20100752_Environmental Impact Statement_19970219

US 321 Improvements EIS Study
Bypass Altematives Analysis
z
' T.I.P. No. R-2237C
State Project No. 6.739001T
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-321 (1) 10
Caldwell and Watauga Counties, North Carolina
t

'j8 !
R OU!vfSy fik"F'e try, ,? {
Prepared by
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
991 Aviation Parkway, Suite 500
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
i In association with
Environmental Services, Inc.
' Mattson, Alexander & Associates, Inc.
Prepared for
' North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
AUGUST° 1997
A

1

I

US 321 Improvements EIS Study
Bypass Alternatives Analysis
T.I.P. No. R-2237C
State Project No. 6.739001T
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-321 (1)
Caldwell and Watauga Counties, North Carolina
Prepared by
Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
991 Aviation Parkway, Suite 500
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
In association with
Environmental Services, Inc.
Mattson, Alexander & Associates, Inc.
Prepared for
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
AUGUST 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
' 1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY
1.3 PROJECT AREA
1.4 SUMMARY OF BYPASS ALTERNATIVES STUDY FINDINGS
1.4.1 Purpose and Need
1.4.2 Potential Bypass Alternatives
1.4.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Comparison to the Widening Alternative
'
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 PROJECT SETTING
2.1.1 Land Use and Character
2.1.2 Area Growth
2.1.3 Transportation Plans
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY
' 2.3 SYSTEM LINKAGE
2.4 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
' 2.5 NEED FOR ACTION
2.5.1 Thoroughfare Plans
2.5.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics
2.5.3 Highway Capacity
2.5.4 Accidents/Safety
2.5.5 Legislation
2.6 PURPOSE OF ACTION

FJ

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 SOCIAL
3.1.1 Caldwell County
3.1.2 Watauga County
3.1.3 Public Recreation Lands
3.1.4 Farmlands
3.1.5 Noise
3.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
3.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
3.2.1 Physical Resources
3.2.2 Biotic Resources
.3 HISTORIC RESOURCES
3.4 VISUAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Green Hill/Green Hill Road Area
3.4.2 Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds
3.4.3 Blue Ridge Parkway
1
1
1
1
3
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
10
14
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
26
28
28
28
28
4. IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL BYPASS
ALTERNATIVES 29
4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS 29
4. 1.1 Key Design Criteria 29

4.1.2 Initial Location Selection Criteria 29
4.1.3 Location Selection Criteria Requested by Citizen Representatives 31
5. POTENTIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES 32
5.1 INITIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES 33
5.2 ADDITIONAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES 33
5.2.1 Tunnel Alternatives 33
5.2.2 Additional Alternatives that Terminate South of the Parkway 36
5.3 MIXING AND MATCHING ALTERNATIVES 36
5.4 OTHER CITIZEN ALTERNATIVES 36
5.5 OTHER BYPASS ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 37
6. TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH A BLOWING ROCK
BYPASS 37
6.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 37
6.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE 39
6.2.1 Bypass 39
6.2.2 Existing US 321 39
6.2.3 Southern Terminus 42
6.2.4 Northern Terminus 42
6.3 CAPACITY SENSITIVE ANALYSIS 42
7. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES 44
7.1 SOUTH END ALTERNATIVES 49
7.1.1 "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" Alternatives 52
7.1.2 "C" and "CC-C" Alternatives 54
7.1.3 "D", "E", and "F" Alternatives 55
7.2 NORTH END ALTERNATIVES 56
7.2.1 Alternative E 56
7.2.2 Alternative F 57
7.2.3 Original A, B, C, and D Alternatives 58
7.2.4 "G" Alternative 59
7.2.5 "H" Alternative 60
7.2.6 "1" and "J" Alternatives 61
7.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 62
8. CONCLUSIONS 63
8.1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED. EVALUATION IN THE DEIS 64
8.1.1 South End Alternatives 64
8.1.2 North End Alternatives 64
8.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION IN THE DEIS 64
9. CITIZEN AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT, 67
9.1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 67
9.1.1 Newsletters 67
9.1.2 Citizens' Advisory Committee 68
9.1.3 Citizens Informational Workshops 70
9.1.4 Toll-Free Project Information Line 72
9.2 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 72
9.2.1 February 1, 1996 Meeting 72
iv

9.2.2 December 17, 1996 Meeting
9.3 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
10. REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
v
73
74
76
A-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 May Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 12
Table 2 Level of Service Criteria 12
Table 3 Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service 13
Table 4 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 14
Table 5 Accident Rates 15
Table 6 Noise Measurement Results 20
Table 7 May Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Bypass Alternatives 38
Table 8 Peak Hour Level of Service for Bypass Alternatives 40
Table 9 Intersection Level of Service for Bypass Alternatives 41
Table 10 Capacity Sensitive Analysis for Bypass Alternative 43
Table 11 Comparison of Bypass Alternatives 45
Table 12 Bypass Alternatives Preference Questionnaire Summary of Responses 75
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Area 2
Figure 2 Potential Bypass Alternatives 4
Figure 3 Existing and Forecast Average Daily Traffic 11
Figure 4 Streams and Wetlands 22
Figure 5 Historic Resources 27
Figure 6 Bypass Typical Section 30
Figure 7 Initial Potential Bypass Alternatives 34
Figure 8 Additional Potential Bypass Alternatives 35
Figure 9A Potential Bypass Alternatives: South End Alternatives 50
Figure 9B Potential Bypass Alternatives: North End Alternatives 51
Figure 10 Bypass Alternatives for Detailed Comparison in DEIS 66
vi

ALTERNATIVES STUDY REPORT
BLOWING ROCK BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve US 321 to a
multilane facility for a distance of approximately 7.0 kilometers (4.3 miles) in Caldwell and
Watauga Counties. Both widening the existing road and Blowing Rock bypass alternatives are
being considered. The project area for this bypass alternatives study extends as far south as 0.9
kilometer (0.6 mile) south of Falcon Crest Road (SR 1421) and as far north as the SR 1533 (Aho
Road)/US 321 intersection in order to capture the full range of potential bypass corridors (see
Figure 1).
1.2 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The US 321 EIS Study is being performed in three phases: 1) bypass alternatives study, II)
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public and agency review that
compares the widening and bypass alternatives, and III) preparation of a Final Environmental
Impact Statement that responds to public and agency comments and identifies a preferred
alternative. This report documents the findings of Phase I. Its purpose is to document the:
Project's purpose and need.
Selection of bypass alternatives for detailed evaluation in an Environmental Impact
Statement.
1.3 PROJECT AREA
The project area is shown in Figure 1 and consists of: US 321 on the west and southwest; the US
321/SR 1533 (Aho Road) intersection 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,
Horse Ridge, and Thunder Hill on the northeast. The project area was expanded in the middle of
the study to include an area north of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
1.4.1 Purpose and Need
1.4 SUMMARY OF BYPASS ALTERNATIVES STUDY FINDINGS
Consistency with County and State Plans
The 1981 Thoroughfare Plan for Caldwell County states that US 321 should be widened from two
to four lanes. The plan currently is being updated. The 1993 Thoroughfare Plan for Region D
(Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancy Counties) assumes that US 321 is

R
d
oa

' ? 1 ? : _ it /
i '
•
vC T if.D ?\ n C .
v
e dR,?, ? f G v
,. S'p( :'S Thunder

.
0ry
? Fi
ak
4
si-

'¦ ?dae a
-" 1 ? i ??x
t
4
{
I Chu York ? j ?: - df ?
! ,l ? c?
6

Hitt
??) I lo% n'k
I; 1? L P, 1' I 1) F .
i
?1 TA I G'0
)
-
(' v1 , )1, 1,13. Cr)
F_ =1
? L U x.
..
.,1
Qlack b.,rry ¦

¦

_
¦
US 3

PAY TEE' S(t ¦

Finn+n, c, , ¦
i

Falcon Crest
0 5 ?ROIkV-Knob 1 mile Rd (SR 7421)
..SCALE '-._--_ r ? "; ¦

LEGEND Project Area Figure
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ i Project Area Boundary
1

u

1
Fj
widened as specified in the Transportation Improvement Program. The Watauga County
component of the Region D plan was adopted by Watauga County.
In 1989, the North Carolina State legislature designated a network of US and NC highways as
intrastate corridors. The Intrastate System was established to connect major population centers
and provide safe, convenient travel for motorists. It is designed to support statewide growth and
development objectives (NCDOT, August 1992). US 321 is a part of the North Carolina Intrastate
System.
Improvement of Roadway Characteristics
Existing US 321 is substandard because of steep grades, sharp curves, and narrow pavement
widths. A widening alternative and each of the bypass alternatives would be an improvement
over these conditions. The further south a bypass begins, however, the more there is of US 321
that would remain unimproved. The closer the beginning of the bypass portion is to the southern
town limits of Blowing Rock, the less there is of US 321 that would remain unimproved.
Highway Capacity and Level of Service
The existing highway system lacks the capacity to handle projected traffic in the year 2025.
Either a four-lane road or a bypass will relieve forecast congestion on existing US 321. A bypass
with a Blue Ridge Parkway crossing would be less effective at reducing traffic on existing US
321.
The segment of US 321 south of Blowing Rock currently is operating at an undesirable peak hour
level of service E (defined in section 2.5.3). Traffic in Blowing Rock is 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.
Safety
Accident rates along the segment of US 321 in the project area are substantially higher than the
average accident rates for similar roads in North Carolina. 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. Although the number of
accidents could decrease on portions of US 321 that remain unimproved with the bypass
alternatives because of fewer vehicles on existing US 321, accident rates (based on vehicle
miles traveled) would remain unchanged..
1.4.2 Potential Bypass Alternatives
Engineering, traffic, and environmental considerations were used to evaluate initially ten potential
bypass location corridors. All included a northern terminus at Opossum Hollow Road south of
the Blue Ridge Parkway. At the urging of the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock and the
Blowing Rock Town Council, four potential corridors that cross the Blue Ridge Parkway in a
tunnel were added; three were proposed by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock, and one
was developed by the study team. Constraints primarily related to terrain resulted in tunnel
lengths longer than proposed by the Concerned Citizens. The Concerned Citizens' preferred
location for returning the bypass to US 321 south of the Parkway also was added and connected
to the southern termini of the three Concerned Citizens' corridors. The corridors are shown in
Figure 2. The initial 10 are A, B, C, D, AG, BG, CG, DG, E, and F. Those added later include
CC-AI, CC-BI, CC-Cl, and AJ, which cross under the Parkway in a tunnel, and CC-AH, CC-BH,
and CC-CH.
3

-All
CC-BI
BY
°
vY CC-C/ C
r

} CC AH/ : , : _ `
- CC-BH/ Tunnel r -
CC-CH Try

,
. r
r
? fy
c AG/BG/CG/DG . ?
u
f -
rkhaPyre c ?'? ' A/B/C/D

j AG/BG/CG/DG ?y
-

.. 5
F

r .
Y
?
? D/DG
I aUf;A t'0 .
A, CI I

. Mackbcrry
Bridge
J
RlovnnII Rocr? - -
r. 141 i;Yrt?,: t ¦
i
B/BG

rte'
C/C G
¦
Tt' A/AG/AJ
¦
CC-C ¦
PA`f' 'I IZSQN ¦

B /BG >
¦

r, ¦

CC-B
C-A

0 5 1m • ¦
Falcon Crest __
0 5 r' F u y Knob 1 mile Rd. (SR 1421)
SCALE] w.. . • ¦

LEGEND Potential Figure
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I Project Area Boundary Bypass Alternatives 2

1

All of the corridors south of Blowing Rock, except Alternatives E and F can be mixed and
matched with any ending point on the north. Alternative F can be combined with the northern
ending point associated with alternatives CC-AH, CC-BH, and CC-CH.
1.4.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Study and Comparison to the Widening
Alternative
Alternatives E; a combination of F with the northern ending point used for alternatives CC-AH,
CC-BH, and CC-CH (Alternative FH); CC-CH; CC-CI (includes a tunnel) will be studied in greater
detail and compared to the widening alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
These corridors were chosen for the following reasons:
Alternative E (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 1 in the DEIS)
- 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 when
compared to the other alternatives ending south of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Alternative FH (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 2 in the DEIS)
Like Alternative E, it can be designed to avoid area historic resources.
Its northern terminus is between the Blue Ridge Parkway and the northern-most
residential subdivision in Blowing Rock, unlike E, which terminates at Opossum
Hollow Road. The Blowing Rock Town Council and many members of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee have stated their objections to a northern terminus
at Opossum Hollow Road.
Alternative CC-CH (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 3 in the DEIS)
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 (20 to 45 mph design speeds) and steep grades (6.6 to 7.6
percent) would remain with the widening alternative. This feature is also
important to several citizen representatives.
Alternative CC-CI (tunnel; will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS)
- It avoids the Town of Blowing Rock by ending north of the Parkway, a feature
important to the Town Council of Blowing Rock and many members of the
project's Citizens' Advisory Committee.
- Like CC-CH, 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.
5

None of the alternatives selected for further study and comparison to the widening alternative
performs well on all evaluation criteria: engineering, cost, traffic, and environmental (natural and
social). Based on the information known to date, the NCDOT cannot conclude at this time that
any of the bypass alternatives are reasonable alternatives. Each of the four selected for further
evaluation offers a different set of trade-offs, particularly between social and natural resource
impacts. They, in combination with the widening alternative, appear to be a set of alternatives
that best represents the differing issues and concerns associated with the US 321 improvements
project.
The NCDOT will not select an alternative for implementation until after the DEIS is completed and
is reviewed by citizens and regulatory agencies. The alternative selected for implementation
could be one of the four bypass alternatives listed above or the widening alternative.
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 PROJECT SETTING
2.1.1 Land Use and Character
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). 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 the Green Park Historic district, which is
listed in 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. 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 commercial.
Development in Blowing Rock off of US 321 is primarily single-family residential. The Blue Ridge
Parkway is near the northern border of the project area. A church assembly grounds is adjacent
to the Parkway. Between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Aho Road (the northern boundary of the
project area), the small amount of development is primarily rural residential. Along US 321,
between the Parkway and Aho Road, there are a few commercial establishments on the east
side. At the intersection of US 321 and Aho Road, there is a mobile home park.
2.1.2 Area 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)
(NCDEHR, State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics). The rate of growth within
Caldwell County is slower than surrounding counties and the State of North Carolina.
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)
(Watauga County Planning Department). The census population figures do not represent the
seasonal/part-year residents. Blowing Rock's permanent population in 1990 was 1,248 (1990 US
Census). The town's population rises to about 10,000 persons in the summer months, as
estimated by Blowing Rock town staff.
6

Ll

F1

2.1.3 Transportation Plans
The project is included as TIP No. R-2237C in the 1997-2003 update of the North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (June 1996) covering the period from Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997 to FFY 2003. 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.
R-2237B Widen US 321 to a multi-lane road from SR 1370 (Nelson Chapel Road) to SR
1500 (Blackberry Road) in Caldwell County.
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 (part under construction).
U-2202 Widen US 221 to a multi-lane road from US 221/321 to US 421/NC 194 in Boone.
R-2566 Widen NC 105 to a multi-lane road from US 221 in Avery County to SR 1107 in
Boone (only planning and design scheduled).
U-2703 US 421 bypass south of Boone, part on new location (scheduled for
environmental review only).
R-2615 Widen US 421 to a multi-lane road from US 221 in Boone to the Tennessee State
Line (identified as a future need only).
2.2 PROJECT HISTORY
The improvement of most of US 321 to a multi-lane road is specified in the 1989 Highway Trust
Fund Act for North Carolina. In 1993, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared that
recommended widening US 321 from NC 268 in Patterson to US 221 in Blowing Rock. A Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was prepared for the southern 10.8 miles of the project area,
from NC 268 to SR 1500 (Blackberry Road). At public hearings, representatives of government,
businesses, Appalachian State University, and the public spoke in favor of a four-lane US 321
between Lenoir and Boone. In addition, many citizens from Blowing Rock and the State Historic
Preservation Office 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 a Blowing Rock bypass.
Widening US 321 to four lanes between NC 268 and SR 1500 will improve traffic flow and
' increase safety along that portion of US 321. The objectives of the state's intrastate corridor
system also will be met for that portion of US 321. These benefits will be achieved independent
of any improvements between SR 1500 and US 221.
2.3 SYSTEM LINKAGE
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. It is designed to
support statewide growth and development objectives. The intrastate system plan calls for the

widening of existing two-lane sections to multi-lane facilities. 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.
2.4 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
AppalCart, the Boone bus system, operates a morning and an afternoon bus to Blowing Rock
Monday through Friday. The bus makes two stops on US 321.
2.5 NEED FOR ACTION
The need for an improved US 321 is reflected in the following ways:
• The improvement is in the thoroughfare plans for both Caldwell and Watauga Counties.
• The existing road is substandard because of narrow pavement width, sharp curves and
steep grades. The improvement of roadway characteristics that currently increase the
potential for accidents would include the addition of through lanes and turning lanes,
wider shoulders, and straightening of substandard curves.
• The segment of US 321 south of Blowing Rock currently is operating at level of service E
(defined in section 2.5.3). Without improvements, the level of service will continue to
worsen and reach level of service F south of Blowing Rock and E and F in Blowing Rock
by 2025.
• Accident rates along the segment of US 321 in the project area are substantially higher
than the average accident rates for similar roads in North Carolina. The proposed
improvements 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.
• US 321 is a part of the North Carolina intrastate system. The system plan calls for the
widening of all existing two-lane sections within this corridor to multi-lane facilities.
These plans and needs are described in detail in the following paragraphs.
2.5.1 Thoroughfare Plans
The 1981 Thoroughfare Plan prepared by the NCDOT for Caldwell County states that existing US
321 should be adequate through 2000, but, ultimately, the number of lanes should be increased
from two to four. The Caldwell County Thoroughfare Plan currently is being updated. 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. The Watauga County component of
the Region D plan was adopted by Watauga County.
2.5.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics
US 321 is designated as a principal arterial in the statewide highway network and carries both
local and through traffic. The segment of US 321 to be examined in the Draft Environmental
8

1
Impact Statement includes up to 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) of rural highway south of Green Hill
Road and 3.5 kilometers (2.2 miles) of urban arterial in the Town of Blowing Rock.
Roadway Characteristics and Posted Speeds
The roadway 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 narrow 6.7-meter (22-foot) paved
travelway with a one-foot paved shoulder on each side and a speed limit of 80 kilometers per
hour (kph) [50 miles per hour (mph)]. The horizontal alignment is poor with numerous sharp
curves up to 30 degrees (60-meter radius) [design speed approximately 40 kph (25 mph)]. In
addition, the terrain is mountainous with steep grades between 6 and 8 percent occurring
regularly.

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 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile) long
with a 7.3-meter (24-foot) pavement width and a narrow travelway varying between 6.1 and 6.7
meters (20 and 22 feet). The speed limit is 60 kph (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 (70-meter radius) [design speed approximately 50 kph (30 mph)]. The terrain is
rolling with a maximum grade of 3.5 percent.
The 2.3-kilometer (1.4-mile) urban section between US 321 Business and US 221 has two lanes
with a pavement width varying between a narrow 6.1 meters and 11.0 meters (20 and 36 feet
with the wider width occurring where there is a turn lane) and a speed limit of 60 kph (35 mph).
The northernmost 0.16 kilometer (0.1 mile) of this section has four lanes. The alignment is
generally straight on rolling terrain with a maximum grade of seven percent.
Passing opportunities along the entire project length are limited because of the terrain and sight
distance restrictions.
Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Movements
There are no sidewalks along the project, except for a single sidewalk in front of the Green Park
Inn. A sidewalk is proposed in the Boone/Blowing Rock Alternative Transportation Plan (1997)
for US 321 between its intersection with US 321 Business to US 221. Concentrations of
pedestrian travel across US 321 occur at three points in Blowing Rock -- Green Hill Road area,
Sunset Drive and Opossum Hollow Road. In the Green Hill Road area, pedestrians cross US 321
between the Green Park Inn and a parking lot opposite the Inn. A pedestrian/bicycle path is
proposed along US 321 from its intersection with US 221 to the southern town limits of Boone. In
addition, bicycle routes are proposed for Opossum Hollow Road, Wonderland Drive, Goforth
Road and Green Hill Road. The plan in which these improvements are proposed was adopted
by the Boone Town Council in November 1995 and by the Blowing Rock Town Commission in
September 1994. It was submitted to the NCDOT in 1996 for funding.
9

Intersections and Access Control
The US 221, Sunset Drive and Shoppes on the Parkway/Opossum Hollow Road intersections, all
in Blowing Rock, are signalized. Traffic volumes on most intersecting roads are light. No
restriction on access to abutting properties applies.
Drainage Structures
There are no major drainage structures along the project.
School Bus Use
Elementary and high school bus routes use or cross US 321. The buses frequently enter and
exit US 321, but because of the arrangement of the route, the children do not need to cross US
321 to load or unload.
2.5.3 Highway Capacity
Traffic Volumes
Figure 3 and Table 1 show the average daily traffic (ADT) in May 1994 for each major link on US
321 and projected for 2025. The existing ADT in May ranged from 7,250 to 12,150 vehicles
through Blowing Rock and was 6,550 vehicles south of the town limits. The existing May ADT
figures are actual counts taken 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 projected traffic volumes for the design year 2025 are based on local
population and employment growth trends.
The 2025 May ADT would range between 12,450 and 24,900 vehicles through Blowing Rock,
depending upon the location, and would be about 14,100 vehicles south of the town limits. The
forecasts include-nine percent daily truck traffic on US 321. 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.
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
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 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.
10
i
Shoppes
on the
Parkway 1,950
3,050
US 221
F 11,400
N 24,300
4,250
8,350
8,900
18,100
4,200
7,550
US 321
Business
1,900
5,300
12,150
24,900
9,300
19,050
IN.
9,000
18,500
Opposum Hollow Road
600
950
Food Lion
1,150
2,200
9,500
19,000
Sunset Drive
1,050
7,400 1,600
15,100
6,500
12,450
8,150
\16,350
7,850
15,675
7,800
15,675
7,250
15,050
1,000 Green Hill Road
1,900
300 6,550 '
450 149105900
o
0
of
Legend
1994 May Average Daily Traffic
2025 May Average Daily Traffic
4
/ Goforth Road
200
300
Table 1
May Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Link Description
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-Shoppes on the Parkway
North of Shoppes on the Parkway
Table 2
Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service Traffic Flow on Roadways
Link Maximum
1994 2025
6,550 14,100
7,800 15,675
8,150 16,350
7,400 15,100
9,500 19,000
9,300 19,050
12,150 24,900
11,400 24,300
Delay at Delay at Two-
Signalized Way Stop
Intersection Intersection
A Free flowing traffic with little or no delays
B A stable flow with few congestion-related
restrictions on operating speed
C Stable flow but with more restrictions on speed
and changing lanes
D Approaches unstable conditions and passing
becomes extremely difficult. Motorists are delayed
an average of 75 percent of the time.
E The capacity of a roadway. Passing is virtually
impossible, speeds drop when slow vehicles or
other interruptions are encountered.
F Heavily congested flow with traffic demand
exceeding the capacity of the highway.
<= 5 sec <=5 sec
5-15 sec 5-10 sec
15-25 sec 10-20 sec
25-40 sec 20-30 sec
40-60 sec 30-45 sec
>60 sec >45 sec
12

1

New or upgraded roads in rural areas in North Carolina typically are designed for LOS C in the
design year. This policy is based on pages 89 to 92 of A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
1990). 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.
1994. Table 3 presents the peak-hour level of service for each road link. Table 4 summarizes
the level of service for each intersection. US 321 currently operates at LOS E south of Blowing
Rock. Since LOS E defines the capacity of the highway, it indicates high delays and little or no
passing opportunities during peak periods. A primary reason for this condition is the
mountainous terrain and resulting slow truck speeds. Through Blowing Rock, however, the level
of service is at or better than LOS C in all locations. All signalized and unsignalized intersections
currently operate at LOS C or better.
2025. Table 3 also includes level of service in 2025 for the No-Build Alternative. The road south
of Blowing Rock would operate at LOS F in the peak periods. 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 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 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 Manual of Traffic Signal Design, Second
Edition) indicated the need for traffic signals at these intersections by 2025.
Table 3
Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service
Link Description 1994 2025
South of Green Hill Road E F
Green Hill Road-Goforth Road C E
Goforth Road-US 321 Business C E
US 321 Business-Sunset Drive C F
Sunset Drive-Food Lion Driveway C F
Food Lion Driveway-US 221 C F
US 221-Shoppes on the Parkway C D
North of Shoppes on the Parkway A C
13

Table 4
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Intersection 1994 2025
US 321/Green Hill Road C F
US 321/Goforth Road B D
US 321/US 321 Business (Unsignalized) C F'
(Signalized) - B
US 321/Food Lion C2 F2
US 321/Sunset Drive (Signalized) B >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.
>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 results in much better level of
service in reality than the level of service analysis model indicates.
2.5.4 Accidents/Safety
Accident data for the project area were assessed for the period between January 1, 1991 and
December 31, 1994. 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 based on NCDOT data for the years 1992 through 1994.
The accident rates are accidents per 100 million vehicle-kilometers driven. Table 5 shows the
accident rates for the existing roadway and the average rates for rural and urban two-lane
roadways in North Carolina.
Rural Section
The rural section of US 321 in the project area starts at SR 1421 (Falcon Crest Road) and ends at
the Watauga County line. It has a total length of 5.7 kilometers. As indicated in Table 5, the
accident rate for the rural portion of the project area roadway (south of Blowing Rock) is
substantially higher than the state average for a roadway with similar characteristics. Though
there were no reported fatal accidents during the period, the total reported accident rate is 67
percent higher than the state average. The non-fatal accident rate is 78 percent higher than the
state average, and the property damage accident rate is 61 percent higher than the state
average.
The differences between Blowing Rock's three-year record of no fatalities and the statewide
averages for the same period are not statistically significant. It takes far more than three years
for 100 million kilometers of travel to occur on this segment of US 321 and the number of fatal
accidents in North Carolina is far lower than other types of accidents. Thus, the focus of this
study is on differences in total, non-fatal and property damage accidents.

14

Li

Table 5
Accident Rates'
NCDOT3
Average for
Existing2 2 Lanes
Accident Type US 321 Undivided
' Rural Section - Falcon Crest Road to
Watauga County Line
Fatal 0 1.55
Non-Fatal 90.95 51.09
' Property Damage 88.83 55.13
Total
179.78 107.77
Urban Section-Watauga County Line to
Opossum Hollow Road
Fatal 0 0.68
Non-Fatal 145.01 68.55
' Property Damage 154.08 96.59
Total 299.09 165.82

'Rates based upon 100 million vehicle kilometer exposure
2NCDOT accident data
' 3Average rates provided by NCDOT for rural two-lane US routes for 1992-1994
The type of accidents on the rural section can be divided into broad categories. Over 40
percent of the accidents involved single vehicles running off the road. In addition, 20 percent of
the accidents were the result of vehicles rear-ending a slower or stopped vehicle. The provision
of extra lanes and standard shoulders could reduce these accidents significantly. Improvement
of the sharp curves also could result in fewer vehicles running off the road. Locations with
' particularly high accident rates include some intersections and sharp curves through the rural
mountain section.
While weather plays a factor in some accidents, no specific trends were noted in the accident
t analysis. Accidents increased in the winter months between December and February,
presumably because of icy conditions. No data were available to measure the effect of fog on
accidents.
1
Two sections of the existing rural section of US 321 were identified as high accident locations.
Accidents at these locations typically reflected poor horizontal geometric conditions (sharp
curves). In addition, one high accident intersection was identified in the analysis. These
' locations are:
t Approximately 1.1 kilometer (0.7 mile) passing and reverse curve section south of SR
1500 (Blackberry Road) -- 27 total accidents
31 injuries
,
.
• Approximately 1.1 kilometer (0.7 mile) reverse curve section south of Blowing Rock Town
Limits -- 19 total accidents, 24 injuries.
• SR 1500 (Blackberry Road) Intersection -- 7 total accidents, 12 injuries.

15

Urban Section
The existing accident rates in Blowing Rock (urban section) are presented and compared with
North Carolina averages in Table 5. The total accident rate for the existing US 321 through
Blowing Rock is 80 percent higher than similar urban US routes in North Carolina. The non-fatal
injury accident rate is 112 percent higher than the state average, and the property damage
accident rate is 60 percent higher than the state average.
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 involved vehicles rear-ending slow or
stopped vehicles. In addition, between US 321 Business and US 221, accidents often were
related to traffic entering/exiting driveways. No weather-related trends were observed in the
urban section.
The analysis identified specific high accident locations. Of the six locations identified, five were
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
three closely spaced intersections with poor sight distance. The locations are:
• Green Hill Road (SR 1354)/Rock Road intersection -- 9 total accidents, 1 injury.
• Pinnacle Avenue, Country Club Road and Norwood Circle -- 12 total accidents, 7
injuries.
• US 321 Business intersection -- 13 total accidents, 8 injuries.
• Sunset Drive signalized intersection -- 13 total accidents, 7 injuries.
• US 221 signalized intersection -- 8 total accidents, 3 injuries.
• Shoppes on the Parkway signalized intersection -- 15 total accidents, 11 injuries.
2.5.5 Legislation
In 1989, the North Carolina State legislature designated a network of US and NC highways as
intrastate corridors. The Intrastate System was established to connect major population centers
and provide safe, convenient travel for motorists. It is designed to support statewide growth and
development objectives (NCDOT, August 1992). US 321 is a part of the North Carolina Intrastate
System.
2.6 PURPOSE OF ACTION
Based on the above description of needs, the purpose of the proposed project is to:
Meet the objectives of county thoroughfare plans and the 1989 Highway Trust Fund Act
Improve future traffic flow.
Reduce accidents.
16
11

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the existing social, natural resource, historic resource, and visual
characteristics within the project area. The descriptions of social and visual resources
encompass both the project area south of the Parkway and that north of the Parkway. The
natural resource and historic resource discussions only relate to the area south of the Parkway.
The characteristics described are those relevant to the comparison of potential bypass
alternatives presented later in this report. As a part of this analysis, a land suitability display was
prepared to identify land uses and sensitive features within the project area south of the
Parkway.
3.1 SOCIAL
This section describes the communities in the project area and their characteristics.
3.1.1 Caldwell County
The Caldwell County portion of the project area is in Patterson Township and consists primarily of
' the Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp community area. The township is predominantly white (99
percent), with an elderly population of 13 percent and a low income population of 12 percent.
These figures are slightly higher than those for the county as a whole (1990 Census of Population
and Housing). The median household income for the township is $21,767 compared to $25,691
' for Caldwell County.
Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp Community Area
' The Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp communities are sparsely populated and rural, consisting
largely of farms and forest. The area, approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) south of Blowing
Rock, is traversed by unpaved, narrow, winding roads with sections of steep grades. The two
primary roads are Blackberry Road and Bolick Road. Most homes are in the valleys, although
some are clustered on ridges. Community facilities include two churches, a school and a
"country" store. Several cemeteries are in the area. Along US 321, one can find a few single-
family homes and the Valley View Motel, which overlooks Blackberry Valley. Blackberry Ridge
a six-unit multi-family structure
is on the east side of US 321 north of this area.
condominiums
,
,
' Blowing Rock
The southern end of Blowing Rock is in Caldwell County and consists primarily of low-density,
single-family units. This area includes the Green Park Inn.
1
3.1.2 Watauga County
' The Watauga County portion of the project area consists primarily of the Town of Blowing Rock, a
resort village that is home to a large seasonal and retirement population. The town is
approximately 99 percent white, with an elderly population of 24 percent (compared to 97
percent and 11 percent, respectively, for Watauga County). According to town planners, the
seasonal population is approximately 10,000, just over eight times the permanent population in
' 1990. Census figures indicate that 46 percent of the dwelling units in Blowing Rock are second
homes. In 1990, the median income for Blowing Rock was $25,521 compared to $20,252 for
Watauga County (1990 Census of Population and Housing).

17

Green HilUGreen Hill Road Area
This area consists primarily of single-family second homes. Many overlook the Blackberry
Valley/Bailey Camp area. As one travels north on Green Hill Road and nears the Blue Ridge
Parkway, development transitions into a more rural, farm community. New second home
subdivisions are developing adjacent to Green Hill Road. The Blowing Rock Country Club golf
course and a church are also in this area. The Five Points (A.L. Shuford) House, a National
Register-eligible property, is on Green Hill Road.
The farming community near the north end of Green Hill Road includes the Craig farm. The
Craig property is adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway on Green Hill Road and between the Blue
Ridge Parkway and Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds. The property was split in 1935 when
right-of-way was acquired for the Blue Ridge Parkway. The construction of Green Hill Road and
Wonderland Drive further divided the original property. Descendants of the Craig family own
individual homes in the area.
Wonderland Drive Area.
This area lies between Green Hill and Goforth Roads. All of the homes along this winding,
partially paved road are adjacent to the golf course. Much of the land along Wonderland Drive is
undeveloped.
Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds Area
The Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds is a conference and retreat center sponsored by the
United Church of Christ. Its entrance is on Goforth Road and the grounds extend to the Blue
Ridge Parkway boundary. The Assembly Grounds was founded in the late 1940s. Most facilities
are congregated in one area and include a lodge, dormitories, and gym. Six two-bedroom
cottages are also on the property. Two miles of hiking trails and an open field used for recreation
lie between the lodge and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The woods in this area are used for high
school retreats with an ecology theme. A spring on the property is the source of the New River.
The Assembly Grounds can house approximately 400 guests.
Homes, including second homes, lie along Goforth Road opposite the Assembly Grounds.
Opossum Hollow Road Area
This area extends from Sunset Drive to the US 321/Shoppes on the Parkway intersection. It
contains a mixture of old and new homes and some commercial properties near the intersection
with US 321. An electrical substation is also near this intersection. The First Independent Baptist
Church, the former Blowing Rock Negro Community Church, is near Opossum Hollow Road. The
entrance to the Hillwinds Estates subdivision is on Opossum Hollow Road.
Thunder Mountain Road/Aho Road Area
This area lies just north of the Parkway and includes a cluster of homes on Thunder Mountain
Road and its environs and a mobile home park on Aho Road at its intersection with US 321.
Near the Parkway, the area consists largely of farmland and forest.
3.1.3 Public Recreation Lands
The project area contains the Blue Ridge Parkway and Moses Cone Memorial Park.
18
11
1 3.1.4 Farmlands
The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil
Conservation Service) has identified three general categories of important farmland soils --
' prime, unique, and statewide and local important. Prime, as well as statewide and local
important farmland soils, are found in the project area. Prime farmlands consist of soils that are
' best suited for producing food, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that
are favorable for production of sustained high yields with minimal inputs of energy and
resources. Farmland of statewide and local importance consists of soils that do not meet all of
the requirements for prime farmland because of steepness of slope, permeability, susceptibility
to erosion, low available water capacity, or some other soil property. Statewide and locally
important farmland, however, is considered valuable in the production of crops when managed
according to modern farming methods, including drainage to control excess water. Soils that
have a special set of properties that are unique to producing certain high-value crops meet the
' requirements for unique farmland.
About 7 percent, or 8,376 hectares (20,686 acres), of Caldwell County meet the requirements for
' prime farmland. There is no statewide or locally important farmland in Caldwell County. About
2.5 percent, or 2,081 hectares (5,140 acres), meet the requirements for prime and statewide (but
not locally) important in Watauga County.
r
3.1.5 Noise

I
I
I

I

I

Fundamental Concepts of Highway Noise
Environmental noise, intensity, or level is quantified in decibels (dB). The most commonly used
measure of noise level is the A-weighted sound level (dBA). Scientists have found that the
human ear is more sensitive to midrange frequencies than it is to either low or very high
frequencies. At the same sound level, midrange frequencies therefore are heard as louder than
low or very high frequencies. This characteristic of the human ear is taken into account in an A-
weighted sound level.
The sound level from any roadway fluctuates from moment to moment as time passes. To take
this into account, a common descriptor for environmental noise is Leq. Leq is defined as the
continuous A-weighted sound level that in a given time period contains the same energy as the
actual time varying sound during that period. Leq has been shown to be a particularly stable
descriptor for traffic noise assessment. Leq typically is evaluated over a one-hour period. All
noise levels determined in this study are one-hour Leq.
Existing Noise Levels
A noise measurement survey was conducted in the project area on May 20 and 21, 1996 to
document existing (i.e. ambient) noise levels. Sites selected were representative of noise
sensitive receptors within the project area. Table 6 lists the locations where measurements were
made and the measured Leq. The measurements were taken prior to the decision to expand the
project area to include the area north of the Parkway.
The locations were selected so that there were no or minimal buffers or barriers between the
roadway and receptor. Noise measurements were recorded for 10 to 20 minute periods. The
noise meter used for this project was a Typed Noise Level Analyzer B&K/2230. Accessories
included a B&K 4230 calibrator, and B&K 1565 microphone and windshield. The microphone
was placed five feet above the ground. Measured levels ranged from 41.0 dBA in the woods
along an Assembly Grounds' trail and 41.8 dBA on Green Hill to 53.0 dBA at a home below the
Valley View Motel (on US 321) and 53.4 dBA near a lunch stand on the Blowing Rock Country
Club's golf course.
19

Table 6
Noise Measurement Results
Noise
Site
Number
Location
Description Level
(dBA)
1 House on Blackberry Road Roadside 47.1
2 House east of Valley View Motel Roadside 53.0
3 House on Green Hill Circle facing water tank Parking lot 41.8
4 Thunder Hill Overlook on Blue Ridge Parkway Roadside 48.7
5 House on Tipton Lane (off Wonderland Drive) Roadside 42.4
6 Golf course on Goforth Road; near lunch stand Grassy surface 48.5, 53.4
7 Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds amphitheater Grassy surface 42.5
8 Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds on nature trails Grassy surface 41.0
9 Near antique shop on Opossum Hollow Road Roadside 48.9
3.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
A field reconnaissance within the bypass corridors (including their widening segments) and a
search of appropriate federal and state agency files were conducted to determine if there were
any potential hazardous material spill sites or potential underground storage tank sites adjacent
to any of the corridors south of the Parkway. The study was done prior to the decision to expand
the project area to include the area north of the Parkway. No potential hazardous material spill
sites were found. One potential underground storage tank site was found adjacent to US 321 at
SR 1422 (Old US 321) north of Harrison Cemetery.
3.2 NATURAL RESOURCES
This discussion of natural resources was prepared prior to the decision to expand the project
area to encompass the area north of the Parkway. That area is not expected to be substantially
different from the following description.
3.2.1 Physical Resources
Topography
The project area is situated in the Mountain physiographic province and within the Grandfather
Mountain Window geologic region. The area is underlain by lateral belts of Blowing Rock gneiss,
biotite granitic gneiss, Linville metadiabase, and metisiltstone (Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development [DNRCD], 1985).
Topographically, the project area can be separated into two regions. The southern and eastern
portion of the project area consists of the flanks of the Blue Ridge Mountains and is
characterized by steep, deeply dissected slopes. The northern and western portions of the
project area, the Blowing Rock plateau, are above the Blue Ridge Flank where topography is
20

much less severe. This region is characterized by hilly terrain with gentler slopes but steep
areas along drainage ways. Elevations within the project area range from a low of approximately
756 m (2,480 feet) mean sea level (MSL) in Bailey Camp Creek to a high of approximately 1,170
m (3,840 feet) MSL near the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds (USGS Boone and Globe
topographic quadrangle maps).
Soils
Soils on the steep, deeply dissected slopes of the Blue Ridge Flank consist primarily of the
Chestnut-Edneyville Association in Caldwell County (SCS 1989) and Stony rough land in
Watauga County (SCS 1944). These soils typically occur on 15 to 80 percent slopes, are well-
drained and formed in the residuum of metamorphic rock. Erosion is a severe hazard in areas
where the surface is bare or has been disturbed. A variety of soil mapping units occurs in the
area around Blowing Rock (above the Blue Ridge Flank), of which Ashe soils are most common.
This soil typically occurs on 30 to 60 percent slopes, is well-drained and is formed in the
residuum of granite, acidic gneiss and schist. Erosion is a moderate hazard in areas where the
surface is bare or disturbed.
Water Resources
Creeks and tributaries below Blowing Rock, on the Blue Ridge Flank, are part of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040101). Creeks and tributaries in the vicinity of
Blowing Rock, above the Blue Ridge Flanks, are part of the New River Basin (USGS Hydrologic
Unit 05050001).

1

1

u
The Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin streams drain the Blue Ridge Flank generally from northwest to
southeast. Named streams within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin portion of the project area
include Martin Branch, Bailey Camp Creek, Ooten Creek, and Jackson Camp Creek (shown in
Figure 4). All of these streams have been assigned a best usage classification of C Tr. Class C
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation involves human body contact with water on an infrequent or
incidental basis. Tr is a supplemental classification designating waters suitable for natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NC DEM, 1993).
Middle Fork of the South Fork of the New River is the only named stream within the New River
Basin portion of the project area. This stream has been assigned a best usage classification of
WS-IV +. Class WS IV waters are protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds. Discharge of treated water is granted under permits and local
programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. These
waters are also suitable for all Class C uses. The "+" designation indicates that these waters are
subject to a special management strategy concerning stormwater controls and water quality
standards in order to protect downstream waters designated as an Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW). The New River is considered an ORW because of portions of it are designated as wild
and scenic, although not the portion in the project area. This federal designation seeks to keep
such waters free-flowing by prohibiting dams and other obstructions.
3.2.2 Biotic Resources
Plant Communities
The project area is mostly forested because of its rugged terrain and inaccessibility. Existing US
321 is the only paved road that traverses the Blue Ridge Flank in the vicinity of the project area.
The few unpaved roads either follow ridge lines or streams. Only small areas adjacent to these
roads have been cleared for residential dwellings, usually accompanied by agricultural and
pastoral plots. Also associated with residential areas are orchards and Christmas tree
21
11

Road -:

.r t
r I

" G
e a
' •:.'n _ _ Thunder kitP\ pr . ?O .

ive
Ptr<.Y 4 ?-
7
0
?h

tf
°?
iaaie' I
? 4
Xl 1 1
old f, . '. Hill
fry 1 lowing T? ?: ? cs. ?

a I: 1. I: I r, t. I

- / B!ackborry ¦
-
dio w,ng F•c[Nr

¦

C/, r
? .I, ? ' finny ¦

11 AT T T,, 11

?? ' "M '

hm F81fDf Crest ___
q 5 1
?\
l
Roc- v linoh Nd tSR 1421
0 .5 1 mile ??.,, ¦
SCALE' ?? /
r,
LEGEND
¦ = m a o i Area Surveyed Streams and Figure
Bank-to-Bank Stream Wetlands 4
•••••-•••••• Stream with Adjacent Wetlands

plantations. Within the project area, four broad classifications of plant communities were
identified: one natural community, cove forest; and three variations of disturbed land:
pastoral/agricultural land, plantation/orchard and residential/disturbed land.
Cove Forest. The cove forest is a diverse community, documented by Schafale and Weakley
(1990), that supports a mixture of hardwoods and conifers in the canopy. The canopy is typically
characterized by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), red
maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet pignut hickory (Carya glabra),
fraser magnolia (Magnolia fraserl), and rock chestnut oak (Quercus montana). The cove forest
has a relatively open subcanopy including saplings of canopy species, witch hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), cherry birch (Betula lutea), and sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum). This community can be separated into two subtypes based on
orientation: the rich cove forest and the acidic cove forest. The rich cove forest is primarily
found on south-facing slopes, which receive more sunlight and, therefore, are warmer and drier
than north-facing slopes. Acidic cove forests occur on north-facing slopes, which are typically
shady, cooler and moister. The rich cove forest supports a variety of shrubs and herbs, while the
acidic cove forest is dominated by ericaceous shrubs such as rosebay rhododendron
(Rhododendron maxim) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).
In some areas, the cove forest displays signs of past logging. These areas were left with
sufficient cull trees and are succeeding rapidly to steady-state conditions. Therefore, these
successional areas were included in this community description.
Pastoral/Aaricultural Land. Most of this community comprises cow and horse pastures adjacent
to residential dwellings. Scattered trees include red maple and black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia). These areas support a variety of herbs and grasses. Agricultural plots are
small, and principle crops include corn (Zea mays) and wheat (Triticum sp.).
Plantation Orchard. This community is the result of clearing native vegetation and deliberate
planting and maintenance for Christmas tree and fruit production. Christmas tree plantations
consist primarily of Fraser fir (Abies frasen). Orchards contain apple (Pyrus malus) and pecan
(Carya illinoensis) trees.
Residential/Disturbed Land. This community has been altered substantially from the natural
condition and includes housing developments, maintained rights-of-way, roads, and roadside
margins. Some of these areas have been overrun with invasive weedy species where left
untended.
'
Wetlands and Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, by regulation, wetlands also are considered
"waters of the United States" (33 CRF 328.3). Wetlands are defined by the presence of three
criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and evidence of hydrology during the growing
season (DOA, 1987). The location of wetlands and water bodies in the project area south of the
' Blue Ridge Parkway is shown in Figure 4.
' Rivers and streams within the project area are riverine in nature as defined by Cowardin et al.
(1979), while wetlands in the project area are palustrine in nature. Jurisdictional areas in the
project area are limited in extent and consist of the types described below.
' The rivers and streams are primarily bank-to-bank, surface water systems and are considered
riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently-flooded (R3UBH) systems.

23

These systems are typically steep, with gravel, cobble or boulder substrates. They gather water
from seeps and precipitation and channel it rapidly out of the area.
Man-made ponds in the project area are considered palustrine, unconsolidated bottom,
permanently-flooded, impounded (PUBHh) systems. These appear to have been created
primarily for recreational fishing and as reservoirs for crop irrigation and livestock watering.
Bog wetlands adjacent to streams are considered palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous/needle-leaved evergreen, semipermanently-flooded (PFO 1/4F) systems. These
wetlands support a canopy of red maple, sweet birch and eastern hemlock. The shrub layer
may be dominated by rosebay rhododendron. Many herbs and mosses that have adapted to
wetland hydrology carpet the wetland.
Protected Species
Federal Species. The following federal-protected Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Proposed
(P) species are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having ranges that extend
into Caldwell (C) and Watauga (W) Counties as of May 2, 1997:
Status County
Spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga) E C
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus E W
coloratus)
Spreading avens (Geum radiatium) E W
Roan Mountain bluet (Houstania montana) E W
Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen) T C,W
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergil) P W
The Spruce-fir moss spider inhabits moss mats that grow on rocks and boulders under high-
altitude spruce-fir forests in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Adults are only 0.3 to 0.5
centimeters (0.1 to 0.2 inches) in length. This species is extremely vulnerable to desiccation and
is adapted to the high rainfall of these mountains and the moist environment provided by the
mosses (Harp, 1992). The preferred habitat of the Spruce-fir moss spider does not occur within
the project area, and no records of this species are known from the project area.
The northern flying squirrel is a nocturnal denizen of mixed and coniferous forests in the northern
United States and Canada. Adults range in size from 26 to 32 centimeters (10.5 to 12.5 inches)
long. This squirrel has a loose, furred fold of skin on each side of the body between the wrists
and the ankles that can be spread to form the wings for gliding. The northern flying squirrel is
known from high-elevation, isolated pockets in the mountains of North Carolina, including Roan
Mountain, Mt. Mitchell, and The Great Smokey Mountains (Wiegl, 1987). The preferred habitat of
the northern flying squirrel does not occur within the project area, and no records of this species
are known from the project area.
Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb that grow to 51 centimeters (20
inches) tall. Bright yellow, five-petaled flowers are produced from June to August (Massey et al,
1983). Spreading avens is found in a few northwestern counties of North Carolina and in nearby
counties of Tennessee. This species usually occurs at elevations greater than 1,524
meters(5,000 feet) on mountain balds, in crevices of granitic rock, or in grassy clearings; it
cannot tolerate shading or crowding (Kral, 1983). Preferred habitat of spreading avens does not
occur within the project area, and no records are known from the project area.
24

' Roan Mountain bluet is a low, erect to spreading perennial herb that grows to 15 centimeters (6
inches) high. Small, deep purple flowers are produced in June and July. This species is
' endemic to the high Blue Ridge mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee, mostly from 1,280
to 1,920 meters (4,200 to 6,300 feet) in elevation. The Roan Mountain bluet grows in crevices of
rock outcrops or in thin, frost heaved, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops
(Weakley, 1993). The preferred habitat of this species does not occur in the project area, and no
' records are known from the project area.
Heller's Blazing star is an erect, herbaceous perennial that grows to 41 centimeters (16 inches)
high. Small purple to lavender tubular flowers bloom from July to September (Massey et al.,
' 1983). Distribution of Heller's blazing star is limited mostly to the mountains of North Carolina.
Heller's blazing star is usually found in full sun growing in shallow, acid soils on granitic outcrops,
ledges and cliff faces (Kral, 1983). The preferred habitat of this species only occurs adjacent to
US 321. Heller's Blazing star was not found during a survey of bare, cut rock faces along
existing US 321 in August 1994.
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 8 to 10 cm (3 to 5 inches).
' This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or
yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al., 1980). The bog turtle population
' has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range because of over-collection and
habitat alteration. As a result, the USFWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal
Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range; and
within the southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is proposed
for listing as threatened because of its similarity of appearance to the northern population. The
' proposed listing would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting
from otherwise lawful activity.

I
I

The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with
aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and
Braswell, 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the mountains
and western piedmont. The preferred habitat of this species occurs within the project area (bog
wetlands associated with the stream adjacent to Wonderland Drive, crossed by Alternatives E
and F); however, the bog turtle has not been documented from the project area.
Federal Species of Concern. The May 2, 1997 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as Federal Species of Concern (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal.
protection for the species listed. There are 13 species with this designation listed for Caldwell
County and 17 species with this designation listed for Watauga County.
Common Name Scientific Name County Potential Habitat
Hellbender Cryptobranchus W Yes
alleganiensis
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea W Yes
Alleghany woodrat Neotama magister C, W Yes
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus W Yes
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obsurus W Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus W No
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana C,W Yes
Margarita River Macromia margarita C No
skimmer
Edmund's snaketail Ophiogomphus edmundo C Yes
dragonfly
Fraser fir Abies fraseri C,W No
25

Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis C,W Yes
Bent avens Geum geniculatum C,W Yes
Butternut Juglans cinerea CA Yes
Gray's lily Lilium grayi C,W Yes
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum W No
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea W No
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena W Yes
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata CA Yes
Riparian vervain Verbena riparia C Yes
A liverwart Bazzania nudicaulis C,W No
A liverwart Plagiochila sullivantii C Yes
No FSC-designated species have been documented within the project area according to Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) records (July, 1997). FSC-designated species that have been
documented in the vicinity of the project area include gray's lily, which has been documented
approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) north of the project area in Moses Cone Memorial Park on
the Blue Ridge Parkway; and the Allegheny woodrat, which has been documented approximately
0.3 kilometer (0.2 mile) west of the project area near "The Blowing Rock."
Habitat of many of these species occurs within the project area. The hellbender and Margarita
River skimmer (dragonfly) are associated with larger streams; the cerulean warbler occurs on
steep slopes and coves; the Allegheny woodrat, Appalachian cottontail, and sweet pinesap
occur in rocky thickets and forests; the southern water shrew, Edmund's snaketail dragonfly,
mountain bittercress, bent avens, and riparian vervain occur on montane stream banks; the
Diana fritillary butterfly and butternut occur in rich forests; and gray's lily and bog bluegrass
occur in bog wetlands. No FSC species were observed during site visits.
State Species. Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North
Carolina status of Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 etseq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). Based on a review of National Heritage
Program (NHP) files (May 28, 1996), several state-listed species are known to occur within 3.2
kilometers (2 miles) of the project area.
Queen-of-the-prairie (Filipendula rubra) is a State Endangered grass that has been documented
approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) from the project area, adjacent to the east side of US
221/321 just north of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Gray's lily (Lilium grays) is a State Threatened herb
that has been documented approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) north of the project area in
Moses Cone Memorial Park on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma
floridana magister) is a State species of Special Concern that has been documented
approximately 0.3 kilometers (0.2 mile) west of the project area near "The Blowing Rock."
3.3 HISTORIC RESOURCES
An historic architectural survey found that the project area contains one National Register historic
district, Green Park Historic District, and two resources individually listed in the National Register,
the Green Park Inn and the Bollinger-Hartley House. No properties are on the Department of
Cultural Resources Study List. One property within the project area, the Five Points (A.L. Shuford
House), is considered individually eligible for the National Register. A second property, the
Young-Shaw-Steele House, is considered to be eligible for the National Register as an expansion
of the Green Park Historic District. These properties are shown in Figure 5 and descriptions are
provided in the Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey (March 1996) and Phase 11
26

11 .??- (?, 1 I1 I ?U - I.
Ruad
.

Bollinger
Hartley House

Thunc r4

-Amr -
-Shaw
Youn
g " VP
?
-
Steele Hou
l,
F` ?r ??
v ??Y
L ) I
,
pp r
...
.'
TI
.
'i ?;;
? h.l'ht, F ?rl
Af„TIC .

Hill __._--

?? CV R
Green Park

Inn
a Fi v 11T'O 1 ('U
A

e L V IF- 2 ?
" .. Qlnckhcrry ¦

? I kllD ?iCl KDG ? ¦

¦

¦

I' TThI:>t>;v ¦

J? Ror,bi? vGa,. ¦

0 .5 1 kin ?, `' ¦
Falcon Crest
(SR 1321}
Rd
K
t
,
0 5
roh 1 mile
Poc v
?

? r ¦
???
SCALE/)

LEGEND
¦ ¦ Area Surveyed O National Register-Listed Property ¦,?
¦ istoric
Figure
Bypass Alternatives O Individually Eligible Property Resources 5

Eligible as Expansion of Historic District
No*
Architectural Survey (February 1997). A field visit revealed two old houses on Thunder Mountain
Road north of the Parkway, but no survey has been done to determine their eligibility.
3.4 VISUAL RESOURCES
The project area is in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina, a very scenic section
of the state. This area attracts many tourists because of its natural beauty and visual quality.
With the exception of an area at the southern end of the project area, which was clear cut in
1992, the entire project area is attractive visually, both north and south of the Blue Ridge
Parkway. There are three locations in the area containing the potential bypass alternatives,
however, that contain particularly high quality views. These are the Green Hill/Green Hill Road
area, Assembly Grounds area, and the Blue Ridge Parkway.
3.4.1 Green Hill/Green Hill Road Area
High Quality Views
Many homes that line the ridge just east of Green Hill and Green Hill Road overlook the
Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp area. These are long-distance views overlooking numerous hills
and valleys. The hills are forested. The bottoms of the valleys are developed as described in
section 3.1.1 under "Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp Community Area." At some locations, the
vegetation partially obscures views.
Viewers
Residents of the homes lining the ridge are the primary viewers. There are no public viewpoints.
This view cannot be seen from public roads.
3.4.2 Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds
High Quality Views
The main entrance to the lodge at the Assembly Grounds lodge overlooks the dense forest on
the hillside between the lodge and the Blue Ridge Parkway. An open, grassy area lies below the
lodge in the foreground. The view can best be seen after walking across the parking lot at the
main entrance to the lodge. The view is the only one from the lodge that conveys the sense of
remoteness desired at a retreat center.
Viewers
Persons attending retreats at the Assembly Grounds are the viewers. There are no public
viewpoints. This view cannot be seen from public roads.
3.4.3 Blue Ridge Parkway
High Quality Views
The Blue Ridge Parkway is a National Park whose primary feature is a recreational road that
offers drivers views of the mountains and the valleys below them. As such, the attractiveness of
all views from the Parkway is important to achieving the Parkway's objectives. Protection of high
quality views is a high priority for Parkway officials, particularly views from scenic viewpoints
where drivers can stop along the Parkway and views that remain in the view of passengers in
moving vehicles for longer than the few moments it takes to pass by them.
28
Most views from the Parkway into the project area are blocked by intervening hills and trees.
This is particularly true west of Green Hill Road. At two locations, however, the project area can
be seen readily from the Parkway. The first is the Thunder Hill overlook. Here, a parking lot is
provided so Parkway visitors can stop and view Blackberry Valley and the surrounding hills. The
landscape viewed is, for the most part, the same as that viewed from homes lining the Blue
Ridge Flank east of Green Hill Road, although from a different angle. The view to the right from
the Thunder Hill overlook includes the Blue Ridge Flank. Much of the flank is forested. Homes
lining the top of the flank can be seen but are quite small because they are approximately 1,100
meters (3,600 feet) from the overlook. The view of the flank is partially blocked by Locust Ridge,
which extends away from and perpendicular to the flank.
The second view of the project area from the Parkway is the Green Hill Road area. No
opportunities to stop are provided to motorists, but views here are primarily open farmland,
providing motorists with a roadside view that lasts more than a few moments. Motorists can see
open pasture and some cultivated fields, as well as homes and other buildings, primarily those
associated with the farmland. The open lands extend to the Parkway boundary.
Finally, Parkway officials also prefer that terrain be the primary determinant of whether
development is being introduced to Parkway views. This position assumes that vegetation that
now blocks views of development later could die, exposing additional development. Without
existing vegetation, lands in the Thunder Mountain Road, Assembly Grounds, and Hillside
Estates areas could be viewed from the Parkway.
Viewers
Viewers are the Blue Ridge Parkway users.
4. IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL
BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
4A DESIGN CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS
4.1.1 Key Design Criteria
The design criteria and typical section used for the development of bypass alternatives are the
same as those used for the widening alternative south of Blowing Rock. The functional
classification of a Blowing Rock bypass would be rural arterial. The design speed assumed is 80
kph (50 mph). The typical section used (shown in Figure 6) includes four 3.6-meter (12-foot)
travel lanes with a 1.2-meter (4-foot) flush median. Three-meter (10-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2
meters (4 feet) would be paved, are assumed. Because of the project area's mountainous
terrain, a preferred maximum grade of seven percent is assumed, with an allowed maximum
grade of eight percent.
4.1.2 Initial Location Selection Criteria
The following criteria were chosen initially by the study team for identifying potential bypass
alternatives:
Neither cross nor use lands from the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Avoid concentrations of development.
29
CR
f`-

co
ti
, r
/
, r
,
,
1
i
r
r
r
r
r
ti
,
i
,
,
f
,
,
_\? /
co
o
/ O
O
J
Q
Z
/ O

• Avoid historic resources.
• Follow the natural terrain as much as possible to minimize heights 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.
Bypass alternatives that crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway were not proposed initially because:
Crossing the Parkway would reduce the effectiveness of the bypass in attracting traffic
from existing US 321 to the bypass. The opportunity for the bypass to attract some local
trips would be lost because the northern terminus would be well north of Blowing Rock's
commercial areas. Through trips between the Parkway and points south of Blowing
Rock would remain on existing US 321 unless the Parkway crossing included an
intersection or an interchange (see section 6.1).
• A surface crossing would require a deep cut in the ridge paralleling the Parkway and,
thus, would have a substantial visual impact on the Parkway.
• A tunnel under the Parkway would be extremely expensive.
' The Blue Ridge Parkway is both a public park and an historic resource. Its application
for National Landmark status is pending. Federal law requires there be no other prudent
and feasible alternative to use of lands from public parks and historic resources. A
surface crossing of the Parkway would use park lands.
1

• In order to use lands from the Parkway, the NCDOT would have to purchase new
Parkway lands from the list of high priority lands included in the Parkway's approved
Land Use Action Plan.
• The Environmental Impact Statement would need to evaluate the cumulative impact of
the new crossing combined with all past, present and reasonable future actions affecting
the Parkway regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes
such actions. This would include all past and planned roadway projects affecting the
Parkway since its construction.
All of the initial alternatives ended at Opossum Hollow Road. A terminus closer to the Parkway
was not considered initially because, although it would reduce residential impacts, it would
require a deep cut into an existing knob in order to keep the bypass' grades within the design
criteria limits (eight percent). In contrast, there is a narrow valley at the Opossum Hollow Road
location that would reduce the amount of earthwork required to build the bypass. A terminus
closer to the Parkway ultimately was considered.
4.1.3 Location Selection Criteria Requested by Citizen Representatives
The Blowing Rock Town Council, the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock, and other citizens felt
that their interests were not being represented by the initial bypass locations identified by the
study team based on the location and design criteria presented in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.
Therefore, the study team evaluated several additional alternatives.
31

Location criteria particularly important to the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock were:
• 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 displacement.
• Stay out of Blowing Rock completely.
• Cross the Parkway in a tunnel that is as short as possible. If one must remain south of
the Parkway, parallel the Parkway as closely as possible.
• Minimize the use of grades greater than six percent.
The study team developed designs for and evaluated three alternatives proposed by the
Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock that included a tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway. The
locations suggested by the citizens were used. Designs developed for these alternatives were
reviewed with representatives of the Concerned Citizens prior to their completion. Grades
greater that six percent were minimized; otherwise, the study team's design criteria were
assumed. The completed designs conformed to the specifications requested by the Concerned
Citizens except for 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.
The study team also developed designs for a tunnel alternative along a corridor preferred by the
study team that was consistent with the Concerned Citizen's criteria listed above.
Finally, the study team examined the means for returning to US 321 just south of the Parkway as
suggested by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock. It rejoins US 321 at the New River Inn
rather than Opossum Hollow Road and stays as close to the Blue Ridge Parkway boundaries as
possible.
S. POTENTIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the potential bypass alternatives examined by the study team. The study
team's initial bypass corridors are presented along with the additional alternatives developed in
response to public comment. All of the alternatives are evaluated in section 6.
32

I
5.1 INITIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
Ten bypass alternatives were selected initially for evaluation by the study team. They are shown
in Figure 7 and are:
• A -- Begins just south of Falcon Crest Road, tops the Blue Ridge Flank near the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and goes between the Assembly Grounds lodge and the Parkway to
Opossum Hollow Road.
• AG -- Same as A, except it goes south of the Assembly Grounds lodge to Opossum
Hollow Road.
• B -- Begins just north of Harrison Cemetery, tops the Blue Ridge Flank near the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and goes between the Assembly Grounds lodge and the Parkway to
Opossum Hollow Road.
• BG -- Same as B, except it goes south of the Assembly Grounds lodge to Opossum
Hollow Road.
• C -- Begins near Greene Cemetery, tops the Blue Ridge Flank near the Blue Ridge
Parkway, and goes between the Assembly Grounds lodge and the Parkway to Opossum
Hollow Road.
• CG -- Same as C, except it goes south of the Assembly Grounds lodge to Opossum
Hollow Road.
• D -- Begins at the last series of curves before Blowing Rock, tops the Blue Ridge Flank
near the Blue Ridge Parkway, and goes between the Assembly Grounds lodge and the
Parkway to Opossum Hollow Road.
DG -- Same as D, except it goes south of the Assembly Grounds lodge to Opossum
' Hollow Road.
• E -- Begins at the last series of curves before Blowing Rock, tops the Blue Ridge Flank
' just east of Green Hill, and goes between the golf course and the Assembly Grounds to
Opossum Hollow Road. This corridor is a refinement of the one presented in the 1993
EA.
' F -- This corridor is the same as E except it passes closer to the Blue Ridge Parkway as
it joins Opossum Hollow Road (like A through D).
'
5.2 ADDITIONAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
t 5.2.1 Tunnel Alternatives
The Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock proposed three potential bypass routes that cross the
' Blue Ridge Parkway in a tunnel. They are shown in Figure 8 and are:
1. CC-AI -- Begins just south of Falcon Crest Road, crosses Bolick Road on a bridge,
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.

33

?
.' - ? _ '.'? Ro id
1 ?•
0-5

N

G'?a• '`s e TnunderM?, v'} p-

use /BG/CG/DG
"
A/B/C/D
'
`
Y
AG/BG/CG/DG V
IF

F Hitt ' r
?
Er^
?
•.
J
an.
•"f?i'?- ?, }: 1 ?) (.

E/F ?-
A
,
'
,- - EilackL _rry ¦
- t

B/BG i

C/CG
r
¦
¦
t

I ? "

4

l
0 5 t?m `
Falcon Crest -•
0 5 . _? Roche Knob 1 mile Rd- (SR 1421)
.
?
SCALE' - _
!?.
?,
LEGEND
Initial
Figure
Initial Bypass Alternatives
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ i Project Area Boundaries Bypass Alternatives 7

fl

i

?
Ry3dd /„^?
. ?.. .p ,? CC A????
CC-B11 J a„ch r 3? f t`
V

i
7-
CC-C/
QUA ? ? .i ? T ? l
Y1 l

'IS
'
? .
RFETVtG1EP ? ??r
_ _
:N
?
,
"
JCC AHl
{ &? Tunnel -
CC-BH/ G?
` o
,/ ?

'
?
a tl, v. yp??? -?

? a
Pvrk

n rY ? .
°} ya4 +
qq
`, f.. fail) --
?`??y
S /„ ?jd6 a.
A
?
µ] -
F
SS. ' •4.
?

Hlackborry Bridge
d( np`Fic cH? - /

? ¦
41 003 _ ¦
¦
\\.'

AJ
f'
- CC-C ¦

? U J . ` W

r' CC-e
C C-A

o 5 1i?Cm '•, falcon Crest
.c y knob Hd. (SR 1421)
0 5 1 mile
SCALF,I __

LEGEND Additiondl Bypass Figure
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ i Project Area Boundary
Alternatives 8
Additional Bypass Alternatives
2. CC-BI -- Begins just south of Harrison Cemetery and quickly merges with Alternative CC-
Al.
3. CC-CI -- Begins near Greene Cemetery and quickly merges with Alternative CC-AI.
AJ is a tunnel alternative developed by the study team. It begins just south of Falcon Crest
Road, crosses Bolick Road on fill near Bolick Road's southern terminus, crosses the Blue Ridge
Parkway in a tunnel, and returns to existing US 321 at Aho Road following a route east of
Thunder Mountain Road. In addition to the inclusion of a tunnel, this alternative also differs from
Alternative A in that it avoids displacing Bailey Camp Church and cemetery.
5.2.2 Additional Alternatives that Terminate South of the Parkway
The Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock proposed an additional means for returning to US 321
just south of the Blue Ridge Parkway once the bypass reaches the top of the Blue Ridge Flank.
This corridor was connected with three means for reaching the flank proposed by the Concerned
Citizens as a part of their tunnel alternatives. The resulting three alternatives are shown in Figure
8 and are:
CC-AH -- Begins just south of Falcon Crest Road, tops the Blue Ridge Flank near the
Blue Ridge Parkway, and remains adjacent to the Parkway until the bypass returns to
existing US 321 near the New River Inn.
2. CC-BH -- Begins just south of Harrison Cemetery and quickly merges with Alternative
CC-AH.
CC-CH -- Begins near Greene Cemetery and quickly merges with Alternative CC-AH.
5.3 MIXING AND MATCHING ALTERNATIVES
In general, the potential bypass alternatives shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 can be divided into
two geographic areas: south end corridor alternatives (A, CC-A, B, CC-B, C, CC-C, D, E, and F)
and north end corridor alternatives (E, F, G, H, I, J). Most of the south end and north end
alternatives can be mixed and matched to create additional corridor alternatives because,
although the alternatives begin and end at different locations, they all follow the Blue Ridge flank
at some point. With the exception of E and F, any south end alternative can be combined with
any north end alternative. Alternatives E and F are the only alternatives that cross Green Hill
Road just north of Green Hill. Because of the characteristics of the terrain, crossing Green Hill
Road at that point is feasible only if the south end of the bypass begins just south of the Town
Limits of Blowing Rock.
5.4 OTHER CITIZEN ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives in section 5.2 were proposed by citizens during the EIS bypass alternatives
study. Numerous other bypass location alternatives were proposed by citizens during the EA
preparation. The merits of these additional bypass alternatives and alternatives that involve the
use of other roadways by US 321 traffic were discussed in the EA in sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.5.
Citizens also suggested during the EIS alternatives study that improving an alternate route that
ultimately used US 421 to Boone would be a reasonable solution. Such an approach would not
be effective, in part, because of the longer distance involved. The distance from NC 268 in
Patterson to US 421 in Boone would be approximately 42 miles, about 18 miles longer than using
36

US 321 from Patterson to Boone. This represents a travel increase of 83 percent. The disparity
would be even greater for those traveling to Blowing Rock.
5.5 OTHER BYPASS ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
An additional corridor was considered by the study team as a potential bypass corridor. It
started at the same point as Alternative A, but followed a ridge line further east than Alternatives
A, AG, CC-A, AJ, and CC-B, reducing the length of road following the Blue Ridge Flank below
Blowing Rock. This alternative was dropped from consideration for the following reasons:
It would involve 13.5 million cubic meters (17.6 million cubic yards) of earthwork
compared to 5.9 million cubic meters (7.7 million cubic yards) with Alternative A.
It would be 0.2 kilometer (0.1 mile) longer than Alternative A and would involve 0.3
kilometer (0.2 mile) more of 8 percent grades.
6. TRAFFIC AND LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH A
BLOWING ROCK BYPASS
6A TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic forecasts for 1994 and 2025 with the No-Build Alternative were presented in Table 1.
Traffic forecasts for 2025 with a Blowing Rock bypass are shown in Table 7, which shows the
average daily traffic (ADT) in May for each major link of the existing roadway and for different
potential bypass locations. These forecasts were prepared by the NCDOT Division of Highways-
Statewide Planning Branch. The 1994 May ADT are actual counts taken 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. The forecast traffic volumes were modeled based on current
traffic movement patterns between origin and destinations in the area combined with municipal
and county development forecasts and land use plans.
A Blowing Rock bypass would reduce traffic volumes on existing US 321. With a bypass, the
2025 ADT on existing US 321 in Blowing Rock would range between 4,000 and 21,350 vehicles,
depending upon the location of the existing road and the bypass configuration. The bypass
would carry an ADT between 7,150 and 11,900 vehicles depending upon the configuration. In
general, the alternatives that begin closer to Blowing Rock on the south (i.e. near the Blowing
Rock Town Limits) would carry higher volumes than other alternatives because they would be
used more by local traffic. Alternatives that begin near the Town Limits and cross the Blue Ridge
Flank near the Blue Ridge Parkway are exceptions because the bypass routes in those cases
are longer than the existing route. There would be less use of the bypass by local traffic when
the bypass route is longer than the existing route. Ten to 19 percent fewer trips would shift to the
bypass from existing US 321.
A bypass that crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway would reduce traffic volumes on existing US 321
' but less than one that did not cross the Parkway (see Table 7). Additionally, a bypass that
crossed the Parkway would carry less traffic than one that did not cross the Parkway. The 2025
ADT on a bypass that did not cross the Parkway would be between 8,100 and 11,900, while a
' bypass that crossed the Parkway would carry an ADT of only 7,150. The addition of an
interchange with the Parkway would result in better bypass volumes, but lower than most other
bypass alternatives that do not cross the Parkway.

37

d
r
U 0)3 c c) y
id
v
?g 8
m
'R.
t c
(S
c
i (
25
r
N N W id id id i6
D
D
D
3
%
(n
ycz W 0 W
W O) W
rrr N W O
O
C
W O
r
O
U
? m

y C C)
[
?' o 0 o p p o p
S(4i?(4iSN?$ lf) IgiB
O W V' W W O (O p p p
?Ll1 to?S S J ??
y
(
O
V I?
C) h W O) W N N W 01 O N

r r r C(VV r r r r
I? ti n h N
j
d
LL T
LL
a o)
C(a '
S?c
c
cp
C
v ? ? m

y (?° S5??QQc? QQ 5?
z z
g
`
8
?
?
((
4i8 z ov m°
3¢ m a
E c
S2fi
iZ5N
a
25 ^
W °)
c N

C C (n ' ui (n cd m r v
N
N
r
rrr r r o 3
.L+
= 0
y j
?
y
O m
E 2
U
N
Z Z
O
O
Z m
7 E
y
Q= `-' '? "? ^
T C
D
W W O^
r (`? W tl) CO y
J O' N
p O
O
O
tq r
.
- N N r r r r r `
o V U
h
3 m
N O $ l0
W
lid N
as
N Q8 pt?((? p
8 pp
p?
S
8
S
z z p p 8
8
Z •
p x
2
>
N 0 O
(
p
0 f? C W O
D 01
M
N N N CO
cri -z,
? f0 5

?U

.
V (n Ln (O (OrNN

r r r
N

OOOOO
r
0,
N
O
O V y C)
C7
y
(D
O O O a O
(c? BpO tp?ppp
to N N
( Z Z o
8 n S S Z 2 9 T.L..
E
o
p y` ?
T O (7 _
y
U T
ct O C ?(OnCOP-- W N
r W ??00
r r a O C O
,
U Y O O t
N
C
O
?
(G° 3
¢ L
/
0
o >
'E a s l
z z
g
Y
S
y
o
y
Y
m 88888,z
o
C 0 o m y
m
G C (
c
ic
c
i
c
ic
i
i
W W 11: T W N 0M
W W W W W
= -
U U U C
3 > j N N N y
y
? {? m N N C) N y
L
f CC C C
m

588888888zz z
g88
8
G
(31
o
y
(0 cn '0 W I' N V O M
r r r N N O O r
r r r r r y
N C

.L.. Z` N
Q, 88888s888zz 888
z C
F- U? p W W ncq cd g N vV
O)OTOO .y T

= Y
C
c a
N 88888
`- Q' O f? (O t, yp? 1, (O S C Z Z 888
S O N tpO (O (O Z C'3)

c
T
m
U
G (O V' N W n - r T N N r r r _
y m y
O O
U
(? O d
lR (0
Q
0
0Cl T C) C)
C Q
S(n(OS N 88 8 Rn
M z z
MO)f
M V
7O 0
Z
?S LO
I O C N
o
G _ .
?
(
)
V'
-
M ?
I?u)LO Y
3
=
C r In W I
N
r r r
N N O IT O) 00 d 7
7
W E
d

m Y
m
O y C) y
fl
U C 0
O
T N L .D .L.. C)
Sc y
? y C O 7
N N y m

W O
y a)
ca > V O N

A C
T d
C) O C C
co C

« E C O m

m W O
w
O)
(D 3:
y
T
>> J

m C _ L N

R
O
0
(
p
y
C) O' N y O
O N p ..
- y
07 O N y
'O L O C O d m C-0
m C
R C 7 'O
ca
2.
U
C N
w
a
C
O J T C N T
_ O N (n -0 CS 0 3 N y 0 T
_ N (D
C?
Q O Y iC
Ncr- Q lL

U)
y (7 M y
g> a 8 Y y
j
c
s

'd6 (
= N
0
O
c
C
m S CU N .C

G c •? C.
i v
a a
CL a
1 N .O 7
O L C a) T o
b
o? a
a
i
N¢ O
C U o
U O c m
Q N U C W
O
.4 `
o y=L mp ocn ,, T =
Nx E J .6
v
E2
U C7 v a?
U M L C) N O co N 'O N d if L M a) O y yc: L N Q
Q) U) 2 z (n a 0? o
:3 co aa. (n 2 CL ? E c ¢ y i U p E
O ?(naD(D(DDa)
Z)cn m z mZ) C'3C70 i co
E m o m mQ
C> N U N N N
'
'
C r N M R W W f? W O) O r
r ^ M to W N a
0
7 y 2. O
J II II U y U U U
c
L (n C N l7 a ?
38

' An additional evaluation was done to include intersections with other local streets in Blowing
Rock for each alternative that does not cross the Parkway. These numbers also are shown in
Table 7. Local intersections on the bypass only decrease US 321 traffic by 0 to 3 percent;
t therefore, the use of local intersections as a means of further reducing traffic on US 321 was not
pursued during the design of the alternatives.
' The NCDOT forecasts indicate that traffic during the peak hour on the bypass would include six
percent dual axle trucks and three percent tractor-trailer trucks (nine percent total). In Blowing
Rock, existing US 321 would carry three percent dual axle trucks and two percent tractor-trailer
trucks if a bypass were built (five percent total). Without a bypass, US 321 peak hour traffic in
' Blowing Rock would include six percent dual axle trucks and three percent tractor-trailer trucks
(nine percent total).
'
6.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE
This section summarizes the level of service analysis for potential bypass locations. Definitions
' for each level of service (LOS) were presented in Table 2. Levels of service for the No-Build
Alternative in 1994 and 2025 for various segments of US 321 were shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Traffic capacity was analyzed for each potential bypass location. For each alternative, the
' impacts on existing US 321 also were analyzed in order to evaluate thoroughly the impacts of
diverting traffic. Table 8 presents roadway level of service and Table 9 presents intersection
' level of service. In general, the traffic capacity analysis results did not vary substantially for the
different bypass alternatives. The 2025 level of service on the bypass would be LOS A in every
case. On existing US 321, which would remain a two-lane road, the level of service would be
LOS E between its intersection with the bypass and Green Hill Road because of steep grades
' and the inability to pass slow-moving vehicles. The level of service on existing US 321 generally
would be LOS C or D in Blowing Rock.
6.2.1 Bypass
A four-lane bypass would operate at LOS A with a typical four-lane section regardless of the
' terminus points or number of access locations.
Potential intersections along a bypass were analyzed as unsignalized. Most intersections
between the two termini would operate at LOS D or better. A Green Hill Road intersection would
' operate at levels E/F with some alternatives that do not cross the Parkway and would warrant a
signal (ADT-based warrant Figure 2-10, Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual of Traffic
Signal Design, Second Edition).
6.2.2 Existing US 321
Any bypass corridor would reduce volumes on the existing sections of US 321 in Blowing Rock,
as shown in Table 7. Traffic in 2025 would be similar to or slightly less than existing volumes
through a major portion of US 321 in the Town of Blowing Rock.
With any bypass corridor, US 321 in Blowing Rock would improve to LOS C/D. A LOS D
operation would occur on US 321 north of Sunset Drive with any bypass. Crossing the Parkway
with no connection also would result in LOS D between Goforth Road and US 321 Business. A
' LOS D can be acceptable, but is not desirable, on the existing US 321 with a bypass in place.

39

? Q
du
F c
o ?
m Q, 3 t_ G
'C ,c x m
vyi ` 3 v
o CL
U` ? c
U` ca ?
Y ~
m as
4
.F m
? G
c ?
o c0
ti
R ? Z
m
ifl y
O
c a
o' G
3 m as
e v e
N o c cGO 3
N Y
c j
a? ? ? j
47mAm
N
U m
m
e y
c ?
m
N
U
I
?l N
v ?
C
co
O
y
J
¢wUUUOOU 1 ommU ¢ i ! ! I ¢¢
¢ w U o U o o U! m m U ¢ i!! i¢¢
¢ w U U U o o U U!!! ¢ a¢ a a i i
¢w0000000111 ¢¢¢¢¢11
¢ w U U U o o U U i! i ¢¢¢¢¢ I I
¢w000OOUm111 ¢¢¢¢¢II
<W0000000111 ¢¢¢¢¢ I I
¢wUUUOOUm!!i ¢¢¢¢¢II
¢ w U U U D D U U!¢¢¢¢¢!,
¢ w U U U o o U m i!! ¢¢¢¢¢!,
¢ w U U U o o U U l!! ¢¢¢¢¢!,

d C
of Ol
y'> M N ? J
co
co
C is N Y j a 0 R N
cr S 3 M

ID
J? a m m
C m c
4 co
o 0 7 cN nm o
y
o N N 0 N O ca of

Sc Y ?y
U) S M y N yp OC 0 >l
N 0 a{

?r.
Q' M Y
S
cc C O In o o
N LL > Q
y O. (a y

= C
L

C A O o O co
fa

O
>- -w
a C m Qi M CL
m
0 '0 7 > L o
(3-¢m p pln y
Cc
N O
m> O)
C7=¢ E m rD m
O to = L J p N a p
CL
N
0 H S L N J .?
c
m C O
C p ?
5 a tV
0 U) co 0
0 > m M y ,O. O N M d
Cl)
'

1
to
mC7C77U zU-)coZ
A DC7oo
Dm
N M V ?O c0 f? N O) ? ? ? ^ C In M T aD Q)
40
3
L
ai P
U L
Z c
ca
e
co
o v
? d .
W C r
Z m
c Q? c
m
? o ?
'~OO c c
m co co
31 co
0
d S S'
c c
p as co
¢ 3 3
N
= B
O F
o ?
S ,Q U V V
co a2-1i it
ID
y y y
co ca
Q 0 0 0
0
O U > > >
U N ?
E2 L C C Cc
c
O O O O
E
m m y
co
c > j
a ? 3 3 3
U p
y >,
N N y
2 J J J
J
U
as 2cc cc
?
Y ¢ ¢ ¢
m ? ? L L
a 3 •3 .3
a?
o 0 0
Q p U U U
X co :3
O ff .6 C
tl7 Vl O. U U V
> o = C C C
C .C C 20 v
Y .L-. L-0'
(a 13 -0 N N
N E E
Z5- C N N y
y
N T T >
U a C C C
-_ F'- ? la a7 l6
¢ ? E m m m
c N a1 0 o C
O y >? c?a N O
U O C C
tOi) U L S] .O L
N N N 7 7?
C N D N N C
E c p m m ca
E c6 m
0
d U) Cc Co CO
11 II L .Q ? ?
Cn ~ t? n a

m
W ;
F '
V O
W
Q
m
?
C
cj co 3 UmoQiu o LL(n I l 1 l l U
U
c
m
t
,
H 'C O
G
Ux? UmpQiu O iLm I I 1 I I 1 co

C
`ro
E m
C ?.
ils mmoQ W Mo -u- co jlm 0m0m Q

Y

mmUQiLmp LLm I I ppmm p
N
omC7
m
? rn
N a
v
mmUa jyico
LLm I
I I pm b
O) ?
c
m m
co
cr
U ti ? O
O O ` -
p?o Q) ci> UmUQ uIC) iLU p l l UO I U =

3 O e m 3
Q G m

Y y
6
M Co LL O

GJ? U co 0 Ti- a m U u_0 I I I I U I U N

m A m C N
N r
C C d
co co o Q u p p LL co W m I p p I p c
CU U
.. N
.C ? C
o C
C
V co co U a w p p LL CO 1 1 l l p l U c
U y
CE
N N
p N 10
U t
N L E
(? 3 c
c cn co mU4 LLUp LLm wm I pp I p m

O
U

Q.

? y

r 1
y J
t m O ~
_
c
mmUQ LL p0
LLm I l
l p I U U
_ 1

<
co co
_
N
m

> O
N O
N c
? N
J
C ;
N

_
.0.. a
1
0 co
N
'

co 'p
Co O 0
d > C 1

O C _
N 0 U
C) 0

.0
J
N

m d1 0
C N C N C co N j
LL y
N

N •0 O) m 'O

C N O

N U co

-_ 1-
vi C O N I
s
1
N C
'y (0 O 7 -I N 'S (a a y _
C
C??
c m 0
of
C
-a 5 'CO c
E z) a) o m
Q 0 of cOn
c `? a 7
N 3 o
01 N
rn
N Cn > m
3 o m
C y;
N N E
O 'O c C 'C O p O C
'6 N .Z aDi y
c
m m to >

m Cl) p Q O m

fn = o= C E

m m
y N

t!
C
: N C L ?
N
O .?
J j J
0
~ C - m
3 p
N
C" (V
O
O co 'O CO N N C

M O Z5 N
N .
_.•
C
O O N

E
C
E
1
y>
a7 y N
p

U 0 o fn oO j Cn

??? ?(?? cn o 0 0. o O

?CS??L Z E

C j
N c l
° y 10
t ID >'
N N m y 1

y
N N N N N N N N N y
co ca M N N V1 N
N
N
N
N N
? in V .N N 1
=p
MC7 Coco v>c+)r> as Q (
(
6
6
o. CL CL O. o. 11 11 c pl N y i
»» »> mm co ca ca co co m - v? z a n? a<
41
The US 321 section south of Blowing Rock between the terminus of the bypass and Green Hill
Road would operate at LOS E if it remained a two-lane highway because of steep grades and the
inability to pass slow-moving vehicles. This means that the longer alternatives would correspond
to a greater segment of US 321 operating at LOS E because it would remain unimproved. Thus,
this section would warrant upgrading to a four-lane highway for an acceptable level of service.
Despite the level of service classification, however, this section would be carrying less traffic and
a lower percentage of trucks in 2025 than the existing 1994 traffic counts.
The signalized intersection at US 221 would operate at LOS D or better with all alternatives. The
US 321/Sunset Drive intersection would operate at LOS D or better with several alternatives.
With other alternatives, it would function at LOS E or worse unless an eastbound left turn lane
were provided. This turn lane is assumed in Table 9.
All unsignalized intersections (except US 321/Food Lion) would operate at LOS C or better with
any of the bypass alternatives. Left turns from the Food Lion driveway into southbound
US 321 are forecast to operate at LOS F or greater. However, the analysis model does not take
into account large gaps created by the signals north and south of this intersection. These gaps
would provide sufficient capacity for these left turns and would result in a much better level of
service than indicated by the model.
6.2.3 Southern Terminus
The southern terminus was analyzed as a T-intersection with the existing US 321 ending
perpendicular to the bypass. Unless a signal were provided, the left turns from existing US 321
onto the US 321 northbound bypass would operate at LOS F irrespective of the bypass option.
A planning level signal warrant analysis (ADT-based warrant using Figure 2-10, Institute of
Transportation Engineers Manual of Traffic Signal Design, Second Edition) indicated the need for
a signal regardless of the bypass option chosen. A signal would result in an acceptable level of
service at this intersection.
6.2.4 Northern Terminus
The northern terminus of the new bypass was assumed to connect into the Shoppes on the
Parkway/US 321/Opossum Hollow Road intersection, forming a four-leg intersection. The level of
service analysis indicated that a signalized intersection would require provision of full turn lanes
on the northbound and southbound approaches of the existing US 321 to operate at LOS D or
better.
6.3 CAPACITY SENSITIVE ANALYSIS
An additional analysis was conducted to determine the long-term road capacity impacts of
maintaining a 2.5 percent traffic growth rate beyond the 2025 design year. If traffic were to rise
in steady increments from 1994 to 2025, the annual traffic growth rate would be 2.5 percent. The
additional analysis was done separately for US 321 between Green Hill Road and US 321
Business (historic/residential area) and between US 321 Business and US 221 (commercial
area). These two segments were chosen because the historic/residential area is more sensitive
from an environmental impact perspective than the commercial area. The section between US
221 and Shoppes on the Parkway was not included in the sensitivity analysis because it is
already a four lane road. Table 10 summarizes the results of this analysis. For each segment,
the years shown in the table are the first year level of service D or E is achieved on at least one
roadway link (road between intersections) in the segment. LOS D and E operation were chosen
42
u

Table 10
' Capacity Sensitive Analysis for Bypass Alternative

Green Hill Road-US 321 Business
US 321 Bus - US 321 Bus/US 221

LOS D LOS E
Approximate Year LOS D and E Would Occur on Existing US 321
2.5 Percent Average Annual Traffic Growth Rate
Widening Alternative 2057 2065
(22 years)' (30 years)
Bypass that does 2030-20402 2045-20552
not cross Parkway (5 to 15 years) (20 to 30 years)
Bypass that crosses 2026 2041
Parkway in a tunnel (1 year) (16 years)
Bypass that crosses 2027 2041
and intersects (2 years) (16 years)
Parkway
'Years past 2025 except as noted
2Varies with the bypass alternative chosen.
LOS D
2035
(10 years)
2016-20222
3 to 9 years
before 2025)
2021
(4 years before
2025)
2021
(4 years before
2025)
LOS E
2040
(15 years)
2026-20302
(1 to 5 years)
2029
(4 years)
2029
(4 years)
for this analysis since they indicate when additional improvements may be required. The ranges
shown reflect the differing traffic forecasts associated with the bypass alternatives.
Table 10 shows that with the widening alternative, further improvements, such as a bypass,
would not need to be considered until 10 to 15 years beyond 2025. The need for further
improvements would be associated with traffic between US 321 Business and US 221/US 321
Business.
A bypass that did not cross the Parkway would postpone the need to consider improvements to
existing US 321 between Green Hill Road and US 321 Business well beyond (up to 15 to 30
years) the 2025 design year. A bypass that crossed the Parkway in a tunnel would increase
traffic enough on US 321 to move the time for considering additional improvements in this area
up by about 15 years.
Between US 321 Business and US 221/US 321 Business, the need for considering improvements
to the existing road could come before or shortly after the 2025 design year with any bypass
alternative.
43
I
7. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
Engineering, traffic, social, cultural resource, natural resource, and visual considerations were
taken into account in comparing the potential bypass alternatives. Table 11 summarizes this
comparison for the 17 bypass alternatives. It contains the following evaluation criteria:
• Engineering considerations
- Cost
- Earthwork
- Grades
- Horizontal curves
• Traffic considerations
2025 Average Daily Traffic
2025 Peak Hour Level of Service
• Social considerations
Displacement
Other community impacts
• Natural resource considerations
Area of new right-of-way
Length of new road
Wetlands crossed and area
• Historic resource considerations
• Visual resource considerations
All comparisons assume complete and equivalent projects. They all begin immediately south of
Falcon Crest and end at US 321 somewhere north of Blowing Rock (at Opossum Hollow Road,
between Moses Cone Park and Parkway, or north of Parkway at Aho Road). On the south,
shorter bypasses include the applicable section of widening. Appendix A contains a preliminary
assessment that was prepared for the 10 initial bypass alternatives discussed in section 5.1. It
was prepared prior to the decision to evaluate alternatives that cross the Blue Ridge Parkway in
a tunnel or return to existing US 321 closely paralleling the Blue Ridge Parkway. It contains
much of the same information as Table 11, as well as additional cultural and natural resource
information.
As discussed in section 5.3, in general, the potential bypass alternatives shown in Figure 7 and
Figure 8 and described in Table 11 can be divided into two geographic areas: south end
corridor alternatives (A, CC-A, B, CC-B, C, CC-C, D, E, and F) and north end corridor alternatives
(E, F, G, H, I, J). Most of the south end and north end alternatives can be mixed and matched to
44

Table Ii
Comparison of Potential Bypass Alternatives
1
4.i JY •
Widen A AG CC-AH CC-At AJ 8 BG CC-BH CC-Bl C CG CC-CH CC-CI ?0 DG DE Of

Cost (in millions)
• Construction
-Bypass NA $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $114.3 $455 $49.4 $89.1 $115.7 $39.4 $32.6 $53.9 $76.8 $23.0 $24.9 $15.4 $18.4
Widening V-41 0.0 $0.0 $04 ?4 ?0 ffiq $24 $16 U& $L12 $19:2 $192 $192. $1$4 18 $191 91
TOTAL $24.5 $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $114.3 $47.5 $51.4 $901 $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 No 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 $4.7
• Borrow $D.0 $0.0 $0.9 $10.0 $15.5 $0.0 $0.0 $03 $7.3 $0.0 Wo $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 $A.0
• Bridges $0.2 $D.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 $2.7 $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 $017 $1Q? $¢ Q $15 $25 $Q $ 2 $93 $Z 4 4 $3.3
$2R
$2 4
Contingencies
TOTAL $51.0 $54.1 $92.6 $122.0 $1143 $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 (8S4) 5.62 (7.35) 5.40 (7.06) 5.72 (7.48) 9.40 (12.29) 6.36 (8.31) 6.65 (8.69) 5.10 (6.67) 7.18 (9.39) 4.14 (5.41) 4.00 (5.23) 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) 020 (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) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (O.OD) 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 (33) 5.4 (3.4) 5.2 (3.3) 5.4 (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 (2.9) 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 (3.2) 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 Criteria (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 9,60010,450 9,600-10,450 7,150 8,1008,950 8,1008,950 10,250.10,950 10,250.10,950
Existing US 321 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
South of Blowing
Rock
• Existing US 321 in 15,675-24,900 5,95020,950 5,950-20,950 5,95020,950 9,05018,850 9,05018,850 5,95020,950 5,95020,950 5,95020,950 9,05018,850 6,10020.800 6,10020.800 6,10020.800 9,05018,850 7,60018,950 7,60018,950 5,75020,700 5,750.20,700
Blowing Rack
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 A E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
South of Bowing
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-0 C-D C-0 C-0
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) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
TOTAL 29 26 25 4 22 1 29 28 5 24 30 31 18 37 29 30 35 35
Community Impacts
• Along ExistingU? 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 Highway traffic
321 remains in the 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 remains in the remains in the
communities through communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities communities conmuntles communities communities through communities through
which it now passes 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 though wNch it through which it through which it through which It through which it which it now passes , which it now passes
but is greater than 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 but is less than the but is less than the
today less than the less than the less than the less than with the less than with the less than the lees than the less than with the less than with the less than the less than the toss than with the less than with the less than the less than the widening alternative widening alternative
widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening widening
alternative alternative atemative alternative; more alternative; more altematve alternative alternative alternative; more alternative alternative aftemutlve alternative; more altematve; alternative;
traffic In Blowing traffic In Blowing traffic In Blowing traffic in Blowing however, less however, less
Rack south of Rock south of Rock south of Rock south of traffic would traffic would
Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than Sunset Drive than divert to bypass divert 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

Table 11 (concluded)
Comparison of Potential Bypass Alternatives

Widenin A AG CC-AH CC-AI AJ B BG CC-BH CC-B=1 C CG CC-CH CCZ D DG D D
' 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 introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to
rural communities rural communities rural communities rural communibes rural communities rural communities rural communities rural communities rural communities rural community rural community rural community rural communifies rural community rural community subdivisions along subdivisions along
in Bailey Camp, in Bailey Camp, in Balley Camp, in Bailey Camp in Bailey Camp in Bailey Camp, In Bailey Camp, in Bailey Camp, in Bailey Camp between Bailey between Bailey between Bailey in Bailey Camp along Green HIII along Green Hill Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road,
Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road, and along and along Green Hill Road, Green HIII Road, Green Hilt Road, and along Camp and Camp and Camp and and along Road, Goforth Road, Goforth Wonderland Drive Wonderland Drive
' Goforth Road, Goforth Road, and Forest Lane Thunder MountainThunder Mountain Goforth Road, Goforth Road, and Forest Lane Thunder Mountain Watauga County Watauga County Watauga County Thunder Mountain Road, and Road, and area, golf course area, area, and Opossum
and Opossum and Opossum areas; greater Road; mobile Road and Opossum and Opossum areas; greater Road; mobile line, Green Hill line, Green HIII line and along Road; mobile Opossum Hollow Opossum Hollow and Opossum Hollow Hollow Road area;
Hollow Road Hollow Road effects to hone park at Aho Hollow Road Hollow Road - effects to home park at Aho Road, Goforth Road, Goforth Green Hill Road home park at Aho Road area; Road area; in less Road area; less effect greater effects to
areas; greater areas; in less Assembly Rd and US 321 areas; greater areas; In less Assembly Rd and US 321 Road, end Road, end and Forest Lane Rd and US 321 greater effects to used portion of on Assembly Grounds Assembly Grounds
effects to used portion of Grounds property displaced effects to used portion of Grounds property displaced Opossum Hollow Opossum Hallow area; greater displaced Assembly Assembly property and activities property and activities
Assembly Assembly and activities but Assembly Assembly and activities but Road areas; Road areas; in effects to Grounds property Grounds
' Grounds property Grounds less than A Grounds property Grounds less than 8 greater effects to less used portion Assembly and activities
and activities and activities Assembly of Assembly Grounds property
Grounds property Grounds and activifies but
- and activities less than C

C
C
F11

1
C

11

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
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) 752 (185.7) 72.9 (180.0) 44.0 (108.7) 42.0 (103.7) 56.9 (1405) 54.6 (134.8) 33.0 (81.5) 37.0 (91.4) 23.0 (56.8) 27.0 (66.7)
421 hectares 110.4
4.21 hectar
(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) 225 (55.6) 22.5 (55.6) 32.0 (79.0) 32.0 (79.0) 32.5 (80.3) 32.5 (80.3)
urban acres) of
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) 42 (2.7) 4.5 (2.8) 3.4 (2.1) 3.7 (2.3)
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 on Regrading on Regrading on Five Regrading on Five
Historic District and property property properly property property property property property property property property property property property property Points(A.L. Shuford) Polnts(A.L. Shuford)
adjacent to the Green containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five containing Five and Young-Shaw- and Estes-Craig
Park Inn; displaces Points(A.L. Points(A.L. Polms(A.L. Points(A.L. Points(A.L. Points (AL 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; properfies;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 avoid these properties.
these properties.
Far-lane road Far-lane road Fcur4ane road Four4ans road Four4ane road Four-lane road Four4ane road Four4ane road Four-fane road Four4ane road Four4ane road Four4ane road For4ane road Four4ane road Four-lent road Four4ane road Four-lane road Four4ane road
introduced to Blowing Introduced to introduced to introduced to Introduced to introduced to introduced to Introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to Introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to introduced to
Rock with loss of rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural was with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural area with rural arty with rural area with neighborhoods near neighborhoods along
vegetation and large cuts and large cuts and large cuts and large cuts and large cuts and large cuts and large cute and large cuts and large arts and large cuts and large cuts and large cuts and large outs and large cub and large cuts and the golf course; road Green HIII Road; road
straighter curves in the fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed ills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road viewed fills; road dewed fills; road viewed seen in distance from seen in distance from
Country Club from Green Hill from Green Hill from Green Hill from Green Hill from Green Hill from Green HIII from Green HIII from Green Hill from Green HIII from Blue Ridge from Blue Ridge Blue Ridge from Blue Ridge from Blue Ridge from Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Parkway at Blue Ridge Parkway at
Drive/Norwood Circle Road area, Blue Road area and Road area and Road area and Road area and Road area, Blue Road area and Road area and Road area and Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Thunder Hill Thunder Hill and
area Ridge Parkway at Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Ridge Parkway at Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Blue Ridge Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill: Thunder HIII and Thunder Hill and viewed from Assembly
Thunder Hill and Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Thunder HIII and Parkway at Parkway at Parkway at Green Hill Road, Green Hill Road Green HIII Road. approach roads Green HIII Road, Green Hill Road Grounds lodge
Green Hill Road, Thunder HIII and Thunder Hill and Thunder Hill; Thunder Hill; Green Hill Road, Thunder HIII and Thunder HIII and Thunder Hit; and Assembly It trees lost visible from and Assembly
and Assembly Green Hill Road Green Hill Road. approach roads approach roads and Assembly Green HIII Road Green HIII Road approach roads Grounds lodge bypass in view of Parkway Grounds lodge
Grounds lodge If trees lost, visible from visible from Grounds lodge If trees lost visible from Parkway from
bypass in view of Parkway. Tell Parkway, bypass in view of Parkway. Tai Green Hill Road
Parkway from bridge 1,600feet Parkway from bridge 1,600 feet to US 321
Green Hill Road keg across Green Hill Road lag across
bridge 1,600 feet bridge 1,600 feel
long across lag across
Bolick Road Bolick Road
'Displacement counts for A, AG, CC-AH, CC-At, AJ, B, 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 by NCDOT right-of-way staff.

' create additional corridor alternatives because, although the alternatives begin and end at
different locations, they all follow the Blue Ridge flank at some point. This division is illustrated in
Figure 9A and Figure 9B. With the exception of E and F, any south end alternative can be
combined with any north end alternative.
The termini for the south end and north end alternatives are:
• South end termini:
- South of the Falcon Crest subdivision and "S" curves ("A" and "CC-A"
' alternatives)
- North of Falcon Crest and south of "S" curves ("B" and "CC-B" alternatives)
"
"
- North of
S
curves and south of sharp curves south of Blowing Rock ("C' and
"CC-C" alternatives)
' N
li
it
t
f Bl
i
R
k
"D"
l
i
E
-
ear
own
m
s o
ow
ng
oc
(
ternat
ves,
a
, and F)
' North end termini:
- Opossum Hollow Road south of Blue Ridge Parkway ("A," "B," "C," "D," and "G"
alternatives and Alternatives E and F)
"
"
- Between Moses Cone Park and Blue Ridge Parkway (
H
alternatives)
- Cross Blue Ridge Parkway in a tunnel and end near the intersection of US 321
and Aho Road ("I" and "J" alternatives)
In the remainder of this report, complete alternatives will be referred to as Alternative AG,
Alternative E, Alternative CC-BH, Alternative CC-CI, etc. When referring to the south end or north
end components of the alternatives, the following notation is used: "A" alternatives, "I"
alternatives, etc.
'
The paragraphs below assess each of the alternatives based on the above divisions. Each
alternative's location, advantages and disadvantages are described. In January 1997, the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were distributed to the project's Citizens'
' Advisory Committee and state and federal regulatory agencies in a questionnaire that asked
recipients to indicate whether or not they believed each alternative should be evaluated in detail
in the Environmental Impact Statement. The responses to this questionnaire also are described
below for each alternative. Of the 18 persons who responded to the questionnaire, five
answered "no" to all bypass alternatives, indicating their belief that no bypass is reasonable.
Another three responded in letters that did not indicate preferences for specific alternatives listed
in the questionnaire. A summary of responses by respondent is included in Table 12 in section
' 9.3.
' 7.1 SOUTH END ALTERNATIVES
This evaluation considers the segment of each bypass alternative, from its southern terminus to
' its location on the Blue Ridge Flank (see Figure 9A). Where applicable, it includes the
appropriate length of widening.
49

• Hil
Green
I ?v
?5 3 ,
1C k
Hill
?r • m cis
2?
v 3?1
o
• UE RI D G E
?

E/F --
-CALMt"EM, CO
e U Bailey Camp
_ Church
%
Btow?rlg Pock

t ?? ???? Bridge
Last curves t' `
j
, j j

before
Blowing Rock • +
/
',,
4??, <'r,np

cc C
CC-A

Existing „S„ o
- Curves

J 4 ik;sct I °

bin
G
'
o
ap
R
b
s
?' `?

1
CC-B

o - 5 1

0 .5 o ? c
i mile Falcon Crest
SCALE f Rd. (SR 1421)

,, _
-I Rocky Knob
,..rt qtr -

:J
LEGEND
11111 11111111111111111 W, 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 9a

?Atritt ?tA'?S f3A
Origmai VB/ii
f ?{

Road N
\ ? O rt+ y
A
00
40
1A, WA
, - ~ Thuriderfftt? QY??r" J?1?f r
A
„?_?
Assembly
Grounds
Lodge ? Tunnel Under )
Blue Ridge t f
Lnset oji a ?. ??" • ? - ?? - 1 Parkway
` Echo P$zk •(??? ' > .lf J ^ j v l
?? - =2" - 1 J - `,
30.
U?3?r?. Liv??•iri?;????.cxk Hill ? ? - ?sr '-.
,
C ALMVI I;L
o U 1inIL+ 5. y`
Blackberry-
LEGEND
M 11 M 11 M 1 Alternative E.

0?0?6= 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 "H" altemative.
11111111111111 "I" and T altematives.
Areas where multiple alternatives merge.
North End Corridor Figure
Alternatives 9b

7.1.1 "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" Alternatives
Location
These alternatives would start south of the "S" curves on US 321 just south of the Falcon Crest
subdivision.
Advantages
Traffic. The further south the bypass begins, the less road construction US 321 users would
encounter. These alternatives start the furthest south. The NCDOT, however, will 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. As indicated in the 1993 Environmental Assessment,
procedures that require the closure of one lane and the use of flagmen are expected to occur
sporadically and during off-peak travel hours. Brief periods of full closure would occur when
blasting charges are detonated. As with lane closures, blasting would occur only during off-
peak travel hours.
The further south the bypass begins, the more opportunity there exists for travelers to avoid six to
eight percent grades on the existing road. It is expected that 7,200 to 11,000 vehicles would use
the bypass on the average day in 2025. There is, however, only 1.0 kilometer (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. 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 corrected fully with the widening alternative. The
design speeds for these curves would range from 45 mph down to 20 mph. An eighth curve
would achieve a 50 mph design speed.
Community Impacts. 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. By diverting traffic from US 321, a longer bypass also would
reduce noise levels at homes along the existing route.
Disadvantages
Cost. Starting further south would increase total project cost. For example, the non-tunnel
bypass locations 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 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 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) of US 321 south of Blowing Rock unimproved. The "B" and "CC-
B" alternatives would leave 4.3 kilometers to 4.5 kilometers (2.7 to 2.8 miles) of US 321 south of
Blowing Rock unimproved.
Natural Resource Impacts. The further south the bypass begins, the greater the loss of
undisturbed wildlife habitat. Since these alternatives begin the furthest south, they would result
in the greatest loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat.
52
' Community Impacts. The longer bypass routes would introduce more new thoroughfare to rural
communities, primarily Bailey Camp and Blackberry Valley, which now only have low levels of
local traffic passing through them. It is also possible that these alternatives would displace the
Bailey Camp Baptist Church and cemetery or place a large fill or retaining wall adjacent to it.
The large fill would be 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 million to the bypass' earthwork costs, assuming the designs used for the
"CC-A", CC-B", and AJ alternatives. 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 extra earthwork 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 church and cemetery.
1 Some of the potential alignments would cross Bolick Road on a long, high level bridge.
However, this bridge, which would be 487.7 meters (1,600 feet) long, have an average height of
35.1 meters (115 feet) and a maximum height of 56.1 meters (184 feet), would be a substantial
new visual feature in the community served by Bolick Road. In addition, such a bridge would
add $4.4 million to project costs (compared to the "A" alternatives that do not cross the valley).
Historic Resource Impacts. While on the Blue Ridge Flank, these alternatives would pass
through the property containing the Five Points (A.L. Shuford) House. The bypass would be
below the home, which is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All
bypass alternatives that follow the Blue Ridge Flank would use land from this property, which
extends down the Blue Ridge flank to about 975 meters (3,200 feet) in elevation. The home is at
an elevation of about 1,160 meters (3,800 feet).
Lowering the bypass on the Flank at this point to the elevation required to avoid the property
(roadway centerline at about 910 to 950 meters or 3,000 to 3,100 feet of elevation) would make it
impossible to gain the elevation needed to reach the top of the Flank (1,100 meters or 3,600 feet
in elevation) and return to US 321 south of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The distance available
would be too short (about 670 meters or 2,200 feet) to allow for acceptable road grades. A
tunnel under the Parkway would be physically possible but not reasonable. Large fills (as high
as 85 meters or 280 feet) would be needed for a distance of approximately 670 meters (2,200
feet) to reach a south tunnel portal at an approximate elevation of 1,050 meters (3,450 feet).
' Grades approaching the south portal and in the tunnel would have to be approximately 7.5
percent. The south portal could not be lowered further. The topography on the north side of the
' Parkway all the way to Aho Road is above 1,037 meters (3,400 feet). Thus, to keep the tunnel to
a reasonable length, its north portal needs to be at about 1,100 meters (3,600 feet).
If the property is eligible for the National Register, the requirements of Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 would apply.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
There was little support among Citizens' Advisory Committee and agency questionnaire
respondents for a bypass with a southern terminus this far south. Several members of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee were concerned about the potential impacts of these alternatives
on the Bailey Camp Church and cemetery and the rural communities in the valley. Cost and
natural resource impacts were concerns for almost everyone who rejected these alternatives.
Concern also was expressed as to whether truck drivers would find such a bypass preferable
over the existing route. Those who indicated a preference for these alternatives considered them
desirable because bypass users would avoid more of the steep grades and sharp curves on
existing US 321. They suggested that impacts to the church and community could be

53

minimized. In the past, the minimization of traffic disruption on US 321 during project
construction has been cited as a benefit of these alternatives.
7.1.2 "C" and "CC-C" Alternatives
Location
These alternatives would start north of the "S" curves but south of the sharp curves just below the
Town of Blowing Rock near Greene Cemetery.
Advantages
Cost. Construction costs for the bypass segment would be less than with the longer "A", "CC-A",
"B", and "CC-B" alternatives.
Traffic. Bypass users would avoid seven curves with less than a 80 kph (50 mph) design speed.
These final curves before Blowing Rock would be improved but not corrected fully with the
widening alternative. The design speeds for these curves would range from 45 mph down to 20
mph. An eighth curve would achieve a 50 mph design speed. These south end alternatives
would leave only 2.4 kilometers (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 (4.3 to 5.6 kilometers [2.7 to 3.5 miles]).
Natural Resource Impacts. The loss of undisturbed wildlife habitat would be less than with the
"A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" south end alternatives. For example, 24.2 hectares (60 acres) of
land would be cleared and grubbed below the top of the Blue Ridge flank with the "CC-C"
alternative, while the "CC-A" alternative would require 48.6 hectares (120 acres) of land to be
cleared and grubbed below the top of the Blue Ridge Flank (some of that area was clear-cut in
recent years).
Community Impacts. There would be less new thoroughfare introduced to rural communities
than with the bypass alternatives that begin further south. For example, the "CC-A" alternative
has 6.1 kilometers (3.8 miles) of new road below the top of the Blue Ridge flank, while the "CC-C"
alternative has only 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) of new road below the top of the Blue Ridge flank.
Disadvantages
Traffic. Traffic on US 321 would pass through an additional 1.9 to 3.2 kilometers (1.2 to 2.0
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 widened. An
additional disadvantage from the traffic perspective is that less opportunity would exist for
travelers to avoid six to eight percent grades on the existing road (1.0 kilometer [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 would use the bypass on the average
day in 2025.
Community Impacts. Approximately 14 homes would be displaced south of Blowing Rock with
the "C" and "CC-C" alternatives. These displacements are associated primarily with the
widening portion of the alternatives. Additionally, most noise impacts associated with the
widening alternative would remain.
54

Historic Resource Impacts. Like the "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" alternatives, while on the Blue
Ridge Flank, these alternatives would pass through the property containing the Five Points (A.L.
Shuford) House. The bypass would be below the home, which is potentially 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 would apply. The
viability of options to avoid the property were described above in section 7.1.1 under "Historic
' Resources."
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
1 There was no agency support for a bypass with this southern starting point. They, along with
several Citizens' Advisory Committee respondents contend that the community and natural
resource impacts to the Blackberry Valley and Bailey Camp areas are too great to warrant further
consideration. A few Citizens' Advisory Committee members indicated a preference for such a
1 southern terminus. They thought that this was as close as a bypass could come to the Town of
Blowing Rock without having adverse community and environmental impacts. They also
indicated that bypass users still would avoid several of the sharp curves on US 321 south of the
Town Limits.
7.1.3 "D", "E", and "F" Alternatives
Location
1 These south end alternatives would begin just south of the Blowing Rock Town Limits.
Advantages
Cost. Alternatives that begin at this point would have the lowest construction costs. As indicated
in Table 11, total construction costs for these alternatives would range from $34.5 million for "E"
to $43.8 million with DG.
Traffic. These alternatives would leave very little (0.0 to 0.4 kilometers [0.0 to 0.25 miles]) of
existing US 321 unimproved south of Blowing Rock. This means that users of the existing
highway would no longer have to suffer from the narrow lanes and many of the sharp curves
currently found on the existing route; however, they would have to pass through the final curves
on existing US 321 before Blowing Rock, an area where sharp curves (20 to 45 mph design
speeds) and steep grades (6.6 to 7.6 percent) would remain with the widening alternative.
Natural Resource Impacts. These alternatives would do the best job of avoiding undisturbed
wildlife habitat south of Blowing Rock.
' Community Impacts. These alternatives would have the least impact on communities south of
Blowing Rock.
Disadvantages
Traffic. With the "D" south end alternative, a bypass would be 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 the alternatives that end south
of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
' Traffic on US 321 would pass through 4.0 to 5.6 kilometers (2.5 to 3.5 miles) more of road
construction than with "A", "CC-A", "B", and "CC-B" alternatives and 2.1 to 2.4 kilometers (1.3 to
1.5 miles) more than with the "C" and "CC C" alternatives. The NCDOT, however, would impose

55

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.
Furthermore, with these alternatives, less opportunity would exist for travelers to avoid six to eight
percent grades on the existing road (3.0 to 3.4 kilometers [1.9 to 2.1 miles] more of six to eight
percent grades with the "D" alternative than the "A" and "CC-A" alternatives and 2.1 to 2.4
kilometers [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 would use the bypass on the average
day in 2025. All traffic would pass through five ("D" alternatives) to seven (alternatives E and F)
curves with less than a 80 kph (50 mph) design speed.
Community Impacts. The southern portion of these alternatives is primarily their widening
segment. Twelve homes would be displaced. In addition, the noise impacts south of Blowing
Rock along existing US 321 would remain.
Historic Resource Impacts. Like the "A", "CC-A", "B", "CC-B", "C", and "CC-C" alternatives
discussed above, while on the Blue Ridge Flank, the "D" alternatives would pass through the
property containing the Five Points (A.L. Shuford) House. The bypass would be below the home,
which is potentially 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 would apply. The viability of options to avoid the property were described above in
section 7.1.1 under "Historic Resources." As discussed below in sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2,
Alternatives E and F can be designed to avoid the use of historic resources.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
A majority of the agency respondents indicated a preference for a bypass alternative with this
southern terminus primarily because of its lower cost and minimization of natural resource and
community impacts in the rural areas south of Blowing Rock. Citizens' Advisory Committee
respondents were less enthusiastic about such a southern terminus. A majority of the
respondents believed that these alternatives were too close to Blowing Rock and would have
detrimental effects on the Town.
7.2 NORTH END ALTERNATIVES
This evaluation focuses on the segment of each bypass alternative from its location on the Blue
Ridge Flank to its northern terminus (see Figure 9B).
7.2.1 Alternative E
Location
Alternative E would top the Blue Ridge Flank just north of Green Hill and take a direct route to the
Opossum Hollow Road/US 321 intersection.
Advantages
Cost. This alternative is the lowest cost bypass alternative, with a total construction cost of $34.5
million. Three factors, in particular, contribute to the relative inexpensiveness of Alternative E: 1)
it would require the least amount of earthwork, 2) it would have the narrowest footprint, and 3) it
would be the shortest alternative.
Traffic. Alternative E would divert the most amount of traffic from existing US 321.
56

Visual Impacts. According to representatives of the National Park Service, this alternative would
have the least visual impact on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Community Impacts. This alternative would have the least effect on the Blowing Rock Assembly
Grounds.
Historic Resource Impacts. Alternative E could avoid use of National Register-eligible properties.
The representative design used to evaluate Alternative E shows the involvement of properties
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The assessed design for
Alternative E uses property associated with the Five Points (A.L. Shuford House) and property
associated with the Young-Shaw-Steele House (in a proposed extension of the Green Park
Historic District). The locations of these properties were shown in Figure 5. The representative
design for Alternative E was developed before the determinations of potential eligibility and
property boundaries were made. A reexamination of the design indicates that it could be
adjusted to avoid these properties. Adjusting Alternative E to avoid the Five Points property
completely could result in the displacement of an additional two homes. An adjusted E also
would encroach about 200 feet further into the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds at its service
entrance. The magnitude of the other impacts for Alternative E should not change.

Disadvantages
Natural Resource Impacts. This alternative would cross one wetland, resulting in a loss of 0.3
hectare (0.7 acre).
Community Impacts. Alternative E has the second greatest potential for displacement, with 20
homes in its northern portion. Most of this displacement would occur in the Green Hill Road,
Wonderland Drive, and Opossum Hollow Road communities. This alternative would be closest to
the most heavily developed areas of Blowing Rock; however, displacement of homes on top of
Green Hill generally would be avoided.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
Only one Citizens' Advisory Committee respondent supported this alternative. Almost all of the
others believed that it would have too many community impacts in Blowing Rock, particularly in
the Green Hill neighborhood and along Green Hill and Opossum Hollow Roads. Agency
respondents who supported this alternative cited cost, minimal impacts to natural resources, and
minimal visual impacts on the Blue Ridge Parkway as their reasons.
7.2.2 Alternative F
Location
Alternative F would top the Blue Ride Flank just north of Green Hill and pass north of the Blowing
Rock Assembly Grounds lodge before ending at US 321 in the Opossum Hollow Road area.
Advantages
Cost. This alternative would have the second lowest total construction cost, $34.5 million. This
cost is similar to the total cost of "D", as shown in Table 11.
Traffic. Like Alternative E, this alternative does well in attracting traffic from existing US 321
Visual Impacts. Alternative F would be second best (compared to Alternative E) in minimizing
visual impact to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
57

Disadvantages
Natural Resource Impacts. This alternative would result in the loss of 0.5 hectare (1.1 acres) of
wetlands.
Community Impacts. This alternative is one of several that would have the greatest impact on the
Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds. It would replace current forest views from the lodge with
views of the bypass. Also, natural areas used by retreat participants would be used, a marked
trail would be displaced, and the entrance to the Assembly Grounds would be altered.
Additionally, the potential for displacement is greatest with this north end alternative. Although
homes on top of Green Hill would be avoided', 23 homes would be displaced in the Green Hill
Road, Wonderland Drive, Goforth Road, and Opossum Hollow Road communities.
Historic Resource Impacts. Alternative F could avoid use of National Register-eligible properties.
The representative design used to evaluate Alternative F shows the involvement of properties
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The assessed design for
Alternative F uses property associated with the Five Points (A.L. Shuford House). The locations
of these properties were shown in Figure 5. The representative design for Alternative F was
developed before the determinations of potential eligibility and property boundaries were made.
A reexamination of the design indicates that it could be adjusted to avoid these properties.
Adjusting Alternative F to avoid the Five Points property completely could result in the
displacement of an additional two homes. The magnitude of the other impacts for Alternative F
should not change.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
As with Alternative E, there was little support among Citizens' Advisory Committee respondents
and widespread support among agency respondents for this alternative. The reasons cited are
basically the same for both groups of respondents - to agency representatives, it is less costly
and minimizes natural resource impacts; to Citizens' Advisory Committee members, it involves
substantial community impacts to the Green Hill and Opossum Hollow Road areas.
7.2.3 Original A, B, C, and D Alternatives
Location
This north end alternative would pass between the Assembly Grounds lodge and the Blue Ridge
Parkway and end at Opossum Hollow Road.
Advantages
Traffic. As with many other north end alternatives, this one would do well in attracting traffic from
existing US 321.
Visual Impacts. Once one leaves the Blue Ridge flank and the Craig farm area, views from the
Blue Ridge Parkway would be blocked by the terrain.
Disadvantages
Cost. The cost of this north end alternative could be the lowest of the corridors that top the Blue
Ridge flank near the Blue Ridge Parkway, but only if an eight percent grade were maintained
from the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds to almost the US 321/Opossum Hollow Road
intersection. If a shallow grade were introduced approximately 1,100 feet from US 321, the
earthwork would increase and costs would increase by about $10 million.
58
l

Visual Impacts. This alternative would replace current forest views from the Assembly Grounds
lodge with views of the bypass. Also, it would be within views from the Thunder Hill overlook and
within views of the Green Hill Road area from the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Community Impacts. Along with Alternative F, this north end alternative would have the greatest
impact on the Assembly Grounds. Natural areas used by retreat participants would be used, a
marked trail would be displaced, and the entrance to the Assembly Grounds would be altered.
Furthermore, up to 20 homes could be displaced in the Green Hill Road (Craig farm area),
Goforth Road, and Opossum Hollow Road communities. This number could be reduced
substantially in the Heather Ridge Lane area, but earthwork costs would increase.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
Neither the Citizens' Advisory Committee respondents nor the agency respondents expressed
support for this north end alternative. Concerns included visual impacts to the Blue Ridge
Parkway, impacts to the residential communities in the Green Hill and Opossum Hollow Road
areas, and impacts to the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds. Many Citizens' Advisory Committee
respondents expressed concerns about congestion and safety at the busy intersection of US
321/Opossum Hollow Road/Shoppes on the Parkway. This concern also would apply to
Alternatives E and F and any "G" alternative.
7.2.4 "G" Alternative
Location
This alternative, which was used to form Alternatives AG, BG, CG, and DG, would pass through
the southeast part of the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds and continue to Opossum Hollow
Road.
Advantages
Cost. Costs for the "G" alternative are only slightly higher than with the original A, B, C, and D
described in the previous section. "G" would include shallower grades (6.5 percent maximum)
at the lowest cost.
Traffic. As with the previous north end alternatives, this alternative would do well in attracting
traffic from existing US 321.
Visual Impacts. Once one leaves the Blue Ridge Flank and Craig farm area, views from the Blue
Ridge Parkway would be blocked by the terrain.
Community Impacts. The "G" alternative would have the least impact on the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds' operations of any north end alternative that stays south of the Parkway,
except Alternative E.
Disadvantages
' Visual Impacts. This north end alternative would be within views from the Thunder Hill overlook
and within views of the Green Hill Road area from the Blue Ridge. Parkway.
' Community Impacts. A maximum of 19 homes could be displaced within the Green Hill Road
(Craig farm area), Goforth Road, and Opossum Hollow Road communities. As with the previous
north end alternative, displacement could be reduced substantially in the Heather Ridge Lane
area, but earthwork costs would increase.
1
59
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
Citizens' Advisory Committee respondents indicated that, although this north end alternative
would have less impacts on the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds than the original A, B, C, and
D north end alternatives, it still would have substantial community impacts and therefore was
unacceptable. There was more support from agency respondents to this alternative primarily
because it would have less of a visual impact on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
7.2.5 "H" Alternative
Location
The "H" alternative would parallel closely the Blue Ridge Parkway and end at US 321 between
the Parkway and Moses Cone Park.
Advantages
Traffic. As with the others, this alternative would do well in attracting traffic from existing US 321.
Visual Impacts. Once one leaves the Blue Ridge flank and Craig farm area, views from the Blue
Ridge Parkway would be blocked by the terrain. It would not be within views from the Blowing
Rock Assembly Grounds lodge.
Community Impacts. This north end alternative would avoid most of the communities south of the
Parkway; however, it would pass through the Craig farm area on Green Hill Road and
undeveloped portions of the Hillwinds Estates off of Opossum Hollow Road. It would displace
only two homes and a restaurant/motel.
Disadvantages
Cost. Of all the north end alternatives, the "H" alternatives 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.
Visual Impacts. This alternative would be 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 visible clearly from the Parkway for its full length parallel to the
Parkway.
Community Impacts. This alternative would pass through the Craig farm area and undeveloped
portions of Hillwinds Estates. It would displace a restaurant/motel on US 321. Also, at the
Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds, it would use natural areas used by retreat participants and
displace a marked trail.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
Only one person among the Citizens' Advisory Committee and agency respondents indicated
that this north end alternative should be carried forward to the DEIS. Among the reasons cited
for eliminating this alternative from further consideration were high cost and visual impact on the
Blue Ridge Parkway. In the past, however, the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock have
indicated that this was the best location to end the bypass south of the Parkway.
60

7.2.6 "1" and "J" Alternatives
Location
These north end alternatives would cross the Parkway in a tunnel and continue north to US 321 at
Aho Road.
Advantages
Community Impacts. The "I" and "J" alternatives would pass through only one community, the
Thunder Hill Road community. They would avoid completely the communities within Blowing
Rock. They also would avoid the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds.
Disadvantages
Cost. These would be the most expensive north end alternatives because of the tunnel. A tunnel
would have a construction cost of approximately $32.3 million for "I" and $35.4 million for "J".
The total construction cost for the tunnel alternatives would approach or exceed $100 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 would be important because of the tunnel's remote
location. Lives could be lost if there were a fire in the tunnel and trained people were not on the
scene to direct the smoke out of the tunnel properly 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.
Traffic. A north end alternative that included a tunnel would attract the least amount of traffic
from US 321 to the bypass. Only 7,200 vehicles per day would use the bypass in 2025. The
other north end alternatives could attract a maximum of 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 could 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).
Visual Impacts. According to Parkway officials, the approach roads associated with a tunnel
would have a substantial visual impact on the Parkway. The alternative itself would be visible
from the Thunder Hill overlook as it moves along the Blue Ridge Flank.
Community/Natural Resource Impacts. Both of these alternatives would pass through the
Thunder Hill community. A trade-off exists between displacement and loss of wetlands. The "I"
alternative would displace 21 homes (including a mobile home park with 19 mobile homes) and
would avoid wetlands. The "J" alternative would avoid the 21 homes but would displace
approximately 3.4 hectares (2.1 acres) of wetlands. This alternative also would pass near some
older homes. A survey would be needed to determine their eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Citizens' Advisory Committee and Agency Response
Of the Citizens' Advisory Committee members who responded to the questionnaire and who
indicated specific bypass preferences, a majority supported one of these north end alternatives.
The Town Council of Blowing Rock has indicated its unanimous support for an alternative that
crossed the Parkway in a tunnel. Some other Citizens' Advisory Committee members who did
61
not respond to the questionnaire also strongly advocate crossing the Parkway in a tunnel. They
believed that this is the only "true bypass," one that avoids Blowing Rock's residential
communities completely. Agency representatives and the Citizens' Advisory Committee
members who opposed such a north end alternative cited cost and impact to the Blue Ridge
Parkway as primary concerns.
7.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Starting further south would result 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.
• Increased potential for Parkway visual impacts.
Any south end alternative except Alternatives E and F would use property from the National
Register-eligible Five Points (A.L. Shuford) House.
At the northern end:
• Crossing the Parkway would reduce the effectiveness of the project in attracting traffic
from existing US 321.
• Alternatives E and F would have the greatest potential for displacement of homes.
Alternative E would be closest to the most heavily developed areas of Blowing Rock.
• Staying close to the Parkway or crossing it would reduce community impacts and
displacement (except "I" alternatives), but the project cost would be much higher.
• Alternative E would have the least potential visual effect on the Parkway; the "H"
alternatives would have the greatest potential effect.
• Alternatives A, B, C, D, and F would have the greatest impact on the Blowing Rock
Assembly Grounds.
• Staying in valleys and steeper grades would reduce the amount of earthwork needed,
and, therefore, cost.
• Generally, wetland impacts would be minimal with all alternatives, except for a "J"
alternative. (Note: although the area of wetlands affected by the "J" alternative appears
small, according to natural resource agency representatives, this is a substantial amount
for a mountainous area.)
62

' National Register-eligible historic resources are in the vicinity of Alternatives E and F but
no use of the properties would be required. The other north end alternatives would
connect to south end segments that use lands from the Five Points (A.L. Shuford)
property.
• Tunnels would cost $32.3 million ("I" alternatives) and $35.4 million ("J" alternatives) plus
' annual operating costs.
8
CONCLUSIONS
.
The above analysis and the associated comments from regulatory agencies and the Citizens'
' Advisory Committee were discussed at two meetings held for the purpose of selecting the
bypass alternatives to be evaluated in detail in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These
meetings were held on January 15, 1997 and March 5, 1997. They were attended by study team
' representatives of the NCDOT, FHWA, and Parsons Brinckerhoff. No specific procedure or
criteria for selecting the alternatives were agreed upon prior to the meetings. In the course of the
two meetings the following general selection criteria emerged:
t 1. The selected bypass alternatives should reflect the diversity of issues and trade-offs
associated with the bypass alternatives since no consensus exists on one best bypass
alternative between the Citizens' Advisory Committee, citizens in general, the NCDOT
and FHWA, the National Park Service, and the environmental and cultural resource
regulatory agencies.
2. At least one bypass alternative should be carried forward that does not use Section 4(f)
resources.
3. Bypass alternatives opposed by members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Town
Council of Blowing Rock, and citizens in general should not be carried forward unless
they were considered essential to achieving the first two criteria.
4. At least one alternative should include a tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway because
of the strong interest in this alternative expressed by many members of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee and the Town Council of Blowing Rock.
Alternatives E, CC-CI (includes a tunnel), CC-CH, and a combination of F with the northern
ending point used for Alternatives CC-AH, CC-BH, and CC-CH (called FH) were selected for
study in greater detail and for comparison to the widening alternative in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The bases for these decisions are described in the next two sections.
Alternative FH was not evaluated specifically but considered a possible combination because of
its ability to avoid historic resources and the Opossum Hollow Road area. FH would involve six
fewer residential displacements than Alternative F, but one more business displacement. The
wetland impact is the same as for Alternative F. There is a greater potential for visual impact on
the Blue Ridge Parkway; however, the alternative would be obscured by existing trees.

63

8.1 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION IN THE DEIS
8.1.1 South End Alternatives
The study team eliminated the "A"; "CC-A," "B", and "CC-B" alternatives from further
consideration because they would involve higher cost, much greater earthwork, greater natural
resource impacts, social impacts to the rural communities south of Blowing Rock, and would
leave a substantial length of US 321 unimproved. The study team decided that the advantages
of these alternatives over other alternatives were not great enough to outweigh the
disadvantages. The section of widening between the start of these alternatives and the start of
the "C" and "CC-C" alternatives meets the project's design criteria for horizontal curves. In this
same section, the widening project would have only 0.6 miles of grades greater than six percent
divided between three locations. The NCDOT can maintain two lanes of traffic virtually all the
time during construction of the widening.
The "D" alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it did not address one of
the primary concerns of several members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee: it would not
bypass an approximately two-mile section of steep grades and sharp curves on existing US 321
as it approaches Blowing Rock.
The "C" and the "CC-C" alternatives are essentially different design variations in the same
corridor. The "C" design was eliminated in favor of the "CC-C" design because the "CC-C"
design was created to connect to two of the selected north end alternatives and it includes two
features favored by several members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee: shallower grades and
less displacement on the Blue Ridge Flank.
8.1.2 North End Alternatives
All the alternatives that ended at Opossum Hollow Road except Alternative E were dropped from
further consideration because this northern ending point was opposed by most members of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee,. citizens attending the August 1, 1995 Citizens Informational
Workshop, and the Blowing Rock Town Council. The potential impacts of these alternatives to
the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds also were a factor.
The "J" tunnel and design north of the Blue Ridge Parkway also was dropped from further
consideration, at least at this time. The differences between the "J" route and the selected "I"
route are small. The primary trade-off known at this time is the loss of several acres of wetlands
("J") versus the relocation of 21 homes ("I"). The "J" alternative also passes near several older
homes. If the more detailed study of the environmental features that will be conducted during
the preparation of the DEIS reveals unforeseen problems, then the "J" route could be revisited.
8.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION IN THE DEIS
Alternatives E; a combination of F with the northern ending point used for Alternatives CC-AH,
CC-BH, and CC-CH (FH); CC-CH; and CC-CI (includes a tunnel) were selected for the following
reasons:
Alternative E (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 1 in the DEIS)
It is the shortest and least expensive bypass alternative.
It can be designed to avoid area historic resources.
64

[ 11

It would have the least visual impact on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
It would have a minimal impact on the Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds when
compared to the other alternatives ending south of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Alternative FH (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 2 in the DEIS)
e.?
Like Alternative E, it can be designed to avoid area historic resources.
Its northern terminus is between the Blue Ridge Parkway and the northern-most
residential subdivision in Blowing Rock, unlike E, which terminates at Opossum
Hollow Road. The Blowing Rock Town Council and many members of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee have stated their objections to a northern terminus
at Opossum Hollow Road.
Alternative CC-CH (will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 3 in the DEIS)
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. This feature is also important to several citizen representatives.
Alternative CC-CI (tunnel; will be referred to as Bypass Alternative 4 in the DEIS)
It avoids the Town of Blowing Rock by ending north of the Parkway, a feature
important to the Town Council of Blowing Rock and many members of the
project's Citizens' Advisory Committee.
- Like CC-CH, 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.
These alternatives are shown in Figure 10. They were selected for further study and comparison
to the widening alternative recognizing that none of the alternatives performs well on all
evaluation criteria: cost, engineering, traffic, and environmental (natural and social). Each offers
a different set of trade-offs, particularly between cost, social impacts, and natural resource
impacts. The support each has from regulatory agencies, the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and
citizens in general differs. In addition, citizens and most of the members of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee oppose bypass alternatives that end south of the Parkway, with the possible
exception of CC-CH. Some of the members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee have expressed
the concern that the tunnel associated with the tunnel alternative is too long. Opportunities for
reducing the potential for environmental impacts by each alternative and design refinements that
might reduce bypass costs will be examined and presented in the DEIS.
In selecting these bypass alternatives for detailed evaluation in the DEIS, the NCDOT and the
FHWA also concluded that based on the information known to date, they cannot conclude at this
time that any of the bypass alternatives are reasonable alternatives. A decision on the
reasonableness, feasibility, and prudence of the widening and bypass alternatives will not be
made until after the DEIS has been released and reviewed by citizens and regulatory agencies.
This decision, along with the selection of a preferred alternative, will be published in a Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation and the FHWA's Record of Decision.
65

tz ;
r ,'
Road i N; .
A
FarTi ?? j
Tunnel Under
a
J, u lue i
dge
Parkway
<!?p? u 5`aaec 1 ?. -- der kif
r : her "'ul L 4:«m-
Pa t \
Assembly
y -..
Grounds
Lodge
`Q?
A. N\
Fcho Park
W.
Hill
?# ? -', ? Green en ,i?i? _ ?. - <o .?r - ??
Blowingg,Roek ` ??Hill cv f
US 32 ?',
1 >
I 13 tx F, a
W?J#kp% , 4c? y4 N "
cb;?`?dv i?difr?trv
Blackberry
Wowing Ro-
Bailey Camp
Church
Last curves
before
Blowing Rock ' CC-C
b
0 5 1}m -
0 5 1 n11e i?
S Aid a "hv Cain])
C ,
Bypass Alternatives Figure
for Detailed 10
Evaluation in DEIS
t

9. CITIZEN AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
9.1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The Citizen Participation Program is an important component of the US 321 EIS Study. The
Citizen Participation Program for the Alternatives Analysis provided interested persons the
opportunity to participate in the planning process and understand the overall study process and
schedule. Activities during the Alternatives Analysis process included:
A newsletter that introduced the study, announced the workshop and described the
Alternatives Analysis work program.
Two citizens informational workshops that provided an opportunity for the general public
to discuss the study and its findings with members of the study team.
Citizens' Advisory Committee meetings. This committee was formed to allow citizens of
the project area to participate in the planning process and meet regularly with the study
team. It consists of 14 members and serves as an advisory body to help the NCDOT
develop a project that offers a reasonable balance of the diverse issues associated with
the project. The committee consists of representatives from the following government or
civic organizations: Blowing Rock Town Council; Watauga County Board of
Commissioners; the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation Reform; the Blowing Rock
Community Club; the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock; the Blowing Rock Chamber
of Commerce; the Blowing Rock Merchants Association; the Blowing Rock Historical
Society; the Concerned Citizens of Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp (added in March
1996); the Aho community; the Caldwell County Board of Commissioners; Appalachian
State University; and the Blowing Rock Neighborhood Coalition (added in August 1996).
A toll-free proyect information line provided direct contact between citizens and the study
team.
9.1.1 Newsletters
The first newsletter was issued prior to the citizens informational workshop in August 1995. It
informed citizens of the workshop and introduced the study. In addition, it described the
Alternatives Analysis work program, the social, economic, and environmental issues that would
' be examined during the study, and the public involvement program. It was mailed to individuals
and organizations on the project mailing list and distributed at the first workshop.
The second newsletter was issued prior to the citizens informational workshop in August 1996. It
' informed citizens of the workshop and explained the status of the study. It summarized the key
engineering, traffic, community and cultural resource, visual, and natural resource findings of the
ten potential bypass alternatives. It also explained the public involvement program to date. It
was mailed to individuals and organizations on the mailing list and distributed at the subsequent
workshop.

67
1
9.1.2 Citizens' Advisory Committee
July 12, 1995 Meeting
The purpose of this meeting was to review the role of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, to elect a
committee chairperson, and to describe the project's history, its current status and the scope of
work for the Environmental Impact Statement. The group also discussed the types of issues to
be addressed when comparing bypass alternatives. Specific concerns raised by committee
members included:
• The environmental and community impacts associated with a bypass would be greater
than those associated with the widening.
• Countywide impacts, rather than only impacts to Blowing Rock, need to be assessed.
• Safety should be the overriding factor when choosing a bypass or widening alternative.
• Widening the road would have adverse impacts on the Green Park Historic District.
• A bypass will be necessary even if the existing road is widened.
The Committee also requested that a copy of accident records for the area be sent to members.
November 11, 1995 Meeting
The committee reviewed comments from the workshop and from agency scoping letters.
Another topic was how to avoid sensitive features when selecting a bypass alternative. The
majority of the time was spent on basic design concepts, potential location corridors and typical
section alternatives for the potential bypass alternatives. Specific questions and concerns
expressed by committee members included:
• What is the National Park Service's reaction to a Parkway crossing?
• Will the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be involved in the study?
• Why was a 1993 estimate of displacements associated with the widening different from a
1991 estimate?
• Should the taxpayers of Blowing Rock expect a tax increase to fund the relocation of
utilities?
There were several questions about grades on the bypass and the cost of certain features like
truck escape ramps. One member also asked that the study team explore a tunnel option in
more detail. The Committee expressed an interest in seeing the alternatives on a topographic
map. Finally, one committee member was concerned that members were not getting an equal
amount of time to ask questions and, therefore, the responses of the study team seemed to be
one-sided.
March 27, 1996 Meeting
The focus of this meeting was traffic and accident studies. Study team members presented
traffic forecasts and level of service and accident analyses for existing US 321 and for the
potential bypass alternatives. The committee and study team also discussed the engineering
68

tradeoffs associated with the bypass alternatives that had been developed at that point.
Questions were raised about...
' the traffic model. Many questioned the accuracy of the model as well as the accuracy of
the data put into the model.
' the 30th highest hourly volume.
• the accident analysis. The committee wanted to know if it accounted for the higher
speed of a four-lane road. Another member asked why there were more total accidents
' with the bypass than with the widening alternative. Comments were made regarding the
severity of accidents.
' whether or not truckers would remain on the existing route to avoid the grades on the
bypass.
• the alternatives. Some committee members were concerned about community impacts
in the Opossum Hollow Road area, while others were concerned about the environmental
and community impacts in the Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp area. A majority of the
questions and comments, however, were engineering-related (grades, bridges, costs,
' etc.)
' July 31, 1996 Meeting
The purpose of this meeting was to present the ten initial potential bypass alternatives to the
committee and to explain the criteria used to identify them. Similarities and small differences
among the alternatives also were presented to the committee. Committee members were asked
to identify the factors they considered most important in selecting bypass alternatives and to
choose the alternatives, of the ten presented, that should be evaluated in the DEIS and
compared to the widening alternative. The factors selected most important by committee
members, in order, were community impact, safety, efficiency of traffic movement, and cost. The
' majority of the members stated that none of the alternatives were acceptable either because they
preferred the widening alternative or because they favored an alternative that completely
' bypassed Blowing Rock or crossed the Blue Ridge Parkway. The NCDOT reaffirmed its decision
not to pursue bypass alternatives that cross the Blue Ridge Parkway. Specific comments by
committee members included:
' Each of the alignments is fatally flawed. It was stated that refinements to the alignments
submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock (A, B, C, and D) had rendered
them unacceptable because of steeper grades and greater community impacts.
' The NCDOT has not made a good faith effort to comply with Section 4(f) of the National
Transportation Act of 1966 in its identification of bypass alternatives.
• None of the alignments meet the criteria for a safe highway. The study team assumed
this comment referred to the grades of the potential bypass alternatives.
' What are the Blue Ridge Parkway restrictions?
• The corridors do not bypass Blowing Rock enough. Some committee members want an
' alignment that completely avoids the town limits of Blowing Rock.
• The information presented shows conclusively that a bypass is not a feasible alternative
and that widening the existing road is the only practical solution. This view was shared
69
by a few of the committee members who believed that engineering and environmental
findings demonstrated that a bypass would not be feasible in this area.
Although the widening alternative is preferred, E is the best of the alignments being
examined. This view was expressed by a committee member who, although he
preferred the widening alternative, was able to select the alignment he thought should be
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for comparison to the widening alternative.
Other committee members elected to mail their comments to the study team. Of the comments
received, half expressed a preference for widening the existing road.
At the urging of the Blowing Rock Town Council, the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock, and
citizen comment, the study team decided after this meeting and the second Citizens
Informational Workshop to examine several new alternatives proposed by the Concerned
Citizens of Blowing Rock, including a tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Concerned
Citizens provided maps showing its preferred bypass locations and design parameters. The
study team met with representatives of the Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock prior to
completing its designs to affirm that the designs met the Concerned Citizens' expectations. The
only expectation not met was tunnel length. The Citizens' Advisory Committee was given the
opportunity to respond to a questionnaire that asked for comments on which bypass alternatives
should be carried forward for detailed evaluation in the DEIS. Questionnaire results are
discussed below in section 9.3.
June 24, 1997 Meeting
At this meeting, the NCDOT presented the four bypass alternatives that would be evaluated in
detail and compared to the widening alternative in the DEIS. The new Transportation Board
member for Division 11 was present and offered comments. A representative of the FHWA
regional office in Atlanta also attended to discuss Section 4(f) requirements. Committee
members continued to express concern over community impact, particularly with the non-tunnel
bypass alternatives. Questions and comments included:
• What is the anticipated schedule for completion of the DEIS?
• Cost should not be a factor in building a good highway.
• There is considerable concern that if existing US 321 is widened, traffic will be diverted
through downtown, which would be detrimental to businesses and the downtown
character.
• Residents of Green Hill and along Green Hill Road do not support a bypass near or
through that area.
• How reliable are the cost estimates?
• Why was the "H" alternative selected when, according to the questionnaire responses,
only one person supported it?
9.1.3 Citizens Informational Workshops
Two citizens informational workshops were held. The first was held on August 29, 1995 at the
Blowing Rock School Cafeteria. The second workshop was held on August 1, 1996. At both
workshops, the agenda was informal. The public was invited to come at any time during a three-
70

' hour period to see the land suitability map, the potential bypass alternatives (at the second
workshop), ask questions, and give comments to study team members.
' August 1995 Workshop
On August 29, 1995, 194 persons registered their presence. Key issues raised related to:
1. Support for a Blowing Rock bypass. Supporters said they believed that widening US
321 would...
- spoil the character of Blowing Rock;
- adversely affect the historic district;
' - close businesses alon
US 321 durin
construction
g
g
;
' - encourage unsafe speeds and cause more accidents;
- cause structural damage during blasting;
- jeopardize the safety of students who cross US 321 walking to and from school;
- increase truck traffic in Blowing Rock;
' - increase crime in Blowing Rock; and
- become obsolete in a few years, necessitating a bypass anyway.
2. Support for widening US 321. Supporters believed that a Blowing Rock bypass would...
' - displace more people than the widening alternative;
- adversely affect the area's natural beauty;
' - adversely affect the natural environment;
- cost much more than the widening;
t - increase noise levels;
- spoil views, thereby reducing property values; and
t - spoil views and serenity from Parkway overlooks.
3. Development of alternatives.
bilit
4
L
d
i
y map.
.
an
su
ta
August 1996 Workshop
On August 1, 1996 239 persons registered their presence. Information was organized into five
sets of displays, each staffed by a study team member(s) with expertise in that particular topic.
' The topics included:
• Criteria for identifying potential bypass alternatives.

71
r
• Engineering findings.
• Community and cultural resource findings.
• Natural resource findings.
• Next steps.
Written comments received during and after the workshop can be summarized in the following
way:
• Those who favor a bypass and accepted the work done by the study team.
• Those who favor a bypass but considered the potential bypass alternatives
unacceptable for various reasons.
• Those who favor widening the existing road.
• Those who prefer a "Do Nothing" alternative.
• Those who were unhappy with the workshop format.
As noted above, at the urging of the Blowing Rock Town Council, the Concerned Citizens of
Blowing Rock, and citizen comment, the study team examined several new alternatives following
the second workshop, including two that included a tunnel under the Blue Ridge Parkway.
9.1.4 Toll-Free Project Information Line
During the alternatives study, several calls were received on the information line. Many people
called to be placed on the mailing list and several others had questions and comments about the
location of potential bypass alternatives. Several were concerned with how a particular
corridor(s) would affect their homes.
9.2 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
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 1, 1996. A second interagency meeting was held on December 17,
1996.
9.2.1 February 1, 1996 Meeting
A meeting was held with representatives of federal and state regulatory agencies on February 1,
1996. Agencies represented included:
• Caldwell County
• Town of Blowing Rock
• Federal Highway Administration
• NC Department of Cultural Resources
72

0
fl

• NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Forest Service
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
After discussing the progress of the project since the last Steering Committee meeting in 1991,
the study team presented its findings related to:
• Potential bypass alternatives and their origin
• Traffic forecast observations
• Level of service results
• Capacity sensitive analysis
• Accident analysis
• Median safety study
The presentation also included a discussion on observations about the bypass alternatives, the
merits of crossing the Parkway in a tunnel and recommendations for the rest of the study.
9.2.2 December 17, 1996 Meeting
A second interagency/steering committee meeting was held on December 17, 1996. Agencies
and organizations represented included:
• Town of Blowing Rock
• Watauga County
Region D Council of Governments
• Concerned Citizens of Blowing Rock
• Blowing Rock Historical Society
• NC Alliance for Transportation Reform
• Appalachian State University
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Federal Highway Administration
73
• Blue Ridge Parkway
• NC Department of Cultural Resources (SHPO)
• NCDEHNR - Division of Water Quality
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
The primary purpose of this meeting was to present the additional citizen alternatives and a
preliminary evaluation for all of the alternatives. After the meeting a questionnaire was prepared
to aid regulatory agency and local government representatives in identifying the bypass
alternatives they thought should be evaluated in detail in the DEIS. (See section 9.3 below.)
9.3 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
At the second interagency meeting, it was suggested that the information about each alternative
be compiled to reflect that the various corridors could be mixed and matched. This was done in
the form of a questionnaire, which was sent to agency representatives, representatives of various
NCDOT branches, and the Citizens' Advisory Committee. In the questionnaire, the potential
bypass alternatives were divided into two geographic areas: south end alternatives and north
end alternatives. In each geographic area, advantages and disadvantages were described for
each alternative. For each question, respondents were asked to answer "yes" or "no", and give
their reasons. The questionnaires were mailed in late January and early February. Sections 7.1
and 7.2 present the alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative as
they were presented in the questionnaire.
Eighteen responses were received, 10 from the Citizens' Advisory Committee and 8 from
regulatory agencies. These comments are summarized in section 0 under "Citizens Advisory
Committee and Agency Response" and in Table 12. In general, the members of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee were opposed to the longer bypass alternatives ("A", "CC-A", "B", and
"CC-B" alternatives) and to a northern terminus at Opossum Hollow Road. Three of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee respondents were not in favor of a bypass at all. Of those who responded,
the most support was for an alternative that started north of the "S" curves but south of the sharp
curves ("C" and "CC-C" alternatives) and ended in a tunnel. There was no agency support for
an alternative that started south of the "S" curves or ended in a tunnel (although one respondent
suggested that a tunnel be studied since it was the preferred alternative of the Concerned
Citizens of Blowing Rock and the Blowing Rock Town Council. Two of the agency respondents
did not favor a bypass at all. Of those who selected alternatives to be studied further, most
preferred Alternatives D, E, and F. Several respondents chose to make general remarks in
letters and not respond directly to the questions.
74

I

t

L
R
^_
c
N
3
A?
W
V
AR
O W
L
ya,,
W
N +.
CC L
i
O adi
:0%
a
CM
.- R vl
d E R
F N W
m
ro
M.
N
N
_m
Q N.
n
W
? 3 a
c -? m
j w
??, y N O
? m m y o.
U Q Y o a
.c tea
o y E N m N
? H D ? 0 0
j Q o m Q o
? y O Vi =
N
a`0i m aC nc
C¢ p p R c N
i30
¢ y c N Jp m ¢ p m
fob Q? 02Q
C
Y N N ? ?
C N O n N J n
N
O?= C Q 0 O O
G ? T
Y N Y m n
C R j j Q
°?noy3W
O _ca : O Q
°c = a T
p N
a
H J N
t 3 4i
x°00
C ¢
05=U.U
ay o d U
t ?? Inc
m o 0 o m
h
oQU
? U
o?m
C j Q m
U U
?n v? U
} >z > >>" zZz
Y
zp
z0
z0
Z
z
z0
N
J
c
m
m
h
m
0
Q
6
m
o ° 0 0
z z z
c0
w m =
O ? S
Y N y '
c m 'o
z a 0 a z z
? C-
m c C-
m
>
m ? = N
C E
_ .a
m m d t
1] Y (7 j
o Co E m N o Z0
Z O
y s « m Z
d ¢ 00
O ? m >
E 0 E 'o
m
N O CO
Z 3 a U z z
W T N
J O C
L N m O
c ? C
? N J
.>
o E m 0 0
Z 3 m N E z z
E
m C m
N ? O O
T - N
Q O C, U
O L r 01 m O m
Z = Z }
m
a
d A
M > O
c
O ¢
O U ? N O
Z c Z
10 0
>d m
o p
z z z
d
}
zpzpzp
> Z Z
O
0
= d O O
E } z z
J
O
m } Z Z
C
co w o o
'0} ZZ
C
O
C
c
o
N O O
o
o
U
O
. M
} Z Z
z zz
m_

R o

m o
Q C
a c m c E t
Q 2 m¢ _
°_
i U U d
C
Z _
0 c
0 3 m- ? m
N m O

L
E
U o O
N ca cr
C m m
~ N a
=
N O r
Q O m
c N C C
-= O
G M
Q

N d Y T

m
1
8 O

W C O` N U N E
L

i
J
> 0 y
o

cc co
T H m V
j, N OI
. d
C O U
= a C -0 0 ca
O 3 - N

U

m
U O C T O U C j J « "O 'j 3 Q
...
v N ;
U U J z U d W
LL Y CO Q
75

O z0 zo
r zp zp zp
N
M
M
D
O
zo zo CO)
m z0 z0
3
0
m } z
0
y z
z
O
C
E
? U
0
¢ 0 0
z Z
0 o
T
0
v Ol Z Z
m
o
` co
N
c
?
N U
m `
?
N p
O
Z N N O
Z
Y
V } }
m
« _O
O w
Y
C ?
U d
C
m m O

N
O
« m Z } ! Z
c (7
r '
m
O
0
U z
0
L
O
m

}

z
C
m
N
CL Z Z
Q

z

z
N
Q)
m
3 z z

z

z
L
N
V
U Q v U
s o?c? ?_° 3
a V E 2 o
co
U
n'o
m C m (} C C.
L co Q m .5 > E C0 3
R
LL E a m a
`m m m co M m
0 -a Un 0 co
m m
'O c
m
n` c
m 10
L N
a
m
L O.
m m
« N
O
N
m m
s
N
« m m
U p
C L 0
C 3 O
m
E y
O U
U N U
N m c
c m L
a C U_mU
N N O
O M
m d m N
N m m
m m E (s(?
m 3 U O
r Q
3 n m C
3 v 3
N m L m
U m
O y «
3 •N m
m
cca T O1 c
Q
t C p
~ m N ID
N J
0 C Cl
C N O L
o o p
? '0
J C y c
U a C
o E c a
? T d N
- C
m
m
c O « m m
L O = m Y
N j] « `p
t j p c a
r `0 m 5
Cl o m v
¢ y c
C « U J
O N
.V N m z Sc
C m N m-
3 m
N N U o L
¢? m a'3

10. REFERENCES
Caldwell County. June 1995. Comprehensive Plan for the Land Use and Future Development of
Caldwell County, North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, US
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 103 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Division of Land Resources.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, MS.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Fox, Jim, Will Orr, Sheila Gasperson, and Laura Rotegard, Blue Ridge Parkway. November 1,
1995. Interview.
Glatting Jackson & Associates. 1996. Boone/Blowing Rock Alternative Transportation Plan.
opted by Boone Town Council November 20, 1995; Adopted by Blowing Rock Town
ommission September 13, 1994.
Harp, J.M. 1992. A Status Survey for the Spruce-Fir Moss Spider, Microhexura montivaaa
Crosby and Bishop (Araneae, Dipluridae). Contract Number 91-SPID-01, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. 14 pp.
Johnson, Eric, Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds Manager. November 2, 1995. Interview.
Kral, Robert. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated
Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North
Carolina and Virginia. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical
Report SE-20. 218 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. August 1993. Administrative Action Environmental
Assessment and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation. Prepared by Parsons Brickerhoff 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.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
76

I

1

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1944. Soil Survey of Watauga County, North Carolina. In
cooperation with the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and the Tennessee
Valley Authority. United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1989. Soil Survey of Caldwell County, North Carolina. In
cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. United States Department of Agriculture. 117 pp.
Town of Blowing Rock. April 1993. Town of Blowing Rock Comprehesive Plan.
t Town of Blowing Rock. Town Code Chapters 16-17.
' Town of Blowing Rock. September 1993. Blowing Rock Watershed Protection
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
' Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Weigl, P.D. 1987: Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Handley), Northern Flying Squirrel. In
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part 1. A Re-evaluation of
the Mammals. Edited by Mary Kay Clark. NC Biological Survey and the NC State
Museum of Natural Sciences, Publication 1987-3. Pp. 12-15.

11
I

77
FI

7

APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF INITIAL BYPASS
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES

J
7

I

1

APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF INITIAL BYPASS CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
Engineering, traffic, social, cultural resource and natural resource considerations were taken into
account in comparing the potential corridor alternatives. In order to compare corridor
alternatives from common starting and ending points, the widening segment for each corridor
also was considered. For example, corridors A and AG are all bypass and no widening since
they begin at the southern end of the project area, whereas the other corridors consist of
widening from the southern end of the project area up to the point where the bypass leaves US
321. Therefore, when evaluating factors associated with each corridor alternative, the bypass
segment as well as the widening section are considered cumulatively.
The factors considered in comparing the alternatives were:
• Engineering considerations
a) Length
b) Cost
C) Excavation
d) Grades
e) Horizontal curves
f) Bridges
g) Relation to existing roads
2. Traffic considerations
a) Average daily traffic
b) Level of service
3. Social considerations
a) Displacement
b) Community cohesion
c) Public recreation lands affected
d) Farmlands
e) Noise impact potential
f) Hazardous materials and underground storage tanks
4. Natural resource considerations
a) Biotic communities
A-1

b) Rare and unique natural areas
c) Habitat fragmentation
d) Terrain changes
e) Highly erodible soils
f) Section 404 jurisdictional areas
g) Protected and rare species
5. Historic resource considerations
a) National Register-listed properties
b) National Register-eligible properties
6. Visual resource considerations
a) Changes in high quality views
b) Other views it alternatives
A1.1 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Construction and right-of-way cost, length, amount of excavation, grades, horizontal curves,
number of bridges, and intersections are presented in Table A-1 for each corridor alternative.
A1.1.1 Length
The total length for each corridor alternative is the length of the bypass plus the length of the
widening segment. The widening segment is the distance between the southern end of the
project area and the southern terminus of the bypass. The total length would not vary much
among alternatives since they all would start and end at the same points. The difference
between the longest corridor (AG) and the shortest (C) is only 0.3 kilometer (1.2 miles).
A1.1.2 Cost
Corridors that include a bypass that would leave existing US 321 near the southern town limits of
Blowing Rock (D, DG, E, and F) would have lower construction costs than corridors whose
bypass portion begins further south (A, AG.B, BG. C, and CG). This finding is reflected in the
cost per unit of distance. Corridors C, CG, D, and DG would have lower right-of-way costs than
corridors E and F. Right-of-way costs were not prepared for A, AG, B, and BG for reasons
footnoted on Table A-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 portions follow the same alignment as corridors
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.
A-2

O
t9
C

Q U
O
' U
y
m U
m
'
a°

co

co

Q

N

;+ Q
i
d

N

O

A

r L
Q ?

F W

M
iz, a 1
m
FN f?
m I? aD ? W
I
cli v a ? vI
c7
O o? v o v
N N
C7 Oi co O
?
f
co
? e
N m
N M O
m
? N
f?I m N
M (+ O
R N
V
_
M
fA
fA fA fA ? ? ?
I N O I
CO m (O V OD O M R O

N?....

6v
mN
O N v
(O
O
.T.?
v l
.i
.M..
c o
of of v u)
m
V m ?m m
m m

r
n
M o vj
(V ?n
Lo co aJ
M
S o
lo
[?7
_ [
,M !fl iH ?7
?
fA O
cm O I
m y N m M
N
O N
m O ? f?
v ? (6
ri

H
pp

f9
?

N N t[7

O
.N_.
c5
?

v

O Lo v
O M
N O
O ?
ms co
'
?
I? co
O Lo
o
O m 1?
st N
O
N
69
U3 ee
{{ t
? ('j d
V? O

' u F
R
Q
O
O
O
C•yjl? CO
`N ? I
N
V
Ui c
O N 0
.N..
N V (D O M M O

v9. (D
v
N
m +--?
f?
m coJ
12
N V
O

6
6
N
^ O
r n
9 m W O ? N n

1
O
?
N O O
b
v9 .
.. v
O
c0 Oi m mm co pppp
va fA N O
M ^ m
O m
V O N
O .-
co EA cp
(p
(N co r O
co 84 un .n cfl rn m
v
ui
^
?
N
M m
f0 N R7
U?
M
O
69
m
lo co O NI m
Im co
1 O M
N 2
69 O V M
N ^ m?
co ?p m 2{
-CT m
to C? M
cv
2
69 v (D O

v
m
"O
W
N O
M
M
?
cli
.
_.
N N

f? N

t? Oi R O

cr) N Q

c
m R N
M ^
N
m
m
V C?

Lo
O VVV{{{
c') C?
O
co
cc ? ?
? O
EA ' m
co co
E E
c0

t0
m
m I? S R O
N

T
T I
c0 O N S
I R T
3 3 v
O O O m Q o) cq cq c\,

f? co
V
EH EA
01
m N t:
o to m
a V Lo V u
? ?

v L6
L M m M
m m ?p Ln
cli O
M
N N
(O
v
v ( (
N N
_I V O O O ' (D LP -7
O) O Q

u
O MMM

c

c

l(j I Lo t0

c5 M

I u)

1
Q i
R
169 12
Y
P

E E
in u7
O '?
N v
N a
N rn m
? '
n O)
co n
v i
M n
vi n
M
T 6 T I
v I
3 3
m m 4 0 4 m 4 co co
m m N
m rn
i rn m
o m
i
a6 co
69 _
o r
° I
N ui o u u) I
L u
2 2
c0 > V
E 2 Q O a N C U E m C N
N O c
: W c 6 y' 2 _
O
co o m
va? °
ro E"E E
E c` 2 T o of o° o o o C7 w 0 _
E a m° s E c m c o
° O? ° U c O? N N Y m Y 'E w J =3
-0)
C Z ° N -c))
m E
c, -a,

,
c
C c
O O
D C C a 'O
L Q 'O N O a N a
¢ O
Z 2 N N Q 2 N N c N 01 E N N Q E N
co Q
t d
_ J
¢
(D _ (0

m 3 0-
N U q F-- 2

co 3
r J N
N N
°
E _
Y
N '? W
°
f C? m ° O 8

E
E CO

C7
E O m

(D >
CD > O
r o )
c F
o
cr r r
T m
m r F
U . Or a ? w .
A-3
N
O
M
3 =
V p
= v
V pi
r C
r 'i
ad
0 c
ras.
R c
F W
U-
W
0
0
0 ni r- 0 (ol m m
O Mf` O MIM r
O 0 to O rl - LO
0 010 0 CA C3 V)
0 a0 O a0 N
O O1 0 O 01 0 N
c o D c
N o 0
c o
0 '0
y E O S
p uyi c y 0 >
LL O 0 O
a
? D N E D
? = o poN C
LL a
O ? N C) ? c
O o C m O m
c?3o c0
co
O
S
O
O
S
E
o?
Q
O
C
J
N
U
0
c
0
O
S
E
7
N
CL
O
ui
m
J
N
O
LL
D
S
O
CD
N
0
2
m
d
O
co
L
O
0
O
c
aci
N

N
c
J ?
N 0
LL 3
0
D O
N S
¢° E
N
O
0 O
m
co
D
m 0
0 3
0
U =
mo E
D N
0
cc: O.
N O
? c
s J
N
N
m N
lOL
?n a 9
a
E E
E C)
$
c m

O Y
D D
N C
q
3
N N K c
n
0)
a
U c CL E uJ o
m
Nm
-
0 m

N y
o
a0
?a0
S
m

o
`N
u
>>;
N
0) 0 C? 0
,
C9 a
i
a
O
2 -
m
A-4
D
c
C
O
ca
¢°
0
Cl)
0
E
O
0
c
S
N
Cl)
m
D
(D
O
a
N
N
c
D
d
Cl. N
.L.
U
0 co N
O
U U N
> ? U
N O
E
a=
d N .?
(0 N Nmy
0 O O
N
O N U
N 0
a 3
'os
$ c or f°
0 m c =
c
Z m
v o d
N
co
c y c7
O 0 N LO
E m O C
U N
C N
0 >
c c c of
N C d n
*0 (D
c m
N .50
N
t c N D
~ U t c
W
h O y
N O L N
m rp O
O t
0 N
S -0 Z5 0)
4) c
U
.0 A?
N O •O N
N C ~
F E !6 m
?? COO
co
.LO N co
c
w
N
D U 0 c
c 4)
(D m o
E N N
L co U (O
O D?>.369
N >,
N
£ m o m
m ¢ m E o
Q Q = y &
> j (j u0? Co
c a > Q
N C N (s D
c c N
< Z5 _ U
O N c0 N
o
c L ?
O N N 5 C n
0 0 0 2 W c
ID 'E5 0 L a O a co
U
0 0 O N N
) m C c OL (6
d m d ?(D c E
gD Z :6 (D
N co 3 N Q
OO 0 6
S N
C E O N N
0 ._ 0-6
N6 y N C r- U
o E ° a °' co
C E 0 m o
N O
y O
U a
N N
L N L
O O O N N O
cn ¢ °am

A1.1.3 Excavation
An important consideration when selecting bypass corridor alternatives is the amount of
earthwork that would be required to construct a road in a particular corridor. The more
excavation involved, the higher the construction cost of that corridor. Corridors with bypass
segments that leave existing US 321 near the southern town limits of Blowing Rock would involve
less excavation than those whose bypass portion begins further south.
A1.1.4 Grades
The length of corridor with grades greater than or equal to 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 or equal to six percent. For grades greater than seven percent, corridors AG,
BG,CG, DG, and F would have shorter lengths of these steep grades than their counterparts
A,B,C,D, and E. Corridors C, CG and D would have the least length of grades greater than
' seven percent. Grades greater than seven percent could be reduced on their bypass segments
by design changes. The resulting road would not follow the existing terrain as closely, however,
increasing the height of cuts and fills and disturbance to the natural areas and communities.
This trade-off could be considered further for alternatives carried forward into the Environmental
' Impact Statement.
' A1.1.5 Horizontal Curves
Corridors 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 criteria. All of the
deficient curves are associated with the widening portion of the corridors.
' A1.1.6 Bridges
Corridors D and DG would contain the most bridges, with five, because of their positioning on
the side of a ridge. Corridor E would contain the fewest number of bridges, with only one.

A1.1.7 Relation to Existing Roads
' 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 would include intersections with Forest Lane and
Opossum Hollow Road.
' A1.2 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS
Forecast traffic volumes and level of service for US 321 within the project area and the Bypass
' Alternative are presented in Table A-2 for each corridor alternative.
In general the following traffic observations can be made about the Bypass Alternative:
' • The farther south the bypass starts, the longer the segment of US 321 that would
continue to have an undesirable level of service. This condition would occur because
I
A-5

N
C
i
d
N
C
N C
Q ?
d
10 L
N H
W
G C)
? Q
Q
U
y
h
cn
c U
a)
L
L
m
m
a
m
? y
W
QwUUUQQUU
o°o°*e o°°*°o °*° Cl) O CLO T CO Lco CN CI
O (DO 0 0 o 0 0 0
r O IIt to Cn Oct CA Il M
V' LO Ln CO CO r N O V
r r r N N
QWUUUQQUU
o° °0° o° o o 0-1 oe of o
O LAM vco Nf?N
I? 1? O 9 C? C? 00 OO LO COO LO 0080
CO
r o I? a CA °? CA r? aq
T CO LA CD COr ?2O'r
r N N
QWUUUUQUU
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O LO N CA Cl) LO v N
LO L9 17 Ln ?C?N
000000000
0000 LO0oLO t0
C7 CO co O M C' CA C'CO I? 00 I? r r 00 V
r N
QWUUUQQUU
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 co 0Nm ON
CO CpO Ln u)Ch c. °
O OOOO LOO 00 LOO
r LOr CO Nrr CA CM
NCO CO I; T Cl) Ov
N N
QWUUUQQUU
o° o o a o o° o o° o°
O COO (C) LOO LO C0 M CON
O LOO tOO LOO LOO tOO
'000
M CA pl C7 V 07 CA Ch
V sf Lfj CO r CV r2 Ov
r r r N N
QwUUUQQUU
000M U')0WN
QQQQQ
0 0 0 0 0
LO LO LO N NN OOOT
00000
QQQQQ
L00000
LCO O O
N NN cq Cl
0 0 0 0 0
Q Q Q Q Q
00000
000LOLo
N co 00 00 0
Q Q Q Q Q
aC) C)
LOO LOO
CO CO CO V ?
CA to 0)OO
Q Q Q Q Q
OO OO
L L LO 0
O 0
r- r.- h LO LC)
CT LT CA O O
QQQQQ
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O LD 0000 0LO LO U') LO 00
C7 CA Il Cl V C01 CA M ? n f` LO LO
T v LO CO N T co NN 0)(3)0)00
N
O
tL u. w w Ii LL LL Q U
d
d oCRr-Lo 000
? J o (Ci Cli o o rn rn
« rrrcoTa)?vv
? N N
w w U U U U U U Q
C 9
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 9 L LLQ 0: ?'q LOO MrLO LO
r
i s O O N wNM M N
V w
c 10
N
CL 0
V m co >• T c
co Co Co
d« coo N>> r s Y ro Co -° m
:3 C\l CL
f lD m O co Cn jo O O O O O O Ir N
y ti= U CO N o 3 0 0 ?, gyp. 3 a)
?'? m (1))Lo a) C7?Oocn
a of p. a) O 'o c Q a o- o =)
D C T L) OC p j` Q L L 00 cr 00 = c
(7=mmQ oC?? Cn CC Eca
O1 O n L J `O H O
°x N? ca a)a) O M cm 0 U "O N .L.. IH6 N C y y
W co O O O a)
to :3 1 (D CL
Q O ?Cn mC7C7UU)U- m7) 6C70c°
A-6
co
CU
.E
cq
s ._
E _N
Y
r E
CG V
II O
y
I L O
.3 u
O ?
y ,
>
ca E
O Y
O
M
U II
U
N ?
a)
C`o L_
> 3 '
c
E
N E v
rn CA O
c E
O y
.co y W
CO 0
?
O II
L II LL
C)m m
°-' m w
L L_ L_
3 3
Q
a
co
O
Z
Q
C?
0
z
0
Q
ca
a
T
co
?? n
c 0)
T co
N L
N U
a)
ca a)
U
_Q> a

there would be a greater distance (equal to the length between the southern end of the
bypass and Green Hill Road) that would remain unimproved. Therefore...
a) Congestion would occur on any remaining two-lane section of US 321 south of
Blowing Rock because of steep grades.
b) High accident rates would remain where no improvements were made on
existing US 321.
There would be less use of a bypass by local traffic if the bypass route were longer than
the existing route (as with corridors D and DG). If the bypass were shorter than the
existing route, more local residents would use it to get to the commercial area on US 321
and to downtown.
Acceptable traffic flow would occur on the bypass and on existing US 321 within Blowing
Rock with any bypass corridor alternative. With a bypass, peak hour congestion would
begin to occur in about the year 2020 on existing US 321 north of Sunset Drive.
A1.3 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Except for Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp and Green Hill, neighborhood boundaries are not
clearly defined within the project area. Thus, concentrations of development that could be
affected by the corridor alternatives are the focal point for social considerations. These areas
include Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp, Green Hill/Green Hill Road, Wonderland Drive, Assembly
Grounds, and Opossum Hollow Road. Displacement effects on community cohesion, noise,
visual effects, and hazardous materials and underground storage tank sites are discussed in this
section and are summarized in Table A-3.
A1.3.1 Displacement
Displacement estimates for all corridor alternatives are similar, ranging from 29 with D to 35 with
F. Corridor F would include the most displacements in the Green Hill/Green Hill Road area as it
follows the ridge line and displaces many of the homes along the ridge. Estimates were not
prepared for corridors A, AG, B, and BG because other engineering, traffic and environmental
findings seemed to indicate that these alternatives did not possess substantial advantages over
the other potential alternatives. It can be inferred, however, that in the Watauga County portion
of the project area, displacements for these corridors would be similar to C, CG, D, and DG
since the alignments are similar. Also, it can be inferred that in the Caldwell County portion of the
project area, displacements would be low, especially for A and AG, because of the lack of
widening and because they pass through primarily undeveloped areas.
A1.3.2 Community Cohesion
The introduction of a new road in the middle of a single community or neighborhood can affect
community cohesion. A new road can create a physical barrier or a psychological barrier. An
elevated or access-controlled road can create a physical barrier to pedestrian and bicycle
movement along informal routes. An elevated road can create a psychological barrier by
blocking views from one part of a community to another. A road with at-grade intersections and
carrying traffic volumes that are greater than those currently experienced in the community can
inconvenience local traffic. It also can reduce the safety of pedestrians and bicycles traveling
from one side of the community to another.
A-7

N
c
O
d
M O
Q V
J2 0
R O
F- N
LL?
L-i
N N y j ro N O N _T C 'C m N C

° C E O 'O = C
°° c m o 'm c 2
c° a B m y Y C ry m p n A
E a m L E o ° C
"m0 m y ¢° W m .N
'
-
m O j p
O ir W c n rn N R C l0 m m
?5
Cl U O C
c7 O O OI co
N N cm O O CI N COI
P'll O
Q LA
C
O
O
Q _
N Co N
Q N
pl O p C
c 'O 7 -O y m N 'O p c0 E i0
.
n C p' 7
O
m N m m=
E L 7 L Q ry 7 n_
2 (D co
>
m
U
O m O m 4> O (7 m? N m
N t
0
U mC7 c.. ?OL Em nm n N

C O m N

' _ _
O N
-? CM O 'aO c m 47
c
O m o
p
m C=
y m O R N
cm L -p 7 O t
p
U C
N O O CIO N N O O Oa (??, O .
y a) c a _O p U O m
Q m m o a
y m (7 .N w

O
c m L N C O

m
m O1 c Co c/1 U

m Z
O
U Ir m m 0)
C m m
O N
a ? o U

m = co co m
C
L O
' F
C
'
O ¢
O m m p --
O
O
N O O OI CO N 0 0 0' d a) Syr` ?=
C
O ? G_ C c U f0
L 7 m
a)
m0 E? (D E
?)
o E c o 0 o

Q
E2 U1
EmFC
Q c
,O Q 01 CM N n C
E2s'2o N'mo0om:
o n g E °° o Q a c a? m m U c m E m
a) ZI
I? O O OI r` N O O O N OM
cV ?? 'O N

O Q 11 _7
ca m 7 U m O, ca O U m
co
U
c
Co
0 o °
m E m c c c
3 7
c. m :o m m
r 7 cp 'O o E -° m n
r
N
t o ° -c n° m
ro
`
E°
(
ry

t E a
E c =° o ' o y v
E
l

' c
m
'
O m O 2
y m
m
O
p
y C
N N
N O OOf N O 00 OIO rl
C71 y Q 0 U1
? Q C L ID
7
' u Z m
mv0 is p
?C7 E
E

" m m
om c
N ?
E m
Q E m m a y = o ma c m

p
d
m m o n E E F
y m a¢ m n c m m m c m E m
O 00010
N N O O O OI O OI

o m ?? 'O L

o
o Q> >. L ja m U O
Ui V

co CM ?
c a
n m m m c
a s
o a> t5
m
y ?
c
L p E ?c ? L p n E ° T a c
co o
.0 0 M
- E T o m
o E c` o E$ or c
m- m N '
S
3
c)
cZ M E
?U y
T
cE m
o m = T c
-°
m c
L 7 .? Z
c T O a
i
O1 o f E w

m L
m c
C '
U°
°

° m 2
U 41 O
m m m n
Q T C N_ c 'O 01
E m cnO tyil 7 L N p n m
CU an
y y
m m o a E c
L N
m y m o¢ a m a m m 2 m c m E
m C y m n .O m e m
mO .
Q n A L m
?? 'O L 9
Q N j? 7 J+ L 7 U Y n U m O m U
N
c n
V) m m U
m D m n m
L_ c m 'O Y O m m
Z m a E° m N
0 E
L m ° a
= E > o m
O
~ 10 o
c ' 7
"
N

m m r
O f
O
N C-
m
m
6
N N C ID
m
3 O
' O 7 =
N (? d
¢ N 7
E z
V .L.
n n
` L 7 m
.p
L p tQ Z
E

m cm? °OcE?
0 N

E -0 U `.
m o
0) °
Q c c
25 m cm
n
U ca O
. m m
m
9; E
c
.0 N 7 Q rn p
0
a Cl
n m Co ac`
L n m N° am ° N am co o ac E m c 'D
c
`

? 'O O a 'V m U O m
Q to 7 T
L 7
m
.
c c D
O m m c
E a)
co N co U 0 N O. co
L
7 R a Y O m
y m n E m
E c
m o m a

°
co a
m
O

m

m
t
U a a
n
-°
Z rn m m c > c
c>
T

m a °o a- Z
L

?w 0
co

m?

m
C7

O
o

O
C4
VI N m N
E m
m J
m
cc N Ul m n _?
J
N C
7
T

co <
m
c
n o N L~ c
c m c m
D E
' N L l- J 7 a
U E c
N m m E
N
y00 C)00
a D
3=m9o0 F E mci is a` 0 a
o
O °
U
A-8

•a N
C
3 ~
R
V L
C d
V N
m O
Q V
G1 R
J2 0
f N
LL
W
L-i
O
O
0
U «
v
O
c
L p C

m y C
O
z
O C C
O O
Z Z
o l
C
Z
O :1
O (p
O
O
C `

N
U «
M
v d
C
C N
O P7 0 0 Q) 0 0 O m
OI U1
o Z Z Z Z «
13 F O
C N « d
(0
p?
N E
U E
C O
N

O
C (D
h

O

D r p 1
'O `
m V
E N
N Q 0 0 ?
U N C N
m E E

m 0

m d
0

m c d

m
?
O
. Z p 0 0
z Z Z c
_o
O v C .0 N
E -0
N
Q p C
m >

O
t
.- >
c E o
m
m
-
C
N ? N
« v N d C
0 O
60 .
o Q N E
o °
c Co
c
(6
o N N N N C? N N
O
Z O O
Z Z O
Z N N- C
0 2
L
n
? c
m ° C 0 3

L O Q ?- J
L
~

01
O O
Q
A
U 0
N N O
L ? ° O C N
- N «
N
N
N
N N
N .. N N
N E L U
L

3 .
m
O co C C N ?
O

N ?- O
co O N N
y `p ->
D
V O
N O w c
O ? U O O N
.O
a) a)
N
C
co
O
O O O O O '- O (? ?° N
v m Z O Z Z Z C7 'y 'O
m
m
a
°
C
C N C U
NOS (h0 m o ««
m
L d
a y C
Q N O N
p L C
m U O N

N
? ? C C L
N m 7
L N
m U
v Y
O N (p ? N
...
m O
D (o --o 0 0 . N
O d N
N ~ L
O Q
E m C C (D C C > N
C Z Z Z Z Z Z
(
S a)
c

L
0) -0- 00 T
3 c

O N .
C D N N
N p N C C
O p N '
O
n
a 'D Z
n
«
g
O L U N

N
N ca
2? c
N m s
Y A
U
N L N N N
o

m 5

Cl co 0 °
a > 3 a

c 0

o
s m
cc m a m
y m 3
o
m E
a Oi N C
0
o
RCU y m p? p+
3
O v c
y. m m
a)
C
` A (: 0 m
0
U m E
E Q
.
O U
we o> 4 E c
>
a°?a O
«`y ° P (
0) (n
? CD N O N
a ? °pN
)
p a E m co `
? c t w m ` 3 0
0>
E
O d m 0 a>
6 N T N
N 0 2 a
a
'o rn
N LL E
O N > °
d 'C N? N N C y .C a
E E O E
v
i
o° ¢Q a
mom (0
Ey?E U
E9a`i C
U
w?mmo''E5
`. 7 O C
orn;"Eau ai?a? vNV?O
O. N
O¢ U N
a c E U
E a` m (0 N
y Z C m O L Q
= U O d (0 U E O L
Z 3 m m a°= U p= d T .-
N v Y` y' m m C3 T .-
° o m
° CJ N (0 U
a N a o, E

•
0.
a W

?

A

u

o
z

x a
( N N N o

D nOmn .=
A-9
The effects of each corridor alternative on community cohesion in the above-listed areas of
development are discussed below and are summarized in Table A-3.
Blackberry Valley/Ba/ley Camp Area
In general, effects on communities in Caldwell County would be less with corridors D, DG, E, and
F. All corridors would follow ridges in this area and avoid valley communities. The most
substantial impacts would occur with corridors A, AG, B, and BG. A and AG would cross
Blackberry Road, relocating Bailey Camp Baptist Church and its cemetery. B and BG would
form an intersection with Bolick Road and Blackberry Road, separating St. Mark's Lutheran
Church on US 321 from the rest of the Bailey Camp community.
Green Hill/Green Hill Road Area
This area would be affected by all of the corridor alternatives, although with varying degrees of
severity. All of the crossings would pass under Green Hill Road and not intersect with it.
Corridors A, AG, B, BG, C, CG, D, and DG would be below the homes lining the ridge in Green
Hill. These corridors would displace some homes north of Green Hill and would bisect the
farming community, including a farm, at the northern end of Green Hill Road. Corridor E would
cross Green Hill Road just north of Green Hill roughly at subdivision boundaries. Corridor F
would displace several homes along the ridge and also would displace some homes just north of
Green Hill where it crosses Green Hill Road at a location similar to Corridor E.
Wonderland Drive Area
This area is avoided by all of the corridor alternatives, except E and F, which cross Green Hill
Road just north of Green Hill. Corridor E would cross at-grade along the edge of a neighborhood
on Wonderland Woods Drive and adjacent to the golf course. Corridor F would separate the
Wonderland Drive subdivision from the homes along Green Hill Road. The crossing formed by
corridor F and Wonderland Drive would be grade-separated.
Assembly Grounds Area
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 corridors. 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. 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 would avoid primary activity
areas. As with E, the service entrance would be altered.
Opossum Hollow Road
All of the corridor alternatives end with an intersection at Opossum Hollow Road. Through traffic
would be introduced to this area.
A1.3.3 Public Recreation Lands Affected
None of the corridors would affect public recreation lands. In addition, none of the alternatives
would use lands from the private Blowing Rock Country Club.
A-10

F1

A1.3.4. Farmlands
Corridor E would use the most prime farmland, 2.2 hectares (5.3 acres), while corridor F would
use the least, 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). The other corridor alternatives would use less than 2.0
hectares (0.8 acres) of prime farmland.
A1.3.5 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 corridors. Few homes would be in proximity to the travel lanes
because of the corridor's wide cuts and fills. The travel lanes of they bypass portion of corridors
AG, B, 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 corridors 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 corridors with more widening and less bypass since
sensitive uses would remain along US 321 after a widening is completed.
A1.3.6 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
There are no known hazardous material spill sites adjacent to any of the corridors. One potential
underground storage tank site is adjacent to the bypass portion of B and BG and one is adjacent
to the widening portion of all the corridors except A, AG, B, and BG.
A1.4 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
A1.4.1 Biotic Communities
Table A-4 shows the approximate area of impact to each community within the ten initial corridor
alternatives. Cove forest is the only natural community identified within the project area and is
easily the dominant community throughout the project area, accounting for a portion of the total
area of corridors ranging from 69 to 83 percent. Longer corridors (such as the variations of A, B
and C) would tend to extend farther from the existing US 321 where little development has
occurred. These alternatives would include more of he undisturbed cove forest and less of the
development-oriented communities (pastoral/agricultural land, plantation/orchard land, and
residential/disturbed land) than shorter alternatives (variations of D, E and F), which are planned
for routes closer to existing roads and residential areas. Most of the impacts to developed areas
would occur in the region above the Blue Ridge flank in the vicinity of Blowing Rock. AG, BG,
CG, and DG would have slightly increased impacts on developed areas and decreased impacts
on cove forest.
A1.4.2 Habitat Fragmentation
Wildlife in the vicinity of Blowing Rock and its associated development has adapted to the
presence of anthropogenic disturbances and, therefore, is not expected to be adversely affected
by construction of a bypass. On the Blue Ridge flank, however, 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.
A-11
N
C
0
i
d
0
r-
0
v
d
i
3
O
N
Q
d ?
3
F Z
0
: UO O v N O 01 (O m W m 0 m
10 M tD Q N 'R b C ' U U N U m C
N N ^ Z M O O O ?mn m W W O Wnn
v N R N Q= W
.0 b '° h
inn ¢ v ° '° 3 m2 m a CL v
oa
LQ o T
pp CO N ? O ° U °
N' M (OD Z N O O O r O OO m O W
'
a 3: is 0.
0,0 -
ID N m
Ci O O Q t0 Cl! U?
Cl) Z N N O O ?v ?y??p ?? EO
?
M o m D m° 3 5 r- Cj .0 rn o ?I ? tnJ r ¢ °r° Oii m cii m ~ « v m m 11.5
O n N co C\j z v ^ O O O O O m O C
II °
a 3 4 a y
p 0
cq N °W m Q U O Ch p -°
r, 1 N r- co
Z .M.. gj ° m cli
U) CLO
N co M LO Z ui N O O co 1T
p p Z
pp?
vOi O Q w `Oi Q v Oi M °v a V
m
???? z g to (D
U) a
n (mD n N N ¢ R CO m m
N M M co Z m N O 'IO O
Z
0
ca n° m iz- n v ¢ cc3 r?i rn ci T t9i
CO CVN^ Z v 0
C\j O O d m
m m
a
m CO
CC! (p O? ccp q Q N O r N
pI C w
Cl) Oa M N C? Z co to M 0 0 (0 O
Z
Lq 'D
c'otov inv rn m o o ^° m °
MNn N n (A
T Cv .- tti C\! OD C? 0 Z v ^ 0 0 ,ID N d
? a? t5 C\l
m N
m W
Ci n c C N Q M cq cq O T N O ?
HMO N N Cl) Z w co CV O O IO
Z
O 00 I? N R fz N O O
V v v Q O N N V ' ' ' 'I V
OOI lhN ? ^ Z C co
? Ov ° m N
v
n as
ttyy?? m W
C?? n C-0 Q N N m m
OM OM Z MO N O 'Ip c.0
t0 Z
co ? co ao cn ¢ rn v ? ? ? D
nnn rn _
0 o v v v co ui v o o
? N t0 [O Z m I... U d
.N..
n n
°9LcnTl a°DD ¢ ° o gn' I co m W
N Q t0 V < O CZ O O
n to n Z
O
CIMD. t?Nn N Lq Q 0? m OMi (P (00 'O
tvSN O cm cm
IO Z s S lO m
N N m
v r fA C1
N N I N N M R! (1D O N
n 0 0 O Q M OMp N N N C nm
t00 M° ODD OD Z r O1 tD O O O
z
Ci N 1°O 1°O Q Cp O N O Q1 O
N W T3 m
OO N Z
N ,IN a0 m v O IO
m
T- v P a
M m m
'Ia Q m m
a°q M
m n co 0 cc co Z C- co 0 o cc n
0) 0
V z
to
V _y
m a
t - m m N
_ m
? coo E ° to Q o m m m "'
Q ?_ m
Y ? 3 W Y J C U¢ ? m Ud
m Q C O N n C
?-0 r B E Em?
m = L N U) Z '? m 7 d O O m m m m d
U U nn to 3 W C J •• W H W N N) N N L N W
m 2
j y OHO Sa m S W d C y W m 3YY yL o co
mQcmy c E c o a- ?ccm ?jm 4 a
E o o c Co m m p U E v E vp 0 ? vE m w Q O a -0 (D
O rq m 0 «'O J C S LL w m IV .y. e} O O N Q C L y
m N h F m C Y Y m m
°aUaa¢a m o mEtm °mma?i0omffi¢ d
om r30 Wz?¢3 w ?mmLn.n330 o
`m . r s x= x r a
A-12
'o a
$ 3
O1 O
C
n rn
m '
C L
O W
'ro m
O N
C p?
Cl) v
c IS
L
aci o
V ?
3 N
L j
r ?
c_
ri
m m
n O
m m
m m
? O
i c
c
c c
m
? m
N H
o
U L
O
'6 O
m N
E o
L co
O rn
N N
CD O
m
c o
N U
¢ N
O m
U U
rn
O
2 c
o y
v
c
c = m
m C L
r Q 2
o
F
N C,
C m
m
acid
m
m-0
C S1
Co ° c 'O
C m
N m
(D
O NL..
u
c E
o E° O
CD U U
ID
N o ¢c

' Some species of wildlife, most notably black bear (Ursus americana) and certain migratory
songbirds, prefer interior, unfragmented forest habitats. Such species may react to
' fragmentation by abandoning the area; right-of-way corridors may become vectors for
competitors, predators or parasites. Planning alignments close to existing developed areas and
with minimum lengths through natural areas would reduce adverse impacts to local wildlife.
In most of the cove forest the terrain is so severe that ground-dwelling wildlife would tend to
utilize stream bottoms and ridge lines as travel corridors. Since wildlife movements can be
expected to occur primarily parallel to the existing stream and ridge orientation, alignments that
' are planned perpendicular to this direction would provide more imposing transportation barriers.
Again, planning alignments close to existing developed areas would minimize detrimental effects
on local wildlife.
' A1.4.3 Terrain Changes
' Terrain changes needed to construct a road may include filling valleys and cutting ridges and
side slopes. The relative amount of terrain changes required by each corridor can be inferred
from the area included in the plan view footprint; the wider the footprint, the more cutting or filling
required to construct the facility. Corridors with narrower average widths should have less of an
' impact on the existing terrain. Average widths between the construction limits of each corridor
are presented in Table A-4. A comparison among corridors indicates that E and CG might
require somewhat less than average earthwork along a given length while A and AG may require
' somewhat more than average earthwork along a given length.
A1.4.4 Highly Erodible Solis
' The approximate linear distance that each corridor extends through area characterized by highly
erodible soils is given in Table A-4. The length that a corridor extends through the Blue Ridge
' flank would be related directly to the amount of highly erodible soils that may be affected by that
corridor. Corridors A, AG, B, and BG would include greater linear distances through these soils,
while corridors E and F would include less linear distances through highly erodible soils.
' A1.4.5 Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas
Table A-4 shows the approximate area of impact to jurisdictional areas within each of the ten
' initial corridors. Jurisdictional area impacts are displayed as bank-to-bank streams, ponds and
wetlands. Of these jurisdictional areas, wetlands are considered to provide the highest variety of
environmental functions, and wetlands are considered to be more difficult to replace than bank-
to-bank systems and ponds. Bogs provide wetland functions such as toxicant retention,
production export, flood-flow alteration, and vegetative cover for wetland-dependent species
such as frogs and salamanders.
' The corridors with longer bypass segments (A, AG, B, BG, C, and CG) would cross greater
numbers of bank-to-bank streams than those with shorter bypass segments, but impact areas
would be relatively similar among all corridors because of the small widths of these streams. CG
t would cross the most streams (ten), while E would cross the fewest (three).
Four streams within the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin would be affected by the corridor alternatives.
' The upper end of Martin Branch would be crossed by all corridors. Bailey Camp Creek would
be crossed by corridors A, AG, B, BG,C, and CG. Ooten Creek and Jackson Camp Creek
would be crossed by corridors A and AG only. These crossing all would be nearly
perpendicular.
A-13
Two streams within the New River Basin would be affected by the corridor alternatives. Middle
Fork would be crossed by each corridor in the headwaters above the golf course. Crossings of
this stream would be nearly perpendicular. An unnamed tributary to the Middle Fork flows
adjacent to Opossum Hollow Road just below Chetola Lake. The stream would not be crossed,
but the corridors would parallel its east bank for varying distances. All stream crossings are
important because of potential impacts on water quality and subsequent concerns for aquatic
species.
Only one open water pond would be affected by any of the alternatives. Corridor C would cross
it near the headwaters of Bailey Camp Creek.
A single pocket of wetlands is adjacent to Middle Fork immediately above the golf course west of
Blowing Rock. 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 is disturbed
on one side by a maintained utility line right-of-way. This system is limited in length by a
maintained pasture upstream and a golf course and utility line downstream. This wetland system
would be crossed by corridors E and F.
A1.4.6 Protected and Rare Species
No preferred habitat is believed to exist within the project area for any of the five species
currently listed for federal protection within Caldwell and Watauga Counties. The preferred
habitat of the bog turtle (proposed for listing as protected) occurs within the project area (bog
wetlands associated with the stream adjacent to Wonderland Drive, crossed by Alternatives E
and F); however, the bog turtle has not been documented from the project area. No
documented unique plant communities or federally protected plant or animal species are
expected to be affected by any of the alternatives.
The May 2, 1997 LISFWS list also includes a category of species designated as Federal Species
of Concern (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection for the species listed.
There are 13 species with this designation listed for Caldwell County and 17 species with this
designation listed for Watauga County. No FSC-designated species have been documented
within the project area according to Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records (July, 1997).
Of the three state-protected species that have been documented in the vicinity of the project
area, none are known to occur within the project area, and none were observed during project
area visits. Typical habitat of Queen-of-the-prairie and Grey's lily consists of bogs and wet
meadows, habitats that only would be affected by alternatives E and F. The Allegheny woodrat
prefers rocky slopes and outcrops in hardwood and mixed conifer-hardwood forests. This
habitat is in abundance throughout the region.
A1.5 HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
As shown in Table A-5, none of the corridors would affect the National Register-listed Green Park
Historic District, the Green Park Inn, or the Bollinger-Hartley House. Every alternative, except E
and F, would pass through the property containing the National Register-eligible Five Points (A.L.
Shuford) House. The property extends down the Blue Ridge flank to about 3,200 feet in elevation
The bypass would be below the home with all but Alternatives E and F. Alternatives E and F are
both close to the Five Points (A.L. Shuford) House. E also is close to the Young-Shaw-Steele
house, a property eligible for the National Register as an extension of the Green Park Historic
District. Both alternatives, however, can be designed to avoid the properties.
A-14

11

11

1
N
c
O
R
d
N
C
O
v
d
i
3
O
N
d
CC
Q
d 'O
1'n
C - N N O d
W 'O d= CL > N° E N
B O N N Q
lL C, 30 N :6 O a
m Q L d N N N
C ?
O
Z p m .0 m d N .? O d N
m e o c y d_ c d
W '-co a°, c o cn N °
(n >- > d N 'O
0) 2)
lL J L Q d N> Q
?D ¢ m (? L d co N
C
U
C3 a d 'p
O c m
O d
C, °
d
r C:
O ° > N m
Z ?LL 7 m
a 00
j
O
d L
m Co
O j
U L Q
U)
J C
d N
CJ Q d p
U o, N Co m
o O6 a d
O. N a n
o ° > ai m
Z of m m
01 O N
co C = O
U m o L
o
U L O
C
J d 8
Q E 'O
d
O
co O C N >
Q ° a 0
c
° c o > D
h
z OI r, N
D = j
O
M 6) -a -6 L
Q) 15 (D
O j
U L O
H co
C
m ?
Q d 11
O
Q Q _N Co N
O C D m
Q a° N a
0 0 > di m
z m LL J d
m O N
N c = o
Q ? C ? L
O
C5 a)
O j
U L ?
V m
x
Q q
N d
A!
0 N
d a
o °
a` a
m
m
N °'
J W
`m d
N W
Im
d m
m cc
A R
O O
% ii
Z z
A-15

W
W
O
Q
°.0 L.. m T
O
y 5-5 C a•°) a) -d '0 )Ca 0- 0 ;: CO LO
U «
L6 M
.. .d D
L
3" N Y C A N
5; ..
N C cr U° y 'r- ?
a
ID 0
°
= rn> y m
N
O c=
m o °m 6
° ° m c o 0 E
m 5 0 r y d -
N
3 m O N D
R ;° N
-. O T O
N .L
40) •
N m p
M
012 U x ?
m (9
QY.
? O? 0
N w O p L y> o 0) C F-
C y > -c 3 y o a f0
N
L
U ; Y a 0) N
? N Y a7 O a7 -
U3 C
O
-
m
°2E?ma
, m
$ 0
0
0?2 M?m?vM
m
r
y
acr
N
a7
y
M _
E5v-
0 m 0) Zcr ° m
7 - a) a) a)
m j T T Q N
ra m? N a_
C O
Z y = d =S j L y '° y D .O m E E
O3 NO'p 4c) O
O O
;=
m
O
m O l. O
.
V
.
fY
U
y co m
T5 C7O m
m
O Z d) j
Q N al m
3 0
«LN. U N > CLO' O
y .?i ? a, o 0
O Y Q ? N
m CO a°i 3 a) a 3 0 Co
or U a
a) N •O y > a7 (?
CL 'D N m y 0
>,
N a1 O a) co O. >
y W Qi Cl N
N O M N N D p
O. m C L O
n a) px t y
S N C O.
> N C L b
a)
O y ? co
2 0 C T C
Y 0 0)
g a
W. -0 Oc-
m C > a7
= O. a) j.. a7 L O
N T m )a 3 O) ¢
p72 rn3-5 'o=
t N a a N C
(D
$? y >. 7 a) y
r 'CIL
a)
N N
T C p a) 0
M :3 o ac a
maw n
ai m co .o
V
m
z
C
7 N y
U
y N
o. m m
co a) O
L a7 y U)
c a) o
; cc aa)i 0
O N '?
p O X 7
o ; ri
ID T O v/ N
V V O N N
N o E M N
N CC ? Z
N = O Cl s
O. C O.
Tapp y
co N lL
0
O Z' y d
0)
O N L? C
?) .p m N
S V y y
> O. C U m O O C M N
() rn U '> O N

M 3 CO
S 0
Y O 0) jo E2 ca

0 t N E
E g m
a)
a) O N a) M
y
a Z)
c m o E •
a)
Fn
w
a) _ o U
o=°yyo
np `»° °300[
a?) m¢ E 0 E 0 0 -
.
O
'
' a
y
-
y y .° y
cl- . 2 T N 10 2
N
O C C M CC '? y .r3 =
cu CL
L O= N
U U C
N
0 w M 0)
1
.
Y O. N
W Cl •p
>
N a) m T C N C N .. H a) 0 d T () a)
N
M L
• 7
3 y ? j N N
U ; 0
° a)
y y C' (7 ' m y
'O N O N= a) E
`
O. m y O N y U
_
N
y lO J a) O O
O L
° C V
> W O -or 3 m .L. •C .iC
'
T Y 5 N N
10

L N a
a)
o O
U N
'
CL
Y C o Q1 N
> N N

tOJ N N N y C
O
E
CL cu 0 r
N a7 U M
y E D
O
r
N 0 L >` co 4. co O O. L O. a R V
N a) N ca C
U
Q p; Y Y N A D m N CL
o. U

ID
° a) m L T
L
y a)
?O y L OC
- N
a)
U N N
N .
L
a7
y O) y
L Us.y N
a)8 j c T y w C ' U
° a1 :3
O O C M N
m
a) ¢ :3 Cn N CO
U: °> N d
m o C-p d 3 d s o p a H m
E b y L vyi E C 0 E-0--CD -0
E
N
c
) a7
°
V
N
a
m o
T o
yvU.0r m m- T a1 O)
>.
-;E
5 °°-0 0 3? o=_ N° N E N tai) ° o
> ? ? E m.0
° N
s y
o Co it m a a rn o of c- 0-0 m a jr =
r
w CL = o y r _m m
°
CO
O.0 7 m p, T? O. j

N m m C
a) -
-
«. ? T 7
N 1] a) a) 3 N N

U ;
E
a' co
E '
m a)a)O-
U O N co
'm O
O
0 N `` a
O .. O V
y T N O E.. N
a3 7
? L
a O > _
a) O N M .C Y
r-
y
Q Y O) in y
> y -
y
co
O. 3 U p O N N N N
N 1
N O. a) a) N C E UJ
a
cc 6 a - 2 £
T co C
M a c co °> Q o mE o ca
?
CL 3: m
LO a
o L
°
b co y m U¢
n U
.5
f o ca
N
O
L
m
N
40 O
Q
H ?
y ? O) y ? N C
Q p s = c o.
M O. 8 .J L L
D (D S d j m
m
;G O > vi C >
NU)y>?)? N
N L n N> 3 N_ UN
la ° a) N _p > O
E o Y m E y y
m Q m? 0 y c?
'n Q. m O. a) p co w T
> O1m Na >Q0
m coo a U 0 O4•p?
N T CC T T p 0=
o_ ? d a) n O! O.
> 'cu a) 7 N
ymm 0 m `N
O y L.. O cri a)5 ayi CL '0
L•, O > •- T C
N is
s O an
g n E
o_ y v= 0 m a
3= am >.mL o
0) t o ca 3:: am
Y
c -0 (a r-
L G y n' N C
a)
H T
? 7 a) L N a7
N N V f; a) C N
U
T y O
o 75 -1 -C
o. 3 O D U h Q
N
T C C p O N
co a CL O `Oa. c Q
m m m 10U
O

y L-. O
N
=
W c
O
N ir
Z _
y
.
> C
O
N
O N
al
7o U
c
°
c
N '0 ° m o
co E - 0[

>
S v °) U o
y y
U N T
W L
at
am _
m
° O_ RC
m m 0
a
q
T
> 0)
cr
v N
W Z'O.m j E y C
a -0 Cc
U Go - a) o
L s U L rn L 6) Q
Ol_W N _
R
xm -? c

E N 0 y
O
a)
m
O
°
C m m Q Ocu _
O •p U o
N a)
;
m
y° 3 s .
3
o E >
rn
a»£m° >a- r
> °(7.Op m
t
L
• A-16 0

A1.6 VISUAL CONSIDERATIONS
I The impact of the various bypass corridor alternatives on areas with high quality views is
discussed in Table A-6.
1 A1.6.1 Green Hi[VGreen Hill Road Area
With all corridor alternatives, as the bypass approached the top of the Blue Ridge flank, it would
' become visible from the Green Hill/Green Hill Road area in the foreground of views of the
Blackberry Valley/Bailey Camp area. At lower points 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 corridors A, AG, B, and BG.
A1.6.2 Blowing Rock Assembly Grounds Area
' For corridors 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.
' A1.6.3 Blue Ridge Parkway
With all corridors except E and F, the bypass would be clearly within views from the Blue Ridge
' Parkway's Thunder Hill overlook, particularly as it moved around Locus Ridge and began to
approach the Parkway. The bypass would be within views of Parkway users as it passed
through farmland on Green Hill Road. For corridors E and F, the bypass would be present in
' distant views from the Parkway's Thunder Hill overlook. Alternative A would be the most visible
as it follows the top of a ridge before reaching the Blue Ridge Flank.
' A1.6.4 Other Neighborhoods Within Project Area
The bypass would be added to views in the project area communities through which it passes.
' Viewers would see the road, the cuts and fills associated with the road, and traffic on the road.
This would represent a substantial change from the views of trees, open fields, lawns, and
narrow two-lane roads that make up current views.
1
A-17