 0 0 0? o 0
O 00 r 00 N CO r (O N
CO (O to tO M M r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O
T
O
M O
O
V V
0
O
O
D C
O C
O (
0
'7 V (O w f- N co O V
r r N N 0) m a) 0 0
r r
¢ w U U U 0 O D U ¢ Q¢ Q¢
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O (Y) N O) to O CO N
co CO to toMMr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO LO O LO O O LO to to LO to 00
r M O) n M V M d1 M n? N tO tO
V V Lo co I?NMO V a)a)O)OO
r r r N N r r
Q w O O O O O O O <<<<<
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O) N O) r Lo O CO N
(O CO to to co M r
00000000c) 00000
O LO to O to 00 to LO to LO to O0
r M OnM V MO)M I?"in to tO
R v LO CO r- (D V O)O)O)OO
r r r N N r r
li 4.. wwLL U-U-00
o0 LO 0ooCD 00
O O i- tO 0 0 to O O
CO Mr 0000
v v Ld&LdC rn v v
N N
w w U U U U U U Q
000LO000LO0
M LO N V In M
w CO I- w d) O) N N
co T N
co 4) > N Y Y
n 0 N m a
O N d
0
coo
Corc.
? N 7 J C C
y= O U) co O ?i y
'o c ca O N Li > o. Q
5 N Cr co N j O O p
CO C7= L
o[m0` OAT
O til = ma r J r p
M Co v) c cm a) d O M to 'd N
Q N c p
?u) m00::) nuO_DZ
CO CD
Q N
J
o
o o O N
m m 2 0
E
7
C: 0 cc
O CO O
a3CO
C) 0Oo(n
:3 cr N O =)
= N
0= 0
to =mEas
N r = L > J
N N y ti
0 N O p p
A co
06
m C7 C7 0 (°
N
O
E
W
M .-
E _N
Y
r E
co -
q-I[ o
C!) E
Q Y
¢ ?
L O
n
3 O
o O
o ?
N 3
tV
Q) td
> CU
`6 E
c m
is
.- E
O Y
O
`o co
U I I
T ?r
L
.LDU
c N
m - a)
CY) m L
E a?i E
(D E v
Q .
co
v
'0
a E
O Y
N > CO
L (00
O ? I I
L II LL
a
cc m ca
m` w
,? 3 3
a
m
O
Z_
O
¢
C?
O
Z
t-
O
N
Q
T
CO
11
O
T C
m c0
.p L
(D U
N N
Q _
8
N
t
O
i
d
V
N
O
d R
E- N
W
W
D H ,,, m m
m
-
Nm m
O
cc E c
m
co -D

c m 0
cm C

a E E o D S 0
_ O p o C m p 'mp o Cry
C
C
cm m E
p°

m O O 01 m
m
'0
m t m a N
0) w
(D
¢
m
o" m m
o
'p O ?. m
m a
m m c a a. c m 10
n m
a U O
N O O OI N vM

N N .- Cll O

Q
O)
_ C
a

m y
Q
m
O a C _
C D y a D m N E N

CL
coy c"
o?

m E
-0 jE (D
o m
m o° v v
.6 0 m N
LL Q m Q m a C
- C
2 p m
N C p? O O C m m
C D D U N O p

O O O a O
O m C= a y (m t D U J
m
U U C
m
N
O aI N N
(`'71 O y j m C U D
O p
m O
Q umi D 0 n
- H L m O O
m O D CU Cn
y U
y
O O c
U¢ m m
p>
o c
cn m
O m
3 O
Q U
-
E
D r o .. m
E C
o E J c
,
D a
w 0 0 OI m 0 0 O! OI
('ll ?? T= Q m m m
C?.0 U m
a O C C
J m L_ J >
0 c o E 0 3 E m'
c
?
Q _ D 0a

m Q>
m ti m c a
5
a
G

E m E
y
o
m
L a E c
a¢

y a
c as m m= o c m E
m
'
I? O O OI I N O O O N OM
r r cV ?? "p N L Q D _J O J .V
m Q V O m V
C
m
m N m
C
m U O
m E m c C C
3 J
m
r Jm D x o m m E m o- m
¢
L m 7 E° a m
N m
3
(
O=
E
m= t0 m
ID
L CT C
O u0i N DC
¢
N y'0
C
N
N 0 C) CA OOOOIO rl
C71 y N C_ m (? T= Q y m m
N T D O 'C C
m
J C C U t0

>
o
o E c
0 m
c
c
m a m
3 E y
m E
m 0 °
0
v>mi m co E 5 11 w Q E .o m E.0 vi - p a c
m° o

o
3
o n
E E

CD
-0 `
° m
.. m
m -o¢ tOiaD C
H
-w E
_0 C 0
m
a
a
0 0 0 Of 0 0 0 0 01 0 qra

N
N m

4 ;
-
p
U O
L j
i m v o ai m
a
o
Q
O m m r p, ?
m
C C
y o m
m E y c c
3
r o FU -6 s o n E° m m o
Qm to ° 3(7 E °dL m ac
E
m
a, -6
O E c o
' t rn c
m
J c
CU U- .
0
0
m _
0 C m
m
3
C m?
? V _
?_ m
C ? a m ro
C C C U m
J a D O C
L m o m
a p f C7 3 C7 E N
c
m m U m C C O O a
O

u c J o
v in w m p a
E m C aci '
Q ' m m y D
E oc v J 10 o C d
n
H m
m o a E E
L y m y m a¢ a m a m m D ° OO c m E m
'= m C N N Q B m C

Q
m L
3 D H C m
Q 'm0 J mT 01 J m O Y O. N U U
cl m m U C
m E m D m m Q A
L J m D Y O m
co m a m
t i L m a
2 E m m N m

a
Wm = Ea

o
E=m >.o .. m
?oc
E
c
°

m m L
L` O m D
¢
OW m
_ -
a
h y?
C m
C m
' C C O S7 m N
C_
o L
N O co CD >
'D O E m
J J .C V m
L
m Z
c CL L a Q
'E Y
m
?p EC7 D _
o
?C7 E ti
m m
a c
) C
U O >.

m d
O
o a m m
D
E m m
Q m N m N N D
E c0'o H J a 'T a o R
m Ov
ol° L?'Rm m?mac?maDRCmoEm
Q _
m O y D a o° J m 01 J m V Y Q m 9 U U
C O
O m m U
m L_ J m 'O Y O _m m m D m Q co
o a E m
"
m t n m 3 2 E m a L
m
m

D
0
E o
¢ m
m m
m
c U = Q ¢
N
co
m
>
D
c
F[n
m m.Ud ?Z
w m.U W m
O m
m a m O
= m N m} m m m Q (? T D
C Q
E0 ca `ID -j ? Cc
_
E

U
ao ?mLrQ ao
?mt?
'
E
m m
c
m
m
m=mUOa ?xmy6o <. E .'Fau `
m` 3
m
O
0 c
ra ¢
9
N
L
d
L
V ?
O N
V
0
? V
F W
LL.
W
O
0
n
UL-
z O
c0 C
0
01 N 0 '- O O) r O O o l
J U m Z rn Z Z Z
O D 0
? O O
C
M
V L 10
O
C
0 0) ID 4)
O m m O M O O O O o
J U 0 Z 1n Z Z Z
O
L O N
r
c
N ?
= M
O
C N ? 0 O
D to
U R
O` 2 C C C C
m O
Z O Z Z Z
U 10
_m
L O to
O N
J O
O
L
N
y O
_O
O
N C C C C
v 0 Z ZZ z?
at 0
J O
O
L
F-
N O
0
_O
? N C O M O
D p
U N
J
10
O ca w 4) 0
C C C C
o
z o zo zo z°
U O
? v
m
N O Cl) O
J N
O
F
O
L ?
_O
O 00
D <D
U N
J
O ro c c c c
C o z o zozo zozo
U O
N M
LO -0- 00
J N
L ?
N
N
0 N 0 N Y C cu
D O 0 O 'C R W 0 D 0
L m m O _C1 m U 0 p E S j m
Ir L) (D c ? ? 0 co
o d 41i u au) m o m
0? a?? m
o 0° c>oo E > c m c E « o 0 m m U)
= 1o m X m a .N " v .y ¢° m u? m N 0 D B>
E m ti a E ti c m> m a c= c D M m m y 0 ai n F' m
J U y N A WQ N Q . y L N y LL O m 0 0) N L a 7 L m N C m C N C
N co Q Q C 0 0 E 0 C 0 U C 0 0 N M CO ?0 U O O C .y C 0 0 C O m 0 E a) 0
p. 0` U m W U 0 N O L Q N m 0 U Dp E O L 'a 0 0 - m CL >D m W O. D
O Q C E Q- Z C 0= U O z 3 0 0 0= U D Y N 0 m? a O m
0. Z
10
O
C
a
0
> D
m 0
E m`
m a
co Eo
N (1
0
v cC
?p 0
L V
m >
U C
O 0 W
D ? 0
0 L
m o
0 N
N ; D
0
N
C1 N
D
_O
?'U Q
0 01
0 O C
C N (D
0 D
o ? C
O O
C C N
,o m E
c m
CD aa) c
m CD
U U1
-= 0 0 C
.0 N - C
> = 0
01 N 0 D
C m
0 m L
C <0 0 ~
0 0 C N
L
0 D
N
0
O L 0 N
0 ? 0 0
J 3 ?
0 O v
ro p 0 >
.
J N O 0 C
N ?
0 0
E
n
OID
U ? DO
ca
N m 5
c ?
0
U O t
m y N O
N 11 m D
0 y C
O m O 0
m O L C
C C C L
0 0 m 0
O
E (D
C7 `-° r r
Q O
Q U N C
E
°
N c
Q
>
c >
m c > o
m m -0 _O
O i0 m O
D N C
41 C 0 D 0 N
0 0 C C
CL 15
0 Q L Q
C L U N O
0 ii 'i m a
0 0 00Z
3 ~ , m
D
L
N m C y0 N
m o
m O
E m¢ c
rn c 0
N O -0 N
C C0 C 3 c
E 'o E o E
0 C
m m E v
N N N U E
a0 o
H
O
i
N
C
,O
V
m
i
3
O
H
m
? i
W
I C)
(D n

? n 0

?O

m

Q (V

N p

V ^

N

V •

•
'

m
N m
)
_U - N (j m C
tmO v Z
N O
w y 3
m
V a O J m
N a
m

co
l
N N
o m D n m n >,
D
N O O (D Z N N O O O E
O
co (D M O m O m 0
Q 3 t d "
01 n V
M O O
^
a
Q ^
m fp
N ^
m m ? a m? ?
N c0 .
v.- n
V M
m
._. co
m
Z v n
v O O U U ?+ U a m
O
m C

M
N
y m O m
m

v
n a m m a O D
o mD
J
M i ¢ °° M ~
m
O nl N
`9 (NO Z V ^ O O 0 O a
O?
II O. 3 L Q N
rn m O m E?T ^ O
M N m m ¢_ O M .I O
n? f? m M pp O O d a
m N OI m Z Of ? U N
m n N
m m
N C7 M N Z N OD N O O O n
`•ql Z
N O N N N M ^ rO
Q O W M Q OV a
co 0
0 0-0
v U
N M I M n z O 1I Z D
O
(MOn Mn nn )O Q M N CD M co p' N D
M .n.. z m N N m Z v v O O I O d 0 10
m n
N U
? O mm
(? (((---??? v x
m
W (nO 9(o dI O ¢ Cl) m O r - N N C m m
OBI
MMO N, N n Z m (n0 Cl) O O O Cm D
Z
(7 M V to R m (`? O
M N n N n W Q N m cm ppj a
4c6 mN O
T m m Z ? ^ ... ? O O m N
N
0) d ami
v m m
-0 CO C\! Ci CC! 00 4)
NMO?M Z co (m7 N O O IO Z n
co In N
v M N
Q O N N O O
of of v n Z n (h ri o Ip m a
N ?O n n U ?
N
m U
n Q m
m O) .m- m m i0
N (m0 Q n M ¢ N N
Mf J m m
v M ply apl? n Z CO mO I C5 0 D
^^ Z
m?fD m m O
N -
Q N Q
OOO Z m m .N(h-
' O N Cv O O a
M m N m Q) U m
n Q N
X
O m N N N( (? m p Q 0) (p m m m
n0(OO n m ¢ O O) '
M c ((D N Z O c O Ip cm D
O Z
M m n n
m n N n (O ' ?O ¢ W M O) (mp ' ((0
(aD?2 SN0 O Z m (h O IO N
N N v
a ami
n m - . N N O O Q CO M co m m 0i CO
(0 ? co I Nm Z V 0) (Nd NO I C\! Z D
M N(q M N m O N p)
Q co N m n
1 '0
n S N M (2 Z N (`) O .I O N
N N
v m U
0) CL
clq .110 ('1)
(O O M mCD Z n to p , I p Cm D
m
(? N
N fA
m
L m
w E H ? m
o E a o m ° clu)
m
Y a 3 W Y J C U Q m m
N m 7 CL. C C y N m d
Y p° L o rn ° w E E m m m CO
o J L J m .°_) Z m j N G r m N 0 a m y m
m mom 3 m C J r y y r-65 H? m mL H a
E m m ¢
3 ti mO ? a c a m ? m¢ C ._ r c E c m m m ?-. 6 y L O
o O m m cm m' U g c
E o?ocm o m o U E ?? gDD 2(D (D
- -9 -a LL 0
w co co
U n >p N m N -00 J W 3 m m a T m O C C U C C J V
U a a ¢ ¢
- co a m E> t E m m m o o m m Q r
_0 30 m mZ ¢3 0)o dmm d-0- o
m S S S Y y d
11
O >,
a 3
c 0
C
D O)
C L
O (VO
? m
E Z
O ?
C m)
CD a
c m
L
a D
3 m
m
? o
c_
m m
y p
w U
m m
? m
C
D O
m L
m O
C C
m
N m
c6 L
H
O
a ?
U L
r a
m
O D
c J
C H
m
c
L m
o'
w _'
m
ID
L m
o
a
U
co
Q m
N
O m
a V
y
O
U c
O Z6
a
c r
C N
m C L
L 0 G
J 0)
y C
m
C `o C
C
m
m ? D
CO m o)
C C a
? m
m m m
a H 5
3 O w
O E c
m U V
m
(m o Q
N
t
O
16
i
d
V
N
t
O
V
d
i
7
O
N
d
10V
16
0 O
R N
LL
W
O
0
U
U
m
m
U
Q
Q
m H
Q U
y N
lL O.
N O
E
mE°-
m c \ Oil ( m
z° s m z°
m 0
0. 3
N > L
LL
_C L
? O
11 ID
Z z
c c
O O
Z Z
c c
O O
Z Z
0 N
c c
O O
Z Z
v
v m
m
? a
¢ m
m m
& 0
o a`
a` m
v B
m W
7 'w m
?a
`m m •?
w
O m ,
¢ Q m
C
0 -4 m
O O ?
z W
2 2
1G
f0 .L.• c U
O U c t:
c c m m c U 0
co 0) n y CO,
rn 0 ID cL
N w c w
E co
m
c
O
Z
rm. v
i0 c
O O
rn o a L
a c N c m
NvLL C 0
m m o Q n
m L c ca
m
m
c
0
z
i0 .L... C V
m = C
? ? O a L
c'o WU a
O -0 LL d N O
mm a'an
v t c co
co
m
c
O
Z
c0 .c. C U
c
m o LL ID O
rn m o a n
N L c ?
.+ m
m
c
O
Z
m
a
w
K
d
a0

rg
a)m
m
c
a?
m
a
O
a
m
v
?.
U
N
m
r
lL
1
N
a Y _? T
O 0
d N a N
a L O O O N tf]
N° T .-. L m a N 0 C V N a) C m a1 2 m 6 E:
•- N d C
p N y

> N
v> N
y p f0 a) J N V
T m
°
N°
>=

S
N N>
y a)

a M
y y= 0 E N-0 'O 'E a N Ul
m
y 3 2 N O
a
m °
°
c
E
c L
L
5 -D
C) c
0 E) o c
y m
CL
m° QC
) -SO
y
a
) 0
m> a
7 0 o¢ 3 co
x 3 Y
m o
n N> N°
o
s s 0 a) c 3 m m a
`o J U
C
C7 N
°ammEaa))O>
-
? a ° v
3
co
m e O aa
i
> cyi a > s c
y CM
a
O o J o
U'
¢
m m
a n E y 'Q N- Co m
N 3 C7 'p
vi y
0 M
Q O a) a m U a) 2 a)
D y
y
M
1
a1
f m
m
U 2 CL 0 a
N
N
m O C m m- m O y m m E S 0
a
)
o
co
0 J T T m a
0 b m a °

Z
C a)
E
0 3 c L.. N a y D -Q 0,
y C -
.
:1
)
D
0 .0
m TL _
0 0
ca a) 0
.
cc di
a
° 3 ° o
o.
a
m m
o
m
a
?
3 r
CO > 3 (70 m 0
N
M
16
W
Z5 a) OS
g 6 a 3 m a
N
y = a
L O U
m >
.. 'O U C Y
N? m E y o
N Y a 0 a)
0 m E a0) ? 3 3 Q c
o= co % D o 0 0no
a a m a
a s a Co j N C p
y m a) °>; `O a1 to a >
y a) co D Ol a= a) m _J O, N O D O)
am C L 0 N
0
d O L C CE a
N > a) C L 0
o > 3
O ` d N 0)
a LL a T
N
> D
N .0
aU > U
N O, a 'N
N _J Y
y .`. m m N m y _O
0 y D
L C a >
m -`O a) w C N 0
aCP>.W5 p 0n m
N a N O 3> 2 O,
ymm a a O y a>
a) C (D m c,D
CL m CQ a O N
0 JO
° a
Q o ca 5 D
C ) ` C C N
Co N a) L T
a r° n? 3 ° a
O a) ... a) > 3 s
s N N
O C Fo (v 3 Q) a) U
a te -n E > 3 > -
a) a) ? N? ti y C >' O
y tiaU.0
N N (0
co
CL -6 m T N y N a) D N
0 n a m
°>: a a aO1i
al
>
'm m O p t 0 N
Q O s ... 0) CO N
m W a°> o y a
a? O N N O C D
m > o o
y a, m a) y y C
a° 2p c :E -0 C a co o
Ji p O T y L O D N
? c
0 m m 0 3 fi y CC)
> N >
C O N O o
a) O) N > y D
y L a D y> 3 a
3 m 0
C O .Y a) E N N p
m aD o s
> ma ma Qo,m
N CL U O. O D -0 0
Q- a) N m m a
T J 0 a 0
ymm 5 m m
o y y c
0
L O> 2 a m -c
s O m D N,
o 8 E,O0 0-?
= N a ?." J N a
y= 00. m T L O
>` a) (T6 3 rn m
>aD Q,3g J-_
c cJ 0 a s m y S
a
L L 0 (Lm T N C
3 y T J a) D vOi a)
C
3 ._.. N
y 5
O V a N N
T `C Q a) ?
a o as a
n) m m D
0
a)
N
z
a v
° c
C a ? O
o
3 00[ a aai ayi
T a) 'E
O O 0 a v
-0 15-0 0 3 3 v
a) ? ? _N N
N co 2 N N
M
y ¢ E cn
D O
2
66 .
co p O Y
OTm ati
m 0 0'x
W
T
y
N
N
CU S N
in O o C CO y cc J co am
t o 3 E D a m ay
c a o o C C, E E -0 3 2 0 m` c o
'y =
0 cc E m E d 01
>- y N co W N N
;C 0a)- m N
y
a) a) a a) Co E .Q ?
o 0 0 ?.m 0 J 3 0
`}D 3m='c `s
y a N N a) a E r
y a0 C`7
N m .0 0 3 0 C
Cr a) 0
TU
m
mD U
T
y
N
COL.. 0 U O C U) N
m? m J M y M
fi 3 E1) co 6N
C o o ac m o) E
a3i m° E m E a) N° o
a7 D a N
o= m u) U v w d
aaima`°ymEa ?
mC 'D 3mL0..2 o
c ° c E v)
y E a1 m U
y y 3 CO .°
aU ¢
00 cu ,`o.0 U
co
O
a o
C o S
N (r E
0 2 N
> C O m
O 0 N
a cr) a O
0 a
pQ a)c m
m E :5 m0
co U moo
m
co
m O
p
CO
C7
m
m
E
Q
O
3
L
(A
O
y O
y O > C a aC
s O Ol D N co
o 8 E.0
N a ?- J N a
W= a CU C
m> co z o
a3) 0 m 3 a) m
> a m s Y
c c a m 2
L L m a
co n' y C
T
3 y ?, ? 0 D h d
'mTm `b'L c mC?
J J L a) Cl
1: 0
cl a m y N
T C Q N
0°aaoQna
a) co co .0
U
0 N 0 p
0 5 m s a- a
Y O 0).0 y m
O 9L?
O N N
N a J _? a
y S a Co C
m > L O
p
?' 'Op D c) 3 Y a 0
c c
i a 2
L_ L N m a T N C
3 y T J N D tN/, a)
N l0 O L OR 75 -J ((IS C CS
y N
CL Y r a co
T C p a
s
00 a o 0 0.-0
O Cp a) D
U
O y L c
Lp>=am1.
0 O) D N co
°o no
E
O - y L N
a
y 2 a m > N L O
a> m?rn3Y °'m
C c a a7 L _
L L p d d N C
T
3 f~j, T J a) D N a)
N > W L.. C CO
co 3 v apN a
T " C p N
co a a o Q? a
m m a) a
U
C
? N
U
C V .a)
y N >
CL N
m a 0
N
N
Z
C
? N
V
C V N
N N >
Q N N
mT Q. O
m
N
Z
QS
? a) m
U 3
C U N
N N >
O_ d
m> ? O
N
Z
c
7 (D
y
U
C V N
N y >
O_ N
m °
m
m
T
_
?° O =
m D
aEi
L
CL a) ...
ENa
Ea) Oaca
t s U S m m a) (D :s cm

O O
Q o
O O N
C °m a)Q
` m O?0 O
y
°) >
a
co
m 0 N 3 C=
N
r
o E
)
w
a
W » m > n. > c 0 '00
.C
13
0
RECEIVED
a??o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 18, 1996
W)V 2 51996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
. ,.,,u
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Eric Galamb
DEM
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
/117 Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee Meeting
The second US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday,
December 17, 1996 at 1:30 pm in the Board Room (Room 150) of the Transportation Building, 1
South Wilmington Street, Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the findings of the
comparison of potential Blowing Rock bypass alternatives prior to the selection of reasonable
alternatives for evaluation in the EIS.
Several alternatives are being evaluated, including some that cross the Blue Ridge Parkway in a
tunnel and ones that start near the southern end of the study area. Initially, the NCDOT had
decided not to study alternatives that crossed the Parkway because of high cost, a lower potential
to attract traffic and Section 4(f) limitations; however, based on comments by the Concerned
Citizens of Blowing Rock, other Citizens Advisory Committee members, and the Blowing Rock
Town Council, the NCDOT decided to evaluate the alternatives that were proposed by the
Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock, including three that have a tunnel under the Parkway.
We look forward to seeing you on December 17th. Should you have any questions prior to the
meeting, please contact Leigh Cobb at 919-733-7844, Ext. 260.
HFV/plr
¦r
Rod"-
b
a4)& GG
t .
f 110
LA)?
lot -
Lq L
4;w
C
d AIL---
ejA

.. . ,_
-

-

;.

,
jl?
??;
?;

- ,,-

-

_ ?:
,;
rt-
ii
_

?. , . _
?
_
`. i
,. 4 ,
.. -

-
.. _ .. _
_.

_
_

_ ;i?
._ ;f,
i?,
.,?
AI's
i t.
?;,

.

.
.
?

- ??
;.
t;,,
L'!
_
.
.. {

i ?
.,
/ j v
i; r.
li:
n;

-
'

?

- ??
:°Ii
t .
?.
..f
, P
_
?. I ?
Ii
:. ?
?1
-?
!.?

_

- -

? Sri
'.'::
???
??...
?E,

a i ' i ,r

t

-

:.
- f?+ .
__ ?_; _.
._

_ _ ?t
??:
ff;
.

az,'

_-

._ ?_
<<

{s

.;._ .. !E

?,
`j
l
?,
??F_
?,
ih ?
\ {:{
a - ??
{;?
_.
US 321
Steering
CommitteellInteragency
Meeting 2
December 17,1996
TIP No. R-2237C
. .
=Study Team's Criteria for Identifying
Potential Bypass Alternatives
• Neither cross nor use lands from the Blue Ridge
Parkway
• Avoid concentrations of development
• Avoid historic resources
• Follow the natural terrain as much as possible to
minimize the height of cuts and fills
• Meet federal and state design criteria for roads of this
type
• Consider locations suggested by citizens, refining
them as necessary to conform with the other criteria
M Citizens' Additional Criteria for Identifying
Potential Bypass Alternatives
• Preferably begin the bypass south of the "S" curves
at the last passing section on US 321 before Blowing
Rock

• Definitely begin south of the final sharp curves just
south of the Blowing Rock Town Limits
• Avoid dis lace-ment-
• Stay, ut of BTowin Rock d the Craig farm area
com
• Cross the Parkway in a tunnel
• As much as possible, use no more than a six percent
grade
1
M 17 Alternatives
Initial
• A and AG
• Band BG
• C and CG
• D and DG
Additional
• CC-AI, CC-AH, and
AJ
• CC-BI and CC-BH
• CC-CI and CC-CH
• E and F other combinations are possible
=Southern End Alternatives
• South of Falcon Crest Subdivision and
"S" Curves (all A's)
• North of Falcon Crest and South of "S"
Curves (all B's)
• North of "S" Curves and South of Sharp
Curves South of Blowing Rock (all C's)
• Near Town Limits of Blowing Rock (all
D's plus E and F)
2
=Northern End Alternatives
• Opossum Hollow Road South of Parkway
- Crest Blowing Rock flank near Parkway
Pass between Parkway and Assembly Grounds
lodge (A, B, C, D)
Pass south of lodge (AG, BG, CG, DG)
- Crest Blowing Rock flank near Green Hill
Pass south of lodge (E)
Pass between Parkway and Assembly Grounds
lodge (F)
=Northern End Alternatives
• Between Moses Cone Park and Parkway
(South of Parkway) -- Crest Blowing Rock
flank near Parkway and parallel Parkway
(CC-AH, CC-BH, CC-CH)
• Cross Parkway in a Tunnel to North of
Parkway
- West side of valley (CC-AI, CC-BI, CC-CI)
- East side of valley (AJ)
3
? Other Variations
• A's also vary in terms of:
- Where one crosses Bolick Road valley
- Whether or not displace Bailey Camp
Church and cemetery
• B's vary in terms of:
- Whether or not one crosses Bolick Road
valley
? Comparison of Alternatives
• All comparisons assume equivalent
projects. They all begin immediately
south of Falcon Crest and end at US 321
somewhere north of Blowing Rock. On
the south, shorter bypasses include the
applicable section of widening.
• Will focus on merits of corridors rather
than designs used in each corridors
4
=Construction Cost (millions)
Non-Tunnel
Alternatives
• A's = $51.0 - $92.6
• B's = $47.5 - $90.7
• C's = $46.8 - $68.1
• D's = $41.9 - $43.8
Tunnel
Alternatives'
• A=$114.3-$122.0
• B = $117.3
• C = $91.0
• E = $34.5 *Tunnel alternatives could cost less if
• F = $37.5 combined with a less costly south
approach.
=Southern End Alternatives --Travel
Characteristics
• The further south the bypass begins,
bypass users (7,200-11,000 ADT):
- Avoid more road construction, including
curve area
- Avoid more 6 to 8 percent grades on
existing road
• Bypass users miss up to 7 less than 50
mph curves just south of Blowing Rock
with A's, B's, and C's
5
=Southern End Alternatives -- Travel
Characteristics
• Existing US 321 users (4,400-7,500 ADT)
south of Blowing Rock enjoy
uncongested travel and other benefits of
an improved road longer the further
north the bypass begins
M Southern End Alternatives -- Potential
Displacement Below Blowing Dock Flank
• As, CC-BH, & CC-BI --1 or 2 homes,
could displace church and cemetery
• B & BG -- Approximately 8 homes
• C's -- Approximately 14 homes
• D's -- Approximately 12 homes and
Blackberry Ridge Condominiums
• E and F -- Approximately 12 homes
6
Southern End Alternatives -- Other Potential
Impacts Below Blowing Rock Flank
• The further south the bypass starts:
- Higher the impacts to undisturbed natural areas
- More avoid noise impacts
- More thoroughfare introduced to rural
communities
• With A's, earthwork on Locust Ridge in view
o lue Ridge Parkway and homes on flank
CC AI & CC-AH include a tall bridge across
olick Road valley (1,600-foot structure, ave.
height of 115 feet, max. height of 184 feet)
G
=Southern End Alternatives -- Cost
• Starting further north tends to decrease project cost
• Cost Variations Below Blowing Rock Flank -- A's
- The bridge across Bolick Road (CC-AH, CC-AI,
CC-BH, and CC-BI) increases cost by $4.4 million
- Saving the church and cemetery (CC-AH, CC-I,
and AJ) adds approximately $15.0i-p earthwork
costs ' ,1
• Cost Variations Below Blowing Rock Flank -- B's
- B and BG also avoid large bridge and avoid the
church without the extra earthwork costs, but
increases displacement
7
=Blowing Rock Flank Variations and
Displacement
CC-A's, AJ, CC-B's, and CC-C's avoid
displacing homes lining the flank
- Accomplished by crossing flank closer to the
Parkway, resulting in a deeper cut into hill west of
Green Hill Road
A, AG, B, BG, C, CG, and D displace
approximately 11-13 homes lining the flank
This trade-off merits further consideration, if
corridors retained
=Blowing Rock Flank Variations and
Displacement
* E -- Stays low on Green Hill as long as
possible and then quickly rises to the top of
the flank on a 8 percent grade
e F -- Uses a steady 5.5 percent grade to reach
Green Hill Road but the cut comes much
closer to the homes on Green Hill, two
additional homes are taken
This trade-off merits further consideration,
if either of these corridors is retained
8
M Visual Impact when Bypass is
on the Flank
• The higher the cuts in the flank, the more
likely they are to begin to appear in the
foreground of views of Blackberry
Valley/ Bailey Camp
• E and F generally remain outside the Blue
Ridge Parkway 1-mile viewshed
• All others are within the 1-mile Parkway
viewshed from Locust Ridge to the Parkway
=Northern End Alternatives --
Travel Characteristics
• Ending north of the Parkway reduces
the use of the Bypass; 2025 ADT would
be:
- 7,200 vehicles if end north of the Parkway
- Approximately 9,600 to 11,000 vehicles if
end south of the Parkway and bypass
shorter than the existing road (as low as
8,100 to 9,000 if bypass longer route)
9
=Northern End Alternatives --
Travel Characteristics
• Ending north of the Parkway increases
traffic on existing US 321; 2025 ADT
would increase from as little as :
- 5,000 vehicles to 7,500 south of Blowing
Rock
- 6,100 vehicles to 9,500 between Green Hill
Road and US 321 Business
- 6,900 vehicles to 9,400 US 321 Bus. and
Sunset Drive
=Northern End Alternatives --
Travel Characteristics
• Between Green Hill Road and US 321 Bus.,
traffic on the existing road would operate at
level of service (LOS):
- D in 2025 if the Parkway is crossed
- Less than D until approximately 2040 if the
Parkway is not crossed
• Between US 321 Bus. and US 221 traffic on
the existing road would operate at LOS D in
2025 with either alternative
10
=Northern End Alternatives --
Travel Characteristics
• Bypass will operate at LOS A with any
alternative
With the widening alternative, the widened road
between US 321 Bus. and US 221 will begin to
operate at LOS D in 2035 if average traffic growth
to 2025 continues
=Northern End Alternatives --
Potential for Displacement
• A, B, C, D -- 17 to 20 homes
• E -- 20 homes (3 are mobile homes)
• F -- 23 homes
• G's --18 to 19 homes (1 is mobile home)
• H's -- 2 homes and restaurant/ motel
• I's -- 21 homes (2 houses and 19 mobile
homes)
• J -- mini-storage (under construction)
11
=Northern End Alternatives --
Communities Affected
• A, B, C, D, & G's -- Craig family farm area on
Green Hill Road, Goforth Road area, and
Opossum Hollow Road area
• E -- Green Hill Road, Wonderland Drive, and
Opossum Hollow Road areas
• F -- Green Hill Road, Wonderland Drive,
Goforth Road, and Opossum Hollow Road
areas
• H's -- Craig family farm area
• I's & J -- Thunder Mountain Road area
Northern End Alternatives --
Communities Affected
• In all cases thoroughfare is introduced
to a rural or recreational home area
with only local roads
• H's, I's, and J would affect the fewest of
these communities
12
=Northern End Alternatives --
Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds
• A, B, C, D, F -- Bypass in cut replaces current
forest views; natural area used by retreat
participants altered; marked trail displaced; and
entrance altered
• E -- Crosses on corner at service entrance
• G's -- Within Assembly Grounds south of lodge;
service entrance altered
• H's -- Natural area used by retreat participants
altered and marked trail displaced
• I's and j -- Avoids
=Northern End Alternatives --
Blue Ridge Parkway
• No bypass alternative encroaches on
Parkway or Moses Cone Park lands
• Terrain blocks views of bypass from
Parkway:
- best with E, F, G's, I's, and J
- worst with H's
• With all alternatives except E, F, Is and J, no
trees to block views of bypass at Green Hill
Road
13
=Northern End Alternatives --
South of Parkway Cost
• Staying in valleys and steeper grades
reduces earthwork and cost
• G's appear to achieve shallower grades
(6.5% max.) at the lowest cost
• E designed with a 0.5-mile section of 8%
grade but has the least cut
=Northern End Alternatives --
South of Parkway Cost -- H's
• In deep cut almost their entire length
• Most consistently through higher terrain
• Assumes 6 to 6.5% bypass grades; steeper
bypass grades would reduce costs somewhat
• Difference in non-tunnel excavation costs
between CC-AH and CC-AI is $11.8 million
14
=Northern End Alternatives --
Wetlands Impacts
• E -- 0.7 acres
• F --1.1 acres
• AJ -- 3.4 acres (avoids 2 houses and 19
mobile homes)
• rest of alternatives -- none
=Northern End Alternatives --
Historic Architecture Impacts
• G's have regrading near Independent Baptist
Church [(Former) Blowing Rock Negro
Community Church]
• E and F have regrading near Matthews
House
• J is near a log cabin and other older home,
survey needed
• H's and I's have no potential impact
1A

15
I= Tunnel -- Length and Cost
• Two two-lane tunnels with mechanical
ventilation
• Cross at narrow point of Parkway
(approximately 1,000 feet border-to-border)
• Length
- I's =1,500 feet
- J =1,700 feet -
• Construction Cost
- I's = $32.3 million
- J = $35.4 million
? Tunnel -- Why So Long?
• Tunnel ends where portal height is less
than 40 feet
• Overall less costly than more cut and a
taller portal
Note that difference of 200 feet between
two tunnels results in a cost difference
of $3.1 million
16
Tunnel -- National Fire Protective
Association Standard 502
• Requires an immediate response capability
24-hours-a-day
• Staff needed:
- 5 Supervisors
- 5 Operators
- 13 Maintenance/ Response
• Equipment needed
- 1 Heavy wrecker/fire truck
- 1 Light wrecker
- 1 Van/utility vehicle
MT el -- Staff
• 23 persons spe 'fed would have a
payroll (exclud s benefits) of about
$500,000 per ar using NCDOT rates
Subcontractors also would be hired to
provide janitorial services, computer
maintenance, and major repair of tunnel
systems

17
M Tunnel and Corridors
• Tunnel could used with any A, B, C, or
D corridor
• The least expensive tunnel alternative
would use corridor D to approach the
tunnel (approximately $80 million
construction cost, including widening
leading to starting point of bypass)
=Summary -- Starting Further
South Results in:
• Additional construction period traffic benefits
• Operational benefits for bypass traffic
• Reduced operational benefits for traffic remaining on
US 321
• Less displacement
• Less impact on homes along US 321 and more in
rural communities east of US 321
• Higher cost
• Higher natural resource impacts
? Use of Locus Ridge increases Parkway visual impacts
18
=Summary -- Northern End
Alternatives
• Crossing the Parkway reduces the
effectiveness of the project in attracting traffic
from existing US 321
• Staying close to the Parkway or crossing it
reduces community impacts and
displacement (except I's) but project cost is
much higher
• E affects the Parkway the least visually; the
H's the most
=Summary -- Northern End
Alternatives
• A, B, C, D, F have the greatest impact on the
Assembly Grounds
• Staying in valleys and steeper grades reduces
earthwork and cost
• Generally minimal wetland impacts
• H's and I's are not in the proximity of historic
architectural resources
• Tunnels cost $32.3 and $35.4 million plus
annual operating costs
19
w
CD
CD
o_
N
N
CF)
W
w> -? nnm;x? m_ m rt1m?^ m m mm3 r3 r°o o O g On ° o m° o m? ° a ''R 3 O m 0-c ° o m Sim y ?.c D m mm m m c c c c S "i f>; 30mm-imm$ ? -? e 1m3c3° mA 'am 4<NA rnaI V,- m a, mm'a 0 g 0 gQ 0 Q 0 Q? ??-.ogmn m
?Q?m m Ohm
m? D.m?S mm .c.Fgc.mF >;Fg?Hm m" mc'm2?dS ? Dc.ogm6.mo m S jaa90
x4 r.-.mmN='"? m'm' om fin= mm omam y3 m3rmm " C. . iro? b r??n c3
1R mC mC ° pm C. mC 1 o?5 o a¢ o'3 d go w g m o m °m '> > w ?o
tz?
vi, 3 O m m tqi W W (1 W W O a 0 0. to 3 0 x m J 3 m m 3 vai m O O. m 8 3 ^ d 1° ° ti
(?
IJ
? H F? ?. I? F a 3 G S
N m m v 3. V 3 3_. 3? N v
R S S - _ _ i
o. ° N e 3 o 3 c 3 H
- m
W x O
pp m?
A
? m ?, F `?
a g m
O d A
O
N 93
O
A
f9
; 7' tp b O O N
6 m Q 7Q
m E N m
•m m N
O D Z
D N A ZZ

D D

N Oy
'

V m ?

= ?
V
N A I!' D
<
1' m g g mq A

{pp
8 m
x
m S
in Itn
j ry m 0 O Q
`< N N O N

rn S _.
m
b `.
7 p
8 t
tpp
N
Q?
m
N
10 n
?
?
w m i p O
(O
N G S
N
A
w 1pp
°1
A N m
S' N N
p N
CO ?y ?p
N
+
+ fA M N
0000 OON
C f
i Z N N ''
G y,<
fb -. +OO
S 3 S N O
j ry g
w ,
m ()
mD Q W Q
O O
O O W d
O CIV OOm 0100
.
E
o ?' ?' m O 0
r
m s m 0 8 m w a m a
g
A
:g 0 m ?
m
4
S
3
m °
_.
00 S
a
go N S
m m
N ?. O
m g 0 m ?
3
W? T A1o0 0 +0W
w 3.
4
o m S
c
m m
m m S N 0
N
'g0 x
?.amm
m
vg?Ao3?.g °c
oFgm m ?? s3 m
w
Nloooolow
,
m2m??`??E?T3
?'a
_
m m m g? m
? m m m N ?
E 0 a m ?
? S m
? g° ?
4
5. -100000-
ID
LID C
m
w 0
3° g m g m
m ? ??
m m S 1n
6i

NN
m Q N 3£
N N
?3
7 N ? ? J
S mlooo+om
p,
N ^
g m ?
m E a g `? 3 7
? c?3?m
c w -------
lb &
> D a c S a
0 "
Q
w g x
m F 0
q N S
aw
?
i
p
m
y
?
? ? s
y c, :o oo?oP
e.gE,N s?.5
m m
7
?
? C
N
n
m y ^:
E ?' m m? ?? g x
O
m N °
?
m
.
QC °
m £' g m 3
.
p
N? n y J ?. m? y? S 3 m, m
m
5
i
b c 0 A 10 O O+ m A
6.
n
g
m N S J N S
m C m
:0
0
7 m m °
? g
$gSo R 01000000
g m ? 5 4
< m pc m
m m S N m n
N
3m

9
m
a?
m
f
m
.
S. M7 3 !?oooo+o

m m m g
m 0

m
m m +
m
c 3 m b O O+ O V
m m g 0 y 0
m H r
g 0 =
G
£ m 0

m
3
c n
°
m
.
E
S
g O y j< m 0 m S c m
NNN 7
?
m 0 J ?
m w ...
VIO 00+ m V
.
4
. N
C.
m0 3fog omgm
m'
°-SR g - 0 w ch
_
i
m m m rn ..
a 0- g ?
Sm °m m ?m£
S
gcv "0 10 oooolNo
m w S ?"
m m m
'
m n
N
O
g<^?
m °?3m
mE
•E
m
3
0
5
0
v
< 3 W g g S
i3
2.2 10 0 0 o w
1? N N a? m m ??? m m n
z
x
? m
t0
?, N
CD j m
CD m
f n 10 0 0 0 W N
3 ? $ g 5 m
0
<
g o
0
m
m N S
3
m C)
c
?
3
_
10 (Dq 2; j E
7
m N Q m to q
EE 010000 O
ggw
3 m0 $
o

<•?m g m °
m m 7 V
n mD
O
0 mD
0
O mD
0
O m D
O
O mD
b
O mD
0
0
O mD
0 m D
O
O mD
0
n mD
O
O m D
0
O m D
b
O mD
O
O mD
O
n ma
O
O m D
O
N to
N N
Q N Q
O 0 n
0 8
N 10
Q A O
0 00
O
Q v v
00
O
Q V V
_ O.
00
0
N 10
f? V
O N O
O pN
O 8
V
N
A
0 00
O
N m
Q N 0
O p O
N O
O o
!D
? V V
_ !a
O 00
O
m p 1O
.0 8p
8 CA
O
m m
8 R
m A
8 0
m m
4 P
Y LN
8 a
CO
8 O
10
p A V
O O
0
V m
O O
v 0O
W
? Y
8D
N
O O
N O
N
Q N N
O
8 N
0
N ?
N
P N N
?o
8 0
O O
0 0
0 0
O O
O O
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
0 0
O O
O O
+ N
W
w
A N
N w
A
0 P
fJ IV
O N
v QI
O N
fV IV
O fJ
O N
o c
O W
O A
N N
IJ N
W W
.W..
W N
N fJ
O A
O i
O N
o OD
O N
o a
O w
o vA
N N
? m
(a
N
O W
O W
O N
O N
O O
O A
O fV
O N
O A
A
N N
W VD
nD A
V V
.-. N
v ?
N N
O in
w F?
A P
Vt UN
N N
v0 W
O v
8 CO
O 10
O V
O N
? r
W 0)
A Oo
8
N N
ID N
O V
W
O N
g
0
o
8 $
O N
8 IV
O
8
O °
8 O
O N
8
N ?
A W
N m
w
O aD
8
O U1
8
O Of
8 m
p V
O m
8 8
P
V A
N
8 8
O N
O W
8 P°"
W

P
(?pp NW
O+. 00 0
w vi
Z
A a
+ i0? NIV 00(.J
N
d
d

N
m ?n e» to .n ?p ?
N+ 080 V
r?'p
LN Z
N N
o
A W
OmG1 ? ? m
m
m
Cl
r'
N ?Aww ?yye?.n
A+ N O N O N Z 0111(((qqq
N p N
O m+ 0+ C J O N ? 0 0 0
m
d

A

W
+
+ W O N N

N
OD ? IV N la UN ip CL
Z FA Vf
0-
A A

? (J ?
N
n

N
fA fA ?q f9 fA fA N
m 100000 0 Z

? VP?VlN
N !V fV ? IV O O do ? N 10 N
N
d

m
f9 ER to fA f9 N

O m 000+ a

z _
Q t19p
A K/1 O a Cf N 0 0 v ? A 10
m
n
?m 1?^oa o`?m007i
Nknn V A W N O W Q) o g
? V
m
m
0.

(/?

v y
60 N
w O N A N V A
? O) A UN N GJ V M (A
2Z
V N
C
? v
J
a
a
n
m vvoo?ol+o ? ? 1?0
A 10 + O N 0 0 0 W D) A
N
in 0 V?000N
IW m+in N
i OD N
O O
0 + Oo m

W v. w
fAoofA c,N
O V OO
°J Z vi
O GDA fJ
iD t°> ONOO
O a i0
N
d
V ?+ O N W A m
do i0 to lV A W m+ a O m

(NJ 1tJ ?(n ?+?OO?V 1?0 ?? W
O I?OO V (J O t/N O 0 0 L ip O
awY'nYnr".D?o6m o t'
m (w +mV+00+ O to FFoo iO
o v N
A ?CVA [J A (J000 N
++ A V
8
o
8 A
w
N p
V +O O A m N1+ A

0 ?
'1N0
W
f
fJ L N0004 NA
W
ap
8 N a P Vn0W00N W 0
I u
o w
CL

Q
Y v!
O, M
3 19
0 Al
? n
N ?
N
a N
fD1
N ..

v
w
CD
N
O
N
N
0)
cS' v
? N
m v
n
?g
?Q
?a D
D °
^. D
S
n 0
c n
s D
PD
CD
°
W
S
°
W
n
i
CL
n
m
n
0
ID
m
T
m
CL
N
0
m
g
G
Q
qm
0
m
0
c
0
N
m
m
m
n
S
40
E
N
5 =
w Z
m
c
m O
f1 m >0* F

3 y y m 3 m
m m^ D c
a D@ m
D
j
m m d m J m 4
anm J - =j
" y f0
m
e y y Z
J
z
m
3 E C

m
m
' F m 7J H
$o' b m

? m a v n x
°
8 g F m 4 g
°
A
2
g m m
- =
p o o
i
m p
£
c° m
S t
g m n o^ O O s
v w
01 ° S ?' 2y g9.m
°a°5a
0mm?
?
m m y
y j n .

ga$ c CL ` 5-
g
n?3?
CL
aN2mCL m mVw?$pmOm

m
"
m
ng
c c 3F?a
OO
- S m B<
3 m ° m m m
N
mSE$ m a S$ Q0 m
a a m= n a m m o
9 ?• T T JJ
m='0 D Qg
g opQg
= a a m$ m
m
y 3°

z
m 00
mmm
-=?ammS.
J
O O
r
G
m m a NC
?
0
a s
.T
a
. 0

m
O
c
Cm m m
a g
a m m$ 3 y w z
p
3
x m m J Z ?' J m m$ m aW
o
J 2_
m
a m O O
a
c m m J
m
m 5 0 2 a m m 5. G w m m
is
2 £ ?
mn o a n a
= n n g°
a ?
0
Q
p
O j rp mV W$ 3 N m y R^ z
m m m iS ?co ya G) $ 3 m gy 0 0
2 31 m a C m J
2
ay
?
F m a
O
x
_
m.
a$ m m S m a So °'
w a= n n

o
?mm8"m2 Gg ?Sm -
'
m °' o m g'
m L7 m p m ro
7o
m a c m$ J m m rJ o m
1p w a
a
`? 4
g ta
?o
m
m
CL m m 5. F w m m .
y
a c o f 10
n :E a=g0. o n ` am AA
G1 w 'n D -? _? T
g°?ma3?mp4C T 31
0 .
CL
CL D x m-0 m O$° m a w °
c 3 x m a
o 0
g 3 _. m m 5tg A m m N; A m 0
mmm$ ?m m2m ago $
n
m m= m
J

o
a
a m
m
5-
m
m
g
m
3 m
x Q
a
aC)$ m
m m m a c 0 Z n 3
c 3 ?c m n o 0
m
9 .?ao m m.y m ma m NJ iom gym
n a n -$ a g° a m o
C)
m Q S,
ro D
o
?
v m
S' g a
3 N m d a
m m m m J m
c
n z

'o 1
c
m o 00

3

g o a
m a
o a s a= G 0.
g
a g
o to a o m a 3 N m m Z
p
x
?
m
m a
C 0 p 0 0
9
g m
m p
I
M
N m
m
n
S
Q
0
o m o
m.
n N m m m m n= a n g o n o

G7 m 0 J? y- m c 5 0
ga
m3
m
a= p 0 m
°
3m
,a
? m
CLm xmcg
CL 3 g'?+
CL
°
A
c 3 xm n 00
m= 3 .mc m
£n m m m m m
v o m p
ID ?z C, F O
n m n 10
a ca ?• a
ff 57 2 5' r
t°
,
= m cam- a 3
? 03R 3
c 3 Z '$ n o 0
n
M? c xm.F m CL Nom, tO ot°
0 C, CL
n D m O
o, m n
o
m m a
`-4
?
p m n
0
s
,?
.
?
m
nc m m 00
W
-? g
?=m n
$
?
g (Q m'Fd m N
m
- m£ a O
$
3 _.
. o
R o n a m n a g° a o
?. a
y y T
m3
@g
m
}J}' CD
O. Z C p C m c j 0

m

0 0
?^ m 5. Ei m m m x
_
o
? m o. g
a
a c
gn?am3 c
? °3ao
-anm g?
p xm''c c 3 m.n 00
$3 D ?Sps s nm Ȥ$ ms?
ma ``
am m ?Jm
g° n ° ? w
G
.
m o
m T D

= m m$ m m? 2L m 0
3 n
00
9= -?W ymam
F
°
o
a HJt0 w) m
Q
J
.
w
£
CLs maa30n o m
3w
m g
LD y
m mmm
g a 3
?Q34? 4 g vc?..aR 0
,(Q a° a$, _
CLm ?? o m wm?
gymsm m,
x m o c g d m

a$ a

3 n
21 z
m m w cn
m y
m' mm ry03
G) 0 m J lB m T ?g_3
J m
m a D >> p? g
m a?a
a= m F
a
O
m o
a
m m V? 31 n J m
m
'p
N N m ? w N?
$ $
am m?am
° gy
nm`o
n
m3a? $o m2
m

? m3am
? .
m
y

v
m A pw 0 A
`C N V m m IV
c 2
O .0 O M
9
o E 0 2
?
m D Z
D
?
T
W J, fmll ? ? N
m o
v0 O d n y A

m
o s m m m m O O E S
a c D m m o
4 m m °- a
a
m o 0 _
n
m o m N Q
o y m o m F° 2 ca m
v
?
S O? O
cL

N
o
o
o .A..
$
m n n °m 3 a:
y 3
n D H o
0 0 rr??
D lD m J O m co m .. (o
c3 g g S2"3?
?

v

m nQ
• 2'.2o cma
3 m
y o H o. a m a D g
m L7 m G) - c
m J =' x
5'
ex

A °

O O >
y m
7 g 3 m T J m, m a?
y 0 m y g
nm H.F
w 5. y 3 G fO m= 3 o
?
n> > N
o,QO' d xm nm
D
3 c ,? m m a 3
y

o m x o j 2
a m m

° n m a T.
a °
v$ 3a£
m
^ mco o oc73ma

O _x
m
°
v ?
v °
? o
]. ? N

of
m 2
c 3 - 2
v o..
o a xmamoa£
_ _ N m m 3 g
ng ()

0 0 °3':o^mm-
S
V m O
J y

lo G7
m m m m n, 'n J c ?
c 'mOnomm m
?
a 0 0 o- 3 a. 8 3 S. m
a v ?An ?°Q° o m x m o a m° c a a
y ,V n 3 n a D ?: o
m v v `G m

V
Is m °5'? x
D N m o a o m m °-' 4 f0
n
?
? °O m ? O?J
'3 aF
g y
?< n
3
g y x
J
y
co O N a 3 a a D =. 0=
tJ IV N

m
u,? J o m o J $ 2
m ac Dm m am cod ?(D
om iv =' a H m m o J m' o o. 9
-• ogi v: a 3 a 3 o c 'm

x m c
a
m
y° Q
w ?. °
ID
?? ?
rx3
o?v
N
c

Ql
N N a o x c g c x
a y
m E Q m
$ a
mio m
m
am am a? o $£
m

is 3 o `
3 m
We
°
m
m
am
n
0 W O _
m
d D
°
v o
0
N
j
O

ut

v
Ln o mo m ° p -? $ 2 .?
a J D m $ o$ m w m c m
y
m n
m o a
0 3
mmm a c
m
v i m 3 -o' O m m v c 3$
N g `° .? A d O= C O. E c 1 m
0
x0-? c' Z
° o o 3 m
c

^ ? m a 3 3 a O
m
m U J
3
N m or N x m o m n m W 3 a ..

?'
w

Ncn J m _ 0 7
m
ngDm3amm
ut ?0 m N x n m U j 3
s y 3
^ N
m -m °m
co °ga om
man o
a

W
N A m o Sy c
a m m
a J
' S
r
ut Of m o O
O
9 $
a m o. c a m 3 a£
r
nw o c x 3 3 w 3 m
owm°moc m
w uti m
'o = m 6 D m o=
.. o y

A

N? O O m
c 2
=g Dm?B?o

IV
°° Yn' y pp
m a m$ C$ n 1° 44 a£
..
0-
a
m -T
c
nom ? m oo_ a =
. o w
.2
° G o t = Q °

A
N V 2c o 0 37 m c' ?
O D a d .J. fp
u' co g m n3 c na?° aF
J 3 m 3
o m 3 o
N ?'o w o
m,a o S o a o o c a w
m oa °, m g? o o
N
0 o a m m
v° D$ am c
w mE11o So F
w
a, N
N o 3 m° m J S. a E
a o j Z A
mm O H 3 c n x a s
y 2
p o m
N p m m
5. g 3 O

.. Q
H m o F w m- `°

8 m
o 3:
W N m o g? 2
?
$ m?
m
W
v
UN O }
Q
mm Q ma m a m.
a F
N
_,
m. a O a o$ a
gg
goa
_
N o
o
o
o.
W! CL O m c m a J
p y 3 m
N
0

3O
r
N3
01
N
N
a
r
rt
N
Cd
54
`N
N
O
A
US 321 EIS Interagency/Steering Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 17, 1996
Purpose: To present for discussion and comment a comparison of 17 potential
Blowing Rock bypass alternatives.
• Introductions
• Criteria Used to Identify Bypass Alternatives
• Alternatives and Their Key Location Differences
• Comparison of Alternatives
Cost
Travel Characteristics
Potential for Environmental Impact
Reasons Behind Cost Variations
Discussion
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP Project R-2237C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes & Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan & Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
QX?FA
Oda
[D EHNR
February 17, 1997
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
RE: Widening of US 321 from NC 268 to SR 1370
Caldwell County
TIP No. R-2237A, TIP No. 8.T731301
On 27 January 1997 we received the revised application for
the abovementioned project. The original application was
received by DWQ on 27 September 1996. Therefore since the
original application was received before the effective date of
our revised 401 Certification rules, compensatory mitigation will
not be required by DWQ for this portion of the project. However
the total impact for this project is now 1.099 acres of wetland
fill. Therefore any additional wetland impact for segment B will
have to be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio for restoration or creation
_in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)(2). We urge your staff
to investigate the proposed wetland acquisition site (which is to
be used for enhancement and preservation) for the possible
creation/restoration portion for any additional wetland fill
elsewhere on the remainder of this project.
Please call me or Cyndi Bell at 733-1786 if you have any
questions.
Jn er ely,
Do ney
960946.mit
cc: Cyndi Bell
Alice Gordon, DOT
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501/6 recycle&100% post consumer paper
X00
YEARS
October 5, 1999
John Hennessy
NCDENR-Div. Of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621

RE: US 321 NEPA / 404 Merger Meeting for R-2237C,
US 321 Improvements at Blowing Rock
Dear John:
Parsons 909 Aviation Parkway
Brinckerhoff Suite 1500
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-467-7272
Fax: [phone]
This is to confirm that the US 321 NEPA / 404 Merger Meeting for R-2237C US
321 Improvements at Blowing Rock will take place on November 4, 1999 at
10:30am in the Century Center's Highway Design Conference Room, room 187.
The Century Center is at 1000 Birch Ridge Drive in Raleigh, North Carolina. You
may use entrance Al to reach the Highway Design Conference Room. A packet
of material that includes a statement of purpose and need for the project and a
description of the project's alternatives studies will be sent to you two weeks
prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in scheduling this meeting. If you have
any questions please contact Leigh Lane at NCDOT at 919-733-7844 x260.
Sincereiy,
PARSONS DR/NCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
John Page, AICP, CEP
Project Manager
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence