19970616_Complete File_19980320

From: "Cyndi Bell" <[e-mail]>
To.
"'[e-mail]'lI <[e-mail]
Subject: FW: US 421
Date sent: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:43:36 -0800
-----Original Message----
From: John _D
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:18 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'dennis'; 'coleen'; Cyndi_B; '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: US 421
This may help in everyone's understanding of the US 421 situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyndi_B
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:05 AM
To: John_D
Subject: US 421
Just a note for our records:
The US 421 project was on the agenda at the permit meeting yesterday,
at least the Watauga County portion (T.I.P. No. R-0529). DOT
basically has refused to discuss the larger US 421 project, from
Yadkinville to Boone, and beyond. At the meeting yesterday, I told
DOT that it would be in their best interest to get their act together
on a stream mitigation plan, a PLAN, not a proposal, with specific
streams and methods included. They then informed me that they were
working on a proposal to fund a position for the Wildlife Resources
Commission to implement stream mitigation for them. I reiterated that
we need more than ideas, and that we don't want a repeat of the
position funded for Goose Creek. Charles Bruton told me they probably
couldn't have any defined plan because of the way the position would
be set up, so I told them again we still need specifics. During our
lunch break, David Cox, Steve Lund and I discussed the project. David
Cox said he had seen a FAX of DOT's proposal so far, and it amounts to
funding a position for one person to implement all of DOT's stream
mitigation work, statewide.
This would include site location, right-of-way issues, plan
preparation and implementation, for $50 per linear foot. Obviously,
to expect one person to accomplish all this is unrealistic and
unreasonable. Cox says that Frank McBride is not prepared to enter
this agreement as it stands now. Lund says he is also not prepared to
issue a 404 based on a nebulous plan. (He's been burned on DOT's
mitigation promises before.) It is unfair for DOT to claim that we
alone are "obstructing" this project from construction.
I understand that Preston Howard may want us to reach some form of
compromise with DOT on this project. If we do agree to issue DOT a
401 based on any undefined mitigation proposal, we should all be
prepared for the fact that stream mitigation would not be implemented
for several years. I can guarantee you we'll be putting ourselves
into a situation of prolonged negotiations, reviews, and'other
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:50:07
follow-ups, with no certainty of success. Furthermore., I fully expect
DOT would ask for this same sort of arrangement many, many more times
in the future. It is standard operating procedure for DOT to elevate
permits up to higher management level, rather than dealing with the
specific issues related to projects. This has been going on with
wetland mitigation plans since at least 1989, and we still don't have
any grasp on success of those sites. Again, I believe we must proceed
cautiously, and may have to deal with the consequences for years to
come. If we do issue a 401 for R-0529, I think we must make it clear
to DOT this is the last one that can be issued based on promises.
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 2 -- Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:50:07
From:
Organization:
To.
Date sent:
Subject:
Send reply to:
Copies to:
"LARRY COBLE" <NROAR04/N1ED706>
WSRO DENR
[e-mail]
Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:58:20 +0000
421
[e-mail]
"RON LINVILLE11<N1EW331>
Following are Ron's view/opinions on the problem with our
relationship with DOT and this project in particular. I think Ron is
right and support his comments.
Article in paper this AM indicating that State will make priority of
421 and that there is a realization of doing business a better way. I
concur and agree we do need a safer road. I have relatives in Wilkes
and drive the road a lot for other purposes. DOT created the existing
fiasco by calling the new road a "widening" which is misleading. So
if it is a new day, let's move forward and make some elementary and
basic changes to the way we ALL do business.
Firstly, DOT should not hide (misname) what they are doing in the
environmental documents by calling a project what it is not. That is
how these things get up the ladder w/o a full review. ("It's just a
road widening.")
Secondly, DOT should not buy property until after they have
all their permits. To do otherwise is questionable as USFWS and EPA
can overide. This also makes permit review seem pointless unless we
are willing to let DOT waste tax dollars if changes are made. Court
cases do not consider owership as a priority for permitting.
Thirdly, DOT and environmental reviewers should come to
an agreement early on, which means that DOT must produce a close to
finished project plan with good maps showing the actual impacts at the
time of preapplication reviews, not permit reviews. To do this DOT
must incorporate env. field comments into the plan when they finally
do submit plans or show very good reasons for not doing so.
Previously, they have ignored us (or their env. people) when things
were brought up. Things were likely ignored by central DOT staff so
we had too many decisions made by non-field personnel for
non-environmental reasons. We only have one environment. We can have
many roads but they can be built sensitively. It is the State's job
to insure that happens.
Forthly (and repeat of above), we and DOT environmental spend half of
our field time trying to decipher the maps provided by DOT
engineering. We need to spend time to see the impacts and understand
the project. Simply put, we need to see the project on USGS topo type
maps and less busy site specific maps. We need to see wetlands,
streams, hydrology and buildings. Even the DOT staff gets very
confused and frustrated looking at the current maps.
Fifthly, DOT should never build a 2 lane road in the middle of a right
of way that has been purchased large enough for a future 4 lane
highway. Utilization becomes more difficult and costly. Access.
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:50:44
control for the future 4 lane was not preserved through parts of this
roadway which does not provide for ease of future utilization.
Controlled acess should be a must with major connectors and potential
4 lane highways.
Still think we could all sit down and work out an appropriate 421
route if DOT is willing. A shame this had to happen this way before
they would listen. I think that most of DOT environmental want to do
the right thing but somehow it just doesn't get to the final project.
In my opinion, there are onsite stormwater opportunities that we and
they should look at that may help us protect water quality that may
not fit our "in kind" mitigation requirements especially in the
mountains and piedmont.
Larry D. Coble
ext.290
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 2 -- Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:50:44
From: "John Dorney" <john [e-mail]>
To.
"'[e-mail] 'lI <[e-mail]
Copies to: Cyndi_B <Windows/PostMaster/[e-mail]>
dennis' <[e-mail]>
'coleen' <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]'lI <ron_linville@wsro.
Subject: Status of US 421 review
Date sent: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:05:04 -0700
As you requested below is a short status report on US 421 - Watauga
County: Cyndi, DOT and I visited sites last week and discussed the
project with our Regional Office staff. As a result of those site
visits, DOT has reported that the Public Notice for the 404 Permit was
wrong and they had not accounted for about 2,000 feet of stream
culverting. Corps is asking EPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service and
other agencies whether to renotice the project or issue the 404 under
the existing Public Notice.
Until they decide, we cannot issue 401. 401 Certification has been
drafted. Once it gets retyped, I will fax unsigned draft to DOT for
their comment. Once the COE gives us a clear signal regarding the
Public Notice and we review DOT's comments on the draft 401, we can
issue the 401. If the COE decides to put out a new Public Notice,
then we will have to wait until the comment period is over (15 to 30
days) before we can issue. Please call me if you have any questions.
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:22:46
w?SfA
r v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
------------
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 19, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
V.C. Dept. Of EHNR
APR 1 7 1998
Winston-salem
Reglonai pffica

Subject: Watauga County, US 421 new location from South Fork New River in Boone to
the Blue Ridge Parkway in Deep Gap. Federal Aid Project No. FR-86-1(6), State
Project No. 8.1750601, TIP No. R-529BA, BB & BD.
This letter is to apprise you of the status of efforts currently underway by the NCDOT to
provide compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed improvements to the
US 421 corridor from the Blue Ridge Parkway near Deep Gap to South Fork New River near
Boone, North Carolina. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States total 1.32 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 5,636 linear feet of streams. As requested by resource agencies, the
NCDOT will mitigate for impacts to streams at a 2:1 ratio.
As you are aware, the NCDOT has purchased the Sparta Bog mitigation site in Alleghany
County, North Carolina. This site is classified as a Southern Appalachian Bog (Northern
Subtype) and is considered a rare community by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
and the Nature Conservancy. A natural resources evaluation of this property has been prepared
and distributed to all participating agencies. The site contains approximately 26.2 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and is traversed by an unnamed tributary to the Little River. An
estimated 2,000 linear feet of this tributary is expected to be suitable for stream restoration and/or
enhancement. The NCDOT proposes to use this site to fulfill both wetland and stream mitigation
requirements for this project. Additionally, the department will enter into an agreement with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to restore streams in the project area. This
agreement will be similar to the agreement approved for the Interstate 26 project in Madison
0
County (TIP NO. A-10). The new agreement will arrange for stream mitigation that cannot be
provided at Sparta Bog. Thank you for your continued review of this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
------------------------------
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NC WRC

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkkNSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 27, 1998
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:

WA
r
tt?lveV I
N. C. Dept. Of EMNR .
APR 1 71998
Regional, ?)-fficaq
E. NORRis TOLSON
SECRETARY
%2?1S-`7-
Re: US 421, Watauga County, TIP No. R-529 BA/BB/BD;
New Location from South Fork New River to
Blue Ridge Parkway; DWQ Project No. 97-0616
US Army Corps of Engineers Action ID No. 199707161.
Please find enclosed two (2) copies of "Addressing the Planning Issues, US 421,
Watauga County" prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch. The information
contained in this document was discussed by Gordon Cashin at the March 25, 1998
meeting, and has subsequently been revised and updated to incorporate your suggestions
and to answer your questions. A list of the applicable design standards for Intrastate
Highway Projects has been added as Appendix A.
If you have any questions, please direct them to Mr. Cashin or Gail Grimes.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Gordon E. Cashin
L. Gail Grimes, P.E.
ATIk
K
M1?21 ?
US 421, WATAUGA COUNTY
from South Fork New River to Blue Ridge Parkway
R-529 BA, BB, BD
Addressing the Planning Issues
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
27 March 1998

US 421 PROJECT PLANNING
BACKGROUND
In October, 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
began preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector
between Boone in Watauga County and Interstate 77 in Yadkin County. The study was
completed in December, 1975, and included a recommendation for the improvement of
US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near Deep Gap.
In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent
was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was
distributed on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study progressed,
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of
the Interior National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven
interagency meetings were held throughout the study.
THE "IMPROVE EXISTING" ALTERNATIVE
The conditions along the existing two-lane US 421 exhibit the compromises
usually made when a roadway is built in mountainous terrain. Straight sections are very
short, curved portions are very sharp (especially where US 421 parallels the Blue Ridge
Parkway near Rutherwood and Laxon), and steep vertical grades (many in excess of
seven percent) are the rule rather than the exception. Owing to the steep terrain and
narrow right of way, residents have built their homes and businesses in close proximity to
the road. In the communities of Laxon, Deep Gap and Rutherwood, and to a lesser extent
along the remainder of US 421, buildings line the roadway, some less than 50 feet from
the edge of pavement. When these conditions are combined with numerous driveways,
and steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a roadway with
inadequate sight distances, blind spots, and dangerous intersections.
These conditions also render widening the existing roadway not feasible and an
unreasonable alternative. Following is a list of reasons for this determination:
Page 1
1. The grades on the improved US 421 facility will be generally three or four percent,
with one or two sections of six percent. In areas where the existing grades are greater
than seven percent, the roadbed for the new lanes could be as much as twenty to twenty-
five feet above or below the existing roadway. This could require the median to be wider
than 46 feet to accommodate the 2:1 slopes of the new lanes and the temporary drainage
(during construction) between the existing lanes and the lanes under construction.
2. Maintaining access to adjoining properties and existing side roads would be difficult,
and in some cases impossible. Existing landscape might have to be disrupted to allow for
construction of temporary connectors.
3. Safety could become a serious issue because of the differential in grades.
4. The cost of construction would increase proportionally with the difficulty in
maintaining traffic and access during the construction period. In addition, the
construction period might be 20 to 30 percent longer due to the restrictions required to
ensure safety while maintaining traffic along US 421 during construction.
5. The accident rate for US 421 through this area is approximately twice the national and
statewide averages for similar type roadways. The principal causes of the abnormally
high accident rate appear to be over-capacity of the highway, substandard geometrics
(sharp curves, steep grades, narrow roadway and shoulders), and poor passing sight
distances. One of the locations with the greatest number of accidents is a sharp horizontal
curve near Parkway Elementary School. The school is located on US 421 across from the
Grandview Overlook, a turnout on the Blue Ridge Parkway between two mountainsides
with a view of the valley below. In the early mornings, fog rolls up the mountain and
across the Overlook onto US 421. Visibility is often reduced to 50 feet or less. School
buses and parents stopped to turn left onto school property to off-load children are the
most frequent victims.
6. The proximity of the Blue Ridge Parkway also contributes to the potential for
accidents. Headlights from traffic on the opposing roadway can confuse and disorient
drivers in heavy fog conditions.
7. Improving the existing roadway would result in significantly higher relocation impacts
and right of way costs than an alternative on new location. It is estimated that
approximately 142 families, 40 businesses, and 7 non-profit organizations would require
relocation. The total number of displacements is approximately three times greater than
any other alternative considered.
8. Improving the existing roadway would encroach onto several properties determined
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, "The Secretary of Transportation
may approve projects requiring use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation
area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge or land on a historic site of National, State, or local
Page 2
significance only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm."
9. The Blue Ridge Parkway is a 469-mile scenic roadway connecting the Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia with the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in North
Carolina. It is one of North Carolina's most important tourist assets, and is the most
visited park in the United States with over 25 million visitors per year. The primary
purpose of the Parkway is recreational driving and sightseeing. It abounds with places to
camp, fish, hike, picnic, and offers more than 300 scenic overlooks. One such overlook is
Grandview located opposite Parkway Elementary School near Laxon. Through this area,
the US 421 is close to the Blue Ridge Parkway for approximately 1/2 mile; in fact, the
US 421 roadbed is located on the right of way of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The United
State Park Service adamantly opposes the widening of existing US 421 because of the
impact of constructing a four lane divided highway within the viewscape of the Parkway.
"NEW LOCATION" ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors
were developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large
areas, or "windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway
corridor. Using this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and
linked to form preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the
public at a citizens informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the
workshop, an additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain
limits, soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering
limitations, community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments
were eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments
eliminated and the reasons for their elimination.
Segment Reasons for Elimination
I Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
Page 3
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) which was signed by the FHWA in June 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was approved in December 1992. This
document was also coordinated with the DENHR, and two letters from the DWQ are
included in this document. This document finalizes the discussion of alternatives for the
project, and describes the Preferred Alternative.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the
FEIS, and are listed below:
Fewer residential relocatees: 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
Lower cost: Approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8 million
less than Build Alternative C;
Fewer noise impacts: 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
Less wetland impacts: 0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55 acres less than
Build Alternative C;
Less historic property impacts: to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
Page 4
No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the Deep Gap Bog);
Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossin ; and
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior -
National Park Service.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...".
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum
dated February 24, 1995. These comments are brief, but provide guidance for
compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (f) defines how
the lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water
Quality Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic
project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or
result in less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider
the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and
all alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the best way to avoid impacts to waters
of the United States, including wetlands, is by the judicious selection of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has completed an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts, and have also considered potential impacts to surface waters.
Page 5
?y
r

Z
D
O
v
Q
D
Q
Q
3
o?
N
LO
r-
N
NU
Ln
I
cr
N?
Ln
Co
I
rz
tD
CID
m
N
Ul

a
2
Q'
n
rr
Q
N
Ln
cr

L a
r

a W?

I ClJ

J? J

1W
1n
W
APPENDIX A
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RURAL ARTERIALS
The North Carolina Intrastate system, which includes US-421 in Watauga County,
primarily consists of partially access controlled rural arterial routes. Many of these
facilities are also a part of the National Highway System. As such, these routes fall under
the category of Rural Arterials for the purposes of planning and design. North Carolina,
as well as the other 49 States, designs according to American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidance. The applicable guidance is
AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets".
This policy requires the following:
Design Speed: 60-70 mph in level terrain;
50-60 mph in rolling terrain; and
40-50 mph in mountainous terrain.
Alignment of Hi hway: sufficiently smooth and flowing to provide desired design
speed and provide sufficient stopping right distance.
Grades: level terrain 3-5%
rolling terrain 4-6%
mountainous terrain 5-8%
Lane Width : 12 ft. desirable, 11 ft. allowable under restricted conditions.
Shoulder Width: Usable shoulder of 8 ft. which dictates graded widths
of 10 ft.-13 ft.
Mediam Width: 60 ft. or. more should be provided for safety when feasible.
(NCDOT's minimum median width is 46 ft..)
Right of Way Width: Sufficient to contain construction and allow sedimentation
and erosion control measures during construction. .
m?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 27, 1998
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
Re: US 421, Watauga County, TIP No. R-529 BA/BB/BD;
New Location from South Fork New River to
Blue Ridge Parkway; DWQ Project No. 97-0616
US Army Corps of Engineers Action ID No. 199707161.
Please find enclosed two (2) copies of "Wetland and Stream Mitigation Strategy
for US 421" prepared by the Wetland Mitigation Section, Planning and Environmental
Branch. The information contained in this document was discussed by Gordon Cashin at
the March 25, 1998 meeting, and has subsequently been revised and updated to
incorporate your suggestions and to answer your questions. A copy of the proposed
contract between the NCDOT and the Wildlife Resources Commission has been added as
Appendix A.
If you have any questions, please direct them to me or Mr. Cashin.
Sincerely,
G
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Enclosures
cc: G. E. Cashin
D. H. Schiller

-r
Wetland and Stream Mitigation Strategy for US 421
from South Fork New River to Blue Ridge Parkway
R529 BA, BB, BD
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Wetland Mitigation Section
27 March 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Sparta Bog Mitigation Site Description 1
Sparta Bog Mitigation Project Strategy 2
Phase 1. Preservation 2
Phase 2. Detailed Site Investigation 3
Phase 3. Mitigation Plan Development 3
Phase 4. Implementation 4
Phase 5. Monitoring 4
NCDOT/WRC Stream Mitigation Agreement 5
Summary 5
Figure 1 6
Figure 2 7
Appendix A
A previous version of this document was presented to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) at a meeting held March 25, 1998. This revised version
incorporates additional detail requested by the DWQ at that meeting.
Introduction
This document summarizes the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) strategy for mitigating unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands resulting
from proposed improvements to US 421 between South Fork New River and Blue Ridge
Parkway in Watauga County (R-529BA, BB, and BD). Unavoidable impacts identified
for this project consist of 1.32 acres of wetland impacts and 5,636 linear feet of perennial
stream impacts. Projected wetland impacts for R-529 occur at nine sites along the
proposed alignment, ranging in size from 0.01 acres to 0.99 acres. The largest impacted
wetland site (0.99 acres) is comprised primarily of a ground water seep, while the
majority of other wetland impacts occur at small sites along the fringes of streams and
tributaries. Projected impacts to surface waters occur at 26 sites. A sample of 21 of
these sites were surveyed by NCDOT biologists in the summer of 1997 and evaluated for
water quality and biodiversity. This study indicated that the majority of impacted streams
are classified as Class C Trout Waters and have Good to Excellent water quality. The
results of this study were reported in a document entitled "Stream Assessment Report, R-
529BA and BB", dated 15 August 1997, and distributed to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Proposed mitigation for R-529 is primarily the Sparta Bog mitigation site in
Alleghany County, North Carolina. The Sparta Bog site was purchased by the NCDOT
in November, 1997 to provide stream and wetland mitigation for impacts resulting from
highway construction projects in the New River Basin. NCDOT proposes to provide
mitigation for impacts resulting from R-529 and other future projects in the New River
Basin through restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities conducted at the
Sparta Bog mitigation site. The balance of the stream mitigation required for R-529 will
be obtained through a contractual arrangement with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Sparta Bog Mitigation Site Description
The Sparta Bog is located in central Alleghany County, within the New River
Basin, approximately two miles west of Sparta, N.C., at the junction of NC 18 and SR
1173 (Figure 1). It is considered to be a site of national significance by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program and has been studied by the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy as a candidate for acquisition. The NCDOT conducted an extensive
biological survey in August and September 1997 to document the existing conditions at
the site. Existing wetlands were delineated and mapped, and potential site alterations
were identified. The results of this survey were presented in a report dated 22 October
1997 entitled "Natural Resources Evaluation of the Sparta Bog Mitigation Site,
Alleghany County, NC". This report was distributed to the Corps of Engineers, the
Division of Water Quality, the Wildlife Resources Commission, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and other interested agencies in October, 1997.
The Sparta Bog comprises 324 acres, of which about 26 acres are jurisdictional
wetlands. Wetlands occur along seepage slopes and in a narrow bottomland associated
with an unnamed perennial stream (Figure 2). These wetlands have been classified as
Southern Appalachian Bog, Northern Subtype according to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's community classification system, and have been assigned a rarity
rank of G1 S 1. This indicates extreme rarity for this community type. Forested uplands
of the property are comprised of Chestnut Oak Forest or Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest.
Wetland communities at the Sparta Bog site support populations of rare flora and fauna,
including the southern bog turtle and 15 species of state listed plants. Human
disturbances which have impacted hydrology, soils, and vegetation include: ditching of
small wetland bogs and seeps; channelization of segments of the perennial stream;
installation of subsurface drainage structures; grazing of cattle in the wetlands; ranging of
cattle within the stream channel; and mowing portions of the bog for forage.
Sparta Bog Mitigation Project Strategy
Development of the Sparta Bog for wetland and stream mitigation will be
conducted in five phases. Due to the sensitive nature of the site, the rarity of the
community type, and the occurrence of significant populations of rare species, the
NCDOT has been advised by the regulatory agencies that actions should not be
undertaken until a more thorough understanding of the site and its dynamics is available.
This conservative strategy is needed to make sure that NCDOT mitigation activities do
not disrupt the existing biological features of the site, and to increase the probability of
achieving successful mitigation. Development of the phased approach has been
coordinated with various natural resource agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, the
Division of Water Quality, the Wildlife Resources Commission, and the N.C. Museum of
Natural History, at an on-site meeting in December, 1997. Plans for additional site
investigation were discussed, as well as potential restoration and enhancement options.
Based on the recommendations of this meeting, NCDOT has developed a strategy for
study and implementation.
Phase 1. Preservation
In November 1997, following extensive coordination with the Wildlife Resources
Commission, the Sparta Bog site was purchased by NCDOT and consequently protected
from potential development. At the time of purchase, the property was under imminent
threat from residential development. The property had been on the market for several
years, and the owners had received offers to subdivide and develop the upland portions of
the property. Such development would undoubtedly have resulted in significant
alteration of the watershed characteristics; the water quality would have declined, and the
hydrology for the bog would have become less stable due to increased runoff and
sedimentation. Purchase of the property by NCDOT has ensured protection from such
development and has preserved the existing hydrologic conditions, in addition to
providing a sizable upland buffer for wildlife habitat.
2
Phase 2. Detailed Site Investigation
Extensive natural resource investigations will be conducted at the Sparta Bog site
throughout the summer growing season of 1998. These studies will supplement the
previously published Natural Resources Evaluation to provide more detailed and
comprehensive data. As discussed in detail at an on-site meeting in December 1997,
investigations will include hydrologic studies, water quality measurements, and detailed
soil and flora mapping. Groundwater hydrology monitoring wells will be installed in
April 1998 to record changes in groundwater through the growing season and to measure
the sensitivity of groundwater levels to local precipitation. Water quality analyses will
conducted, consisting of a series of water quality samples and measurements to determine
pH, nitrogen concentration, and the concentration of various metals. Surveys for rare
plants will be conducted during three periods in the 1998 growing season to facilitate the
identification of species when they are in flower. Surveys for bog turtles and preferred
bog turtle habitat will also be conducted. Floral surveys, along with soils, topographic,
and hydrologic data will be used to develop a detailed site map identifying microhabitats
within the overall bog system. The objective of these studies is to enhance the
probability of successful hydrologic restoration and to ensure that proposed management
activities do not harm existing rare flora and fauna. Completion of this phase of data
collection is scheduled for October 1998.
Phase 3. Mitigation Plan Development
After the completion of Phase 2, all available data and site mapping will be
synthesized into a mitigation plan for the Sparta Bog site. Preliminary reviews of the site
have identified several opportunities for wetland mitigation and stream restoration which
will be evaluated based on the availability of new data. NCDOT will pursue any
combination of activities that will promote the long term restoration of the Sparta Bog
wetlands and the protection of existing rare species.
Potential wetland restoration and enhancement activities under consideration
include:
1) Backfilling or blocking of ditches draining portions of the bog and
removal of ditch spoil. (Site investigations by NCDOT biologists
revealed the presence of hydric soils which currently show no
evidence of wetland hydrology. Such areas may be restorable if
drainage is removed.)
2) Removal of subsurface drainage structures.
3) Reforestation of upland areas within the watershed which are currently
in agriculture. (Such areas could be left open as fields for wildlife
habitat if it is determined by WRC to be preferable.)
3
Potential stream restoration and enhancement activities under consideration
include:
1) Reestablishment of natural stream meanders in approximately 2000 ft.
of stream segments which have been channelized. (This assumes
such activities can be accomplished without significant harm to
adjacent wetlands and endangered plants and animals on site.)
2) In-stream habitat restoration and enhancement within the existing
channel in channelized stream segments. (Note: A determination
will be made between options 1 and 2 regarding which is most
appropriate)
3) Enhancement and stabilization of existing stream banks and channel in
approximately 1500 ft. of unchannelized stream.
4) Exclusion of cattle within the stream channel to protect water
quality and eliminate stream degradation.
Phase 4. Implementation
It is the intent of NCDOT to begin implementation of mitigation activities at the
Sparta Bog site no later than the Fall of 1999, after the completion of the site
investigation in Phase 2 and the approval of the mitigation plan in Phase 3.
Implementation may be scheduled in stages if recommended by the regulatory agencies,
in which case restoration and enhancement activities (including planting) should be
complete by Spring 2001.
Phase 5. Monitoring
NCDOT will monitor the status of hydrology, vegetation, and rare flora and fauna
prior to construction as part of the planning phase; throughout the implementation phase;
and for five years following the completion of all implementation activities. Once all
implementation and monitoring activities are complete in 2005 or 2006, ownership of the
property will be transferred to another state agency with land management
responsibilities. The Wildlife Resources Commission has expressed an interest in
accepting maintenance and management responsibilities for the site.
It is understood that the dates indicated in Phase 4 and Phase 5 are contingent
upon the schedule approved in the mitigation plan, and are subject to change with the
approval of the regulatory agencies.
The state Wetland Restoration Program has agreed to collaborate with the
NCDOT during Phase 2 and Phase 3 , especially in the development of proposed scopes
of work and the review of technical reports.
NCDOT/WRC Stream Mitigation Agreement
The NCDOT is entering into a formal agreement with the Wildlife Resources
Commission to perform stream mitigation in the New River Basin, patterned after the
agreement for TIP No. A-10 in Madison County. This mitigation agreement will provide
all stream mitigation required for R-529 that cannot be provided at the Sparta Bog
mitigation site. The agreement is based on providing mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for the
5636 linear feet of project impacts. Typical mitigation measures may include, but are not
limited to, stream bank stabilization and/or revegetation, installation of fish habitat
structures, fish stocking, fencing livestock out of the stream, or constructing managed
livestock watering facilities. A copy of the agreement to be executed between the
NCDOT and WRC is in Appendix A. This agreement has been submitted to the WRC
for execution.
The WRC will conduct a search within the New River Basin; particularly in
Watauga County, to identify stream segments requiring restoration. The WRC will be
responsible for developing a mitigation plan for these stream segments. The plan will be
reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality. WRC will be
responsible for meeting the established success criteria of the mitigation plan. The
agreement includes provisions for maintenance and monitoring. NCDOT will provide
funding for the mitigation activities on a linear foot basis, will acquire the necessary
conservation easements, and will also be responsible for maintenance costs for five years.
Summary
The Sparta Bog mitigation site is being offered as mitigation for unavoidable
impacts to streams and wetlands associated with R-529 and other future projects in the
New River watershed. Although the Sparta Bog site will not by itself provide sufficient
stream mitigation for R-529, it should provide mitigation for some stream impacts and all
wetland impacts associated with this highway project. Additional stream mitigation
required to compensate for impacts of R-529 will be addressed through a cooperative
agreement with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
5
1358 3 S;ZB 131711. yK;? 32, ';}i ?:,? L4=-••-.._..
4,2
't••. 1391` a??J1u? •m,aoiISasanr
1405 n0 '1m7 > t--9 ?yl :nl
d 1 m/ o
e f1NE?
3? BALD KNOB 0 mo.'s Inl I aln _ -37
1335 1365 1 1615 1.12 u
j 636 A S
.o woo-
l 'a •.,;pn ' '9 DOUGHTON Inn a ,n'5 1415`
y .7 ` 367 `e Sae '405 MTN. 636 a ?'
f 93 ]1349 ? ?? } .1 ` a,B .pb•5
CRCh 1636 ,
?1 F yA l ? ,695 \ 0 T. .
1 9 fti11N J3.' 2 / 7 F?? Twt O?Y ? ? 5--• -
4r?1? \•.\ 1166 I 11 ?;'\ _ ?\. v(15)\.?n /_ -
33
1167 35 '4 2•' , y
" 053
SPARTA 1 - >- -,-"\ 142- Chet.-'
a 116 roe PO .1.975 ' \. Grow am. _ laze
,_? •J 1.2 1167 O • 1135 \/II?YV?
1161 \- 138
1163 O ? \ 9'428 ,422
•?\ ? 1.0 ? 9 ? \? ? 1429 2.3 ..
11 9 .-}4nTICCh
I1 ? , I9 •1.
?.6 I t FENDER MTN. - , 2 . l
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
1162 \ CHEEK MTN.
',?•. .\ \N19d?.1 'h, 1:2'x- ?
Pr9tnar CrsK 1151 9 4 / 1 8 /?, ??1
Ch.
'129 p
149 I1 1 _ \Q 6 3c D23 --?? 3
9j 1.6 ` 0 ..93 a .?• 'K7
33
Q3 M 1150 IB _? ?/ ?i31 2 5 23 _6 MTV.
•'N 41 T' ?Y ..35
1.3 =n5 .?29
P 1 _32
2.2 2-
11N 7 1141, ^i •193 , ?) X47 - .2?P\
cry Ollwn .n9 x -'/? .3.'? 2 yi•1 3 c AI/I at \ fs .? ?c
(J? • % y? ??-3?a , 1 PARKWAY - ? - _
`yl 1_93 /' 3p"%? 41r BeJOrs e••.7 ..._2Z". -btm
VT%
2.8 DOUGWON PARK \ I
?3 / I
% RECREATIONAL AREA 1 ..
pORr NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
r ?G TRANSPORTATION
I'm = DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P?
OFipPLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
6
STzta' ="?
ROE % - 3000
200
X350
29 7
t 1
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE • 3000
°
I 3572
?? ',rte ? ? . \ I? • i\ ?`./ ' ?? ? n
292
\f? \\?\ \'`• ?. 300
3000
_ ?•_?. _ ?/ / °r NO"T? c?\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
_- H \
`•\'-`? '?._rl'?j ••\?? 4?? °Gy.. TRANSPORTATION
• - ?-. \• (T _' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i eheid_
- ?p •' ) 1 OFT"It PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
\ 1 ,J / Un n _
_ -"'-` - SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
' t
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
ems APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
WHITEHEAD, NC QUAD FIGURE 2
7
NORTH CAROLINA
WATAUGA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
PROJECT: R-529BA, BB, & BD
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the
day of
1998, between the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an
agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as DOT, and the NORTH
CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as WRC.
WHEREAS, DOT has prepared and adopted plans to make certain highway
constructions and improvements under Project R-529BA, BB, and BD, Watauga County,
said plan consisting of the construction of US 421 from South Fork New River to the
Blue Ridge Parkway at Deep Gap; and
WHEREAS, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, hereinafter referred to as COE,
and other resource agencies have expressed concern regarding the expected primary and
secondary impacts on streams and tributaries due to channel relocations and culvert
installations associated with the construction of said Project; and,
WHEREAS, DOT has acquired a site in Alleghany County to perform wetland
and stream mitigation activities, and this site is under study to develop a detailed
mitigation plan; and,
WHERAS, DOT has agreed to perform certain stream enhancement mitigation at
a 2:1 ratio to address these concerns and meet the permitting requirements for the
construction of Project R-529BA, BB, and BD; and,
WHEREAS, DOT has requested WRC to undertake the planning and
implementation of the agreed to off-site stream enhancement mitigation that cannot be
provided at the Alleghany County site; and,
WHEREAS, WRC has agreed to perform said mitigation subject to the conditions
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in consideration of the promises
and undertakings of the other as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each
with the other, as follows:
1. WRC shall be responsible for developing a mitigation plan for up to
approximately 11,272 linear feet of off-site trout stream enhancement
mitigation for impacts associated with the construction of the Project. The
final length of mitigation to be provided by WRC will be determined after
completion of the mitigation plan for the Alleghany County site. Streams
selected shall be of similar size or larger. Typical enhancement measures may
include, but not be limited to, stream bank stabilization and/or revegetation,
installation of fish habitat structures, fish stocking, and fencing livestock out
of the stream or constructing managed livestock watering facilities. Said plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the COE. All work shall be in accordance
with DOT's policy and procedures and subject to DOT's review and approval.
2. DOT shall be responsible for obtaining all easements needed to implement the
approved mitigation plan at the required ratio. WRC shall help identify the
preferred mitigation areas but shall not be involved in securing said
easements. DOT shall attempt to include a provision for angler access into
each easement.
3. WRC shall be responsible for all physical stream restoration activities as set
out in the approved mitigation plan. All work shall be subject to the review
and approval of DOT and comply with federal and state guidelines and
procedures.
4. WRC shall complete work set forth in this Agreement within five (5) years
from the date of execution of this Agreement or within three (3) years of the
date of receipt of the easement, whichever is later. In the event DOT needs an
extended period of time to obtain the necessary easements, the period of time
for WRC to perform the mitigation tasks shall be adjusted.
5. DOT shall pay WRC for said mitigation work as set out above at the rate of
fifty dollars ($50.00) per linear foot of stream restored up to a maximum
amount of $563,600. Reimbursement shall be made in three (3) equal
installation payments of $140,900, with the first payment made upon
execution of this agreement and within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from
WRC, and the fourth payment to be made based upon actual feet of restoration
needed. The second payment shall be made upon completion of 2,818 linear
feet of restoration, the third payment made upon completion of 5,636 linear
feet of restoration, and the final payment upon completion of up to 11,272
linear feet of stream bank restoration, or the project has been accepted as
complete by DOT. Reimbursements for each installment shall be made upon
receipt of an invoice from the Commission, and approval of said invoice by
DOT's Ntanager of the Planning and Environmental Branch and the Fiscal
Section. A final invoice must be submitted within one (1) year of completion
of said work.
6. WRC shall maintain all books, documents, papers accounting records, and
such other evidence as may be appropriate to substantiate costs incurred under
this Agreement. Further, WRC shall make such materials available at its
office at all reasonable times during the contract period, and for three (3) years
from the date of final payment under this Agreement, for inspection and audit
by the DOT's Fiscal Section.
7. WRC shall be responsible for meeting the established success criteria of the
mitigation plan. DOT shall be responsible for all costs associated with any
required maintenance for a period of five (5) years after completion of the
work on a costs plus basis. WRC will be responsible for required
maintenance for an additional ten (10) years after completion of this project.
[N WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed, in duplicate, the day and
year heretofore set out, on the part of DOT and WRC by authority duly liven.
WITNESS: NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION
BY:
TITLh:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TR INSPORTATION
BY:
TITLE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
TITLE:
From:
To:
Subject:
Date sent:
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
"'ron_ [e-mail] "'
<[e-mail]>
FW: Please Read - Failure Notice
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:29:10 -0800
dal
-----Original Message-----
From: Mail Delivery System [SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 8:11 PM
To: [e-mail] Subject: Please Read - Failure Notice
*
* The Winston-Salem Regional Office of DENR activated
* new e-mail addresses on December 15, 1997 If you are
* experiencing problems with deliveries to this office,
* please see the notes below for more information about
* the new addresses.
*
With reference to your message with the subject:
"RE: stream & wetland mitigation"
One or more addresses in your message have failed because:
User <[e-mail]> not known at this site.
*
* The new address for WSRO generally take the form of
* [e-mail]
* Please be sure to include the underscore character
* between the first and last names.
*
* If you need additional assistance with e-mail addresses
* for this location, send the one line message "SEND EMAIL"
* to [e-mail] (do not include the
* quotes). You will immediately receive a listing of all
* current addresses for this office.
Should you need further assistance, please mail
[e-mail].
-------------------- Returned message follows ---------------------
Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ns.sips.state.nc.us by wsro.enr.state.nc.us (Mercury
1.31) with ESMTP;
29 Jan 98 15:10:32 +1100
Received: from mordor.ehnr.state.nc.us (dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
[149.168.123.32]) by ns.sips.state.nc.us (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id
PAA13680; Thu, 2Received: from NRDEM02/SpoolDir by
mordor.ehnr.state.nc.us (Mercury 1.31);
29 Jan 98 15:12:21 EST
Received: from SpoolDir by NRDEM02 (Mercury 1.31); 29 Jan 98 15:12:15
EST Received: from C5CW9 by mordor.ehnr.state.nc.us (Mercury 1.31);
29 Jan 98 15:12:07 EST
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:27:42
Received: by C5CW9 with Microsoft Mail
id <01BD2CC8.856741A0@C5CW9>; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:13:57 -0800
Message-ID: <01BD2CC8.856741A0@C5CW9>
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: "'[e-mail]'lI <[e-mail]>
Cc: "'[e-mail]'lI <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]'ll
<[e-mail]>,
I'[e-mail]"'
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: stream & wetland mitigation
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:13:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just dropped off letter with Dennis to go thru SWT and then to you
about = this project. Problems include but are larger than stream
mitigation = (WRP would be okay with us but COE unlikely to agree).
Also COE will = require 2:1 mitigation while we would require 1:1.
In (very) brief, = this is project that WSRO and we wanted public
hearing due to questions = about alternative alignments. DOT answered
our concerns in a rather = impolite response (which they then copied
to the world which resulted in = letter from DOT Board member).
Response does not answer all our = outstanding questions and we still
think hearing would be useful. The = full letter that Dennis has
should explain. If we have meeting, WSRO = and Cyndi Bell should be
there as well since they are more familiar with = project than I. P.S.
Craig Deal called about this project this a.m. as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Preston Howard [SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 1:12 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; _
[e-mail]; GINA [e-mail]
Subject: Re: stream & wetland mitigation
I'LL GET YOU A STATUS ON THE 421 PROJECT RIGHT AWAY. THEN WE'LL TRY
TO = SCHEDULE THE LARGER=20 BRIEFING FOR SOMETIME IN THE NEXT 2 WEEKS.
DONNA AND GINA...CAN YOU HANDLE THE SCHEDULING???? IN ADDITION TO
YOURS = TRULY, WE'LL NEED=20 JOHN DORNEY AND RON FERRELL. THANKS!
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:44:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bill =
Holman) Subject: stream & wetland mitigation To:
[e-mail] (Preston Howard)=20
Preston:
=20
Hope you're licking that cold.
=20
This one's not urgent.=20
=20
Sec McDevitt says that DOT says that stream mitigation
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 2 -- Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:27:42
requirements =
are holding up US 421 in Watauga Co. I don't know if this is a =
Corps=20
or DWQ requirement so I need a little briefing from your staff on
how=20
stream mitigation is done. While we're at it, an update on
DOT's=20 wetlands mitigation efforts would help.
=20
Bill
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 3 -- Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:27:42
.' '.
a
ing
:WorklDn''
U0.1 0
® Water-quality permits,
not lack of money, halt
i state's widening project
By Duane healer
JOURNAL NORTHWEST BUREAU
VVIL .ESBORO
Cost overruns on road projects elsewhere
in North Carolina won't jeopardize plans to
widen U.S. 421, but other problems have
delayed portions of the project; an official a
said yesterday. .,
Delays in getting the N.C. Division of
Water Quality's.approval have pushed back
work on three segments by up to 1 o A
months, said Wade Hoke, a division engi-
neer for the N.C. Department of Transpor-
tation.
They have problems with the projects,
and that's what's holding us up," he said.
"There's no way we can make up that dur-
ing construction."
Officials from the water-quality agency
could not be reached for comment Friday.
The agency is responsible for assessing
what impact.the road project will have on
creeks, streams and rivers and for requiring
measures to lessen the impact.
Its approval is needed before the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will issue water
permits, Hoke said.
The segments that have been delayed
equal 17.2 miles of the 39.3 miles sched-
uled to be widened from two to four lanes,
including:
? The 3.7 miles between U.S. 601 in
Yadkinville and Deep Creek' in Yadkin
County. The contract was to have been put
out for bids in January but has been delayed,
to May at the earliest.
? The 5.1 miles between Clingman and
Windy Gap roads in Wilkes County. The
contract was to have put out for bids in
ob`°oE U. -o o p °
a?v,cAaio::..4.°G
O
ro-
!? cd p '? .O c. o p ,r..
vz 'f.,
,}}firr }}ft.t? F+ N p ?. V- 7 mod' ?i
O v .O
y a ?
. O V C O U r3 V
..',?,.?07 OT} y" c' a? y U
O.O U? ? 0 U O
!s 0 C6 51
Ux ?? o
00
o ° -o? 3
to E?
° _ 3 > ?, :1:11 or,
O F« U :O Cd •? +? U U v
N a?¢? 4?
?
oo?oCl ?oweoU
r.U a R °C?.Q' ,
0 C,
' to tiaW ?H
° W ° ° °'y+' 0"
.? ? v y O 4 y a?? y
t4o
4 M° :tor PI 0O! 90
?
0 N, U01
00
o 00 r. r ?E OOr42
O by *R : ^M as -1,
5 06 U0 41" -2 .0
'a 41 -55 -8
?A 4 ? ?-0
See U.S.421, Page B7
FAX ,
TO
# of pages FA Y-# 4 0
FROM: /
Z
/
Winston-Salem Regional Office NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT.AND NATURAL REsOURCEs
NOTE:
kyl 4?_ at
in
cam- G.1 '
).pf?
i cr?j`'r.4,mil
L a
t-j 0 J Vk)
/^ Q a.
e2? C'
Cry .S ? ec?-,,.-.
"The nation behaves well if it treats
the natural resources as an asset
which it must turn over to the next generation,
increased and not impaired in value. "
- President and Conservationist
Teddy Roosevelt
585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
co BOONE 3.7 Ml. Z ?_ o
o.
P?
'il\`\- (O?/ ?/? o? °• \\ / - _ 0, -_ ?????. o III / Ld y
??•/ \ • &a I =cam '/ w • / O Z
C) 0
F_ uj
i?il_ •?? ? AN it ( _ J O O A J ? ? 3S c l)
r:n
m
v)
\\ l r w m
tic
r1l
14 11
41
Ell
( rte'
-Tk
J
' o'? rr ° 1 ? r" III ?
0
7
lll \- ° ° P
o
.? '? 0 ?? •? III
41
co
rfl
Dr,
ooe
J
• 3
r
0
Qo ?
/3200
12
?? u - 1 g f
'v 1 N s
'Al
°?, % ,oj/? n ^\ ••-- N --_ .f \
\J/ -? 00821 ! ??)"/ a\ ?1 a'te`
a
J3?=
I . > R
pages
To m
POsviV Fzni??4
/Dept. .
Co.
Phone # Phone #
Fax # Fax #
DRAFT
From: Ron Linville
Subject: DOT 421 Watauga Section
Date: 980402
After our meeting with DOT this week the WSRO believes that
the project can move forward and the 401 can likely be issued with
conditions.
This is based on new information recently provided by DOT on
why this alignment must occur and the DOT's commitment to give
greater consideration to providing on site and near site mitigation
of streams, stormwater issues, and some wetland enhancements. Many
agriculturally impacted streams in the area are in need of
restoration and protection. Such activities should serve to better
protect existing uses in the subbasin. This is in addition to
protecting and utilizing the Sparta Bog as a stream and wetland
mitigation/restoration site.
It is also our understanding that the NCWRC will contract with the
DOT to do the stream mitigation.
There are two outstanding issues which will need to be
resolved before the WSRO will feel comfortable with 401 issuance.
First, there may be a bog turtle concern as expressed by Dennis
Hermann and possibly by the USFWS. Additionally, secondly and most
importantly; what measures will be required in the 401 to restrict
access to this four lane roadway so that we do not have to build
another new road in the next century due to a repeat of this same
safety and road scenario? Environmentally and economically,
allowing a repeat scenario to occur later will be seen as
environmental shortsightedness on the part of the State and will
not serve future citizens water quality or quality of life. To
quote Ben Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure."
CC: Central files
WSRO
USACOE-Asheville Office
USFWS
NCWRC I
a : \421rsp . 2nd
-s S
?p v
u?
03/26/98 THU 07:25 FAX [phone] FWS ASHEVILLE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -
Asheville Field Office ulk
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FA-.X COVER SHEET
TO:
FROM: MAI<K CNV7-k-f LL
DATE: -? TIME:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
COMMENTS:

{INCLUDMG THIS COVER SHEET}
1J 0 01

03/ZU/96 THU 07 : i:Ei FAX 704 Z'58 5330 OYS ASHEVILLE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
i r ` Atlanta Federal Ceuter
{ U 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
9 19'
--?^ ----- ?! Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ASS i??ILLE FIELD OFFICE
FED () s18
WMD[WCWQGB/KM
Colonel Terry Youngbluth
District Engineer
ATTN: Nir. Steven Lund
Asheville Regulatory Field Office:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, boom 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

1.4ACj

?7?
?- '?. 1 J
JAF
SUBJ: N.C. Dept. of Transportation - Widening of U.S. Highwav 421
Action I.D. No. 199707161
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
This is in reference to the letter and information from H. Franklin Vick, Manager of the
Planning and Environmental Bfanch, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 7, 1998, concerning
the Watauga County segment of NCDOT's proposed widening of U .S, Highway 421. EPA has
reviewed the letter, which was sent in response to our corrurients on the above-referenced project,
and has the following corments:
1. EPA hereby rescinds our previous comments concerning the lack of evidence for
avoidance, minimization, and alternative analyses. It is apparent that the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have largely addressed this issue, However, EPA
questions the necessity of a 46-foot median and 200-foot (or greater) right-of=way. From our
original comments on the Draft EIS, EPA remains concerned that any road construction rnum ze
the amount of impacts as much as possible by utilizing the narrowest footprint, or median and
right-of-way, necessary for any particular section of the final route, NMOT responded to our
previous comments in the Final EIS with a coma-donent to limit clearing and gribbing and to use
2:1 or steeper side slopes along forested areas. However, EPA believes that all areas, including
wetlands and stream crossings, should be subjected to the least amount of impacts possible
through a general narrowing of the highway corridor, wlrich includes the median and total right-
of-way. Therefore, EPA recommends that the permit include a requirement that NCDOT
investigate the narrowing of the median and right-of-way, and using alignment shifts where
feasible along the final route, to locate the highway as far away from stream corridors and other
habitats as possible.
Lin ()1) 2
us%Zu; J5 1MU U7:.5 tAAl 704 255 5333 FWS ASHEVILLE 10003
7
?, EPA recognizes that the Sparta Bog has been proposed as a mitigation site for the project,
and believes that there is great potential for restoration and enhancement of the wetlands at that
site, in compensation for a portion of the U.S. 421 impacts. However, EPA believes that other
sites may be necessary to adequately compensate for the 11,750 linear feet of stream impacts.
EPA reiterates our previous assertion that without specific irfonnation on proposed mitigation or
a functional, approved mitigation bank, the project should not be authorized.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment on this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at the above address or
by telephone at [phone].
Sincere 19
j
illiam L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
Wetlands, Coastal, and Water Quality Grants Branch
cc: 4FWS, L ig#
NCDENR, Raleigh
OLL4
?cvv,?
?j
rn al cv
Ap-cqie
TbT- vcgy",
- Lit!" AV t17 SFU`l ?o-T -_Y. l? J`??IZVrc -
_-.-7__3.3-7?y 3ls
;i
? C--Wrj
4A Afw c-S'? 7.33-79-x Ica
-7-33 X2-
i - -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Atlanta Federal Center P ?j
61 Forsyth Street, S.W. `?'`'? I
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 „YRLAINDS
FEB 0 5 1998
WMD/WCWQGB/IOA
Colonel Terry Youngbluth
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Steven Lund
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJ: N.C. Dept. of Transportation - Widening of U.S. Highway 421
Action I.D. No. 199707161
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
This is in reference to the letter and information from H. Franklin Vick, Manager of the
Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation. (NCDOT),
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 7, 1998, concerning
the Watauga County segment of NCDOT's proposed widening of U.S. Highway 421. EPA has
reviewed the letter, which was sent in response to our comments on the above-referenced project,
and has the following comments:
1. EPA hereby rescinds our previous comments concerning the lack of evidence for
avoidance, minimization, and alternative analyses. It is apparent that the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have largely addressed this issue. However, EPA
questions the necessity of a 46-foot median and 200-foot (or greater) right-of-way. From our
original comments on the Draft EIS, EPA remains concerned that any road construction minimize
the amount of impacts as much as possible by utilizing the narrowest footprint, or median and
right-of-way, necessary for any particular section of the final route. NCDOT responded to our
previous comments in the Final EIS with a commitment to limit clearing and grubbing and to use
2:1 or steeper side slopes along forested areas. However, EPA believes that all areas, including
wetlands and stream crossings, should be subjected to the least amount of impacts possible
through a general narrowing of the highway corridor, which includes the median and total right-
of-way. Therefore, EPA recommends that the permit include a requirement that NCDOT
investigate the narrowing of the median and right-of-way, and using alignment shifts where
feasible along the final route, to locate the highway as far away from stream corridors and other
habitats as possible.

2
2. EPA recognizes that the Sparta Bog has been proposed as a mitigation site for the project,
and believes that there is great potential for restoration and enhancement of the wetlands at that
site, in compensation for a portion of the U.S. 421 impacts. However, EPA believes that other
sites may be necessary to adequately compensate for the 11,750 linear feet of stream impacts.
EPA reiterates our previous assertion that without specific information on proposed mitigation or I
a functional, approved mitigation bank, the project should not be authorized.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment on this project. If you have.
any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at the above address or
by telephone at [phone].
Sincere ,
TMfflia?
L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
Wetlands, Coastal, and Water Quality Grants Branch
cc: I?SFWS, Raleigh
CDENR, Raleigh
Ov S ?? Cass i
C11- C-
421, WATAUGA COUNTY
US
from South Fork New River to Blue Ridge Parkway K.0- Q40 R-529 BA, BB, BD 5?, -Q,,
?-
5 ?.cs 4-- G? s r? *Addressing the Planning Issues
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
25 March 1998

7 ?
?? x

3/25/98
US 421 PROJECT PLANNING
BACKGROUND
In October, 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
began preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector
between Boone in Watauga County and Interstate 77 in Yadkin County. The study was
completed in December, 1975, and included a recommendation for the improvement of
US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near Deep Gap.
In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent
was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was
distributed on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study_progressed,
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of
the Interior National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven
interagency meetings were held throughout the study.
THE "IMPROVE EXISTING" ALTERNATIVE
The conditions along the existing two-lane US 421 exhibit the compromises
usually made when a roadway is built in mountainous terrain. Straight sections are very
short, curved portions are very sharp (especially where US 421 parallels the Blue Ridge
. ! Parkway near Rutherwood and Laxon), and steep vertical grades (many in excess of
iY seven percent) are the rule rather than the exception. Owing to the steep terrain and
narrow right of way, residents have built their homes and businesses in close proximity to
.( / the road. In the communities of Laxon, Deep Gap and Rutherwood, and to a lesser extent
along the remainder of US 421, buildings line the roadway, some less than 50 feet from
the edge of pavement. When these conditions are combined with numerous driveways,
and steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a roadway with
inadequate sight distances, blind spots, and dangerous intersections.
These conditions also render widening the existing roadway not feasible and an
unreasonable alternative. Following is a list of reasons for this determination:
Page 1
Js 3/25/98
?y
The grades on the improved US 421 facility will be generally three or four percent,
N
ith one or two sections of six percent. In areas where the existing grades are greater
r r ?o than seven percent, the roadbed for the new lanes could be as much as twenty to twenty-
five feet above or below the existing roadway. This could require the median to be wider
than 46 feet to accommodate the 2:1 slopes of the new lanes and the temporary drainage
o
(during construction) between the existing lanes and the lanes under construction.
0
2. Maintaining access to adjoining properties and existing side roads would be difficult,
and in some cases impossible. Existing landscape might have to be disrupted to allow for
construction of temporary connectors.
3. Safety could become a serious issue because of the differential in grades.
4. The cost of construction would increase proportionally with the difficulty in
maintaining traffic and access during the construction period. In addition, the
construction period might be 20 to 30 percent longer due to the restrictions required to
ensure safety while maintaining traffic along US 421 during construction.
5. The accident rate for US 421 through this area is approximately twice the national and
statewide averages for similar type roadways. The principal causes of the abnormally
high accident rate appear to be over-capacity of the highway, substandard geometrics
(sharp curves, steep grades, narrow roadway and shoulders), and poor passing sight
distances. One of the locations with the greatest number of accidents is a sharp horizontal
curve near Parkway Elementary School. The school is located on US 421 across from the
Grandview Overlook, a turnout on the Blue Ridge Parkway between two mountainsides
with a view of the valley below. In the early mornings, fog rolls up the mountain and
across the Overlook onto US 421. Visibility is often reduced to 50 feet or less. School
buses and parents stopped to turn left onto school property to off-load children are the
most frequent victims.
6. The proximity of the Blue Ridge Parkway also contributes to the potential for
accidents. Headlights from traffic on the opposing roadway can confuse and disorient
drivers in heavy fog conditions.
7. Improving the existing roadway would result in significantly higher relocation impacts
and right of way costs than an alternative on new location. It is estimated that
approximately 142 families, 40 businesses, and 7 non-profit organizations would require
relocation. The total number of displacements is approximately three times greater than
any other alternative considered.
8. Improving the existing roadway would encroach onto several properties determined
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In accordance with Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, "The Secretary of Transportation
may approve projects requiring use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation
area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge or land on a historic site of National, State, or local
? S2
J
r1 ? 0
Page 2
3/25/98
significance only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm."
9. The Blue Ridge Parkway is a 469-mile scenic roadway connecting the Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia with the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in North
Carolina. It is one of North Carolina's most important tourist assets, and is the most
visited park in the United States with over 25 million visitors per year. The primary
purpose of the Parkway is recreational driving and sightseeing. It abounds with places to
camp, fish, hike, picnic, and offers more than 300 scenic overlooks. One such overlook is
Grandview located opposite Parkway Elementary School near Laxon. Through this area,
the US 421 is close to the Blue Ridge Parkway for approximately 1/2 mile; in fact, the
US 421 roadbed is located on the right of way of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The United
State Park Service adamantly opposes the widening of existing US 421 because of the
impact of constructing a four lane divided highway within the viewscape of the Parkway.
"NEW LOCATION" ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors
were developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large
areas, or "windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway
corridor. Using this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and
linked to form preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the
public at a citizens informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the
workshop, an additional segment was added. -
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain
limits, soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering
limitations, community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments
were eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments
eliminated and the reasons for their elimination.
Segment Reasons for Elimination
I Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
Page 3
3/25/98
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
?(\ U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
)("? Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
K
i
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental
S Impact Statement (DEIS) which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was approved u t ^, ' 9.92 This ]DR-e-
document was also coordinated with the DENHR, and two letters from the DWQ are
included in this document. This document finalizes the discussion of alternatives for the
project, and describes the Preferred Alternative.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the
FEIS, and are listed below:
Fewer residential relocatees: 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
Lower cost: Approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8 million
less than Build Alternative C;
Fewer noise impacts: 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
Less wetland impacts: 0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55 acres less than
Build Alternative C;
Less historic property impacts: to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
Page 4
?I
s
9V
3
N o'

3/25/98
No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the Deep Gap Bog);
Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
Blue Ridge Parkway Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior -
National Park Service.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...".
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum
dated February 24, 1995. These comments are brief, but provide guidance for
compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (f) defines how
the lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water
Quality Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic
project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or
result in less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider
the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and
all alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the best way to avoid impacts to waters
of the United States, including wetlands, is by the judicious selection of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has completed an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts, and have also considered potential impacts to surface waters.
?1
J
0
Q v
1_
\ a ?I

Page 5
0

Z
O
V
Q
C?
F
Q
3
N
LO
I
r-
N
D
A
?m
NUI
I
N0
CID
I
e°
eo
? Y / / U ? / W
4?? a
p/ W o
W l?
i
e ?

A /
1
aI

co
/
s

N I a U

` I
I I
cr ? I - \

m?
o?
x
_

Q
J N ,

\76 ??

C ?
o Ir 1W
to

co W a
"

m I 1

Ln
cr

/I

Q u `? a r /I
4
• a , a z
N ?
? N P
Ln
I -
Y
g
_

r
?U3
to
0
Wetland and Stream Mitigation Strategy for R-529
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Wetland Mitigation Section
25 March 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Sparta Bog Mitigation Site Description
Sparta Bog Mitigation Project Strategy
Phase 1. Preservation
Phase 2. Detailed Site Investigation
Phase 3. Mitigation Plan Development
Phase 4. Implementation
Phase 5. Monitoring
NCDOT/WRC Stream Mitigation Agreement
Summary
Figure 1
Figure 2
Page
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
Introduction
This document summarizes the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) strategy for mitigating unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands resulting
from proposed improvements to US 421 between South Fork New River and Blue Ridge
Parkway in Watauga County (R-529BA, BB, and BD). Unavoidable impacts identified
for this project consist of 1.32 acres of wetland impacts and 5,636 linear feet of perennial
stream impacts. Projected wetland impacts for R-529 occur at nine sites along the
proposed alignment, ranging in size from 0.01 acres to 0.99 acres. The largest impacted
wetland site (0.99 acres) is comprised primarily of a ground water seep, while the
??f majority of other wetland impacts occur at small sites along the fringes of streams and
tributaries. Projected impacts to surface waters occur at 26 sites. A sample of 21 of
these sites were surveyed by NCDOT biologists in the summer of 1997 and evaluated for
water quality and biodiversity. This study indicated that the majority of impacted streams
are classified as Class C Trout Waters and have Good to Excellent water quality. The
results of this study were reported in a document entitled "Stream Assessment Report, R-
529BA and BB", dated 15 August 1997, and distributed to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Proposed mitigation for R-529 is primarily the Sparta Bog mitigation site in
Alleghany County, North Carolina. The Sparta Bog site was purchased by the NCDOT
in November, 1997 to provide stream and wetland mitigation for impacts resulting from
highway construction projects in the New River Basin. NCDOT proposes to provide
mitigation for impacts resulting from R-529 and other future projects in the New River
Basin through restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities conducted at the
Sparta Bog mitigation site. The balance of the stream mitigation required for R-529 will
be obtained through a contractual arrangement with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Sparta Bog Mitigation Site Description
The Sparta Bog is located in central Alleghany County, within the New River
Basin, approximately two miles west of Sparta, N.C., at the junction of NC 18 and SR
1173 (Figure 1). It is considered to be a site of national significance by the North
`X Carolina Natural Heritage Program and has been studied by the North Carolina Nature
Conservancy as a candidate for acquisition. The NCDOT conducted an extensive
J biological survey in August and September 1997 to document the existing conditions at
??0 the site. Existing wetlands were delineated and mapped, and potential site alterations
were identified. The results of this survey were presented in a report dated 22 October
1997 entitled "Natural Resources Evaluation of the Sparta Bog Mitigation Site,
Alleghany County, NC". This report was distributed to the Corps of Engineers, the
Division of Water Quality, the Wildlife Resources Commission, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and other interested agencies in October, 1997.
The Sparta Bog comprises 324 acres, of which about 26 acres are jurisdictional
wetlands. Wetlands occur along seepage slopes and in a narrow bottomland associated
with an unnamed perennial stream (Figure 2). These wetlands have been classified as
Southern Appalachian Bog, Northern Subtype according to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's community classification system, and have been assigned a rarity
rank of G1 S 1. This indicates extreme rarity for this community type. Forested uplands
of the property are comprised of Chestnut Oak Forest or Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest.
Wetland communities at the Sparta Bog site support populations of rare flora and fauna,
including the southern bog turtle and 15 species of state listed plants. Human
disturbances which have impacted hydrology, soils, and vegetation include: ditching of
small wetland bogs and seeps; channelization of segments of the perennial stream;
installation of subsurface drainage structures; grazing of cattle in the wetlands; ranging of
cattle within the stream channel; and mowing portions of the bog for forage.
Sparta Bog Mitigation Project Strategy
Development of the Sparta Bog for wetland and stream mitigation will be
conducted in five phases. Due to the sensitive nature of the site, the rarity of the
community type, and the occurrence of significant populations of rare species, the
NCDOT has been advised by the regulatory agencies that actions should not be
undertaken until a more thorough understanding of the site and its dynamics is available.
This conservative strategy is needed to make sure that DOT mitigation activities do not
disrupt the existing biological features of the site, and to increase the probability of
achieving successful mitigation. Development of the phased approach has been
coordinated with various natural resource agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, the
Division of Water Quality, the Wildlife Resources Commission, and the N.C. Museum of
Natural History, at an on-site meeting in December, 1997. Plans for additional site
investigation were discussed, as well as potential restoration and enhancement options.
Based on the recommendations of this meeting, NCDOT has developed a strategy for
study and implementation.
Phase 1. Preservation
In November 1997, following extensive coordination with the Wildlife Resources
Commission, the Sparta Bog site was purchased by NCDOT and consequently protected
from potential development. At the time of purchase, the property was under imminent
threat from residential development. The property had been on the market for several
years, and the owners had received offers to subdivide and develop the upland portions of
the property. Such development would undoubtedly have resulted in significant
alteration of the watershed characteristics; the water quality would have declined, and the
hydrology for the bog would have become less stable due to increased runoff and
sedimentation. Purchase of the property by NCDOT has ensured protection from such
development and has preserved the existing hydrologic conditions, in addition to
providing a sizable upland buffer for wildlife habitat.
2
Phase 2. Detailed Site Investigation
Extensive natural resource investigations will be conducted at the Sparta Bog site
throughout the summer growing season of 1998. These studies will supplement the
previously published Natural Resources Evaluation to provide more detailed and
comprehensive data. As discussed in detail at an on-site meeting in December 1997,
investigations will include hydrologic studies, water quality measurements, and detailed
soil and flora mapping. Groundwater hydrology monitoring wells will be installed in
April 1998 to record changes in groundwater through the growing season and to measure
the sensitivity of groundwater levels to local precipitation. Water quality analyses will
conducted, consisting of a series of water quality samples and measurements to determine
pH, nitrogen concentration, and the concentration of various metals. Surveys for rare
plants will be conducted during three periods in the 1998 growing season to facilitate the
identification of species when they are in flower. Surveys for bog turtles and preferred
bog turtle habitat will also be conducted. Floral surveys, along with soils, topographic,
and hydrologic data will be used to develop a detailed site map identifying microhabitats
within the overall bog system. The objective of these studies is to enhance the
probability of successful hydrologic restoration and to ensure that proposed management
activities do not harm existing rare flora and fauna. Completion of this phase of data
collection is scheduled for October 1998.
Phase 3. Mitigation Plan Development
After the completion of Phase 2, all available data and site mapping will be
synthesized into a mitigation plan for the Sparta Bog site. Preliminary reviews of the site
have identified several opportunities for wetland mitigation and stream restoration which
will be evaluated based on the availability of new data. DOT will pursue any
combination of activities that will promote the long term restoration of the Sparta Bog
wetlands and the protection of existing rare species.
Potential wetland restoration and enhancement activities under consideration
include:
1) Backfilling or blocking of ditches draining portions of the bog and
removal of ditch spoil. (Site investigations by NCDOT biologists
revealed the presence of hydric soils which currently show no
evidence of wetland hydrology. Such areas may be restorable if
drainage is removed.)
2) Removal of subsurface drainage structures.
3) Reforestation of upland areas within the watershed which are currently
in agriculture. (Such areas could be left open as fields for wildlife
habitat if it is determined by WRC to be preferable.)
Potential stream restoration and enhancement activities under consideration
include:
1) Reestablishment of natural stream meanders in approximately 2000 ft.
of stream segments which have been channelized. (This assumes
such activities can be accomplished without significant harm to
adjacent wetlands and endangered plants and animals on site)
2) In-stream habitat restoration and enhancement within the existing
channel in channelized stream segments. (Note: A determination
will be made between options 1 and 2 regarding which is most
appropriate)
3) Enhancement and stabilization of existing stream banks and channel in
approximately 1500 ft. of unchannelized stream.
4) Exclusion of cattle within the stream channel to protect water
quality and eliminate stream degradation.
Phase 4. Implementation
It is the intent of DOT to begin implementation of mitigation activities at the
Sparta Bog site no later than the fall of 1999, after the completion of the site investigation
in Phase 2 and the approval of the mitigation plan in Phase 3. Implementation may be
scheduled in phases if recommended by the regulatory agencies.
Phase 5. Monitorinz
DOT will monitor the status of hydrology, vegetation, and rare flora and fauna
throughout the implementation phase and for five years following the completion of all v?
implementation activities. Once all implementation and monitoring activities are
complete, ownership of the property will be transferred to another state agency with land
management responsibilities.
NCDOT/WRC Stream Mitigation Agreement
V
The DOT is entering into a formal agreement with the Wildlife Resources
)nmitigation ommission to perform stream mitigation in the New River Basin, patterned after the
greement for TIP No. A-10 in Madison County. This mitigation agreement will provide
11 stream mitigation required for R-529 that cannot be provided at the Sparta Bog
site. The agreement is based on providing mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for the ok
636 linear feet of project impacts. Typical mitigation measures may include, but are not
limited to, stream bank stabilization and/or revegetation, installation of fish habitat d
structures, fish stocking, fencing livestock out of the stream, or constructing managed 4N
lJ o?
livestock watering facilities.
The WRC will conduct a search within the New River Basin, particularly in
Watauga County, to identify stream segments requiring restoration. The WRC will be
responsible for developing a mitigation plan for these stream segments. The plan will be \ S?
4
reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality. WRC will be
responsible for meeting the established success criteria of the mitigation plan. The
agreement includes provisions for maintenance and monitoring. NCDOT will provide
funding for the mitigation activities on a linear foot basis, will acquire the necessary
conservation easements, and will also be responsible for maintenance costs for five years.
This agreement has been submitted to the WRC for their review.
Summary
The Sparta Bog mitigation site is being offered as mitigation for unavoidable
impacts to streams and wetlands associated with R-529 and other future projects in the
New River watershed. Although the Sparta Bog site will not by itself provide sufficient
stream mitigation for R-529, it should provide mitigation for some stream impacts and all
wetland impacts associated with this highway project. Additional stream mitigation
required to compensate for impacts of R-529 will be addressed through a cooperative
agreement with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
eme1 ?r/ ? ?T as _ ?i \ •'
Ne. B jN71^ -41,
- .- -
C n. ,? r 1? m ? I?a`Zi ? b J1:v: ? e ^' .5 J 6 a12 •- .
-
1 0 / t 3 to 3 IaCS ?.a _.a? 7 I?I? '3y:.
•' 133a 't•• 1?1` r•` .S 1_343 n? I !?1 'd0i -P1ec4cnr a;_
W XOTB ?a
.2 ?ae'..?..R Pi I405 1406
a I109 Ch.:y ..
•@ .IC . ?/ 6 I 0/ SJ+i S O r
s '•3 BALD KNOB tart rata 1n37
13 \ ?I3n5 fj i 140 a15, 1-12 J
d V Q,
j :436 n P
`„ .o a tat! 1.0 l a
\\\ l .° ' •? 1 DDUGHTON -?? 1415 u7 13.1 ` 348f,._ IacS MTN. •'• -36
I.S
.y 1 ,?'. 93 a e i~: tm , ale.11,T
.y' 5
1349 : 4h.as 9 o V
'9 Ge. 11i
ancn a , / °s . @ 1 5 ?.. \ 143-
it ?- _y.- ?1a95 \ 0 5 T.
j 3.9 + L39Z % 7 `hc/ 165 T.w Ogle' y l
3? .9 .5 {??•+ 1 A,
1426 \ ?
113' I ,?•? _ '<',g? C \.?n ?../ \ `'d
7
'.\\? I , 1163 Z/ SPJUtTA - I(_"J `? \ 'gym chestnut
e ' 1166 ry @ POP.1,975 \ ;? ?" \ \ 6=6 Grote ch. 142? \
y \ ,J? 1427 3 ,'llaer.
'J 2 1167 O ' 1135 e ?. 0 p
?' L. 1163 1-38
422
1.0
1
1170 - 9 ?..• AnTICICh r:33 ai l' . ?•' a 2.3
6 1168\ __- `.fr' .? 9 •L:a
?•5 1163 FENDER MTN. I{'_ •? J .432 ,f
"?• SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE °/-p
• \ CHEEK'MTN.
162 \ ' \ 9a > /? ' 191
V.0w.
Prarnar Cram 1151 9
ch. 'tag 6 .. :!29 '3
_51 5 23 -3
4 1 _aC0 H t31 3 2, I\ll+ J "Q1, 9ULL-E _a5
32
rGC t.3 =A5"20 "29 'N aQ~- '' A ..35
2.22- 2
11-8 .7 1141 N 193 ap7 P`ra
2 3-
cl. i q? ?? : ?;5 •I I PARKWAY - /
Al, Beo..s
Gc0 ?9wn
- % b t..-.-._._.-.-
2. e ' i DOUGMTON PARK I
?3 % RECREATIONAL AREA i
Cl ! -
ti?°f xOR7h C- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
y L?; TRANSPORTATION
im = DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Y ?O
PAP
\??OF TRAKS?PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
6

29
`? 3cc^
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
1
n\
.0
co,
C\ ?" \\\\ °\\in 3000
300 =- a\`

\
3000 ` `
3200
x 3350
1?1 3000
o EE
A /; -
3000 1 c
' 4??HOATH C?qO\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
/ViLhi e i6d- ^
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
•?i ????J U n -
' fChn
r, ems \
M I ?\
SPARTA BOG MITIGATION SITE
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
WHITEHEAD, NC QUAD
FIGURE 2
7
From: Self <NROAR04/N1EW331>
To: "Cyndi Bell" <[e-mail]>, "John Dorney
Subject: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) 421
Send reply to: Ron-- [e-mail]
Date sent: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:16:50 +0000
Thought this might give some more insights into this 421 mess.
Forwarded Message Follows -------From: "Mickey, Joseph H.
Jr." <[e-mail]> To: "James Ronald
(Ron) Linville" <RON [e-mail]> Subject:
RE: (Fwd) 421 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:07:00 -0500
The ones in the Wilkesboro paper are just as bad, putting address to
governor and legislators so folks can write them to push this economic
boom road through. It's a damn shame we can't defend ourselves on
this in the press. So much for the right of free speech, doesn't
apply to state employees I guess. Wonder why Wade Hoke hasn't
mentioned that when this road was first mentioned the resource
agencies said then to follow the existing route. Also, no mention of
the fact that when DOT widened the existing 421 in the 601s, with the
intention of adding another lane in the future, they put the existing
road in the wrong place and failed to control access. Wonder why they
go and buy right-of-way before they get any permits? Seems backwards
doesn't it. This road is not about road safety, but getting folks to
the mountains to spend their money. This really pisses us off
doesn't it. Just goes to show that this state doesn't really care
about the environment, only the greenback dollar. We're gong to
eventually drown in our own waste.
"Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until
there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the mist of
the land" Isaiah 5:8
Excepting atomic holocaust, the most dangerous threats to our way of
life are pollution, politicians and developers - not necessarily in
that order. (Guess we better add DOT).
From: James Ronald
To: Mickey, Joseph
Subject: (Fwd) 421
Date: Monday, March
Confidential:
(Ron) Linville
H. Jr.
09, 1998 6:03AM
I assume you read the editorials in the W-S Journal this
morning. DOT is obviously putting on the pressure and they have got
their side of the story out via the Wilkesboro reports in the paper...
None of the reasons for not doing this road as proposed have come
out.
------- Forwarded
Message Follows -------From: Self <NROAR04/NlEW331>
To: "Cyndi Bell" <[e-mail]>, "John
Dorney" <[e-mail]>, "John Dorney"
<john [e-mail]> Subject: 421 Cc:
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:56:49
[e-mail] Reply-to:
[e-mail] Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998
10:48:29 +0000
Think some things that need to come out from PR on this are:
1. DWQ and a lot of others did not know (WSRO did not) that DOT
owned enough right of way to build the road on the existing roadway
until recently. So the EAs and economic issues were flawed?
2. Impacts can and should be minimized by using existing roadways.
Innovative planning with environmental concerns upfront should be
utilized instead of straight line engineering.
3. Wetland area near Boone has significant uses. There are
associated areas that appear to have potential for mitigation sites
(PC pastures). These should not be unnecessarily destroyed. If we
build the road and destroy these we may get the tourist to the
mountains quicker but we will have destroyed a part of the ecosystem
that they are trying to enjoy.
4. As indicated in the W-S Journal editorial of 980309 on
sustainable development, "Good environmental stewardship is good
business. It deserves a wide hearing." How can the Journal turn
around in the next editorial and say the 421 "delays don't seem to be
about the environment. They are about bureaucracy." ??? Obviously,
they only have a small piece of the story.
5. Following the thought in number 4 above, once DOT destroys these
environments, they will be lost forever and that is not
sustainability. Sustainability can only occur if DOT uses the roadway
that they have already messed up. All they need to do is talk to
USFWS, USEPA, NCWRC. NC Nat. Hist Museum (Dennis) and a few others to
understand this thing.
6. Who but an idiot would want to keep on destroying the good
things in our state when we ought to be working together to do it
better with less destruction? Just because an EA was done does not
insure that permits can or should be issued.
************************************************** To a person
uninstructed in natural history, a country stroll is a walk through a
gallery filled with wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have
their faces turned to the wall. -Thomas Huxley
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 2 -- Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:56:49
From: Self <NROAR04/N1EW331>
To: "Mickey, Joseph H. Jr." <MICKEYJHQMAIL.WILDLIFE.STATE.NC.US
Subject: Need some help!
Send reply to: [e-mail]
Date sent: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:33:16 +0000
I have recommended a public hearing on the Watauga Section of 421. Of
course DOT is fighting this. Anyway, Cyndi Bell has to make a
decision this Friday on whether to recommend the public hearing. To
date she has my recommendation and one other letter. Not much to push
forward a public hearing. Bottom line is I think they overlooked an
option. Call me and I'll explain. Anyway, Cyndi Bell must have some
letters requesting a public hearing before Friday or it will not
happen. Her FAX # is 919/733-9959. Anybody interested in preserving
wetlands and streams that support trout waters should get involved.
Also anyone concerned about the down the road expense of maintaining
more and more roads might help. We must have enough interest or it
will be a waste of time and effort. DOT fired a 10 page letter to DWQ
on my denial memo!
Later, Ron
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:02:19
. , , l
From: Self <NROAR04/N1EW331>
To: Bell Cyndi
Subject: 421TIP R-2239B //// WQ#960000725
Date sent: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:10:07 +0000
If I understand this correctly, this is the one reviewed last year.
Has major stream crossings and relocations. Can't believe DOT calls
this "Road Widening" as it is a new road. All DOT roads should be
required to have limited access from this point on if they are major
thoroughfares.
It may be that their 404 will lose it's grandfathered status on Jan
22, 1998 as it will not have been started or finished. Is this
possible? If so, we should revisit under new stream regs.

New section in for review w/ same DWQ # is TIP R-22392; State Project
No. 6.769001T.
Can you help me figure out what they are doing or what we are doing
when we meet on 17th? Also have some questions about our last visit
which I need to iron out with you. So you should plan on us spending
some time together on 17th. Thanks for allowing me to add my
confusion to your confusion on this 421 mess.
See you on 17th!
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:02:28
From: "Cyndi Bell" <[e-mail]>
To:
"'[e-mail] 'lI <[e-mail]
Subject: FW: US 421
Date sent: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:43:36 -0800
-----Original Message-----
From: John _D
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:18 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'dennis'; 'coleen'; Cyndi_B; '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: US 421
This may help in everyone's understanding of the US 421 situation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyndi_B
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:05 AM
To: John_D
Subject: US 421
Just a note for our records:
The US 421 project was on the agenda at the permit meeting yesterday,
at least the Watauga County portion (T.I.P. No. R-0529). DOT
basically has refused to discuss the larger US 421 project, from
Yadkinville to Boone, and beyond. At the meeting yesterday, I told
DOT that it would be in their best interest to get their act together
on a stream mitigation plan, a PLAN, not a proposal, with specific
streams and methods included. They then informed me that they were
working on a proposal to fund a position for the Wildlife Resources
Commission to implement stream mitigation for them. I reiterated that
we need more than ideas, and that we don't want a repeat of the
position funded for Goose Creek. Charles Bruton told me they probably
couldn't have any defined plan because of the way the position would
be set up, so I told them again we still need specifics. During our
lunch break, David Cox, Steve Lund and I discussed the project. David
Cox said he had seen a FAX of DOT's proposal so far, and it amounts to
funding a position for one person to implement all of DOT's stream
mitigation work, statewide.
This would include site location, right-of-way issues, plan
preparation and implementation, for $50 per linear foot. Obviously,
to expect one person to accomplish all this is unrealistic and
unreasonable. Cox says that Frank McBride is not prepared to enter
this agreement as it stands now. Lund says he is also not prepared to
issue a 404 based on a nebulous plan. (He's been burned on DOT's
mitigation promises before.) It is unfair for DOT to claim that we
alone are "obstructing" this project from construction.
I understand that Preston Howard may want us to reach some form of
compromise with DOT on this project. If we do agree to issue DOT a
401 based on any undefined mitigation proposal, we should all be
prepared for the fact that stream mitigation would not be implemented
for several years. I can guarantee you we'll be putting ourselves
into a situation of prolonged negotiations, reviews, and other
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:51:30
follow-ups, with no certainty of success. Furthermore, I fully expect
DOT would ask for this same sort of arrangement many, many more times
in the future. It is standard operating procedure for DOT to elevate
permits up to higher management level, rather than dealing with the
specific issues related to projects. This has been going on with
wetland mitigation plans since at least 1989, and we still don't have
any grasp on success of those sites. Again, I believe we must proceed
cautiously, and may have to deal with the consequences for years to
come. If we do issue a 401 for R-0529, I think we must make it clear
to DOT this is the last one that can be issued based on promises.
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 2 -- Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:51:30
From: "LARRY COBLE" <NROAR04/N1ED706>
Organization: WSRO DENR
To: "STEVE MAUNEY11<TS19W40>, "RON LINVILLE"<NlEW331>
Date sent: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:02:11 +0000
Subject: (Fwd) HWY 421
Send reply to: [e-mail]
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:53:54 -0500
From: "Preston Howard" <[e-mail]>
To: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Cc: Tommy Stevens <[e-mail]>
Subject: HWY 421
As you know, this is a very high profile project. There are pressing
issues on both sides (i.e., both in DENR and in DOT). Also, the media
will not miss an opportunity to play one agency against the other.
Thus, I write you to solicit your help in keeping our comments
relative to this project focused on the water quality issues. Thanks,
in advance, for your help in communicating this to your staff. Call
me if you have any questions.
Larry D. Coble
ext.290
James Ronald (Ron) Linville -- 1 -- Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:08:23
11 Project Status
NC Department of Transportation US 421 Project
404/401 Certification Request
Boone to Deep Gap in Watauga County
February 3, 1997
Project Description:
This proposed project is a 8.8 mile segment of a multiple segment highway project
that is proposed to be constructed from Yadkinville to Boone.
The existing US 421 is being proposed to be relocated and expanded into a 4 lane
median divided highway.
The project as proposed would impact 1.2 acres of wetlands and 11,750 feet of
perennial waters.
History of Project:
The Division of Water Quality first comme . de on the project in a memo dated June
8, 1993. In that memo the Division expressed .a concern with the need for additional
minimization on the project. The Division advised DOT that if this minimization was
not incorporated into the project that a recommendation for denial would likely be
make.
Division of Water Quality Position:
The Division of Water Quality has expressed on numr?rous occasions concerns to
DOT regarding various aspects of this proposed project. These include Minimization,
Mitigation and Segmentation (please see attached summary memo).
Other Agency Positions:
1. In a memo dated October 27, 1997, the Habitat Conservation Program of the
Wildlife Resources Commission expressed concern with the impacts of this project
and made recommendations for modifications.
2. In a letter dated November 3, 1997, EPA requested that the Corps of Engineers
deny the 404 request for this project. DOT has responded to this letter and EPA is
currently reviewing the information submitted.
3. In a memo to DWQ dated January 13, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicated their intent to recommend denial of this project.
4. In a memo dated January 21, 1998 to the Habitat Conservation Program of the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, a recommendation was made that this
project as proposed be denied.
5. In a memo to DWQ dated January 22, 1998, our Department's Division of Parks
and Recreation strongly recommended that this project receive a thorough biological
survey due to a concern with threatened species (Bog Turtle, etc.).
A
6. In a memo to DWQ dated January 23, 1998, the N. C. State Museum of Natural
Sciences recommended that other options be pursued in building this roadway.
7. Before the Corps of Engineers (COE) could approve the 404 permit for this
project, DOT would be required to submit a comprehensive stream mitigation plan
to the COE. It is our understanding that DOT has just recently hired a consultant to
develop this plan. Normally a plan would take months to develop.
Public Concerns:
The Division has received several request for a public hearing on the proposed
project. One of these request was from the Sierra Club.
Department Options:
1. Work with DOT staff and the other agencies to attempt to resolve outstanding
issues.
2. Proceed to Public Hearing to allow further comment on the project.
3. Delay final decision on the project pending the development of DOT's stream
mitigation plan. The project cannot be approved by either the COE or the Division
prior to the development of this plan.
4. Recommend denial of the project as proposed.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 3, 1998
Memorandum to: Wayne McDevitt
From: Cyndi Bell 61- /2
-Through: ---- John Dorney? - - - - -- - ------ - - - --
Denrrs Ramsey - - - - - - -- --
Subject: Project Status of NCDOT Applications to Relocate US 421 from Boone to
Deep Gap in Watauga County (T.I.P. No. R-0529 BA/BB), from Yadkinville
to US 601 in Yadkin County (T.I.P. No. R-2120A), from SR 2433 to SR 2309
in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No. R-2239B), and from Maple Springs to
Wilkesboro in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No. R-2240)
From the perspective of DWQ, there are three major issues which are unresolved with respect to
the US 421 corridor from Boone in Watauga County to US 601 in Yadkin County:
I. Minimization - DOT is calling virtually the entire US 421 corridor through three counties a
"widening" project. It should be recognized as a "relocation" or rather as an additional highway,
since no section of the existing US 421 (or the existing Old US 421) will be abandoned/removed.
DOT has separated US 421into four distinct T.I.P. segments, each further broken down into
construction sections. We currently have three applications, and expect at least four more
applications in the future.
R-0529, US 421 in Watauga County, occurs in steep, mountainous terrain. DOT's
Preferred Alignment would impact 1.2 acres of wetlands and 11,750 feet of perennial
streams. Widening on existing location would have greater impacts on properties -
adjacent to the existing road, as DOT says. The offsite relocation would have greater
environmental impacts, and construction costs would be higher. DOT's preferred
alignment is approved by the Corps. WRC concurs with the general alignment, but is
not satisfied that impacts to streams and the largest wetland have been locally
minimized to the extent practical. In our June 28, 1993 comments on the new location
alternative, DWQ was still questioning the minimization of stream impacts. At that
time, DWQ reminded DOT that denial of the 401 Water Quality Certification would be
likely if an alternative was chosen which did not minimize stream and wetland impacts.
WRC and FWS agree that Sparta Bog could only be a component in a mitigation plan;
additional stream mitigation in the project vicinity would still be required. EPA, the
NC Museum of Natural Sciences, NC Divison of Parks and Recreation, and DWQ's
Winston-Salem Regional Office are not satisfied that impacts have been minimized to
the extent practicable, either for the entire corridor or the specific design. WSRO also
is not satisfied that DOT has done everything possible to treat stormwater in the
immediate project area. On January 23, 1998, the Sierra Club also sent us a letter in
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
that they need the road, but want the stream crossings to be better designed, or the
impacts to be mitigated. She also mentioned that she had heard locals complaining ,
about the control of access proposed for the new highway.: In my opinion,I can
S"5
appreciate the topographic constraints that DOT is under (if a high-speed facility 13
truly needed in the mountains), but am not satisfied with local min.... ? of impacts
t = x stogywater cofftrols? _)r am coacrosed E3 'wag j in tta; laces a
pM=PUM
{ = that DWQ is blockin the and therefore endan ern their hues on a hazardous:
S Permit,. g 8 r
`road. 'I doubt DOT will mention that, even if everyone agreed that the proposed design ?:
_
Ron Linville is correct in his concerns whiz DOT's handiiag of storm rater, both dig
construction and for the life of the project DOT currently has the A-10 project
(Interstate 26) under construction in Buncombe County. Following recent storms in
January, 1998, the Asheville Regional office reported that DOT has gone in and
destroyed literally hundreds of feet of streams outside the project area, in an effort to
control stormwater. R-0529 occurs in similarly mountainous terrain, and we need
assurance that DOT has contingency plans for storm events.
R-2239, R-2120, and R-2240 - US 421 in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties - This is where
the existing 2-lane facility occurs on 4-lane right-of-way. The total impacts for these
segments are unknown at this time, since these projects are broken into sections, but we
estimate again that thousands of feet of stream impacts will be involved. The existing
facility is a relatively straight design, with very few curves. Re-alignment of this
highway is not necessary to improve the vertical alignment. Thus far, every agency
having reviewed these applications agrees that DOT's preferred new-location design is
not-the least damaging, practical alternative. We all agree that the "widen existing"
alternative is preferable. All commenters (COE, FWS, WRC, DWQ RO and Central
Offices) have suggested denial of these applications. An aggravating factor is that DOT
is breaking the T.I.P. segments into smaller sections for permit applications, making the
review process even more confusing for all involved.
II. Mitigati on' DOT's first application for R-0529 included a proposal to debit wetland credits
from the Mud Creek mitigation site in Henderson County, and to pay into the WRP for stream
mitigation., DOT claims that their first application met the requirement for up-front mitigation,
but this site is not in the same river basin, and did not provide stream mitigation. It should also
be noted that stream impact information was lacking from the fast application, necessitating
revision of the drawings. Since that time, DOT has purchased Sparta Bog, which all agencies
agree will satisfy a portion of the mitigation requirements after minimization issues are fully
satisfied. Since Sparta Bog is not in the same sub-basin, and would not satisfy all credit
requirements, and since the Corps is not yet issuing 404 permits using the WRP, DOT must still
produce a suitable stream mitigation plan, preferably within the same sub-basin as the project
corridor. We should also remember that the Corps will require 2:1 mitigation for streams,
meaning that DOT needs to produce 23,500 linear feet of streams. It will likely take at least six
months for DOT to 1) locate suitable sites with willing sellers, 2) have agencies approve the
sites, 3) develop mitigation plans, and 4) have those plans approved. With respect to the R-2120
and R-2239 segments, DOT is proposing mitigation in Iredell County Again, while the site may
provide some wetland and stream mitigation, it cannot compensate foi the linear distance of
stream impacts for these projects. ' - _
^r
3?• 77
ary 3,'
r ' mm?cic?g for the US 421' comdor': DOT.wants to burld i four lane med?an-divided full-control
," ^y'`F?+ .-} "'1^r?; ? b ?Y`-.? .. YS i.?fx -)a!.4?• .r.{-!V Y I-: S- - :!• h wrcH L ._ .'. ?(
} of access facility, in other words an Intrastate highway µIf we approve the proposed design from
< ?? ` ?? "? «Boone to Deep Gap that would create an Intrastate in Watauga County, with an east ng;n
Intrastate ending at US 601 in Yadkia County.. This would leave a gap in Yadkin and Wilkes
_ Counties which DOT is sure to argue should also be built to Intrastate standards Therefore, if
building an
w X we commit to Intrastate in Watauga County , 'this virtually obligates us to a new r
q.a+- -. 4 <.. .. .. ,
` Intrastate fro m Winston-Salem well into the mountains. I believe it is appropriate for us toatq
question the need for a new high speed facility in the tain
mouns. I also believe the locals are
,, i? interecte ;i$ liavffig a safe fa ty than the rusting US421; but'not
°'?` ?'??'??speed highway YConceivably, we could emphasize the ``widen existing" alternative in Yadkin ?,?.
.- and Wilkes Counties; which would meanthat these segments could not be constructed as and'
- °--'y- - =.-_ r•:-,.?-" ,-- ----? Tn - +atP'-W nnlri thPn'armie that a 1e38daIDaS?ln? alternative lII WatanAa COUIItY. OIIe which _?... _ __ _
"pacts be less severe, the secondary impacts would probably be lower.
Regardless of whether or not we elect to hold a public hearing for this project, neither a 401
Water Quality Certification nor a 404 Permit can be issued until DOT satisfies all commenting agencies
with respect to avoidance and minimization, and produces a stream mitigation plan. DOT is currently
searching for stream mitigation possibilities. Since preparation of the mitigation plan is sure to take
many months, a public hearing would not affect the chronology of the review process.
DOT provided a response to our concerns on January 2, 1998. Ron Linville provided a written
response on January 26,1998, in which he noted that DOT had not satisfied his concerns, and had not
answered his direct request for an alternative partially located on existing alignment. This project indeed
has a long history, and has been reviewed by many agency personnel over this time. DOT maintains that
all issues were resolved during the NEPA process, and that their designs for all segments reflect the least
damaging practical alternative. We should note that correspondence in each final project document
shows that some quetions still remained unanswered at the time the documents were published.
s'.
In summary, there is no question that DOT's preferred alternative will substantially impact
streams and wetlands in Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties. US 421 from Boone to US 601 should
be reviewed as a whole, because the design of each section is directly affected by adjoining segments.
We believe that an alternative overall design is possible, which could serve the transportation needs in
these counties, and reduce the impacts of a new major highway. I believe it is in everyone's best interest
to resolve the major design issues for the entire US 421 corridor at one time (especially (since any one
decision will affect the remainder), rather than in six different applications. Either John Dorney or I will
be glad to discuss the details of this project. Preston Howard has additional background information to
be used in the decision about a public hearing. i
=Z<

-
.a. •u?<rte'=r.r ??... - -T .:.
r..
% i -r - "I
_ r ?" On.
x M
t

To: John Dorney
Cyndi Bell
Through: Steve Mauney
From: Ron Linville
Subject: Franklin Vick DOT 421
Jan 2, 1998 Letter Response
Date: 980121
In response to the above document, the following comments and
queries may assist DOT and DWQ in understanding concerns previously
raised by the Regional Office. For simplicity, each comment will
follow DOT's letter full paragraph by full paragraph.
Paragraph Number:
I. The recommendation for denial is based on potential
further minimization of impacts related to this project, the
quality of the existing wetland and its contribution to water
quality in this drainage area plus the fact that this wetland
appears to be the last remaining wetland along this portion of the
creek (restorable/mitigatable prior converted farmlands appear to
be associated with this trout classified stream segment).
II. The four roadways (actually 5 roads) referred to are the
Blue Ridge Parkway, the existing 421, Old Hwy 60/Hardin Road
(Laurel Springs?) and the proposed additional double highway (not
a road widening). As for the final paragraph seeming to be out of
place, the DOT has been under intense scrutiny lately so it would
seem that they would welcome ideas which might assist them in
dealing with long-term impacts with which the general public seems
to be at odds. These items would include loss of environmental
quality, including mountain valley vistas, water quality and the
protection of specific basin trout populations. These are
significant to the mountains as environmental quality encourages
tourism and a healthy local economy. Safe roads are important.
Being able to maintain roadways is also important and it would seem
economical to minimize instead of increasing miles of pavement that
must be kept up to standard.
III. A study completed in 1975 would seem to be very
outdated.
VI. Concerning minimization, the Region continues to
question whether or not utilizing the existing 2 lane roadway for
one way traffic was ever considered as an option. Are the existing
environmental reviews flawed? Could minor improvements to this
roadway provide for traffic flow to or from the Boone area if only
a 2 lane roadway is built where the new 4 lane is now proposed?
Could this not reduce impacts further?
? 'fl /
PA_
r

VII. From the information gathered by the WSRO, the DOT
appears to show that they eliminated the "Improve Existing
Corridor" alternative due to several reasons; however, this
alternative seems to indicate building a 4 lane on the existing 421
corridor. Again, could not this existing roadway comprise half
instead of a third or less of the cumulative road area through this
area? Would this not reduce down the road maintenance cost as well
as minimize environmental concerns?
VIII. Should water quality impacts not be minimized further
through other alternatives and since this wetland appears to be
very functional in providing for downstream uses/classifications,
the Region would recommend that some measures be provided adjacent
to the new roadway and impacted stream which would provide some
assurances that downstream functions would continue at or above
current levels. These measures might be construction of wetland
vegetated marshes or stormwater retention facilities. Similar
practices may be utilized in other states or jurisdictions. Also,
what hydrologic conditions will exist in the remaining wetlands?
IX. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
X. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
Can proposed impacts be further reduced by utilizing the existing
roadways and building less new road?
XI. See VIII above for on site considerations. After road
construction, will the remnant wetlands be dryer or wetter?
XII. Reduction from 2.4 acres to 1.16 acres by DOT is
commendable; however, further avoidance/minimization and on site
considerations should still benefit long-term water quality and
habitat concerns.
XV. Turn lanes if one way roads are utilized should be able
to provide safe access to the school.
XVI. As of January 1998, the bog turtle's status may have
changed somewhat. Until the road project begins, continued
vigilance should be exercised in order that we act appropriately.
XX. Without comprehensive minimization and protection of
downstream water quality concerns (whether by avoidance or by on
site measures), the Region continues to be concerned that existing
uses will be degraded both at the construction site and downstream.
The mention of the Miller bog was intended to show that potential
mitigation sites are available in the Region's (WSRO) area. The
Miller bog would be considered a prime candidate for possible
restoration mitigation within this Region.

XXI. The NCDOT should be commended for their efforts with the
Sparta bog. Sadly, this area will do nothing for the impacts
caused by the 421 "road widening".
XXIV. The WSRO does not concur that no practical alternatives
exist in the same physiographic province (see VIII above). A
combination of measures may be more palatable.
XXV. The Region continues to be concerned that the
environmental documents produced may be outdated or flawed.
Utility independency should not be utilized for multiple sections
of the same new roadway.
XXVII. The region considers a public hearing as a possible
method for public review of a new major roadway if the previous
environmental studies or alternative studies were flawed. Was
utilizing existing 421 and 60 ever considered for minor
improvements and unidirectional traffic? If they were, the WSRO is
not informed. A public hearing should provide an opportunity to
get things cleared up once and for all on this section of 421. It
could also include and consider the entire 421 project from Yadkin
County to Watauga County. Several comments have been made by
persons along the 421 corridor in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties that
DOT already has enough roadway purchased along the existing 421 for
four lanes. They question the destruction and division of existing
farms and environments. The Watauga section should receive public
comments due to water quality issues and trout water concerns.
XXVIII. The purchase of property or the progression of an
EA/EIS does not assure issuance of a permit or certification.
This office would consider a field investigation with Mr.
Gordon Cashion as an excellent opportunity to discuss issues
relative to this specific wetland impact in Watauga County.
However, due to public comments and concerns over the entire 421
project, it may be in the best interest of the people to make this
entire 421 project available for public scrutiny.
CC: Central files
WSRO
USACOE-Asheville Office
USFWS
NCWRC
a:\421.rsp
_._ ) lr?
y a ?a?6
ir.V. D p
JAN J 5 1998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Wins to, r1-S;?d!ern
DEPARTMENT OF Tk NSPORTATIOI Aegiona? Office
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
January 2, 1998
Steve Tedder
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Tedder:
JAN ' 7 Is9? 8
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for a Section 401
Water Quality Certification on July 8, 1997 for improvements to the US 421 corridor
from South Fork New River in Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Watauga County.
Considerable coordination between the DOT and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has
occurred since that time, including field reviews and additional correspondence. Most
recently, the NCDOT has been informed that the DWQ Winston Salem Regional Office
(WSRO) has recommended denial of the certification for this project. On December 3,
1997, the NCDOT received a facsimile of a memorandum dated July 28,.1997 from the
Winston Salem Regional Office which outlines the basis for their recommendation. This
situation was also briefly discussed in a meeting following the December 11, 1997 permit
review meeting. Informal comments were also received via electronic mail from your
office on December 15, 1997. This letter is provided to address the objections which
have been expressed to this project.
The July 28 memorandum contains two items which bear on the NEPA process and
alternative selection for the project. The second paragraph implies that there would be
four roadways parallel to each other upon completion of the project and that utilizing an
existing road would be preferable. It is unclear to the NCDOT which four roadways this
memorandum refers to. In any case, the EIS studied many alternatives for the project
including the option of widening along the existing roadway. The final paragraph of this
memorandum questions the incorporation of this project into long term planning for the
area. This comment seems out of place, as the planning of this project has gone on for
years. The purpose and need for the project, the preferred alternative and the alternative
selection process are well documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for this project.

In October, 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) began
preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector between
Boone and Interstate 77. The study was completed in December, 1975, and included a
recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near
Deep Gap. In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study progressed, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven interagency
meetings were held throughout the study.
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
the reasons for their elimination.
SEGMENT REASONS FOR ELIMINATION
Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor. Chapter II.A.1. of the DEIS summarizes the factors behind the
elimination of the "Improve Existing Corridor" alternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted below:
The existing conditions along US 421 from just west of the South Fork New River
bridge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually made when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
sharp, and steep vertical grades are the rule, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses in close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of the two additional lanes. Existing horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. The Improve Existing Corridor Alternative would have
a few advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost
and fewer impacts to the natural environment. However, the disadvantages would
be great:
• A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 40 businesses,
and 7 non-profit organizations would require relocation. The total number of
displacees for this alternative is approximately three times that of any other
alternative.
4
• Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near Laxon.
• Encroachment into the school ground of Parkway Elementary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
• Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near
Grandview Overlook.
• Increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
• Difficulties in maintaining traffic on existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Existing Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate. However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. These
segments are the western terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0.5 mile west of the US 421 /US 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begins.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document was also coordinated with the DENHR, and two
letters from the DWQ are included in this document. This document finalizes the
discussion of alternatives for the project, and describes the Preferred Alternative. The
advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are
quoted below:
• Fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lower cost -- approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8
million less than Build Alternative C;
• Fewer noise impacts -- 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lesser wetland impacts -- (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55
acres less than Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
• Lesser impacts to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
• Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
• Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service.
5
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...".
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum
dated February 24, 1995 (Copy attached). These comments are brief, but provide
guidance for compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (f) defines how the
lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water Quality
Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic project
purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in
less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider the
potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all
alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the best way to avoid impacts to waters of
the United States, including wetlands, is by the judicious selection of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has completed an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts and potential impacts to surface waters have also been considered.
The NCDOT also believes that is has diligently attempted to minimize impacts to
wetlands and surface waters. The DEIS, Section IV.K.2, discusses impacts to water
resources. This section includes a discussion of best management practices to be
implemented to minimize impacts to surface waters. The FEIS followed up on this
discussion, and included eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization
of impacts to wetlands and surface waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as
practicable.
• NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gap Creek.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division of Highways Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
• The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE, NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC).
• A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional comments can be made on the NCDOT's minimization efforts. The FEIS
states that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The NCDOT has been able to
further minimize this impact during project design. The project will impact a total of
1.16 acres of wetlands as indicated in our application of July 8, 1997, less than half of the
total projected in the FEIS. The NCDOT has also diligently avoided any direct
construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned in the environmental commitments.
The specified research study of this site is also underway to document any indirect
impacts of the project on this site during construction.
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland
Site I, Section BB referred to in the DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum. The majority of
the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of 1.16 acres). The presence of this
site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit III-3, Table IV-16). Consequently,
impacts to this site were considered in the alternative selection process. At a field review
of the project, the resource agencies made several suggestions that may have potentially
reduced impacts at this site. These suggestions were examined for feasibility and the
results were included in a memorandum which was sent to the DWQ on October 3, 1997.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353). The-first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-
REV) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (-Y9-REV) to existing US 421 directly south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at the September 18, 1997 permit review meeting.
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum also refers to the possibility that bog turtles may
be present at this site, and that a "review" should occur. Currently, field surveys for the
bog turtle are not required under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not requested a survey for the
species at this site. An Environmental Consultation was completed in April 1997 which
included a review of the project for compliance under the Endangered Species Act. This
review found that the project is expected to have no effect on species protected by the
Act.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(g) specifies that
minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the impacts to surface
waters or wetlands are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration
or density.
These three factors have all played a part in the development of this project, from
alternative selection to final design. The NCDOT believes that it has done everything
possible to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands in accordance with this rule.
The NCDOT does not dispute the ecological value of some of the impacted wetlands and
surface water resources. Consequently, considerable discussion has taken place regarding
suitable mitigation for these impacts as required by both the Corps of Engineers and the
DWQ.
Recently, the NCDOT has been under considerable pressure to provide "up-front"
mitigation for impacts, and has been struggling to catch up to this new demand. The
NCDOT's first proposal for wetland mitigation for the project was in compliance with
this concept. The NCDOT proposed in the July 8, 1997 application to mitigate project
wetland impacts at a site already being implemented in Henderson County. However,
discussion with both the Corps of Engineers and N.C. Division of Water Quality revealed
that both agencies preferred that the NCDOT locate a new site in the same river basin as
8
the project rather than an "up-front" site in another basin. Consequently, the NCDOT
withdrew the proposal to use the Henderson County site. The July 28, 1997 memo from
the DWQ refers to this Henderson County site which is no longer proposed.
The July 28 memorandum has more to say on mitigation, particularly suggesting that
mitigation should occur in Watauga County or "this Region". The same paragraph also
includes an erroneous statement which requires clarification. The memorandum states
that a "bog in Ashe County has already been impacted due to Highway 16 as a farmer has
drained this area." The impact referred to was initiated by a private property owner, not
the NCDOT, which explains why the COE Cease and Desist letter was not directed to the
NCDOT.
Based on agency comments, the NCDOT turned its attention to the New River Basin.
The NCDOT has purchased a property in Alleghany County within the New River Basin.
This property contains a site known as Sparta Bog. This mountain bog complex is
considered of national significance by the Nature Conservancy and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program. The NCDOT completed an initial site analysis which identified
restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded stream sections on-site. A
consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for the property. A meeting
was held at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical elements to be included in
the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the DWQ, COE, Wildlife Resources
Commission, the NCDOT, and the consultant.
This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted features, and will assist the NCDOT in
targeting important stream restoration goals.
The NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream mitigation plans
in the project area. It is expected that this stream mitigation effort will be extensively
coordinated with the COE, WRC, USFWS and the DWQ in a fashion similar to the A-10
project in Madison County.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) specifies guidelines
for mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses. Subparagraph (8) of this rule
specifies that mitigation for wetland impacts should occur within "the same river basin
and physiographic province when practical." Both the proposed mitigation site in
Alleghany County and the project are located in the New River Basin, so the NCDOT
considers this condition to be satisfied. Subparagraph (6) of this rule requires that all
mitigation proposals provide for replacement of wetland acres at a 1:1 ratio through
restoration or creation. The NCDOT is committed to providing at least 1:1 replacement
through restoration or creation for 1.16 acres of wetlands impacted by this project, in
accordance with Subparagraph (6).
9

North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(1) indicates that
"mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to
constitute the mitigation required by the certification" provided that the criteria of
Subparagraph (6) are met. Although 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) does not specifically define
rules for stream mitigation, it does provide for "mitigation of unavoidable losses of
existing uses" in accordance with six specified guidelines. Five of these guidelines refer
explicitly to wetlands including Subparagraphs (6) and (8) already referred to. Since it
appears that the only guideline pertaining to stream mitigation is Subparagraph(1), the
NCDOT assumes that the stream mitigation required by the Corps of Engineers will also
qualify under this rule. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has indicated
that they are satisfied with the efforts made by the NCDOT to develop suitable mitigation
for both wetland and stream impacts and have stated that they are prepared to issue a
conditioned Section 404 Individual Permit based on the current proposals. Consequently,
the NCDOT believes that it can demonstrate compliance with DWQ's rules regarding
mitigation.
The DWQ, especially the WSRO, has also requested a summary of information on all
improvement projects along US Highway 421 throughout the state. The NCDOT is
always willing to provide information on its proposed projects, and answer specific
questions upon request. However the NCDOT is dismayed by your regional office's lack
of awareness of these projects, as they have been under serious review for years. The
regional office seems particularly uninformed of the extensive planning process
undertaken by the project that is the subject of this letter and permit application.
This project has utility independent of any other proposed improvement along US 421.
The project consists of constructing a multi-lane segment between two existing multi-lane
segments and will solve serious traffic problems within the local area. This project was
also subject to a review of environmental impacts independent of the other improvement
projects in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act guidelines.
Consequently, information on other segments of US 421 is not relevant to this 401
Certification review. The NCDOT believes it has provided the DWQ with sufficient
information on this project either previously or in this letter to allow review of this
project to proceed.
The NCDOT understands that the DWQ has been asked to hold a public hearing on this
certification request. The NCDOT further understands that this is at the discretion of the
Director of the DWQ, and is pursuant to your regulations. However, it is the NCDOT's
opinion that this project is the product of extensive public review through workshops,
hearings, NEPA document development, alternative selection, and development of
environmental commitments for the project. This project has received considerable
support by local governments and residents. It appears to the NCDOT that the public
interest would best be served by permitting this essential transportation improvement
project to proceed.
10
In closing, I would like to point out that very little of the information provided in this
letter should be new to your agency. Planning for this project has gone on for years, and
your agency has been involved at every critical stage, especially as they relate to impact
avoidance and minimization. Your agency has also been kept abreast during development
of mitigation proposals for the project. The "short memory" of your agency regarding
this process is of great concern to the NCDOT. Please continue to review this project for
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions
regarding this project, please contact me or Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gc
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville

a SrATC,
s way,

JAN 1 5 1998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA '
WiI'1stfJn°'S???vrn'
DEPARTMENT OF TI?ANSPORTAnoMegianal Offic
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR
GovERNOR SECRETARY
January 2, 1998
Steve Tedder ,l
Division of Water Quality JAN ' 7 Jggp
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resourcesx
512 North Salisbury Street WETLANDS GROUP
Wes.. ATE UALITY SEt p
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148 N
Dear Mr. Tedder:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for a Section 401
Water Quality Certification on July 8, 1997 for improvements to the U
from South Fork New River in Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway ' Watauga Countyw ..
Considerable coordination between the DOT and Division of Water T as
occurred since that time, including field reviews and additional correspondence. Most
recently, the NCDOT has been informed that the DWQ Winston Salem Regional Office
(WSRO) has recommended denial of the certification for this project. On December 3,
1997, the NCDOT received a facsimile of a memorandum dated July 28, 1997 from the
Winston Salem Regional Office which outlines the basis for their recommendation. This
situation was also briefly discussed in a meeting following the December 11, 1997 permit
review meeting. Informal comments were also received via electronic mail from your
office on December 15, 1997. This letter is provided to address the objections which
have been expressed to this project.
dum contains two items which bear on the NEPA process and
0-July 28 memoran
alternative selection for the project. The second paragraph implies that there would be
y(a
four roadways parallel to each other upon completion of the project and that utilizing an
existing road would be preferable. It is unclear to the NCDOT whic our roadways is
memorandum refers to. In any case, the EIS studied many alternatives or e project
including the option of widening along the existing roadway. The final paragraph of this
memorandum questions the incorporation of this project into long term planning for the
area. This comment see s out of plac s the planning of this project has gone on for
years. The purpose and nee orthe project, the preferred alternative and the alternative
selection process are well documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for this project.
o
?5?
v
October, 11974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) began
preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector between
Boone and Interstate 77. The study was completed in December, 1975, and included a
dly- recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near
Deep Gap. In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.

In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study progressed, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven interagency
meetings were held throughout the study.
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
treasons for their elimination.
SEGMENT REASONS FOR ELIMINATION
t
I Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.

f

S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
F
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor. Ater II.A.l . of the ummarizes the factors behind the
elimination of `,Improve Existing Corridor" ternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted
The e 'sting conditions along US 421 from just west of the South Fork New River
b ' ge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually made when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
5 sharp, and steep vertical grades are the rule, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses in close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
d roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of 14e two additional lanes. isting horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. T e rridor Alternative would have
I , a few advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost
l and fewer impacts to the natural environment. However, the disadvantages would
be great:
• A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 40 businesses,
and 7 non-profit organizations would require relocation. The total number of
displacees for this alternative is approximately three times that of any other
alternative.

4
• Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near Laxon.
• Encroachment into the school ground of Parkway Elementary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
• Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near.
Grandview Overlook.
• Increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
• Difficulties in maintaining traffic on existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Existing Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate. However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. These
segments are the western terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0.5 mile west of the US 421 /US 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begins.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document was also coordinated with the DENHR, and two
letters from the DWQ are included in this document. This document finalizes the
discussion of alternatives for the project, and describes the Preferred Alternative. The
advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are
quoted below:
• Fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lower cost -- approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8
million less than Build Alternative C;
•

•
o?
• Fewer noise impacts -- 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
Lesser wetland impacts -- (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55
acres less than Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
Lesser impacts to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
•
J •
•
•

• No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize ° `.
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...". ^ t `r
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum Y111-
dated February 24, 1995 (Copy attached). These comments are brief, but provide
guidance for compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.

North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (f) defines how the
lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water Quality
Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic project
purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in
s a verse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider the
potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all
alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the be to avoid impacts to waters of
the United States, including wetlands, is by e 'udicious sel of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has comp ete an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts and potential impacts to surface waters have also been considered.
I he NCDOT also believes that is has diligently attempted to minimize impacts to
1 Fj.
?f
wetlands and surface waters. The DEIS, Section is to water S _-,
n he _
resources. This section includes a discussio of l .est management RraZLr_
q
K_ VV4- J. plemented to minimize impacts to surface waters. The FEIS followed up on this )IV Q
' 1, ;'cussion, and included eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization
° ??? of impacts to wetlands and surface waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as
"
practicable.
• NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gap Creek.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division of Highways Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and.
sedimentation during construction.
6
• The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE, NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC).
• A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional commen c-.qn be, made on the NCDOT's minimization efforts. The FEIS
states t .4 acres of wetlands would be im a d. The NCDOT has been able to
ac urmg project design. The project will im
1.16 ?pprojjecte res of wetlands dicated in our application of July 8, 199 less than hail e
tota in the FEIS. The NCDOT has also diligently avoided any irec
construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned in the environmental commitments.
The specified research study of this site is also underway to document any indirect
impacts of the project on this site during construction.
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland
Site I, Section BB referred to in the DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum. The majority of
the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of 1.16 acres). The presence of this
site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit III-3, Table IV-16). Consequently, k
impacts to this site were considered in the alternative selection process. At a field review
of the project, the resource agencies made several suggestions that may have potentially
reduced impacts at this site. These suggestions were examined for feasibility and the
results were included in a memorandum which was sent to the DWQ on October 3, 1997.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353). The- first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-.
REV) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (-Y9-REV) to existing US 421 directly south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at the September 18, 1997 permit review meeting.

5 ? 7
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US' 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum also refers to the possibility that bog turtles may
be present at this site, and that a "review" should occur. Currently, field surveys for the
5 bog turtle are not required under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. ,
?/ ?/ Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not requested a survey for the
species at this site. An Environmental Consultation was completed in April 1997 which
luded a review of the project for compliance under the Endangered Species Act. This
?iew found that the project is expected to have no effect on species protected by the
t.
Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(g) specifies that
minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the impacts to surface
waters or wetlands are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration
or density.
These three factors have all played a part in the development of this project, from
u-= alternative selection to final design. The NCDOT believes that it has done everything
possible to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands in accordance with this rule.
The NCDOT does not dispute the ecological value of some of the impacted wetlands and
surface water resources. Consequently, considerable discussion has taken place regarding
suitable mitigation for these impacts as required by both the Corps of Engineers and the
DWQ.
Recently, the NCDOT has been under considerable pressure to pro de "up-front"
mitigation for impacts, and has been struggling to catch up to this new an . e
NCDOT's first proposal for wetland mitigation for the project was in compliance with
this concept. The NCDOT proposed in the July 8, 1997 application to mitigate project
wetland impacts at a site already being implemented in Henderson County. However,
discussion with both the Corps of Engineers and N.C. Division of Water Quality revealed
that both agencies preferred that the NCDOT locate a new site in the same river basin as
the project rather than an "up-front" site in another basin. Consequently, the NCDOT
withdrew the proposal to use the Henderson County site. The July 28, 1997 memo from
r ?•? Se DWQ refers to this Henderson County site which is no longer proposed.
The July 28 memorandum has more to icularly suggesting that
mitigation should occ atauga County or "this Rein" a same paragraph also
includes an erroneous statement which requires c ari ication. The memorandum states
that a "bog in Ashe County has already been impacted due to Highway 16 as a farmer
drain is ar a unpac re erred to was initiated by a private property owner, not
gyp/ e CDOT, which explains why the COE Cease and Desist letter was not directed to the
NCCDOT.
''$ased on agency comments, the NCDOT turned its attention to the New River Basin.
The NCDOT has purchased a property in Alleghany County within the New River Basi
This property contains a site known as Sparta Bog. This mountain bog complex is
VA^ considered of national significance by the Nature Conservancy and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program. The NCDOT completed an initial site analysis which identified
restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded stream sections on-site. A
consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for the property. A meeting
was held at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical elements to be included in
the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the DWQ, COE, Wildlife Resources
Commission, the NCDOT, and the consultant.
n.

This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted features, and will assist the NCDOT in
targeting important stream restoration goals.
he NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream mitigation plans
in the project area. It is expected that this stream mitigation effort will be extensively
coordinated with the COE, WRC, USFWS and the DWQ in a fashion similar to the A-10
Tr U?/

project in Madison County
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) specifies guidelines
for mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses. Subparagraph (8) of this rule
specifies that mitigation for wetland impacts should occur within "the same river basin
and physiograpc province when practical." Both the proposed mitigation site in
Alleghany County and the project are located in the New River Basin, so the NCDOT
t onsiders this condition to be satis ie ubparagraph (6) of this rule requires that all
mitigation proposals proviereplacement of wetland acres at a 1:1 ratio through
restoration or creation. The NCDOT is committed to providing at least 1:1 replacement
through restoration or creation for 1.16 acres of wetlands impacted by this project, in
accordance with Subparagraph (6).

North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(1) indicates that
"mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to
constitute the mitigation required by the certification" provided that the criteria of
Subparagraph (6) are met. Although 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) does not specifically define
rules for stream mitigation, it does provide for "mitigation of unavoidable losses of
existing uses" accordance with six specified guidelines. Five of these guidelines refer
explicitly to wetlands including Subparagraphs (6) and (8) already referred to. Since it
jappears that the only i ara a h(1), the
OT
-SA stream mitigation required by the Corps of Engineers wi
ifv under this ruls?he Unite to es v Corps o Engineers (COE) has indicated
thane satisfied with the efforts made by the NCDOT to develop suitable mitigation
for both wetland and stream impacts and have stated that they are prepared to issue a
conditioned Section 404 Individual Permit based on the current proposals. Consequently,
e OT believes that it can demonstrate compliance with D Q's rules regarding
mitigation.
------
>,,
c? ?
The DWQ, especially the WSRO, has also requested summary of information o
improvement projects along US Highway 421 throughout the state. The NCDOT is
always willing to provide information on its proposed projects, and answer specific
questions upon request. However the NCDOT is dismayed by your regional office's lack
of awareness of these projects, as they have been under serious review for years. The
regional office seems particularly uninformed of the extensive planning process
undertaken by the project that is the subject of this letter and permit application.
This project has ity independent of any other proposed improvement along US 42 . 7
The project consists of constructing a multi-lane segment between two existing multi-lane
segments and will solve serious traffic problems within the local area. This project was
also subject to a review of environmental impacts independent of the other improvement
projects in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. '
Consequently, information on other segments of US 421 is not relevant to this 401
Certification review. The NCDOT believes it has provided the DWQ with sufficient
information on this project either previously or in this letter to allow review of this
project to proceed.
The NCDOT understands that the DWQ has been asked to hol a - ubl ci hearing n this
certification request. The NCDOT further understands that this is at e iscretion the
ec or o e Q, and is pursuant to your regulations. However, it is t e T's
a is project is the product of extensive public review through workshops,
hearings, NEPA document development, alternative selection, and development of
environmental commitments for the project. This project has received considerable
support by local governments and residents. It appears tote a e pu is
s would best e served by permitting this essential transportation improvement
project to proceed.

10
In closing, I would like to point out that very little of the information provided in this
letter should be new to your agency. Planning for this project has gone on for years, and
your agency has been involved at every critical stage, especially as they relate to impact
avoidance and minimization. Your agency has also been ke t abreast during development
of mitigation proposals for the project. Th sort memor " your agency regarding
:Wm e continue to review this project for
this process is of great concern to the NCD
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions
regarding this project, please contact me or Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gc
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
I% ? W,
aeon`?;k
Ct?
M ?,k
J
To.
Through:
From:
Subject:
Date:
John Dorney
Cyndi Bell
Steve Mauney
Ron Linville
Post-it® Fax Note 7671 Dat iyla pages „J
To .r 4 From
Co./Dept. Co.
Phone # Phone #
Fax # Fax #
61 ? _/ ^ /`7? el?
Franklin Vick DOT 421
Jan 2, 1998 Letter Response
980121
In response to the above document, the following comments and
queries may assist DOT and DWQ in understanding concerns previously
raised by the Regional Office. For simplicity, each comment will
follow DOT's letter full paragraph by full paragraph.
Paragraph Number:
I. The recommendation for denial. is based on potential
further minimization of impacts related to this project, the
quality of the existing wetland and its contribution to water
quality in this drainage area plus the fact that this wetland
appears to be the last remaining wetland along this portion of the
creek (restorable/mitigatable prior converted farmlands appear to
be associated with this trout classified stream segment).
II. The four roadways (actually 5 roads) referred to are the
Blue Ridge Parkway, the existing 421, Old Hwy 60/Hardin Road
(Laurel Springs?) and the proposed additional double highway (not
a road widening). As for the final paragraph seeming to be out of
place, the DOT has been under intense scrutiny lately so it would
seem that they would welcome ideas which might assist them in
dealing with long-term impacts with which the general public seems
to be at odds. These items would include loss of environmental
quality, including mountain valley vistas, water quality and the
protection of specific basin trout populations. These are
significant to the mountains as environmental quality encourages
tourism and a healthy local economy. Safe roads are important.
Being able to maintain roadways is also important and it would seem
economical to minimize instead of increasing miles of pavement that
must be kept up to standard.
III. A study completed in 1975 would seem to be very
outdated.
VI. Concerning minimization, the Region continues to
question whether or not utilizing the existing 2 lane roadway for
one way traffic was ever considered as an option. Are the existing
environmental reviews flawed? Could minor improvements to this
roadway provide for traffic flow to or from the Boone area if only
a 2 lane roadway is built where the new 4 lane is now proposed?
Could this not reduce impacts further?
#? .,r9/
011A-
VII. From the information gathered by the WSRO, the DOT
appears to show that they eliminated the "Improve Existing
Corridor" alternative due to' several reasons; however, this
alternative seems to indicate building a 4 lane on the existing 421
corridor. Again, could not this existing roadway comprise half
instead of a third or less of the cumulative road area through this
area? Would this not reduce down the road maintenance cost as well
as minimize environmental concerns?
VIII. Should water quality impacts not be minimized further
through other alternatives and since this wetland appears to be
very functional in providing for downstream uses/classifications,
the Region would recommend that some measures be provided adjacent
to the new roadway and impacted stream which would provide some
assurances that downstream functions would continue at or above
current levels. These measures might be construction of wetland
vegetated marshes or stormwater retention. facilities. Similar
practices may be utilized in other states or jurisdictions. Also,
what hydrologic conditions will exist in the remaining wetlands?
IX. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
X. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
Can proposed impacts be further reduced by utilizing the existing
roadways and building less new road?.
XI: See VIII above for on site considerations. After road
construction, will the remnant wetlands be dryer or wetter?
XII. Reduction from 2.4 acres to 1.16 acres by DOT is
commendable; however, further avoidance/minimization and on site
considerations should still benefit long-term water quality and
habitat concerns.
XV. Turn lanes if one way roads are utilized should be able
to provide safe access to the school.
XVI. As of January 1998, the bog turtle's status may have
changed somewhat. Until the road project begins, continued
vigilance should be exercised in order that we act appropriately.
XX. Without comprehensive minimization and protection of
downstream water quality concerns (whether by avoidance or by on
site measures), the Region continues to be concerned that existing
uses will be degraded both at the construction site and downstream.
The mention of the Miller bog was intended to show that potential
mitigation sites are available in the Region's (WSRO) area. The
Miller bog would be considered a prime candidate for possible
restoration mitigation within this Region.

XXI. The NCDOT should be commended for their efforts with the
Sparta bog. Sadly, this area will do nothing for the impacts
caused by the 421 "road widening".
XXIV. The WSRO does not concur that no practical alternatives
exist in the same physiographic province (see VIII above). A
combination of measures may be more palatable.
XXV. The Region continues to be concerned that the
environmental documents produced may be outdated or flawed.
Utility independency should not be utilized for multiple sections
of the same new roadway.
XXVII. The region considers a public hearing as a possible
method for public review of a new major roadway if the previous
environmental studies or alternative studies were flawed. Was
utilizing existing 421 and 60 ever considered for minor
improvements and unidirectional traffic? If they were, the WSRO is
not informed. A public hearing should provide an opportunity to
get things cleared up once and for all on this section of 421. It
could also include and consider the entire 421 project from Yadkin
County to Watauga County. Several comments. have been made by
persons along the 421 corridor in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties that
DOT already has enough roadway purchased along the existing 421 for
four lanes. They question the destruction and division of existing
farms and environments. The Watauga section should receive public
comments due to water quality issues and trout water concerns.
XXVIII. The purchase of property or the progression of an
EA/EIS does not assure issuance of a permit or certification.
This office would consider a field investigation with Mr.
Gordon Cashion as an excellent opportunity to discuss issues
relative to this specific wetland impact in Watauga County.
However, due to public comments and concerns over the entire 421
project, it may be in the best interest of the people to make this
entire 421 project available for public scrutiny.
CC: Central files
WSRO
USACOE-Asheville Office
USFWS
NCWRC
a:\421.rsp
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer:
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ S U P V .: ! zG/z /yI GrJ/ y/
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE : 7/0,3 a /
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO: 0000875. COUNTY: WATAUGA
APPLICANT NAME: NCDOT US421 RELOCATION
PROJECT TYPE: ROAD CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TYPE: IP
COE_11: DOT #:
RCD_FROM _CDA: DOT DATE_FRM_CDA: 10/14/97
REG OFFICE: WSRO
RIVER AND SUB BASIN J: 050701 STR INDEX NO:
STREAM-CLASS:
WL IMPACT?: Y/N
WL_REQUESTED:
WL SCORE M :
MITIGATION?: Y/N
MITIGATION SIZE:
WL TYPE:
WL_ACR_EST?: Y/N
WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/N
MITIGATION TYPE:
DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/N
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: YIN
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/CO DENY
COMMENTS : 1iAj l C j t?? r ?J 0 "'s
c: Regional Office
Central Files

To: John Dorney
Cyndi Bell
Through: Steve Mauney
From: Ron Linville
Subject: DOT 421
401 Certification Review
Date: 970728
For purposes of this review, Site I Section BB was the only
sizable wetland reviewed that was included in the project although
smaller impacts to wetlands and streams are near this site.
The Region is very concerned that the proposed new roadway
will cause four roadways to be running basically parallel to each
other on and through this area. It would seem that this route
could be combined with an existing roadway (Laurel Springs Road?)
in order to minimize impacts to the environment, tourist vistas and
water quality.
This appears to be the last remaining sizable wetland in this
area. It should be reviewed as a possible bog turtle habitat or a
potential bog turtle restoration or mitigation site.
Should this project be moved forward, the Region believes that
there are compelling reasons to require mitigation in the same
basin or at least in the same county where these impacts occur.
Mitigation in Henderson County is NOT appropriate. Mitigation
within Watauga county should be required for this project. A bog
in Ashe County has already been impacted due to Highway 16 as a
farmer has drained the area. A COE Cease and Desist letter was
delivered to Miller Christmas Tree Farm after the degradation to
this known bog turtle site. DOT should focus on restoring areas in
this Region. This should include suitable associated stream/upland
buffers. Another potential site is located on Little Gap Creek
near the Watauga/Ashe County line (map attached).
Relocating streams with bioengineering techniques that
incorporate bioengineering designs would be preferred instead of
extensive piping. If that is not possible, stream mitigation
activities should occur within Watauga County. Thank you for your
time and consideration of this matter.
As a matter of concern, it appears that environmental reviews
for this type of project should include long-term projections,
including but not limited to, continuing costs of maintaining old
and new roadways compared to limiting the number of roadways by
utilizing existing roadways and the long-term loss and degradation
of water quality and water based habitats, and loss of attractive
tourist vistas due to roadway pavement and associated growth. This
is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The treasure
is lost forever.
CC: Central files
WSRO
RE-7 r-"? 9
N.C. "EFI I
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY a C T 27 1997
10/24/97 Winston-Salem
Regional office
MEMORANDUM
TO. Steve Mauney
Winston-Salem Regional Office
FROM: John Dorney
RE: 401 Certification Review
Please review the enclosed 401 Certification applications by November 14, 1997. Please call me if
you or your staff have any questions, or need assistance in this review.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO FORM
1. NCDOT US 311 Bypass z r = T - t
970880
Guilford --
2. NCDOT US 421 Relocation
,?--
970875, `",' r; D TO
Watauga
?/?-? q `]
The other enclosed material (if any) is for your general information and use as appropriate.
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199707161
October 9, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, ATTN: Mr. H.
Franklin Vick, Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 has applied for a
Department of the Army (DA) permit TO IMPACT BY FILL OR EXCAVATION 1.2 ACRES OF
WETLAND AND 1.97 ACRES OF SURFACE WATERS INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY
11,750 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL PIPING AND/OR RELOCATION AFFECTING
THE WATERS AND ADJACENT WETLANDS OF SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER, ROCKY
BRANCH, PINE RUN CREEK, THAXON CREEK, LAXON CREEK, GAP CREEK AND
UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO FACILITATE THE WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT OF AN
8.8-MILE LONG SECTION OF US HIGHWAY 421 EAST OF BOONE, WATAUGA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA (TIP NO. R-529 BA,BB,BD).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed widening/relocation of an 8.8-mile long section
of US Highway 421 from the South Fork New River on the west to the Blue Ridge Parkway on the
east in Watauga County. The existing two-lane roadway would be widened to a four-lane facility
with a 46-foot grassed median. The proposed work would result in the filling, excavation or clearing
of a total of 1.2 acres of wetland at 9 separate locations. These wetlands range in size from .02 to
.75 acres and are characterized as both seepage and riparian areas with both scrub shrub and
herbaceous vegetation. A total of 1.97 acres of surface waters would also be filled. A 66-foot long,
92-foot wide temporary rock causeway would be placed in the South Fork New River to facilitate
construction of a new bridge at the western end of the project. A total of approximately 11,750
linear feet of existing stream channel would be impacted at 18 separate crossing sites. Of this total,
approximately 6100 feet of stream would be relocated into newly constructed channels. Major
channel relocations are proposed at Rocky Branch (1337 feet), Thaxon Creek (726 feet), Laxon
Creek (1287 feet), and an unnamed tributary to Gap Creek (1551 feet). Approximately 5650 feet of
stream channel would be permanently placed in pipe or box culvert. Substantial lengths of double
box culvert are proposed at the crossings of Pine Run Creek (445 feet) and Thaxon Creek (775 feet).
The flow of Laxon Creek would be carried through a 214-foot long double box culvert. The triple
box culvert at Gap Creek would be extended 264 feet to the north to accommodate the new roadway
fill. The remaining channels would be placed in reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size from 18
to 60 inches in diameter.
RECEiVEp
uo; f v 1997,
FNVIR0NWNTALSCIENCES
2
Surface waters in the project area were sampled by the applicant in June and July of 1997.
Streams were examined for water quality, channel morphology and aquatic biology. This sampling
indicated a good to excellent bioclassification for all named and unnamed streams except for Laxon
Creek which rated fair. Brown trout were found in Rocky Branch, Thaxon Creek and Gap Creek.
Gap Creek also contained brook trout. Other common fish species included blacknose, longnose and
rosyside dace, fantail darter, creek chub, mottled sculpin and central stoneroller. The applicant is
currently investigating the potential to mitigate for impacts to waters and wetlands at the Sparta Bog
in Alleghany County. The potential for additional stream channel mitigation within the project area
is also being investigated. The applicant completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the proposed work on July 28, 1994. The purpose of the proposed work is to alleviate traffic
congestion on the existing two-lane highway. Plans showing representative portions of the proposed
work are included with this public notice. Complete design plans may be viewed at the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville,
North Carolina 28801.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will
be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall
state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the extent
of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the
presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case. The
benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against
its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the
conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
3
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for both protection and
utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or
fill materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public
interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties,
water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above.
Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall
public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State
certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether or
not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA) permit serves as
application to the NCDEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607. Copies of such materials will
be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, on or before October 31, 1997,
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Mr. Steven Lund, until 4:15 p.m., November 7, 1997, or telephone (704) 271-
4857.
` '• t to f Ge
1I1 .
EP(to. 'ECT SITE
Arbn
a t

Scale of Miles
0 5 •10 20 30
0 /0 20 30 40 AD
Scale of Kilometers
One Yldl equals appror mm* 13 miss and approailnateM 21 HorrlewL
3 J1• 7 2 1 ...` +_._,- -- R.y?R ?`•-334-. .._ ? ....._ . _....... .
31T"? J- 303 cy 1\• ,y
? ? 2>z. '4? ? 8 Y
• t 7 1
"u
'° 149 .?•
1222
4 ,
t, t722 47 . gym

122L ,.
V .2
1222 1u .
3 Z
<,

v -

12u 42
W -S
z ,o
J ,o

ENS
] QROTEa
6?1TI?
? t2u
> 1]n - 1221 W\?r:
'
PRo3'ECT 1]]a
,.? ?,., l2u 72
8 ]arts
,
uML
- ,? 'SS r 1322 ?(
e ?

? c

? SOVIN
? 4
]
??
,:
14 , "? 1
Baal ,•? '' ? • tlr.ryy
<
r
j .
.
1192 ?
l,:z 1].. ,> 4
7a y
LUZ • 0? 315 DMP CAP
'
-
1'
.
..
9 1„14000YM 1A '-- lj8 •? ,??
344 #" <...
]7
027
\
._ .
? ult.] t1tVAd7 Oj 124! ..
F 1
LIAX C
301 1 3
'
151 ug i6 LEH 119: ?
UL4
,
300 r "
150
SCALE •'0°
t p ] ] , MAM N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T750603 ( R=0529 BA, BB)

US*21 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FORK
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.6km
WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET J OF 2- 6
?i
,erry lane S
/ Mo
Doutnlon
VICINITY N'l[ALP
I ?
0
of \
! \ \ I Tr • A A ?.
X^,
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION F HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8=5005 ( R-0529 BA)
US421 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FOF
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.38kM
EAST . OF SR1357
SHEET y OF -2- 6

I ; j O O U 11 1
1 ? ?? l N I '?
cn
Z a
C7 F-
O
U
w

I 0

v
1 \'
L
d

!
r ?1

U
j

o
??

1 ao E? O
, . - w
1
! o CL
, a
(A
I
0 0
?
J ?
? a
A
c
a
.
z
SM0 8-13-Z /M zl ci o
dW0 008-0£'81
r
O °
aeon ?
1 ?- zo, t`n
=O l
I £81'S66+ ?L 7'01 _,
1 w 83dbl N1939
Flo` 5?1 z_ U-1 .
'
LO

P
I
E N ?
I
° J
I
Z
?
;
/ Z
I? Q=
WIN CL Fogb-z I w 1 (?
\ _ ------ I - N 3 --? ' -
I
N I X
W
U (? C
K
M V) O
z
??
a
?
1 N =
N cL-
- _ _ - _ =
z
?b0'89+ r
-?+E- -'- _
+68_041
36
I v?---
0 N
628'1
- ---
--850'81 '"
81 -

c

65?

' J I
L8 IZ
U- N r)
CD }
Z D Z I SSj 4,j?
n
?. ??w OZ lil OO. W
= Lo
>- I CL- C?

N

C\

? *
J
` Ss
I
M V? O1
F- + Pn
N
+
am
W
00
C?
[ \? `r
? \ 04, MIL v J
? ? \

v\\ v
as Lr)
I-
V, ?
d 0- ~ -? ?0J\\ O U r- ?- v ---
3 r

w _ rr

y
A
z
e
H
W H
a jW
? da
w E.W. U
p 0 5
z °y
z
W
A Az
\\ r: i'C
s
v
a
U
O
N
O
o?
I . IT-
I p z ? co ? ? in O
W C y O w
I? J Q c? 0 cam. F ?.,
U ?
Q m z ? p ?
Ol ?. z
Y ? w w
7 3
N
ZZ
U `a
n
z ?
p U
N
I ?
O O
? N
_ - ? - 0(XV091 t{? 3 N H7ibW Z a

3-4

H
L'9 QQ 0,
Z05
SS
'
I
:
+
Z
'b
`?
,
vN.p.
...
:
•
I °•'Z'(`-
_,?
bl.
Z ?) I? C' C7 '? C C
C

?
>0,.0 80913 /Al'.dIJ 00£-b0 r, Z't
OZl
+ .lv' 0't ^`- L.?. U W

oo* E

3m. a
1?p4',•, ?..,5?•s't'.•T?isi, ir?,;:.. - Q' ? ::•:?_s'r.:. - '•yf' r
LLJ
?.'. .r?'j? ?- _ gar •b0• Q? -a ? C
U*) c: 3
Go,
'. .tom ????• +1 -K` ? A N
ai` cv: LO'
., clj.
_ ?.. 0 olc.I - I
,N -
• I I
c m i
0 0
:; a. `'? •. I ISL. o .. I
i I. 00 I! ?' -
I ' ? r iI
moo. .::? 09, ol; _ .: 01 • c? c? e 1.?StP`?" ?I
`!?''?- y I• '1 1'566*' ??'?,1N? :i ii
? ? iii 1 ? ,900 .CM : ?.•'r• ?j - p
?r
O '
N
W
o I-
• W
o
Cl)
l,U
. MATCH LINE 4+3oo.0o -L-

? : ??
ooo0 4Il

?..
0 Q0
..
Q
jj -
00
r
O.• - ??
V07, ok./p.
.
0000, jj.-.'..•. I
jc - ?

o -0

° d II I

a . II
\ }?.::.
c
: 011
WY
.
? .
:?
0 11
1 w
1 .-0

1 ? :.0 00
i V ??
l
;/
I
?
o I00 a
v o I
4
0
0
. /
0
0,: W QO _
W
Y
/

/ - U
O
oo II N
r '
...
?
=01 0,; O C 1

I
I j W
0 0
l 'T
m

MATCH L-IME 4+16o,oco -L-
z
O c
? =
co

c
9 z

V ° M

a, o

ev
E-
L

W

9'C A
z
.a
F
W
- OZ c. rs
? ? y w
U
s z z
S ? a o ?
o?
0
N
Q
r/
1

ZO'
r,
t
J
r_
N
l0
..a
ul
o ?-
w
0

V6.8C-b r , -
?d 9t 3W
O
ID
co
cr

\1

I z
?

E-
(n

?

"
rQ

c 9

F =
M
O
O
o
z ?
? z
V ?
M o
?,
w M
a

E

E-H
z cL.
O
z

vi ?+
?

? o
?
4

U E..,
cn

z, c?

•z

o p

(

? rj

o

I
?
A
z
F
w
3
z z w
w 0 d
A La
O? N
\ -7
d
W
t-
1
U
o'
N.
N
w
O cW
L
O

J
waoos
• o

P. WW FEMCE .
3RIER
ECT:S.

.(Ex
'

'25Fo U.
m

tCK . .._x

(N
QED SHL'D-?
/EO . SHL'D `
2GI . 88

JVw FfNCc I
ZO ?
F F

H

z
a'

E"
O

D
z
`"

C7
?
?

O
G

--
'ry

p

U

C7
?
c°+

c

o
n
?

Gz1 O

w

F
?
?

O

e
w

3
U
z
W

F•

;,
O

?

W
00
o

j

L'
O
y
A
z
..1
F-
c?
3
z z z
.. .. w
F
d , 3
a., a.
m ? U
O O c?
,, o a
d?
I?
z
W
u
?n
O
d
cn
LL)
MAYC!-l LINE+Qqo- ooo -L-
t / Ib•£ 0-L
9'186+
8.01

r t = ?..
.0
a a'aG 1

•. ? .1f v
? :I'
..
't i i
I OL6+
O / W
S96+
° I
1 i
'
r , o ccP
u V) .

N
N
?O
A C? L;
O HJ O 2
x aU
1 i

m
t t
_ ? ? /.. ? a
/• Bbd \ o 111

j

114, ? \ F ?n s

r °c
I
+ N
O V l
id
i
3"

O 00

®
3
z
O
U C14

M

p O

>

'

Q
Q
3 w
o o
w ?
H
?f

U w
a
?
c.
v

' N
Q
z
a '
F
W
z z ?
a , F
w _ 3
N ? W
W U
z
W W
V
1
Q
U
O
N
f
W
O 1!.1
O
d?
W
MATCH LINE

?v I
w
µo??
?11Z
Q ?
N A ? ? z
r ?_ r
Q d
Q O
OC
d
a
? M W w a
O > p
O
O ch
c:, z od W can O
W
U C L
z ? ci O x
O ?

3v

o'c

d
0

1

N
in
z
z z
a ? F
z z
J
U
O
N
W
r
o ul
0
MATCH L_1NE -14Wgc.000 -L-
w
z C
4 ? ? M
? o
C
u 1 in
C7 O ., C
. I F" O C7 ? ?
I
'r] Q
00
` 3xy? r 4Z7"t
?2do 7s, L4
to
a. o / I
tea. / I I Z
!? 3
so uj _j J
xvv
- U Q II I r v
? o
sa / / L Z
•?\ ''• O ? 11 `? \ ? ? v>
I
? - 0 q,'CL ?? PP';t
SO II 9 ??II s 1 11
y.
12p.0 C)
M AT G? ?'`?
w
r
•W
o
0

/pas
CRIB
1 `
off:. ••:_ ;
x to k
f .- ; lye-.
wd00s • o Y

a
?•.
0
?.:. ., •.

4
?
•
.w
a
1 J
?j ,?: ?

1

• 9
r
r

o
?

C ' x
O
co 0

M

_

C

Q

?

O
p z

?
C
c

O
O
"n
a

?

y

?
C
OL

c

.U

f

Q
z •
J
r
z z ?
•• L:1
J J (..
J J C
?, w a
w wU
? Er U
j Z C
?J N
lQ?
?? L U
i
J

i,

SUMMARY :::TIEET R-57- 9 6A
Temp. Impact
Temp. Prop. Prop. Existing due to
Temp. Fill Fill in Fill in Enclosed Relocated I mpacted Mechanical
Fill in in Surface Surface Channel Channel Channel clearing beyond
Site Sta. Structure Wetlands Wetlands Waters Waters Length Length Length Construction Limits
1 2+970 -L- Bridge 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.013 ha , 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.000 ha
Length=46m
2- 0+810 to 1200 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.028 ha 0.000 ha 67 m 44 m 127 m 0.000 ha
0+920 -
Y3REV
3 3+975 -L- 1200 RCP 0.034 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.000 ha
4 3+995 to 1650 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.123 ha 0.000 ha 60 m 405 m 465 m 0.000.ha
4+415 -L-
5 5+250 -L- NIA 0.000 ha 0.020 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.012 ha
g 5+300 to N/A 0.006 ha 0.000 ha 0.042 ha 0.000 ha 0 m o m Om 0.016 ha
5+400 -L-
7 7+015 -L- 2 @ 2.1 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.028 ha 0.000 ha 135m. 0 m 140 n 0.000 ha
1.8 m
RCBC
8 0+690 to 2 @ 2.4 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.009 ha 0.000 ha 31 m 0 m 35 m 0.000 ha
0+730- 1.8 m
Y6REV RCBC
9 7+950 to 907 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.061 ha 0.000 ha 130 rn 220 m 320 m 0.wo ha
8+225 -L-
10 8+900 -L - 2 @ 1.8 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.077 ha 0.000, ha 235 m 0 m 258 m 0.000 ha
1.5 m
RCBC
11 9+635 -L - 1350 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.058 ha 0.000 ha 147 m 0 m ZSo m 0.000 ha
Totals 0.040 ha 0.020 ha 0.426 ha 0.013 ha 805 m 669 m 154,5 m 0.028 ha
Note: Prop. enclosed channel length represents
net additional channel length to be piped,
determined by total length prop. Piping
minus total length em. sting piping to be
removed.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T750605 ( R-0529 BA)
US421 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FOT
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.-o5kru
EAST OF SR1557
I SHEET _15' OF Zb
. MgTG .
. H L1NE ?Z+ZOO1?-
517E 4
Winn-AA D
t `
/2,-000
J '
i
SITE MAP
R - 57-9 44
SITE 3
?KAa??E? t ??rLAaA
r 000
\\\ ?" ? too
SITE 2 °
C.HgrInIEL ? PT Ot-117.180-YI ?R?V LC'? =
P07 0+700.b07-Yt0-LA
J V
0
POG 0 +ZZ3.L7h -Y9- ?- =
PG 0+223.276-YG-RE?LA
S I T E I L AXoAI GREEK
CHAAA1EL + aEraAaD
Yq-REV.
5R 133
HARDiN RD. SGA?..E 1:101000
NORTH CAROLINA OCPARTNCNT..:OF-.TRANSPORTATION'
J I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS..'
/ WATAUGA.00014TY
P0T9+q`13.000-L' G.7GgQQ2T (R-GZSOO). R-529 fib..
PPOSCO &6(,iN GONSTRUGTl0N +SRO ,357 T UO SO. 921 T. Km EAST OF
/Q * 0 PARKWAY...
??•'^Q SCALE AS SHOWN
??O Q SHEET Lkl 0 F _OCTOOCR C?_",

P07 13 +Q07. q l 3 - L- LB =
POT 13+g07.'113-L-REV LA
51TE 10.
SITE 11
P040
?. .
FL .
c9AAWa L- %00
` O
j
SITE 9
.SITE 8 / .
wary-A,JD /.
5ITE-7 &u_ SI .I E MAP
cc N
86
5Z9
13?.00p ?\
PoG 0+223.276 -Yq- LB
PC0+223.27b-Y9-R!`V LA
I
J I
! I
?O
'?\\o?q `' ` N I to
91q- 00'
I.
SITE 5
r-AAdA E L
Mg 7G H L!!yE 1
51TE
crlAiJAE -r OFrl.A4D
SGAI-E (: lo 000
SITE MAP
R - s2-9 b b
P07 IS+g5S-589 - L- REV.=
T5 15+gS0.105j 7.O RT-LS-REV.
POT 15+g7q.(o/o3,7.OLT-L4-REV.
END CONSTRUCTION /,.
51 i E 15 iy SITE 16
`,} E 11-AA p ?. + j ?j ?? CHA?bJ L i..
= Y! 4=R E V ?; j•! l 0
U5221 --51T1- 14- ....
CAAAlAIS L- SITE 13 &AP. a-REE.K
c RAAA9L
517E I2
C / POT 0+41?u.881 -Y2I-LB
'µA?i ,J 6 L
/ POT 0+413.861 -YZ1-REV, LA. •
a
I
moo
I 1
I 1
( IN
c pQ `< R
EV
5GA LE 1: 107000
NORTH CAROLINA OCPARTSCMT.. OF.:.TAANSP OR.TATIOH'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS.
WATAUGA COUNTY -
G.769092T (R-62000) R SZ1 :Bb
1 PROPOSCO U.S. 421 FROM 0.30'Km:EAST OF
SR 1357 TO O.G Km WEST OF THE. OLUC ItIOGE
PARKWAY. ,
SCALE AS SHOWN - -y
SHEET ? Of. 3'b OCTOBER + f
j

/Yl?n
tE ?.sM. a/??y -ouf iCl...?f<_6e ne/s ..:.:.:.
A>
--? mm
0
r9Z•L• ` 2S BASE CHANNEL
flan LNA.R{rS ?.P BETTY WATSON CHURCH- CHAYOE W/ CLI. .
lot IGII/ ,- O DO iie PC et RrP RAP.L f.f. SEE
O P9 007 PC IT DcTAIL-r SHr.z-0
.?' \ • • (r ?• ? \ - N SC V TRACT h0"
o
. JC, - \ r PROP RIW
?•C
1? A
CA,C V Ai'H O
XTy - T T
FUNNEL
- -i N to • ??- •?•.\ SEEP _ DRAIN
•\. 'a' .
`? CaK• f ocCRT 3:1• ?L •\ ? J• o /' ?l
© - ?+ vyP N '83' 39' - WL ciras+o
H Tn
Pnopasco
rR IV %• i
TAKE S3 OR rvEirAr ` , - -REUWE? l
CL:ir
RIP RA!' --. -. a3'." yf ( Cep
C
f2 ' .. -...F I
im!
V ?
C^ 1 . - % '. - . ?• ??\ OL BASE HEAD Sl'EcrAL OI VI J
?' -c - - - X o `\` OIrOr w CL•0• W/ CI:B• RIP RAP
?? y % \??^? \ RIP RAP & F.F. o F.F-SEC OXTAIL '
r? SEE OErAIL B t7 SHr.ZO r
\G0. ..... OS BASE LN'.OrrCH ur.vOlraf
Cccfg SEE !A'_TAIL,
SF.E OETAIL I . s<rr.z0
. F& [/A strr.Z-0
;,YCrl?o unit STA 10.17$
(A((r$ CA II:: RETAIN (\
I r b , I(? REtKVe
I/E'' '? Ezrsr;As
l"l'vrxr NORTH CAROLINA OEPARTr.CNT. O.."-TRANSPORTATION
I CRAVE r0 BRA:.\'
•>: ? ?'0? (?;? \.? ... DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
YY Y Y y DENOTES WET LAN D5 WATAUGA COUNTY
X ''' Y X 6E>
DEN0TE5 FILL IN ?uRFAC,: WA-1`00, G.750002T (R-5290D) (;-'$2.9 PROPOSEO U.S. 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST OF
DENOTES FILL IN WMLAN05 SR :357 TO 0-6 Km WEST OF THE OLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET I? OF OCTOBER 17
0. to ZO 40,.,
T = 23 : 867 m•.' -''; PC 0.341026-Y9-Rev.: ' \ \
L = 47.338m
R = 150.000 •" c?
e ?• (JETTY an 225P •Go? ^ \?
S. 50 Km/h ro 002 ZIT
T(IAcT r0 ft9ml $
L- SPECIAL D7rCH •J - ??
can W/ CL'C'RIP RAP^ fif^
t F.F.SEE DETAIL ((SLSDCI
. (19a116.1 1 SM:2E C PnOI'.R/W
n
CK RASE CHANNEL EL ?? ,O •? a R \
CHANCE W1 / CLI fFUfl S,AJU(IXR OERN Ctf ?
RIP RAP t F.F. AND S/WIGFR\
i SEC DETAIL 7
¢ SHf.P-0 .ph c
.R _ b PT cti6 Y "RevGt' 14
I
J
Q
_?QF
W -
J
'ti rfrdPOrED ' ? Rr
CUMDRAIL
?StDPE ST' Fud DEPT /
PavED SHtdL
W LINE
........r. -WFTI AMn T . S
ECf r

momarrm,t (os rorCONC ISLAND ..-?
SPECI.
W/ CL
F.F.
N SIK

.F ?
?. h
R.2 CQ
W
.sy JD Y R•IL) _
? ••11.? v.,. •iJ PROPOSED is ?p / \Q
DJNtORAIL \
1 S''IBB '110 q, ? -LDPE STM:E _
V F di LIME -? M4.I Tic } \
r ?'I"?,ll
u, NONUL? \
SPECIAL OITCH ~'lI'I?4'1r CON ISLAND W/ CL•D'RIP PAP 'h llv,l r \
t F.F.SEE DETAIL "? I" I(A ., I \\
n FILL I I. nlti. A y 'I' ( \
S LOj?
1856 -i
T N Z
I.$MI?. •ti Ar iF
POT STA 10.420.000 -L° v -2.5 -? ??"3 K? , \
POT STA0-304.801-YIO-Rev.
POT STA0-446.004 -Y9-Rev. ?E I.5, ALONG OUTSIDE. OF SEN05,
? O.L-- ALONG INSIDE OF5ENDS AND
`'J ALONCa 5TF4IGNT PDRTION5.
4:; ? R.# OCTTY WATSON CHURCH -Y10-Rev.
on zza rc 687 L5 CASE CHANKEL
S I I I ?? r0 Dos rc a( C, F.F.. wi or c-i rtfP S RAP
rT I-0 I
t F. FSFF OF7'AfL 17 Nr.PO
"vlyy .y y CENOTE5 WE.TLAF405
F \J
Ff(L A,
o
MADC
r
,IAAfN
J?.
NORTH CAROL:NA OEPARTVICNT.OF -TRAeSPORTA,:ON
%.?DEI`I0TE5 FILL IN 5UPU AGC WATER DIVISION OF Y.IGHWAYS
DENOTE5 FILL IN 'AniLAN05 WATAUGA COUNTY
.- R- Sz9 68
SCALE
0.. 10 ZO 40..,

T-
O?fIBLE )IJXZ 1
i
nrclfr rur,N rN'ER _
G.759002T (R-S-900)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST_ OF
SR 1357 TO 4.6 Km WEST OF THE OLUZ RIDGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN pp Q
SHEET LO ZA OC70DER,Q7
\ 577-rIAIO AM

OGi°-0I
r .
?1r
II.

ab?iv
e u=?2SN
N C C N N/
A
c c

i
r
1 -?
y
- 4 R
`:. it
E?
VWO ?1
2W<
bc?? II'•a,l
w r`. ?J?II 1
"1 4-7-16
a
005'-01 43 /'
p
z (-
i o
Kl? Q
`

06
my
O

••
? E
s
J O O
uu
E
O
v
W
J ?
v N
Cl
6
E3, , i
I x
I I ? i

I I
Sn? III •{.• t1 N_ '. V\? r
?'' ? 11 I ? S7 ? C ... I
?. IL?1 X
p ' 1 ( O2
' I
r W )
/ / Of Q !
! X
/
' Y
M
ELI
1 ? ?o
I
1 * a<NI
• 1 ? *: ?2: l11
.`??.r I Q Z 11
tU . j J
.. u LL
LL
Q ul W
W. .. w F F-
' sue . % uj u
o n al
* I
OG6.0?
3A
i ••
I ? 31
0 -
I x
rij YI_ Q? .
LL
",I R
1
00?-
b
1 yQ • !
.1.
ILL
x
NORTH CAROLINA OEPART'CNT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
G.753002T (R-62700) R-52p 1 55
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FRC' 0.30 Km EAST OF
SR 1357 TO 0.G Km WEST OF THE GLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET2 Of 14 OC7COE0g7

k
v
l m,
?
QRV /

FIB" ? Wes` I

I
? ? y

M ATG N LINE STA.
a L
3..g
Q
LL
C(
Z
E
J Q
IBM
LL
F
0
0 W
Q N
? O
O
or-\/
to vJiITH CAROLINA OEPART`C,T. OF TR A:f:PORTATiCN
o _ ViS:OH OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY .
N G.75'-)o0ZT iR-SZOOO? R " $ Z9 6 6
PROPOSCO U.S. 421 FRO` 0.38 1- EAST OF
,t SB :357 TO u.G Km WEST OF THE 6WE R:OGc
l11 PARTWAY.
SCALL AS SHOWN .
1
SHEET Z=ZCF lt?, OCT33ER 9 7
M AT•LH L-I N f- STA. 15 + 2-20 -L-REV.
/ I I jL,
N? ??A ' JL IL l' <w "s I In /1 ? ? I
msg. _ - • I
F Q ? •V_9lL
TV z s I {. =1fl ,,,a Q,i,Q a
G
III ;: ® I
ova
? j II I
00 rid Os
E
W a ;
)e
001
?N l
?a
s-r l < a
?m
;I? rs? ? I ? Igl ?
n a ^? 1
d
J
ly MAT(-.H LINE :5TA 15 L-- REV.
- O
U NOR -iii CAROLINA CEPAR TRCNT. GFTRA\?POF.TAT:DN
OIV:S:GN IF iJJGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
R- .5'2-9 ap,
i J.? G.7S9332T (R-52D00)
w ?
LA J N PROPOSED U.S. 42: FROM, ...39 Sm EAS' OF
V SR .357 TO 3.G Kr.. .:EST CF THE OLU:
PARK-AY.
O
SCAL: AS SHOWN .
? O SHEET •L?CP ?6 OCT,.IER t97
MATCH LINE STA. I t ?4-ZD - L- REV.
P
t ?w
k+? ?? l? I I ' ? E
63
., ?IJiWW I !J \?
X p'
v
v ,r ?N
z h ( - I \ b x \taatn
I ? V- CL W S 1 \ Q
Z' A ? ? E3
Ev
`I
•N Xj I !
?Y I I ?1?? E3
- ?, ,nrs x x?\1 ?? I '
v sz $g 1 {
LLI
F-
3z > 0.
: wr•? Qty`
.• lL
-? I u Cc
I w
fi X I I I w
1 ? I a?i l ? ?
xI t I h 'I 1'
5j
14
g ??a t 4 I ? ;?'= ?, XI
-L a q W . ,
? U X
RSV NCItTH CAROLINA JZPARTnCnT.OF TRnNS?ORTAT:JN
MATCH LI1.1E !STA. I?+Z21? -L V C.v:SZCN of Hl
41 CSC uA T AUCA COUNTY
O.75O33:T ;R_t;2903) R-S?9 B6
PROPOSE) U.S. 421 FROG' 3.30 .•:m EAST OF
SR 1357 TO O.n Km UCST OF THE 3LUC ti:J02
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
' 1
S H E E 2y 0 F ?? OC73DCR Q f .
S 12 I ?.?- Iq-- Q6
1`? ?--- T O?/ 14
,\ t
ALL +.
?• ShT-IE
' ?\ •, Esr. to rms
\ ,b Ew.21 SA
IM CIA
? t'i N tw "'666p/ PIS k fI1fEAC? '
- Dw At ? } PYIa?. PAYED Orll
06 BASE TAIL `l m AA h
LL??IJTJT x/ CS9 Tp v?
?\ flIIP RAP 1 fJ: - ?' • ? ? ? ? •?' WE OEMLS TFJfP. - -_
p
stir le
fXr - \
MINI
`? ? O % <q[?i
? ? AESTI.EO SAL DRAtNI N ! ffEOrr
'S?.7.7 ?' • • ) Ap
O.SMIN.?14 YO.j
EASEN TOrS6>: ' \ ?,? V,
SPECIAL O.L..? BASE 01'r 1
\\ Rev W/ CLASS" 6" RIP RAP
POT STA.O'S4G2?6 -Y/fRev.
fl.I RTP fEY I.OMIN. +I
• FRIER fWX VAR ? ?I `? \
Esr.A9 TONS -1•
o,-T nw, k-1.5
Esr-m sy SA4 . \ `\ \ L5M6a5ELAT.DITGM - _ ----- ` - -- - 1
t j/ CJA55'%-Ft l P RAP w
06 RASE WT PA. R
RN & \
\\ \
' ff. \ T
(? SEE OEfAIL J •$MlE -J.
`r- osu. x1t?fEA? = 1 .
O° (D c. s
OR T5?.•?8 ?,? ;ark' .! \ sU .. ..YF? A ` fX tI
O C ?r„+t'l ao EMNX n.=i.• ::K%S,: MAX
311,
-p?oeCA' X , 1 t. r#c
TEYWE SEX. Ps ° /\
WELL x \ •'fin ?
FLEETWOOD FALLS INC. ? \ftmsnacr nu wpm / ? \ ? • - '. S t
51 a 03T rc is AHED _
(SEE rLm ..• ".7.5..: .. :•.•:. s t .?. ._. .. ,.,, .. .; •... y•,. .?. ... ••.._'. i'^. a .\ tt ar-c •_?lQS. Ov:.
_ ' i ? .. n WELLSOR
(MA EL
v . Ft
\ X DO 1$4 PGA RENWE \ `?
1 ? Hcrrssr `? ? tss?h?t ?? t50 CONC
J - aLAi? uT -r - _- T, YC't A4 c 65' 38' 40 E 5 64.19' 0 ?- tt?
S 66'17'S5'E -r--- ---•2Q'44•e
-4 9 • TING $qt _ O Cis •S $M LTI(E esr
ft?lev. l?LT - `` CID -FYr f. \ esr u?trR worn 00 o%PC W2
F s.
s st' iO ?? ? ? cw+s
\ \ 1 ?uowrtoP?+ O M SEEJSt?c,. O I?
RfAAVf s ??r
r. auPatAtL 11 COPI tec 3 O i r s ?. .
I ,s[[ F?Pn I{ {
SP.
{ { NORTH CAROLINA OCPARTSC:-N FIRA. ORTAT:ON
s II I ?? / DIVi+:ON OF HIGHWAYS
DEMOTES FILL IN ?DLIRFAG? WATERQ / ?Gr
• • G:ATnUnli COUNTY
G.7G9002T (H-.,2700) R-5-2-9 65.
\ { 1 ?G ,
TS ;5.480003-L-Rev..?AP PNOIICSEO u.s. azI FRO. A.0.30 Km nCT o
lUE ItIOOc
SR 1357 TO 0.G Km wCST OF THE 3
/ S r tt / PARKWAY.
/ 7rAt
SGALE
• SCALE AS SHOWN
.? / /
•• -Z?oF I OC?DOCK Lper1
$HCZp. 10 Z0 40
Site
1
2
3
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
16 15+861 RT - 1
LT -LREV-
Otals 0.33 ha 0.03 ha 0-36-ha-1 967m 1177 m 1966 m 0.04 a
S H ED.?T R--5-2-,q Q b
S?LJ1'' 1L ?." ll .k R Y
- -- Temp. Impact
Prop. Prop. Existing due to
Excav. Fill in Enclosed Relocated Impacted 'Mechanical
FIII in in Surface Channel
Channel
Channel

clearing beyond

Sta. Structure Wetlands Wetlands Waters Length nstruction Limits
Co
1o+180 LvRT - 2 @ 1.8 m X 0.28 ha 0.00 ha 0.09 ha 147 m 390 m 445 m 0.03 ha
10+573 LT -L- 1.5 m RCBC
0+370 LTlRT - 600 RCP
0+559 RT -Y10REV-
10+798 RT -10+850 900 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 93 m
Om 95m
0.00 ha
LT -L-

< 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.03 ha 152 m
11+124 RT - 11+291 1200 RCP
96 m 227 m
< 0.01 ha
LT -L-
12+062 LT - 12+099 Spring Box 0.00 ha 0.03 ha 0.00 ha 0 m
Om Om
<0.01 ha
RT -L- 150 CSP
12+497 LT -12+629 900 CSP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.02 ha 107 m 103 m 127 m 0.00 ha
RT -L- 1650 RCP
12+890 LT -12+910 750 RCP 0.03 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 85 m 0 m 86 m
< 0.01 ha
RT -L-
13+223 LT - 13+247 1650 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 90 m - 0 m 94 m 0.00 ha
RT -L.

< 0.01 ha < 0.01 ha 0 m
13+374 RT -13+392 Spring Box 0.00 ha
0 m 0 m
0.00 ha
LT - L- 200 CSP

<0.01ha Om
13+450 LT - 13+475 600 RCP 0.01 ha 0.00 ha
0m Om
0.00 ha
RT -L-
13+669 LT -13+773 1050 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 88 m 110M 167 m 0.00 ha
LT/RT -L- ` 1200 RCP
14+057 RT- 14+140 450 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha 0 m
Om Om
0.00 ha
RT -LRcV- 750 RCP
14+876 RT-15+469 1050 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.08 ha 29 m 470 m 520 m 0.00 ha
LT -LREV-
15+469 LT- 3@2.4mX 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha 80m Om 82m
0.00 ha
15+502 RT -LREV- 2.4 m RCBC
0+420 LT - 0+485 450 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 11 m 8 m 23 m
0.00 ha
LT/RT -Y14REV-
15+618 LT - 15+635 600 RCP 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0 m
Om Om
0.01 ha
LT -LREV-

100 m 0.00 ha
5+910 1350 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 85 m 0 m
Note: Prop. enclosed channel. length represents
net additional channel length to be piped,
determined by total length prop. piping
minus total length existing piping to be
removed.
Note: At site # 11, There is an additional
that
0.01 ha. of surface water in the pond
will be drained.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT 6.759002T
PROPOSED US 421 FROM 0.38KM
EAST OF SR 1357 TO 0.6KM WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET 26 OF 2.(v 0e- 9 7
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
T _T
0.9-WA
'&4?j
?EHNF?
October 6, 1997
DWQ Project #97-0616
Watauga County
T.I.P. No. R-0529BA, BB & BD
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
#1 Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNR
O CT 10 1997
Winston-Salem
Regional Office
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your plans for the discharge
of fill material into 1.08 acres of wetlands plus loss of 5635 linear feet of
perennial streams for the US 421 widening and relocation project from South
Fork New River to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Watauga County. At this time,
this project has not yet been placed on Public Notice by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This project has been inspected on two occasions (July 24 and
August 19, 1997) by Mr. Ron Linville of our Winston-Salem Regional Office and
Ms. Cyndi Bell of our central Raleigh office. Based on this review, we have
identified significant uses which would be removed by this project. These uses
include water storage, pollutant removal, aquatic life in streams and wildlife
habitat. Furthermore, insufficient evidence is present in our files to conclude
that your project must be built as planned in waters and wetlands in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506. Unless we receive this additional
information, we will have to move toward denial of your 401 Certification as
required by 15A NAACO 2H.0507(e) when we receive the public notice, and will
place this project on hold as incomplete. Until we receive additional
information, we are requesting (by copy of this letter) that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers place your project on administrative hold once the public
notice is issued.
Please provide us with information supporting your position that this
project must be constructed as planned and that you have no practical
alternative to placing fill in these waters and wetlands. Specifically, we have
asked that you demonstrate avoidance and minimization for the bog located in
the path of the Old US 60 relocation along Stations 10+180 LT/RT-, 10+573 LT -L-,
0+370 LT/RT-, and 0+559 RT -YlOREV-. This issue was discussed at the
September 18, 1997 permit meeting in Raleigh, at, which time we were told that
dorcumentation of this avoidance/minimization effort would be forthcoming.
To date, we have not received an- engineering discussion regarding this impact
site. You should be aware that this evidence is necessary to complete our
review and records. Also, during the August 19, 1997 field review conducted by
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
FAX # [phone]
Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5o% reaycie&lo% post consumer paper
NCDOT, we informed you that the entire bog site at Old US 60 should be listed as
an impact site, not just the footprint of the slope stake line. The Old US 60
Relocation, as proposed, would completely bisect this wetland, completely
altering its hydrology and utility as wildlife habitat, and would therefore
jeopardize the integrity of the entire system. Therefore, we believe that the
0.28 hectare (0.69 acre) area you listed in your impact summary must be
increased to include the entire wetland.
This project will require compensatory wetland and stream mitigation as
described in 15A NCAC 211.0506(h). You have proposed acquisition of Sparta
Bog in Ashe County to satisfy all wetland and some stream mitigation
requirements. Your permit application contains a general description of this
potential mitigation site, and you have assured us that a report on the site's
wetland and stream mitigation potential is forthcoming. We look forward to
reviewing this proposal, and are hopeful that the site will have merit for your
purposes; however, we cannot act on your application until we are provided
more specific details of your mitigation plan. Sparta Bog is located in the New
River Basin, while the project corridor lies within the Yadkin - Pee Dee River
Basin. You should be aware that this discrepancy may affect the acceptability
of this mitigation site for this particular project. Therefore, mitigation ratios
would likely be increased for out-of-basin mitigation. In your planning for
Sparta Bog, keep in mind that in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(6), a
minimum of 1:1 restoration or creation of wetlands must be provided in the
mitigation package. Also please note that the Wetland Restoration Fund is
available to use to satisfy stream and wetland mitigation requirements for this
project. In limited instances, donation of land to the Wetland Restoration
Program or to other public or private nonprofit conservation organizations
may be approved by the Department. This may be an option to consider with
respect to Sparta Bog.
Please call me at [phone] to discuss these matters if necessary. Until a
mitigation plan is provided and we receive the public notice, this application
is considered to be incomplete and our processing time will not start.
We recommend that you not impact any wetlands or waters on your project
until a 401 Water Quality Certification has been issued from Raleigh. The
issuance of a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit does not mean that your project
can project can proceed. According to the Clean Water Act, the 404 Permit is
not valid until a 401 Certification is also issued. If DWQ staff observe impacts
which are not allowable, you will be required to remove the fill and restore
the site to its original condition. I can be reached at [phone] if you have
any questions about the 401 Certification process.
Si ic; rely
Job] L R. Dorney
Water Quality C iJ
fication Program
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Central Files
970616.rovst
NC DWQ WQ ENVSCT
Fax:[phone] Nov 24 '97
RECER/E
State of North Carolina . De p = -;
Department of .Environment,
Health pnd Natural Resources NOV 2 4 1997
Division of w
. ater Quality W i r: S t C) ,- •- Y: n
IM Regional ;
James. B. Hllrrt, Jr•., overnor .
Wayne MCDeviit, '8•ecretary
A. Preston HowWA Jr., P-E., director
16:49 P.01/09

Division of Water (duality
Envirohme'ntal Sciences. Branch
44€1 needy Creek Road
Rafei' h•, N.C. 276Q7
.FAX_(919) 733-9959
Date IV2L&7I
FAX To: try Z.,1., .- FAX NUMBER: 7/0-7 C -'V6Y
NO.OFBAGES` . • DING YPS SHEET.
ErMmdmentW Sciences B'raimh 4401 Reedy Greek Road - Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Tele0hone gtg-733-9960 FAX # [phone]
M Fgeat opp&funly AHirmolVe AGdM SmpIGY- 8094. recyclodP1m post consumer paper

NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone] Nov 24 '97 16:49 F.02/09
r o
.7 61.
Lou 61.997
STA OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTA?IE of TRAI?TSP( RTA 0 NP[3GRrUPOq
JAMB & HUNT JR DP SION OF HIGHWAYS GkRuNn B. GARRErr JR ?y
GoveRwR P.4. BO 75101. RALEIGH. N.C 71611=5201 SECRETARY
October 3, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mike Smith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Frank Vick, P.E., Manager.
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Wetland avoidance alternatives for the relocation of
Old-US 6a. TIP No. R 529BA, BB & BD
. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has investigated the possibility
of shifting the alignment vf.OId US 60 to avoid.impacts to wetlands. The wetland in
question totals: 0.99 acres id size witfi the project impacting 0.69 acres. The resource
agencies suggested three possible-alternatives for avoiding this wetland site. Each was
evaluated for feasibility by the NCDOT Design Services Branch.
The first suggestion-was not to tie the relocated Old US 60 (-'Y'10-4M into the
proposed US 421. Suggestion two would tie -Y9-REV (Hardin Rd/SR 1353) to existing
US 421 directly south of the intersection. of proposed US 42.1(-L-), 5R 1353, and Old
US 60. The evaluation of hose- alternatives was presented at the September 18, 199'
permit review meeting.
The Watauga County: School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. .
Closing Old US 60 is not prwdcal• because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old
US 60:to access existing US 42L There is no other feasible route -to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is snot a feasible ahemative.. The:second suggestion is not
feaAle due to elevation differences and.an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421;-.and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four SChODi
buses traveling Old US 6Q. lbs. proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed.tie with existing US 421. In a meworandur dated September 9,1997'from
the Division .1 I Engineer,;W. E. Hoke, P.E., the division recommended keeping the
design as is. A copy of this- letter is provided for reference.

NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone] Nov 24 '97 1650 P.04/09
u
PO Box 250
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
. September 9, 1997
PROJECT: 8X750603 (R-529BA)
COUNTY: Watauga
DESCItRMON. USAZl From, West of South Fork New-River to-East of $R
1357.
1V EMORANDUM TO: 114r:'W. F. Rrown, PE
Staw-Design Se.mces Engineer
ATTENTION: David Scheffel
En&- eering Coordinator
FROM -W. E. Hoke, PE
Division Engineer - Division 11
SUBJECT: ; -Y10- REV., Wetlands an Pared Number 1 (Charles & and
betty Watson Church) -
A meeting was held at the pt',eet' on August 19, 1997 to review the. stream impacts and wetland
impacts involved in the permit:for this project. Subsequent to the meeting, touch concern has
risen over the wetlands on parcel Number 1, Charles R & Betty. Watson Church which will be
impacted by the alignmeat ctisnges to Old US 60 (-'YIO: REV.). You discussed this matter. with
Mr. Wally Bowman, Division Construction Engineer, and requested our investigation and input
to ibis issue.
Specifically, you requested that we look at the possibility of either not tying old tlS 60 into ucw
L .3 421 or realigning it to ellm ?aW any impact to the wetland in question. Closing Old US 60 is
not a valid alterative because ft tragic tlow.fram -Y9-REV needs to utilize -Y10-REV to
access existing IBS 421. The Watauga County School System leas four (4) school busses that
utilize this route and there is no other feasible route to access the schools. Accordingly, they are
opposed to this alternative.
Another suggested altemative was to tie -Y9-REV to existing US 421 directly south of the
intersection of -L-, Y9-REV, and -Y10-REV. The grade for this connector appears to be
excessive due to -the elevation 'dif Perences between the intersection and existing US 421. Sight
distance. at the proposed tic with existing US 421 also appear-to be'inadequatc.
NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI Fax :[phone] Nov 24 '97 16:50
W. W. R. Brown, PE
September 9, 1997
Page 2
P. 05/09

Another element to keep in mind is the traffic control plans for this project. Any suggested
alternatives need to be reviewed by the Traffic Control Unit to determine how it:will meet the
traffic control plans. As you are. aware, major ch=ges were made in the project:limits between,
R 529BA and R-529BB due to complieatioas in the TCP's.
Accordingly. the Division recommends that the design remain as is and consider the total impact
to the wetlands, in question. Due to the proposed right of way limits, there will be considerable
wetland area between -Y10-REV and -L.- and also substantial, wetland area within the R/W right
of YZO-REV that will not be•impa0ed by construction. These areas will actually be protected
from any future disturbance by the present or future property owners of parcel number 1.
Although the DOT will-be impaethtg.a-small area-of the wetland, the overall effect may be
positive because we will be able to preserve the major portiou:of tho.wedand now that it lies
become the property of the DIC DO-k. Consideration should also be given to purchasing the
remainder of the wetland area ghat. is outside of the proposed RIW and let this mitigate the loss of
wetland impacted by the US42T.project This option would guarantee that the wetland area
would be preserved, whereas, it currently has no protection from being impacted by the present
property owner.
If additional information is ueedod, please advise.
WEWJWB/wb
cc: K F. Vick, PE
F. r. Giowio
?J
J
a
NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI
Fax:[phone]
? i
*V..P
JAMES B. HUNT J0.
GMRMOR'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B- GAIrItr'rt' JIB
FAQ BOX 2M RALEIGH. NBC. 276115201 SECRETARY
September 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: N*. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. .
Manager - Planning & Envirouniental Branch
ATTENTION: Lindsey Riddick
FROM C K Casey, P.E.
Engineering Coordinator - Design.
SUBJECT: State Project 6.759003T (R-529B.A,) Watauga County
itelocation of US 421 from just' West of the South
Fork New River to just East of SR 1357
We have investigated ypur request of 9-21-97 to elirr pate or minimize the impacts to the
wetlands (0.2$ ha) imparted by the relocation of old US. 60. This relocation of Old 60 is essential
to the maintenance of trafe during construction and after the project is complete. There are four
(4) elementary school buses a day that uses this route. During. construction this will be. the only
access for SR 1353 (Hardin Road) and the portion of SR 1357 cut oft'by the project. Relocating
Old 60 further down the project. to avoid the wetlands is not safe nor desirable. A 12% + grade
would be required on Old 60 which would tie into the high We ofa .07 super section on
relocated US 421. This creates .unsafe sight distance as well as an unsafe transition across the
-L- line to go west toward Boone due to the adverse superelevation. One intersection is safer
than t*o. Also, shif ing the proposed: intersection of Old 60 produces a staggered intersection
with SR 1353 creating two convict points along with potential weaving problems.
We may be able to purchase the remainder of the wetlands as a way to mitigate the area
taken.
If you need additional information, please call me at 25.0-4128.
CHCMHS/mj
Attachments
cc: Mr. Wade Hoke, P.E.
Project File
Nov 24 '97 1651 P.06/09
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART-- -E.w of TkwspC)mnoN
(9
,., -7%c
NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI
Fax:[phone]
O? 8
Nov 24 '97 1651
P. 07/09
STATE 4F NURTH CAROLINA •
DEPART?VtENT OF Tk4NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JIL DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
CIMMRNOIL B03b520i, RALRIGH, KC 27611.5201 SECRETARY
September 30, 1997
MEi`dORANDLIM.TO: Mr. Lindsey -Riddi*. P.E.
planning & ti vii9omncntal Unit
FROM: Z. R. 5mith,.P.E.
•. 'gn ervioes
Project•Eaguneer -
SUBJECL 3t$te Projcct 8.T750603 (R-529BA) Watauga County
F. A- Project NIIF-421(7)
US 421.fr4m West of South Fork
Now River to East of SR 1357
We were requested to Look. at stinting Old 60. (710 Rev.) further to the north to reduce the
impacts to -the wetlands. Due to, the num radius of the curve where it ties into proposed
US 421- we were only able to shift Old 60 slightly- This shut Vill reduce the impacts to the wetlands
by o.o64 AC.
_A=&ed are copies of Streets 27 and 28 with the shift marked in red.
ZRSMHS/bil
Aftacilll cuts
cc. Project File
gmo

NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone] Nov 24 '97 1651 P.08!09
State of Noah Carolina
Depaftent of Envird riment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quafty.
James B. Hurst, Jr., G.overtlar
Wayne McDevitt, Secretwy
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.f., Director
November 24. 1997
MLj
." INNJI:
Memorandum to: Preston Howard
From: Cyndi Blass`
Through: John Dprney
.
Dennis .Ramsey
.. S•Iev?e Tedder

4 Subject: :-ftblic•;Aoarilg1Reguest for. NCDOT. Appltcatiori to Relocate
' i 1S; 4Z1i ffrom. Boone to Deep Gap. Walau`ga Catxinty
vj-
The , Nbrth,.. Cai:bhfia: `Department of Transport:ari =submitted a. permit
- appir'.catiori' on Jti* l 1.997 f6r the relocation
of 0 mif of,. ,Us,. 471 from -.0e
,
Smth 1=ork• New Y2fver, in Badac to the .Glut' :Ridge: Parkway in D&. `Gap,; Access
control to, the new ! rgalwi•t?':vary from partial al to full. .control of act e'ss. Since
more, .-than -half of `04,*-pere*nigl streams wigre omitt.od. from t"' ori.gi•nal•
apoiWouon, -and acceptable 91rdam and wetland mitigation plans : had not' been
developed, a revised permit..application was subrni-tied on September •12, 1.997.
In Ws second submittal, NC'D4T proposed that both wetland and stream impacts
could be mitigated at :Sparta .,Bag, a property in A.lleghany County, which DOT
was fn the process of :lnvestigatifiA. The Carps. issued a Public Notice on
04ober 9. •1997, for 1:,2 acres of wetland fill and 11,750 linear feet of pered.nial
stream impacts (see attached):
F10d r•Cviows off; 60 impact sites were conducted by U'WQ and NCDOT staff
on July 24, 1997 and August. 19, 1997, respectively. The largest wetland
Crossing is. a 0.99 acre' high-,'quality riparian system, Fish were. seen in' all
streams obser-4ed in ' the. frzK Alf streams in .the - project.,. area Rave received a
good. to excellent bioc#assify at.ion dxcept .for Laxon Creeds;. which is rated as
fair. In • addition. to 131 0, &:: Corps will also require •., r:nltfgation for stream
% impacts, based t??pQa .Fish .Lind Wildlife Service ails WV-' life •Reso:urces
Cominissio:a, reeommeiidatlons ° WRC has expressed' concern over direct impacts
r:a to documented Ash populations in these Streams (especially (rout), as welt as
habitat fragmentation =and secondaty development facilitated by this project.
(see attached), The DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Offroe bas repearedly
'reconimonded denial af. tho project based upon avoidance and minimization,"
cumulative impacts to. (]ee- volley from the numerous roads in t.hc vi4inity, rh'e
extent of impacts to high gtralily wetlands and streams,' and potential
secondary impacts as devel i nt. is encouraged.
NCDQT has recently purchased. Sparta. Bog and submitted a, Natural
Resources !Evaluation od the ,properly. A mitigation plan has not been
developed, although 17DT says that the site would provide restoration, creation
and preservation opportdnities. WRC and FWS in particular have supported
DOT in their plans to protect Sparta Bog. On .Qctober 6, 1997 (prior, to DOT's
purchase of the property), I>WQ 1nf'ormed DOT that we could, aw .further act on
Erntlranlt?itad'Sciatxea 8raru i.. 4401 Reedy Creek Road:: ' RaMoN North Ca[ro]ms[ 27607
Tofophoni :919-733.9460• FAX.# 733-tras9
Afkt owl t ppotOtl `'MiM iYa Moat EgMCW sf0? 0% POO O0°6° Mot
NC DWQ WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone] Nov 24 '97 16:52 P.09/09
Mr. Preston Howard
November 24, 1997
Page 2 of 2
the permit application until details of the mitigation plan wore made
available. We will participate in a field visit to Sparta Bog on December 17,
1997. It which time DOT will hopefully have a better handle on stream and
werttand restoration potential, Based upon review of . The report provided thus
far, and on discussion with Steve Lund of the Corps Regulatory 1?ield Office in
Asheville, we do not -b$1Seve• the site will provide the minimum .1:1 restoration
component required by :our rules, although the site could be a component of a
package including the, Wetland Restoration Pirogram: Use of the WRP for. the
entire stream impact would- require a $1,468,750 contribution at a •1:1 ratio. It'
should also be• noted th *t the Corps and Wk have suggested that a 2:1
restoration for stream impacts should be required.
In our October 6, 1997 letter to DOT, we also requested documentation to;
support DOT's claims :that avoidance and minimization had been achieved to the
dxtent practical, InF particular; we. requested dull DOT re=Visit I wO.land impacts
within the path of the ;US 60 • Relocation (part. of the US 421 Relocation). On that
same day, we received •a letter from DOT to Elie. Cv.rps which was copied to us.
This letter explains that: this impact oould not be avoided due to design
constraints and school bus routing- I believe this.`is DOT's final -response to this
issue, since it was sent in response to my verbal, requests for this
documentation. Althangh DOT -probably has avoided. wetlands to • the extent
practical within the footprint of their p•ropos,ed alignment, the I.arger issue of
alternative alignments is. still open. The DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
believes that other opportunities exist within the region, including
improvement of the existing US 421 or other roads. Along with the regional
offce and other agencies. I am concerned with the long-term secondary
impacts to the region.
In the monthly: permit review meetings of September 17 and November
20. 1997. DOT has expressed their urgent need to acquire this hermit. Mr. Frank
Vick. has indicated that' the Division 11 Board Member strongly supports this
project. This project is being moved monthly on the let list, which means this
is a project they do noL want to delay for any reason.
On October 30, 1997, Ms. Judy Morena, a resident of Deep Gap, submitted a
request for a public hearing. T have spoken with. Ms_ Moretz, ajid her main
concern is the extent of impacts to wetlands and streams in the project area.
Furthermore, during our, field' visits' to the area, 1 was approached on several
occasions by outer local cl-dzens w°ho questioned: the need ror the project, and
how impacts to local [trsinesses on -the existing US 421 will be mitigated. Since
it is DOT's responsibility to respond to these issues. I was unable to provide an
answer. In summary, - considering the scale of direct impacts to natural and
human Communities in the immediate project area, long-term impacts to the
region, and DOT's incomplete answers to malty of 'the issues raised by the
resource agencies, I and the Winston-Salem Regional Office believe thatt, a
public hearing is warranted.
cc, Mr. Dennis Ramsey
Mr. Ron Linville; Winston-Salem Regional Office
?o --?-
i 1 r O,°L 1 t -?
1
L-j -17
5

Of porgy c
"`A90
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
oi Planning and Environmental Branch
HTOFTR
CRESCENT ROAD
CORRIDOR STUDY
KINSTON
FROM US 258, NORTH OF KINSTON
TO NC 58
LENOIR COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT R-2719B
PERMIT REVIEW AGENCY MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 1997
\ 1
17,
I
0 \9A.
IMP
?\ - • I ` I-, n?.l '? •' •?' ?:• + I. 00 •in • ? 1.,.11 1 0.1, •• AS 1 ?
•
\ ,( • W
1?.. z
1 1
Q
-io
'Z j-
s.'
I
-
1
pkv
K
' \ C\(?Cp? i lw? Sa° 1
in K:
P IO I ,
%
avola
I ? ?? (F N 1 ''? ? ) J' m
r
L09?-aS
VA
I _
rl 679 , \\,•
•• ,
., o 1
i ? I lam; i. •<":.F') (( ,.? ?._•t?) 1 ,'i ?S yy6Ti 3gEJJ 3 Q°.-ar ® •? f ? ,? I:..?-.
49,
1 \
-im
x IPA \ \ \? fn Gv'-'.
03 5:0
\u ?i
_j 03
V TO
\
i•
00
03
1 ?+ lj
110
rte..- I
_ I
i 1 (J` pT' - v
I :1 -zz • ---I O
_ D O •T
a
Oy
INi m
-d
_I
'? ` ''? ? is • ?I . ?.l ><
I ,o
l _
J
.
"Aa
N (? x ( I i
L
I
w
t
1 t o t/ =.../? at
I p
00 +_

r
N
O
LL
CO
Q
z
w
w
O
LL
U
Q
a
U)
w
U)
W
W
f--
Q
C)
r`
M
C)
O

w

0 m w LO T M
Q
Z -#
Q
N
N CY)

>W ti ti co
N
> N N T r
J
Q
O
<
T
N
M
N
M
N
T
N
CO ?- O M CO
w
Z U) +
Q
N
N
EE c

> Z

F--
m CD
T
N N
Q
N o
T
r- Ln
Lo
T
Z LLJ
O
Z Q T
N ao
N o
N T
N
m
?f
? ti
T LO
T CO
Q f-
T
W m
C l
)
Z
Z
?y

>-
, W m
-W r-: LO Cfl
Q 1-
T
?
Q

U)
w

z T N M- It

W
J

Q
O
m
O
ne
m
(B
O
O
T
U)
O
C
L
Q
0
1O
O
0
N
N
m
c
O
O
m
U
N
U
m
m
m
c
a?
E
0)
cn
m
O
W
H
O
Z
m
a
ml
O
(0
O
ry
O
m
Y
U
(B
t
U)
O
M_
ry
Cn
O
M
Ln
N
/ Cl)
J
D
O
L-
4-
cu
Q
e?
a
`o
co
LO
N
U)
Z)

-?) P,

vYL? n

2 North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & LIFE SCIENCES
Forsyth County Center, 1450 Fairchild Drive, Winston-Salem, NC 27105, Ph: 910-767-8213, FAX: [phone], Web: forsyth.ces.state.nema/
HORSE EDUCATION MEETINGS
Registration For These Sessions: Call 767-8213
Contact Person: Beth Massey, Assoc. Extension Agent, Agriculture
Both Meetings: Held at 7:00 pm
Forsyth County Cooperative Extension Office
Meeting A. Monday, December 8,1997
TOPIC SPEAKER
Health Management Tom Dixon, DVM
Feed Management by Body Beth Massey, Forsyth County
Condition Scoring Extension Livestock Agent and
Carl McKnight, Davidson County
Extension Livestock Agent
Meeting B. Monday, Janus 12, 1998
TOPIC SPEAKER
Pasture Management For Horses Beth Massey, Forsyth County
Extension Livestock Agent and
Carl McKnight, Davidson County
Extension Livestock Agent
Dealing With Endophyte Toxicity Dr. Steve Carrol, DVM
Both Meetings Sponsored By
Southern States Cooperatives, LTD Farm & Garden, Clemmons Milling
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
M ?h'o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR.
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 3, 1997
OCT ` 61997
WETLANp
WATER
FATION
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mike Smith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Frank Vick, P.E., Manager "0/
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Wetland avoidance alternatives for the relocation of
Old US 60. TIP No. R-529BA, BB & BD
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has investigated the possibility
of shifting the alignment of Old US 60 to avoid impacts to wetlands. The wetland in
question totals 0.99 acres in size with the project impacting 0.69 acres. The resource
agencies suggested three possible alternatives for avoiding this wetland site. Each was
evaluated for feasibility by the NCDOT Design Services Branch.
The first suggestion was not to tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-REV) into the
proposed US 421.. Suggestion two would tie -Y9-REV (Hardin Rd/SR 1353) to existing
US 421 directly south of the intersection of proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old
US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives was presented at the September 18, 1997
permit review meeting.
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60.
Closing Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old
US 60 to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60.. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421. In a memorandum dated September 9, 1997 from
the Division 11 Engineer, W. E. Hoke, P.E., the division recommended keeping the
design as is. A copy of this letter is provided for reference.
NO
2
At the September 18th meeting, a third alternative was suggested after previous
suggestions were not found to be feasible. This alternative would shift Old US 60 further
north to reduce wetland impacts. The NCDOT Design Services Branch examined this
proposal and found that the maximum radius of the curve where Old US 60 ties into
proposed US 421 would only allow a slight shift to the north. The maximum allowable
shift would reduce wetland impacts by 0.064 acres.
After examination of all suggested alternatives, the Department proposes to keep
the design as is. At the agencies request, the NCDOT will mitigate for the entire 0.99
acres of wetland, as opposed to 0.69 acres impacted by the "footprint" of the project. If
you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at 919-733-7844 extension 315.
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Jim Buck, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator

PO Box 250
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
September 9, 1997
PROJECT: 8.T750603 (R-529BA)
COUNTY: Watauga
DESCRIPTION: US 421 From West of South Fork New River to East of SR
1357.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. W. R. Brown, PE
State Design Services Engineer
ATTENTION: David Scheffel
Engineering Coordinator
FROM: W. E. Hoke, PE
Division Engineer - Division 11
SUBJECT: -Y10- REV., Wetlands on Parcel Number 1 (Charles R. and
Betty Watson Church)
A meeting was held at the project on August 19, 1997 to review the stream impacts and wetland
impacts involved in the permit for this project. Subsequent to the meeting, much concern has
risen over the wetlands on parcel number 1, Charles R. & Betty Watson Church which will be
impacted by the alignment changes to Old US 60 (-Y10-REV.). You discussed this matter with
Mr. Wally Bowman, Division Construction Engineer, and requested our investigation and input
to ibis issue.
Specifically, you requested that we look at the possibility of either not tying Old US 60 into new
US 421 or realigning it to eliminate any impact to the wetland in question. Closing Old US 60 is
not a valid alternative because the traffic flow from -Y9-REV needs to utilize -Y10-REV to
access existing US 421. The Watauga County School System has four (4) school busses that
utilize this route and there is no other feasible route to access the schools. Accordingly, they are
opposed to this alternative.
Another suggested alternative was to tie -Y9-REV to existing US 421 directly south of the
intersection of -L-, -Y9-REV, and -Y10-REV. The grade for this connector appears to be
excessive due to the elevation differences between the intersection and existing US 421. Sight
distance at the proposed tie with existing US 421 also appears to be inadequate.

Mr. W. R. Brown, PE
September 9, 1997
Page 2
Another element to keep in mind is the traffic control plans for this project. Any suggested
alternatives need to be reviewed by the Traffic Control Unit to determine how it will affect the
traffic control plans. As you are aware, major changes were made in the project limits between
R-529BA and R-529BB due to complications in the TCP's.
Accordingly, the Division recommends that the design remain as is and consider the total impact
to the wetlands in question. Due to the proposed right of way limits, there will be considerable
wetland area between -Y10-REV and -L- and also substantial wetland area within the R/W right
of -Y10-REV that will not be impacted by construction. These areas will actually be protected
from any future disturbance by the present or future property owners of parcel number 1.
Although the DOT will be impacting a small area of the wetland, the overall effect may be
positive because we will be able to preserve the major portion of the wetland now that it has
become the property of the NC DOT. Consideration should also be given to purchasing the
remainder of the wetland area that is outside of the proposed R/W and let this mitigate the loss of
wetland impacted by the US 421 project. This option would guarantee that the wetland area
would be preserved, whereas, it currently has no protection from being impacted by the present
property owner.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
WEH/JWB/wb
cc: H. F. Vick, PE
F. J. Gioscio
s.?ANFo
Q aWw+?'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager - Planning & Environmental Branch
ATTENTION: Lindsey Riddick
FROM: C. H. Casey, P.E. C?
Engineering Coordinator - Design Serv' es
SUBJECT: State Project 6.759003T (R-529BA) Watauga County
Relocation of US 421 from just West of the South
Fork New River to just East of SR 1357
We have investigated your request of 8-21-97 to eliminate or minimize the impacts to the
wetlands (0.28 ha) impacted by the relocation of old US 60. This relocation of Old 60 is essential
to the maintenance of traffic during construction and after the project is complete. There are four
(4) elementary school buses a day that uses this route. During construction this will be the only
access for SR 1353 (Hardin Road) and the portion of SR 1357 cut off by the project. Relocating
Old 60 further down the project to avoid the wetlands is not safe nor desirable. A 12% + grade
would be required on Old 60 which would tie into the high side of a .07 super section on
relocated US 421. This creates unsafe sight distance as well as an unsafe transition across the
-L- line to go west toward Boone due to the adverse superelevation. One intersection is safer
than two. Also, shifting the proposed intersection of Old 60 produces a staggered intersection
with SR 1353 creating two conflict points along with potential weaving problems.
We may be able to purchase the remainder of the wetlands as a way to mitigate the area
taken.
If you need additional information, please call me at 250-4128.
CHC/DHS/mj
Attachments
cc: Mr. Wade Hoke, P.E.
Project File

MSfn1Ea
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETt JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 30, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Lindsey Riddick, P.E.
Planning & Environmental Unit
FROM: Z. R. Smith, P.E.
Project Engineer - De ign ervices
SUBJECT: State Project 8.T750603 (R-529BA) Watauga County
F. A. Project NHF-421(7)
US 421 from West of South Fork
New River to East of SR 1357
We were requested to look at shifting Old 60 (Y10 Rev.) further to the north to reduce the
impacts to the wetlands. Due to the maximum radius of the curve where it ties into proposed
US 421 we were only able to shift Old 60 slightly. This shift will reduce the impacts to the wetlands
by 0.064 AC.
Attached are copies of Sheets 27 and 28 with the shift marked in red.
ZRS/DHS/bjl
Attachments
cc: Project File
9
M swt p
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 12, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
f fp l 13!;V
1111t- l
Subject: Watauga County, US 421 new location from South Fork New River in
Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Deep Gap. Federal Aid Project No.
FR-86-1(6), State Project No. 8.1750601, TIP No. R-529BA, BB & BD.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) submitted an individual
permit application for impacts to 1.02 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 5,324 linear
feet of surface waters on July 08, 1997. A field review was held on August 19, 1997 at
the project site. Representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission(WRC) and
NCDOT were in attendance. Representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
WRC also conducted a separate field review of the project on August 12, 1997.
The review agencies expressed a number of concerns regarding impacts to 0.69 acres of
wetland at site 1 on section BB. The NCDOT Roadway Design Unit is currently
assessing the feasibility of altering the current design in order to avoid the wetland. Their
findings will be presented at the September 18th Southern Section permit review meeting.
The COE also stated that the permit application would have to be revised before they
could issue a public notice including drawings for sites 5, 7, 8, and 10 for section BA and
sites 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14 for section BB, to complete the application. The
requested revisions have been made and are included here for review. In addition, it was
determined during the field review that the project would impact an additional three

2
hundred eleven (311) linear feet of stream channel, previously shown as a channelized
ditch. The additional stream impact brings the total linear feet of stream impact to five
thousand six hundred thirty five (5635).
It is evident that mitigation will be required for both stream and wetland impacts. A
consultant hired by the NCDOT has already completed a site search for potential stream
mitigation sites in the project vicinity. This search identified 18 sites, most of which
have multiple property owners. At this time, no property owners have been contacted,
but the NCDOT plans to initiate this process soon.
Attempts have'also been made to locate a suitable wetland mitigation site. The project
area has been reviewed by both NCDOT staff and our consultant without locating a good
site in the immediate project area. Consequently, the NCDOT has also been investigating
a property currently for sale in Alleghany County near the town of Sparta. The property
consists of about 324 acres of wetlands, pasture, cropland, and mountainside. This
property contains a site known as Sparta Bog that has been known to the natural resource
community for some time. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program and Nature Conservancy
consider the site to be of national significance due to the presence of a number of rare
plant species and the bog turtle. The Nature Conservancy completed a "preserve design"
on this site in 1992, which means that they investigated who the property owners were,
wrote a brief description of the wetland area, and listed the rare species present. Most of
the site identified as important is contained within the 324 acre property currently for
sale.
The NCDOT has undertaken an assessment of the tract for stream and wetland mitigation
potential, which is a different matter altogether, from the Nature Conservancy document.
The NCDOT has completed a wetland delineation on the property, and the wetland
boundaries were surveyed last week. Much of this wetland area has been altered or
disturbed via ditches, subsurface agricultural drainage structures, and placement of spoil.
Most of the wetland areas have also been subject to frequent mowing of the vegetation,
either by cows or haying operations. There are also small areas of hydric soil which
currently show no evidence of wetland hydrology. Consequently, it appears from
NCDOT's assessment that there is potential on the site for wetland restoration,
enhancement and preservation. While the acreage of wetland is not large, there should be
enough to accommodate the US 421 project.
From NCDOT's perspective, the most compelling feature of the site is the amount of
potential stream restoration it offers. An unnamed tributary to the Little River runs
through the tract, which was examined in the field by WRC and NCDOT staff.
Approximately 2000 feet of this tributary consists of a channelized section at the lower
end of the tract. This section has eroding banks, and may also offer an opportunity to
restore stream meanders or construct in-stream enhancement structures., The section of
the stream at the upper end of the site still retains a meandering character, but also
exhibits bank erosion. Consequently, a potential for bank stabilization also exists in this

area. Due to the density of surrounding vegetation and limited fieldtime, the extent of
potential stream work in this section was not precisely determined. However, the
property contains about 1500-2000 feet of stream reach in this upper section.
The NCDOT has also assessed the remainder of the property to prepare a complete
natural resources assessment and to identify wetland areas not picked up by the natural
heritage surveys. This information is being compiled into a report which should be
completed by the end of the month. Based on our findings, the NCDOT is negotiating to
obtain an option to purchase this site, pending its approval by the regulatory and
regulatory review agencies as a mitigation site. The NCDOT proposes this site as
mitigation for both wetland and stream impacts of the US 421 project.
The department submits these revisions and additional information for your review and
asks that a public notice be issued for this project as soon as possible. If you have any
questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at
[phone], extension 315. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Domey, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Jim Buck, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator

cS? l r,11.1
Fp(Zp?'ECT SITE
p , SCALE
2 ] 4 MASS
VICINITY MAP
Cyl
I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T750603 ( R-0529 BA, BB)
Z. 769002T
S421 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FOP
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.6km
WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET I OF-')- I

ity lane s
1 Mo
? \Dou¢hlon
'VI Z
Scale of Kilometers
One Inch equate apppxim t* 13 miles and .Wownately 21 Nometen.
ONP-
luladean
TCH/
4P I
cSUNNN
? PRoJf>Z.T
A
19a•_..
i
SOLE
0 1 ] ] a MMES
10
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T750603 ( R-0529 BA)
S421 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FORK
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.38km
EAST OF SR1357
SHEET Z OF 2 I
PROSECT SITE
E
Roarer
? Rrve
0.?
In¢ Rock < i?.1 Ly7,\R,t 'r i
/ II
16 i? JV N Ferguson rA 11 U • Moravun falls
116?? BOOmtr _?
Scale of miles
0 S .10 20 30 -
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers
One Inch equals approximately 13 miles and approximately 21 kilometers.
Glat
Vall
Roanng Ga

VICINITY MAP
V) f t{ I I i
U t?
00
I C CL CL
?1 t t,
W
II
. I • ? ?'^ly O I???
X ? O 1
.0 CL
< 0
` Qp Q0
m SM08-13-Z /M zI
dW0 008-0£'81 CCIJ) 0004-
I ZOP
o
; £81'566+ ??L Z'01
EL
w
L) 83ddl N1038
? ? a
3
I ? I z ??I
O 1
1 , W I
N J
E tn r I
~ 3 Z
Nl v I
w
N <=
(
?gl?Z 0 C?
I
\ I
W - N 3

I X
w
z
Z) N ( O
cn cn
J C -
+68;041 -
-3 c> N I L

'
I
6Z81 8
-
-
~
05 Q
W

rZ z
U ? Q
O?
? oz c - ,iI
SS
W

N
`
" ob j?+Z L.) _
• ? v

b 0 L f•. =' ?0 ?O U ?-
o ?n
Q_ w

\ W

\? N
I? P
/
WI

o 0
^
00
O
?
1•? I 3 E~ 0 0 ?,
9 I ' ::) 0? 0
El) 0 CC '
Cl)
Z >

v rT.
?
i O Z cn 0
+ z

w 1 H `F' U W
? p
, I
t o 0 w F
v Ow
o

r)
Y
u ?? a
z
c
z .a w
v' w
w F ?
C 0
z y
z
(4
z
v
Qp?Z8'?Z I? ?•X•
81 8'I ? ? ? ?\ ;?f,:
J ,? I
U-
= NCO
.553 4! X-r L) 1- _ C
W Q - hll CL- C:, tD (?
° cv I L ro
+ N +
1?yoo-;
\ v O u?
t3 N N
3 -012, b£ e9Z S
Q)
n n. F-S F-:
O

w 3 N o? H ?.
.44
C7 ? W
w ? a ? o w
. a o? v? z w
l? ? a O w F
J U a ? O
3 ?
I ? ? ,, a a
Q? N ? c z
sr? w
.? W v w
F ? h
oN °z
z
L-a
? W
•? cn
z ?
O U
N
O U
x ?-
w
O
E¦
W
w
o
It
0 0

?n
N
0
h
rw
vl
J
0.
d
a
0.
Q
a
z ? s
O 00
W
w 3 ? ? z
w
? R O
I
,Q

.? W
a ?
W U
?w
F w
W
Az

s?

0
W
w

3
t co S -'
Lu
?? 1 r?- N
?s + cv
cv
018+?e _ LLJ LL
U J
w r, C\ t.
/ 1 \
V ?
0
CL.
? r I . is
cr-
a 0 I Q
00
0 00
v? J
I, }
l j .I I ? ?I
0
I r Pic
?I
1
098+? 0 I
r?
00 I
1y - 1, 00? (?! LA- C W t? 1
oe 4C I O
w Lzi
)Z'688+0 0bd w- SOS`, .
'0,7'688+0 od ,-
11J N
3 t- ^. N r
Cl-, V)
W Q
n- a- m W
cr- C) ? Cl
CL-
X00
? yd J? y.? 0?•
'? ? d -rye Y S? `'>
?' r O v>
1? \
\11'
1
9 \1

I\
1 ?
ZO•
d ? •
I
b•s ?•s ?
If
z
O

a

x

Z _
?

? x
O
x
o
0 E
M

a

?
Cs.,
??
o
?. ?
w ?
p
cJ
I
c:.
0
cazt
z z
0
>
?
V a
?

? w
z

?
? O
I

x

U)
G
z
F
cv
i
?1 z z w
11.1
w c:, 3
?n w ? W
U
U ?
Z A =N
°
(3%22-
Z
U
En
N

IN
b0 \ C
6o
2 w
o
w
W
L
-?- o«lpgl +y -9 N11 HD.LIV z c?
P '.Q
tol 7t-. .SLZ" Og Q • ``:?:. !'.:r - , Q ry?Zi o M cl)
%JO
6r. O rJ
^A0913 1 :44 -..00£-b' `:OZI+ Z'L 0'L
v -I
O.. «:i,?•? SCE.-'. ,? w /? 1--1
v
Lii
•':?? - r..tl_?.•i -t ::.y...?F '•'•.;.: :.: _ •`'`r,:A M }?' i,•t.,t:Y •, to
lL • ;•Li : r ,.:`a..r?y? ii0 l • s.?. •._ ::: •.r,::n t'.:., _ '?i `, :1:
.( err a.;tc,: '?+.15;?'£`:.i?: r......., ': !:..:: ?.•
lai
to.
<i (+• .C' p . °?:a"-: t•': i3.,• ... ?.:, ?; T.?.t. ?- W fit
` r W h L]
.1 cli
• ,?, _
co
+ Co.
.0 0
- 0:
v
C6 0
U
r ' f RGP O _`1 I
S w 111

MATCH LINE 4+3oo.0o -L'

..+ • _.
-0 D.

0 0
. 9'£
/
. 0
000 `J

0 /
11
0 0:
• b..

h
-
, ..t
A
00
V7 0 0:!!....:'
0 0 _

Z _.pU 0 0 w1 ?O

a 3? 11
1 :
:

Q' Oil.

0 .0 ,I
_
a
o 00 °o
,00 ?0 \

/ 0000,:
QO -
b
`
?
/
.
.t?
( )
. O Q ? iC
0 /1 ti 0

' .?..o.
cc

\
i0
O, 1 , r

U
?00011 ?. f.
. f1 t w
D
f
MATCH L-1 WE 4+16o.oQo-L-
z
o
?
?
M
W C

a
?
o t
? ?
? M
.-
try
W M
o w
O w
,

I
?i [-4 Q N
IT-
;- E~ 0 ?" F z w

w

>
A w

o

o
w w

E-
? F.
yalr z
?1 9'C C
I
F
w
? ? C-q
- et u. a„ 3
w
U
s z z
®?-- w
e]
K- A L] y
zo,
o?
0
N
C •
r
? .f W
N
l0

o ?-
w

0

v o,2` \ V -
?`'d 94 L?3W1
s
r
a?
o `"n
i
I

i L'a
z

O
H

? _

CA w
O E

M
c

W
U ?
Q
, M
?/
F+-i

?
A

U
z
fir

j
D
?d

y ?
O

w
O

a

O

(mss.

?
C rr

z
W
F

?,
O

w
f"
`
?J`

H
czl

N
A
z
F
w
z z ?
w
? w w
? z
a w
-w

U
cn

d- .
N
W o[

. r-

O
F
H
,%..?,0 ._ty •'M 4 ?: Mme. :a( . •?) A ? ? ?, '?? 1 ?O
,s . :' o ,,Sat. _'?,,r ? . ya?•,y'A?.' ',r?r 'ye'w, ' • rsii?.;N....((_//e/II i? . i : y Tai. Ll? 0 Qr ? a ,7i ??L
iiw:r'1-a4.'.,;;.f± ,;?1_? ;iii: ?:a:''u ?:,M;:.:? ?;jR•'!?:?,.w? }?T.,..a? ?ti-y^.'},?,F:h*?` ?- ? n G? to
;?' ;s ; o3,'* i 3:r r :m: l • µ+t1. Q
J .'„•••yt:•?:..•`r NiO4• y`•'.a-. ':K+: t:4:rE '.l',3?1. i art;Cir2' ?;?.. L •' >'i'?1 G?. "? .0 .4 ?Li
•,'. •.c ?3 '. {t?..: {. 'k: e?r'',Y F `ELI Q- i-•:L• 'r'J`
`'•'. .•,Y: La'i- sctr -?j(.:;fY.,;,;, Mf .f?:,j1:.: CCG-;rr?k -. y t--t E'' w
::;?: ?:• :::'5_;,.?3r.-(W?r.:,yT. j,, ri.r:?i?..L-••? }; u? Q, ? 4' Ur_? G:. ,.!d
,=`Y?(.x ' - •..? .r,t ./. r%.? ,?i4V. •1'•, r' ?j Paf? ?\?^?v.',a ';='•rr,•JM .W W
00
+ `! ` K:'''";1'/1ry,;, •JC,. a"'r.:?.: •?,- ; .ru,Q•..c: a •''c.,;;.«;•.:.. t« 1 , Q 'r ?r C w
'?t+ ,i .? hefi'.t"j•- ^`l+tt.i7• r .Pr..•Cr` .P.Z;-Jr r c:i. "?f.•i?=, i A ,.,/
''•``? "'? '^« '.Y::C. p???„i;?';>4?;•~c???'..•?.'•,"~.'::j.7q'?i•w `.•' `?.100aRG '?,•a [S.
' •t`R,.: ? yt? a A,wf.:: i.. ":i:.'??.. ....;4.Ltu' .. n.
.., •. : %+?. ? :?:f4"?`? ? i Jj?;L ;-W'7?3. ?w'r. 'p. ?;..y.i1 M a
?[' ??:. ,?:?y??. ? ....y.$MQ ?t'?",s?• yr:?;^. eLr•.:•f:.'af'6. N r .r,,4tI
"A??J•i ,•Y.;. 8 ?? - ?. ..:?. ':'. r:4% J:?Q?V? '???. fA) 't•.y .'w ? ?m
°y '.,l'.'. Y? :?.fr I ;r?r:?:.j 6.'.? r.-•yy???i1,'r.: ::_?• ?.• ':i:A. •'a4"-? i. rq
J` •(? J'_ ri ? ',,"??.`.1°f' y j ?d?.r?{a.,' `?J"iy. y"+, it { ?aP jr;r'?, ? i?l '•' '.T.
U- 6
''Y: tI+ _ :.•:+: ^C_. .. ', t ?? l fE?'QH?% N ? : '?J?!,:%i%a?4.°?^•S:X'!. r?,,:,f i•?S .?
PER
((., .+? - v"R'I< t`rti ?:- } k ,+. e?EYI- ?e?{fit -(k * ? '? ?'?'???! iC+:i:+ .: ,?.'. ,j ?•
L Am
_ J' rt- Y 11 .ice.... _.:.:. ,?y' 1 .1 ?:d.? 4,' :'v" T `•A•Y ?s? H z Vi
*i:.:ir;. ?' . :yy - ? f:' - 'a.i`::• i.\'f-?y'-iy-:if aPY'?:r:?;t '? :'?;?,^'}, ''tr' r• !'
.`'?'?! ,7? tj.f ?-r ?: ran:5,:j<W Wi :Si•%i V.4•;•,? ,= i;•;.,y .. .:<??1=M'? y. ??., •'•rr ? E.r
?."_?`_ _fr, yryi: r4';_t' "?"??M.GutL:;"r?.: r•.;jtf'.'Q 1\.Fir1 ,; <r
.. :k(Isr a4:i'ti:. .'ar¢ ?•'•,• ? .?:r.':0 £=:b t':.: t ?•,,'a- 'li Y? L•. k.
.. YJ- .=ia ?.`'r•'?' ;T,'i:arCt` Z ?'15;? ••'•`xt"'' t ;;?
' ? ,-1-?.: r'. ?/; '-'*.?•l?:'•.?. ?{, .tom. +.??,?"°.?% ,a.`•. 'q•Et yi ,•.
tr.- -4:-•;? ..':.,?:C _ 'e.? yrr: '. i.::?:_ r' .Oil' .r' ?a..?t ??!,??' fl,: G] W V
- ? _ r:t??:.,' :•y"'y„ ;:>-:.: lZ.: `•{"• r r?T: t"I-r'a: r•' E" E" ?r
'04,
s to tA.. k ?.} r ; V » yy,11 r ,. • ?: .,.• wt.. 7+V?' s
W
r ?:.?: `. 3 ° ?" ?r Irr 'PSr+ t? r K ?,?i- c/ }4 rr.. =•) C4
%
'?? w.:? Q N
_ o m .in o .. a ' •' ?tr •z?•:`_ >F . - c. :F? . r %y.'?
+ of ' a •t ;,i_`r•..a W ° s,. ti:: i': 't::.M ' r: `, !: _.t. ' r,:.,. Gh .1;?!A i ''i
We
W 't ,'' t`a mW M•ar` r r r% r t •TG a?`?lr?: /.. ,, y?,.
I j V) +r 4r1. ?J ' .S.Y 4 L C,r•?iC '.lMt Jt
a ' L v {. < .fix X r. 3-(L3 r/
At. 7L
J y j' r .jf e
. ? , ? ., T .. •L. ;.' •.yy?? It •1
E Ir r 3? t Ll
/ U
cz:
LLJ
J ?' W ' ? i? v .JJ
r w ? J ,JET ?+aa?y? :+<-`?'?{j3• II
L-L,
LULL.
wE=` J t n
H
O
H `" ry ? ? W eq
WOODS "o . 1•:p..F,?i `??i U M r3a
.0
P. WW FENCE f a ..•.:
L ,.. w•. U cz. a
;BIER r.
?::•; ..\a' ?';?';,..?: ''•????? ;wi. ?• ,?-, O _!a
ECT'S. ' X ;? '•`iF ..?...,3.F; W , W 00
F
04
VED SHL T C .' v' .t ' i. ? '' t 3 EF
?' • 89 t .,. r ., til
FD- : yt :?' ti 3
:{sue •. - ' :-^ iA z z aNG
;.
/ED SHL'O' 2GI 15'`40-375a ;; z z w
•. 88 .. :,4:, a?. ;:,'` ..,:.;?::ii.,:;,,;?tir,RCP.3 i i ? Q of
77
a :
OR PA V E-D.
.. or.. :COB I
s :,? m r v ?h.tiflr
4 FK r '?;,??\
_ ?O C
- - ?1f-''T •? 1 C7' D?O?QI'.?3?
?? ; flyCs' _ i j oFOP,:::.?
O

:f Sgt i •, ? .??,• ``:? ? ? ? ??:
?.
91,
f ;.

?

?
F
a

A

U
Z

?

?

o

d
0

U

C7
?

a

p
o
c
n
U

ti
Q
?
a
F.,
0

?

cam=,

?
?
cn
O O
F
a

tail
W
?,
O

?
?
?

D

cn
?

M
O

`?

F
w

?
A
z '
E-
m
a
z z a
F
d ,a
w w
z z ?
o a ?
U
cn
O
N
z 0
® w

®
3
x
z
°
o
? M
UM
M

w
F-- ?
H
o

U
z ®

z

0 ? ?

a ?

3

?
? ?

w

c:,
c O cal

v

• N
A
z
MATCH Ll14F CIRO.000 -L- W
I 1 / < Ib- 0-L 3
9.186+ Z z W
8.01.
i 1 G?•~w '° ZO' I I
°?`' I r w 3
I r 1 = CL to
4 :I v
4
# r i J cc ... I 0 L6+ ?. O F r-
?/ 1 (xW I z 7 0z
' o p m 596+ ; W W
0 vi
J o m U v! i
t! o
LO z
aid
?/. d \ o ?
Q \
? 1 1
U? W Q1
I
U ® X11
I AIR
r?
U
0
N
lV
o u
0
z

®
cG
?

?

?

""
? _

o

O
?
O

M
00
Ey
?

r,
cn
c ,

_
cn
o

E"

Q O
o

?

A
Q

?

3
?

U
tLl
? W
a

?
O
Gam-,
w
z
W

F

w ?

H

w

MA
- - 1 r
0
z
a
F
a
z z ?
.a
w ?a

LLo??
l^ J
Q;E Z?
Nc.a F F Z
r Y
5 d
0 d
Q a
a

t? ? {
V ?
01

O

n n •s?
U
Z a
Q ? a
• .;
U
O'
N
Vi
d
W
.Y
O US
L
0
MATCH L-IRE -14gao.000 -L-
/ I I
sQ ,/
a \
l ..
Z.t I
so.?c.zcs ?P?? 111
Z L t / o P?Q 0 `?s 11
Al?
\tie• ? ? 4?1 ?1 ? ?"
' S°
,?E. 8_1 iZo 00C)
z

® ?
A
(T.

co

cn
?
C7
?
p
U a
.,
W
A
c,
> W5
?;
N
t~

O
U
z
Q

p

? c
um

F
a.
V)
W

ca
?.

?

?%-
A

W
?I
W

W
w
x

a
z

F
m
z z ?
w

o
z x
N

W
U
O -
w
t -
w
o
0
.,.'%`'.i.. •' •':1:;• pt.''a'+`?O ?d Y^ 6.1 to ?
'....:...;, 'Vj ?%? Vii' '?j:.i .o ?4 u? .?•?i
B,WKS." FABRIC;:
y?0`??s:FS.- ?r.f' tie ••oy..'_:r.?:^:L.si?•t F'_ z V
6T. g:
00
s ,
Vol.
\} ? • - '. 1, ; ^ •s .;?: Jf• •yr• -
. G
,
/ -it
3.';; v.fsn
k..' I a
?Kt 661. .?. - Q0? ?••?•:?f4 '''•'% _ ,-?, J z
? i :.•Al.•I. •: ?I ? Q fn
ISFp . ii:''r:• ? I..:p.?
•r:i:
1.21
p ;:;:??• dig a;':, :`''. V
?t? ? ?''; ; . L i? ?4 ?.,,,j.:? • Y?:?t; ELI ? -:- V)
' yC?:. •'f:'•, him -l`..???: R
col
RUW
.;.?? ''?"'ts ? 3;''?:L.'kA'l"?NNEU•??,•r???,?p?y?,j.T J
;G?'?`• ? ]wig#? ?? •,?_?ru...'
lio
SUMMARY ]SHEET

ite

ta.

tructure

ill in
Wetlands

Temp. Fill
in
Wetlands

Fill in
Surface
Waters
Temp.
Fill in
Surface
Waters
Prop.
Enclosed
Channel
Length
Prop.
Relocated I
Charnel
Length
Existing
mpacted
Channel
Length Temp. Impact
due to
Mechanical
clearing beyond
Construction Limits
1 2+970 -L- Bridge 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.013 ha , 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.000 ha 1
Length=46m
2- 0+810 to 1200 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000. ha 0.028 ha 0.000 ha 67 m 44 m 127 m 0.000 ha
0+920 -
Y3REV
3 3+975 -L- 1200 RCP 0.034 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0 m 0 m 0 n• 0.(= ha
4 3+995 to 1650 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.123 ha 0.000 ha 60 m 405 m 465 m 0.000 ha
4+415 -L-
5 5+250 -L- NIA 0.000 ha 0.020 ha 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.012 ha
6 5+300 to NIA 0.006 ha 0.000 ha 0.042 ha 0.000 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.016 ha
5+400 -L-
7 7+015 -L- 2@2.1 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.028 ha 0.000 ha 135m. 0 m 140 m 0.000 ha
1.8 m
RCBC
I 8 0+690 to 2 @ 2.4 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.009 ha 0.000 ha 31 m Om 35 m 0.000 ha
0+730- 1.8 m
' Y6REV RCBC
9 7+950 to 900 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.061 ha 0.000 ha 130 m 220 m 320 m 0.000 ha
8+225 -L-
10 8+900 -L- 2 @ 1.8 m x 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.077 ha 0.000. ha 235 m 0 m 258 m 0.000 ha
1.5 m
RCBC
11 9+635 -L - 1350 RCP 0.000 ha 0.000 ha 0.058 ha 0.000 ha 147 m Om Z50 m 0.000 ha
Totals 0.040 ha 0.020 ha 0.426 ha 0.013 ha 805 m 669 m t5q¢ m 0.028 ha
Note: Prop. enclosed channel length represents
net additional channel length to be piped,
determined by total length prop. piping
minus total length existing piping to be
removed.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT.-'-TIO\T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8=50603 ( R-0529 BA)
US421 FROM WEST OF SOUTH FOI
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.38km
EAST OF SR1357
SHEET -)-0 OF Z,I
Property Owners
Names and Addresses
el No. Names
10 Mack D. Brown
11 Blue Ridge Electric Mem. Corp.
12 Ann Greer Damell
13 Bill & Patsy Martin
14 Stewart Sunness et al.
15 Mack D. Brown
16 Archie J. Carroll
32 Janet & Lary Norris
33 Sheri Church et al.
54 Dudley & Suzanne Mizzell
55 Edsel & Shirley Hodges
56 Conley & Mary Phillips
57 Glenn & Linda Graybeal
58 Vincent & Virginia Gable
61 Billy Thomas McNeil
64 Dorman & Adelene Winkler
72 Eric Grig
73 Paula Perry Williams
98 Billy & Susan Greene
Addresses
488 E. King St. Boone N.C. 28607
P.O. Box 112 Lenoir N.C. 28645 .
Rt.5 Box 438 Boone N.C. 28607
P.O.Box 65 Boone N.C. 28607
15 Weybridge Place Chapel Hill N.C. 27514
488 E. King St. Boone N.C. 28607
(Rt. 5 Box 293)
544 Archie Carroll Rd.
Boone N.C. 28607
Rt.5 Box 300 Boone N.C. 28607
138 Melrose Way Boone N.C. 28607
Rt. 1 Box 572 Boone N.C. 28607
Rt. 5 Box 328 Boone N.C. 28607
242 Pine Run Road Boone N.C. 28607
600 Pine Run Road Boone N.C. 28607
827 W. King St. Boone N.C. 28607
5685 US 421 South Boone N.C. 28607
2995 Pine Run Rd. Boone 28607
Rt. 1 Box 658 Boone N.C. 28607
584 Oak St. Boone N.C. 28607
133 Greenwood Ave. Boone N.C. 28607
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF . HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T750603 ( R-0529 BA)
US421 PROn4 WEST OF SOUTH FOR
OF THE NEW RIVER TO 0.38km
. EAST OF SR1557
SHEET 'L.1 - OF -11
.
coiw!= y
to
Buladean
MITCH)
! e 1
.4 J
U.U
1111. '
'11 1.2 w, s " "u .. •, '' Sou
117E Illy >? - ? y 4 1UA
t7u _ ,7Et 1711 „r7
t ! J
r --- - i 7 eager
i w ' be
3 '? Yfhitehp hmy Lane
S
21
'S fists Tilro ?'i«rw? 1X 1.
`
rt Roarint Gap 1 Mountaii % to S- aie.wrw, ¦ Ll `Boughton Park
s Sr. n.
Ztoh
Id Traphill hurmond
... con Mr.Grady Austin 1 1StRos.at
Halls Mill 6 -
` W I L E S gun
at 6 Hays s O
r Roan t f n sale
' .-,MulDerr 1 Fauplains firer 1 Arlintto¦$
onda 1 ?
Millers ,
Rs
n eek i °j
Purlear
Nor h Wilkes0o? + 3
3 O ilkesDOro It
Cylcle3:
/ I dJ 421
e3•!' t 11 I Mute -
.y
/ I1 Moravian Falls
3 :I
Boomer
Scale of Miles
0 S 10 20
71
0 10 20 30 40 " aE
Scale of Kilometers
One Inch equals appru7imatey 13 inks and approviial* 21 kiometees_
?- BEGIN PROJECT .
\•9SyE ..
END./PROJEGT•_
74

I11t•TI Illy S UTN yl / S , 1 • >,r
.\ f ! i'
?pw/.w wer 7 `?
•
4 61`/, <aa3 t ? ..
? ?, l111 !y ..; b v ?
S IUL i> '•'s•
.
% !
oe!-l ? ` ¦® eu ?
'^ygc+l \ ?1 \ •? '
r
Y
._-

.
u
? . ;y;
r, F
ra y ':'? IRl
Fccs•„t: aYM
[' ., •..c
r7' '3 O
v ,
y ? -
s
r iO
?
1L'Y.
.
. 1!!2

-•:? .
L
i:
.
r.
.7
`
.a ?c:7; ..:3"c.,n ?
?
.; ,?
• Sl4LK 111 1
?! .
.1ZL ', r7
?
T
?
.?
g' 1741 T ?
114
iw: ?? dl?
a ^ !e
!]yL
_ -•
`?
1!(L`Sp
?.,
,?
to V ''+• ? !L 1s1S ,1$1.1
. '7
:\
,1P1
T.:yt.M- .
,
*I

n
i`? - r•, l7 11U. { J3
X11 L
-1111 _>a

•. ?/ ' 111 C /
f•/?? ? 113-

• ??
/ r•e 1
11.:1
?a 4 ' : t, `?

'?• ?
?1• 1111

I '
114!
o , , , a a,aa

NORTH CAROLINA OEPARTMCNT.:OF.:'TRANSPOR.TAT:ON:
DIVISION•OF HIGHWAYS,' - - '
V I C I N I T Y MAP IJATAUGA COUNTY

6.7G9002T (R-62700)
PROPOSED U.S. 421'FROM o.30-Km-EAST OF _
`
-
SR 1357TO0.6 -Km WEST• OF'THE.OLuE RIDGE
' PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
514CET I_'OF?OCTODER139 G'. '

Op_L,
517E 4
?2 *o00
_N
i
J
SITE 3
\ ` x 000
O
SITE 2 °
/ P? 0 +'717. 100 -Y I - REV L C3 =
POT O +-700. bO7 -Y 10 - L.A
o
POG 0+223. -T-Y - L =
PG 0+223.276-Yq-REV LA
SITE
Yq-REV. `
5R 1353
HAROIN Rn• SGAL-E ! : 101000
! NORTH CAROLINA OCPARTMCNT.sOP..T(tANSPOR-TATION'•
J I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS..' -
-/ WATAUGA. COUNTY
POT q+872).000 -L G.769002T (R-62900).
P5E(7.IN CiON 5T RUGT IDN PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.38 Km.EAST OF
SR 1357 TO 9.6 Km WEST OF'THE 0 WE RIDGE'
/OtOO PARKWAY..'.:
b SCALE AS SHOWN .
?^ Q O ..
??O SHEET OF y? -_OCTODEIt.i39G'`
SITE 11j
F
?x
POT 134-907. 913 - L- LB = ?Qy `
POT 13+907.913-L-REV LA
517E 10
ob..,
SITE 9 517E S
SITE. MAP
SITE-7 awl /lu?
PoG 0 +ZZ3.Z76 Yq- LB
PG 0 +ZZZ.Z76-Y9-Af-Y LA 5 I T E (o
5GA1-E (: 101000
SITES i`
NORTH CAROLINADC PARTMCNT..OP .TRANSPORTATION':
DIVISION - OFHIGHWAYS_
MA7?L LINE UATAUGA. COUNTY.
ri 200
- 6..7G9002T (R-52900) /
L-
PROPOSEO U.S. 421 FROM O.JD-Km EAST OF•
;THE. OLUE RIOGE`.i
SR 1357 TO 9.6 Kni WEST.. OF
PARKWAY.'
SCALE AS SHOWN -
SHEET . OF. -ICI :OCTOBER 19 9G'•

SITE MAP
POT 15 +L158.589 - L- REV. =
T5 15 + 1180.105, 7-D RT - L-5-REV.
POT 15+97q.E6:5,7.0L-T-L4-REV.
END G0N5TRIJGTI0N /?.

51iE 15 SITE 16

0
-.:.Y 14 R Ev
27
u 6
1 4-
51TE
51TE 13

517E i2 POT 0+416.591 -Y2:1-LB=
POT 04-413.901 -YZ.1- REV. LA.

f M

o
0

J O ?N

SCA I-E- 1: 10,000

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNENT.: OF.•TRANSPORTATION.'
OF HIGHWAYS
dO ..
DIVISION
?4 WATAUGA. COUNTY. '. -
6.759002T (R-52900)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FRON 0.70- Km:EAST -OF
SR 1357 TO 0.6 Km WEST:,OF THE. BLUE.1110GE'
' PARKWAY.
SCALE A; SHOWN
' SHEET OF•?, OCTOBER 199S:',*-.
:

.? I I E
XI
..
tF M.a/jjAy oZt6idle :16f .6e
D.6M.°G.IGhJ! S/CIQ Ga'1hI?!
/q.%D' G/onS SfY415t{.? r?GG'?iI"iOGJ ..
•L rOi- .? J
Jl6i05'1
;ex-ra•src X?
%
I92t• •` O .. 25 DASE CIIANNF1 .
59re ?' GN.84LL5?'.14 BETTY WATSON CHINCH CHANGE W/ CLI •
t? JGi1 O 00 228 PC bet RIP AM.` F.F.SEE.--
O Ptl 009 PG 217 DETAIL.? SIlf:2-0
N SC[P TAACT I-0
? .. ?f i•_?? • , PR(W R7"' " . , ... ? CAS

i , ?
. 0 Y "•?iQ
3 -..i ce !
W ' ..,v Q : +

-
H lA
, ?'?? •? SCEP FUNNEL w
DRAIN •\. ,?
_ .
O -
1 n1[Rt .\
•^ q
-

a
FALSE N '83'
39'

H rA "?'?
P

A wLtWO

u

W
IIY

S Oln
'?
T
1 Mew x \ '? \ i6&t?IFr V
f?
l
:f 3 PROPOSED
GOMEL
?
PCkWC
.
TAKE
Ovrv£wAT ?
'
' x L
'
• B
CL
RIP w --- ?-. __. s0? C,yp
\ V F.f. ???- i

k
r.
00
X- ?. BEGIN C/A
yy J L FEI/'£
STA f0 N75 ` .
CA It•: RETAIN
RF_1N01E
P/¢tEL M
i? i * ,s,r :.fl p CP,AOE TO
"r X y y X y GENOTES wETLANOS __-_
DENOTES FILL IN 5LIRFAGF. WATE`t
DENOTES FILL IN WeiLANDS
SCALE
Q. 10 ZO 40m
P" fv
SPECIAL BITCHJ
OZ BASE HEAD RAP
I
'
DITCH N/ CL:,T R
P
W/ CL:B
RIP RAP 6 F.F. 1, F.F.SEE DETAIL
SEE OtTAIL E 17 SHT.2•D I
SHT.2-0

U Jl ' ..
r.V 1)
06 BASE LAT.OITCH . SEE E rjCrA DETAIL 1 ;
SF_E DETAIL 1 StIL2-D ..
Sf?.2D
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTKCNT.OF TRANSPORTATION
ORA'K. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
6.7590027 (R-52900)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST OF
SR 1357 TO 0.6 Km WEST OF THE BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN _
I _C1 OCTCDEfi 1995
SHEET OF
- rte
T, = • 23:8 6 7m' • ` `': PC ' 0.343028-Y9-Rev.
L= 47.338M
R = 150.000 4s?2- --'-'?
6-?
WATSON CHURCH
uE
YTY
an 226 PC Gal
15M
/
?
P0009 PC 7j7
.
/h
50 K
m
S. .
V/
TIIACT MO kkk
-3004.- SPECIAL DITCH •J,OD -
Gtyn
3. W/ CL'B'RrP RAP (!'15DC1
(!S F.F.SEE DETAIL
L
? "S
MT.PE C PROP.R/W
25 BASE CHANNrEL
CHANCE W/ CL
! ufJ? SLR.trtl.ICR DE/W
" AND S,K1ULOfR
S£E DETAIL 7 \
- v ¢ SW.2-0 Q
C?
-4-
O
Q
L
1
H
6DAPDRAIL 11
-- ? DEprif
FLSLOPE ST •VED SMAR.
?\+ LINE
f Nf WErLnHO -' - -
DRAIN r. 0.

c
SPECf.
W/ CL.
L F.F.
IT SN
mss,, + a

05 102,00 -0
ro LWJG fSLwD
• _
7?
_ - h
a R-IS
R , -
R-95 CQ
W
Y
h y? N ?
' _ , ;
Tdx2f N 75'ww- .
2
""3( JD T R•!D
y ?.

J
\ F
2 J
?
SLOPE STAKE FELL L •'LC
F LINE P170 .1z5e.n \ CRADE
CON rSLAMD \ MAIN
SPECIAL OrrCN
W/ CL'D•RIP RAP ' 'II ?•' ,?,? 1 Y
L f.F.SEE DETAIL J' ,f, Q 4 `
16 s1fT.Z-c
A
\
FILL I. M14. q,
8 --? \
N ? LS1'
I.S MIN. ' ? _
POT STA10,4200D0 -L-- Koy j
POT STA0.304.80! -YID-Rev. Z s - i
?446004 -Y9-Rev. POT STA0 1.5. AWNG OLtTSiDE OF COEN05, .
0.6- ALONG INSIDE OP UM S AND
1Q ALONG STRAIGHT PDRTION5. i
GAIA,?? R.Q BETTY WATSON CHURCH -Y10-Rev.
00 223 PC 437 25 DASE CamwEL
ro 009 I L 217 ' CHANCE W/ r RfP RAP
f.SFF or DETAIL 17 Slrr.2-0
A. F
.

"`yc '"yr j, 1 1 DENOTE5 WETLAN05
" NORTH CAROII,iA OEPARTiIEN,.:OF-TRANSPORTAT:ON
?,•? ; DENOTES FILL It46URFAL:S WATER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
? ,
DENOTE5FILL INWE'ILAN05 WATAUGA COUNTY
6:7590027 (R-52900) -
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST OF
SCALE SR 1357 TO 4.6 Km WEST OF THE BLUE RIDGE
moomme PARKWAY.
0; 10 ZO 40m SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET OF OCTOOER 1995
so FO,
zL I Q Z
I1
C 3
cL.
:. .::
nnrl ^ ; I. .. ?: %n %n
ILL
F-
z- z Z
c \ agg }?;; 865- ? ? x { I O
ee W3'Vf ?1
Jr -'A
v iiWQ c Cr 90 SO Cf I ,'•.
'wi
OiN k _ i t a
l '
_ LL
LSE! US '
si+ c n
bey I
}'1'431. ? ? ?'' • ?__ _ t,?X ? I ? ??h { ??'•? !,?
oflIca
'1'431 (tLE> ?i k co LL CC?
Z t Y?'? ' int LL X? ?'
%
0 2 a X I I Cr ' m °?N % ; 001* -0
G ? E III ? / ? lI
?;..,?. .
?LL
?. I? hy? r rl ?• T SA N W¢.t I t• ? . s ? %? •?•?i' ? c\,?blei
ti
E
Q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMCNT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
6.750002T (R-52DaD)
W -
Q O PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.36 Km EAST OF
v N SR 1357 TO 0-6 Km ,WEST OF THE GLUE RIDGE
N PARKWAY.
O
SCALE AS SHOWN
cpl SHEET OF OCTCDER 1995
O

E - X?.y y 'v DENOTE5WETLA1,106
_
/; $ ?, . • -'.? ; DENOTES FILL IN 5URFAGE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN WETLANDS
SITE 3
t
© o?`? a / /(9 3 y ?0 /
e??s' r 1 I '?j
/? b O ? I 1:?•. I
%
Al I /F • I
? r ????, ?y 17 v
? J• • / I I ?asF
,p oaf's
coc
rj2 , pr__
'ik
is w
%
VAK.
h J.1k 4. 0+1 ti? s Y
I gt? P9?S >< ????D? I
13AtS LAT.
GLA55r B RIPDRAP
NORTH CAROLINA OEPARTr.CNT.OF.TRANSPORTATION
H J DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
W y OQy WATAUGA COUNTY
?\ a I
\\,ry %ry? ?•???N G.759002T ,(R-52933)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.38 Km. EAST OF
41,
Sr, 1357 TO o.G Km WEST OF THE SLUE RIDGE
3 Q yYPtP?i, a. O?°°0{' © PARKWAY.
SGALE SCALE AS SHOWN .
SHEET OF ta OCTOOER 1955
/ D. (0 20 40m*:
-n,
yy5yyy p ' ? ?t
/ x le W p I I
LL i
gr 7J 7r %41
.. I
- - - - ' r fsafs ea QOO
t wW w y s?" '=?1?1>?T '35ti
J
rIt a
N ?
a n
3L? . +'Nlu g S y' a p 1
U_ '? /1 11 , a :•: ?i i AW73 7A1 J ? I ? ' I 1a1
J
y5hh 1 V a\ I ?w cm
l' ? I ti
f 3?
Y r
tLi
W _aa h °
w V 1
LAJ
N ? M W ? i0° fb?
/ ? $oc o
ZVI
pi.
Qt'
1 y ?. fr ! 1 t ynw QV p'?'N?o ?f -
70
b5?? 1 a d d Q
Li 4.WW ••? J ?¢ '+" •3t.1 r
x y, ? Yl• ti.:7 S .
N A NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT. OFTRANSFORTATZON
OZVISZON OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
? !a
/ t Yh y`. .? a f, 6.75.500:7 (R-52900)
l vY{
S kg PROPOSED U.S. 42! FROM 0.30 Km EAST OF
SR 1357 TO 0.6 K:n WEST OF THE BLUE I1ZOGE
1 .n1V PARKWAY.
1?? _ O ?? / Wq K SCALE AS SHOWN
??,}.tj SHEET Cl OF OC730CR 1995
311
IS
LOUSE WATSON
DS 094 PO 591
(3 END C/A -
4p? a ww,-EHCE
- SEA fG-8T5
SLDPE
LINE
C?
r r
?r I I
X.
It
f 1i
Q I
' M& C/A
+ 1 X 4 iviv &VO, .

/
.sN? I I ? ?•? ' x
10A I
I I ? c, x N
I+ n
A

ETERATE *? X
'B'RI
b FIITFlt

IC
?}
4" •\`i`?` Y16tLAN Esrm TOWS
£srAz SA
L7MN
1 ?_ Q
i . ?
1\ 00005
rBE6IM C/A
W1Y.Fe.M?
o
SEA N CIA
/
•LArYDIEC7f
W/ CL'B'RIP RAP A"
A F.F. 1'E DETAIL 5 SW
EST.TE S.M. / .Lf/ .
ESI.'f6 Td(S ---
1 X C
?IV?Ar F 07 Q -F /X
AOn LEFT TURN TAPER \. '- .?/
57
ST
F1P ?/? ETLANO
LILNfS i

r
1
` Box
?I
I ? • • -L-
ffiI.B N f 49' 33"
® FAr?E

r
I ++ `
+ \ WIPV rraFf cLe , , +
'LOPE STAKE I ?` \ gE IL 5 SNEP`£
.INE -? - - \ \ 15 S
- r r LT T \ \ IT E UNirS x TaC
F \ k /
PROP. A
I ssea 0 /
J,o RAP w1l
IT"
k y I pBLITERATE $``\ 4 I \?XJ y F
8!t
= r \ s¢Pnc N w NTL
X S
CATE
r / r ^ f 3TS ! Giic? !
I / $ ?IpLRST
15 F N0C1C I ? ? II
' - _ 0%P GAP VFO J CL'B'RIP ?iAP Yl ? ?
FrLrER \
/ O 145 TONS a
" ? goo EST.'1S TONS ? U
' , a s : u . it 17 tsr. 7St fx Q POULoLKYRYi V,.
I DEEP GAP VOL \K" Nast ?'.??y`"
I FIRE DEPT. I I s Otx °r`
j OSY I 08 lot PG 928 I Q MIRY k
- i
I
i5 d l? a` cR , tsr? S
SE WATSON G fY.I? I I '\itJ'`Iy(?
094 PC 591 4r i L.Y f I I _ ssew
YY?, a 4//
L/
X.h
T E NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTRCNT..OF TRAS?.PORTATIGN
SD DIVISION CF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
SGALE
6.75.9002T . (R-52?DD)
PROPGSED U- S. 421 FROM 0.38 Km EAST OF
O• 10 ?-o 40M SR 1357 TO O.G Km WEST GF THE BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY.
'?`vc ?y`yr y ? ? DENOTES W:.TLAN DS
OENOTcS FILL IN SURFACE WATER SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET.LQ o: A _ OC73DER 1995
DENOTES FILL IN WeiLAN0S
h
•? _ O.SnIw. ? 9 TE&R 0.3n? I I
BEQIN CIA .0 MM E GR &AGIF 9.0 1
R ww--EAC£ •b
0.6 EASEAlENr
STA 13.610,5
O.G 5A5E LAI. VI TI W 04 6A5F- L4T. DiTGH j
W/G+A55"8"?PfL49 g bow W/GLA55"8'RIPRAP ',?
EAtO C/A 7tOtN C/A -- 1? 13a741 - 19a773 (J.T) '
\ \ \ ` i w?l'fE ! wJrfEMC?
=•??STA 13166{ STA 131BE2 ?-•
d\11\ L - . ,\ a f fFRAP ?x X- 1? TOE
1 Q PAUL 5.ON '?' °1 .? -?• V \
on as PC
08 as PG 763
- ? ` ?? ?'? - R RM ?' ? y \ ? 3 f ?7< i
F.F. F
- `O.q } 1• JS^-JJJ .. 0+1\? _ EST.M Tay
10 AZ yB? \ ;F r X rp $ EST'33 SY. w1 t !
? fRH' ?i?? /?u' aGO •'..
/ f
I Q EST.4Z SAL ` ? N / SPKwc ® Of
- .-•;.car : SNfiAC.':••: : - . • • .
fw
CAP t< f
SEAL I- BaaB r
f I ?£
w
FALSE ® .? ! ff ??' }
S+AtP
_ a taro a W
All
F;3Y00611-nj 0 TY ?1
/ I I t 000 "V ` W ?y OOOTTTTTTt
LOT
3 soE ,
I14'i4•2ix Fv V ? ta
! Isj 2urz Is
0 t"s. \ • a
CL:ArRrP
mwc
SEPTIC
s s EST 07IDVS '" ?S 11J - \ \
• 900 s6Pnc ?• I / ---- .?
??
&D / ?\ P S. IDOL
I pip - Sn,rxv rt9 Pc 766
` 195 PG 769 NTl 'OlP
LSxi MOS78•• 2 FA S66N' V ? ???
, f c 6f 23A" naeo Ey 1T)f?i
I? ,ps ? ,,?q - ss u I DeLaERATE I ,I I
e -A _ I ` I TOE TEMP.
EASEMENT
' _c - -JOSEPH COL j? KENNETH IDOL I DRArMACE
06 .. vc xK 06 I9s Pc m 1 I a?
S? I I w 900 N ru PO 072 $ I < 6lw
I If3 Nt x E er'? - I .'S?, ?k??i
10 BASE TAIL v7TrJI
wi CLPRtP Rip
ItEKO bx ?? 1 l g.ffA7L8511T.2E
--1 ® SEPTIC
`? • J - 1 F EST_StG U. --
aI RUFUS N. KfOL '? 5U6R .. R I
On V4 Z
0" x
etr ! G6?05+HPC seisms
I
23A1i OD 097 PO 399 2ZA60 L07 5 a 6 0 `? ?? f N $ I I Y , I Ma0o5 Q
- -? „Tnozc'• f f ? b
- `6A% -
NORTH CAROLINA OCPARTMCNT.OF-TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF Hi GHWAYS
.5 I T E 10 WATAUGA COUNTY
6.759002T (8-52900)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.38 Km EAST OF
S
DENOTES FILL IN°SLIRFAc.F- WATER PARRKWAWAY Y K 70 O.G K.T. WEST OF THE O:U? RIOGE
.
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET L OF 19 OCTODER 1995
O. 10 ZO 40T

a?
z;
1
U.
In
w
O
z
w
s ?.
it
E
O
C
tJ
J O
v N
N
O
O
NORTH CAROLINA OCPART'CNT-OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
N 6.759O02T (R-52900)
PROPOSED U.S. 42: FROM 0.38 Km EAST OF
SR !357 TO O.G Ka WEST OF THE GLUE RIOGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET jZ OF -0 OCTOOER :39.5
M ATGH LI Nf-- STA. 15 + 220 -L-RF-V.
?1{/NbOMd
,,,,,, & ??I - J Y.
OR
x rr W ??
02
Ifi
id 0
•' W ? I I
C ?. ? ? ° r b• ? ? Q I
• I
?d
a , ?' ®,9l( 1 ? x
M
sv ar X
Z, W SL t
i0l
• v?? X w u
?- 4 l l ?m
W I
J
MATCH LINE 5TA.15+D4D-L--REV.
\? E
-c
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPOR7ATION
U. 11) DIVISION OF 41GHWAYS
W WATAUGA COUNTY
? Ll G.759002T (R-52OD6)
\:J J
CA J N PROPOSED U.S. 42! FROM O.38 Km EAST OF
N SR :357 TO 0.6 Ka WEST OF THE OIU RIDGE
PARKWAY.
O (?
1 ;CASE ASHOWN
'I ?? O SHEET j_? Ch -L oCTODER i395
MATLH LI N E STA. 15 4ZD --L-- Ke-;V.
w I
>
o Ike
U
006.5/ x ? N ?
1 a vc
N ti '? ? ? p
as x• l ` ?-
'ate ? •? ?. - - I ?
`3 }
Ile
42
WD YC _ x X l I o
ITO
'Fr { ?
Pn Wi l _---
0. O,b
41
s
coo
$ 1? \ I u K
ahhwa ?? I - _-? - _ J_
t3xwi r l J
x I I ?f w
loe
I p
x I?I I w
x 1 I I In I I
I
ail
o h \ ? '.' 6?' ? 3 ? 1
5'0 Nin ? I I?
zt z ? W ? I I 11 I
tva daw poi o
.OL U X
NORTH CAROLINA OEPARTRENT.OF TRANSPORTATION
MA'T'CH LIKIE 5TA. 1:S+ ZZO-1---REV. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
6.7590027 (R-52903)
PROPOSED U.S. 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST OF
SR 1357 TO 0.6 Km _WOST OF THE OLUO RIDGE
PARKWAY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET + OF lIq OC70008 1395
SITES 12.13.??
i WSE 11 DITCH W, a::
EST. 10 TOPS
.?, ? rxrrA .
IND
jaw.
p6 BASE TAK. IL `?? 1± K. a:ff
SSE DO
? aRArxACE - . •'•. 2! nip
ramtsr.
"gill, 0'(0 r
SPECIAL D.(e... BASE OITC-!i
y s• W/ GhSS"B" RIP RAP
$TA.O`54G.2?6 YN_Rev. 5n,? f` ? \ ? '?j ??/ ?t!lr•- - ` - _ . ?t
enO
1.0 L•11N. ..? J" I
a FNRTP\ER IC VAR.
• ?t •, -- \ •
Mas Tt]NS F 0•7 f.t,N•
EST.86/S3L I,SmSASE.LAT. DITCH - - - 1
CLAWT'Ft 19 FLAP
06 BASE Lr DITCH \ \
\ ?\
W1 LY.'B'RIJ' NAP' ! F.f. S
=EE DETAIL J $W" 1 1
C? ' EST.ts T°"s xl+tsx-FIB .
EsT foq su ,
J \ ? o°o 49
?- '? x rAa-. ENO drLYERT e ?' • \ \ ?'s? o o ? o ` v-,
Q ?^X??x--!" ? crt sT?tS.?e+as ?„art:;:: ? ITH `b? • ?• M ? w .
Iww
CAP
SEAL
N J • ? .
WELL FULLLEn-
SI FLEET700D FALLS M. w,?IMSTRUCfr / \ \ S1
O0B 037 PD 101
? ? '?• A \ \
BST fSEE IIEJ ? r n y~ 1S?
F1
fL E ® °$sfi FALSE 1 ,
M 1 \ « • 00 154 /tEyWE \
150 CONC s.\?... B
,. Y us?ss? ?,=1 \ 2 5.2 V w+r
42Ai4 OP -
c 65' 38' 40 E S 64.19' 0
S 66,171 S5'E 4'E
9 n"s U/G us rAwcs ?
• ds O CAS s SAw LIME ssr
F
Si.-Nev. C.'] ?pcX V_ ? Ceo qs \ BST (Lqm COLVAfm DIL
r DO O% PC 102
S S{ iQ \ef U/G GAS low$
0 •5P8JSt-Rd. p 0 III
l REWlf No•rtoPrL OR
fw OUARMAtL I E.YI5TIA1'. !?s ? ? 0 f s u. > k"X
1 ,1 I . FULL _.: .
1%s FARM PAVEo
I I NORTH CAROLINA oCPARTRCNT.,OF •71tAN5PON?AT:ON
. 1 tl 1 ..U / / DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS.
DEI.IOTES FILL 1146URFACi_ WATER WATAUGA COUNTY
?.?~ I I i ?• 6.7590027 iR-G290D) .
?•
U.+^• 421 FROM 0.30 Km EAST Of
TS y5-480.003-L-Rev
1 / PROPOSED
SR 1757 TO 0.6 Km VEST OF THL'.OLUC -RIDGE
pfal PARKWAY.
/ wr TA!
- -? i ' SCALE
c.. SCALE AS SHOWN
SHCET of GcTDocr. 1005 19
0 10 ' ?.ZO 40m
0
X10 11 S 1L 1!. E 11.E T
SUMMA
--- - -- - - Temp. Impact
Prop. Prop. Existing due to
E xcav. Fill in Enclosed Relocated Impacted 'Mechanical
Fill in in Surface C hannel Channel Channel clearing beyond
Site Sta. Structure Wetlands Wetlands Waters Length Length Length Construction Limits
1 10+180 LT/RT - 2 @ 1.8 m X 0.28 ha 0.00 ha 0.09 ha 147 m 390 m 445 m 0.03 ha
10+573 LT -L. 1.5 m RCBC
0+370 LT/RT - 600 RCP
0+559 RT -Y10REV-
2 10+798 RT -10+850 900 RCP 0.00 -ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 93 m 0 m 95 m 0.00 ha
LT -L-
$ 11+124 RT -11+291 1200 RCP
< 0.01 ha
0.00 ha 0.03 ha
152 m
96M
227 m
< 0.01 ha
LT -L-
4 12+062 LT -12+099 Spring Box 0.00 ha 0.03 ha 0.00 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m
< 0.01 ha
RT -L- 150 CSP
5 12+497 L7 -12+629 900 CSP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.02 ha 107 m 103 m 127 m
0.00 ha
RT -L- 1650 RCP
6 12+890 LT -12+910 750 RCP 0.03 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 85 m 0 m 86 m
< 0.01 ha
RT -L-
7 13+223 LT -13+247 1650 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 90M • 0 m 94 m 0.00 ha
RT -L-
8 13+374 RT - 13+392 Spring Box 0.00 ha < 0.01 ha < 0.01 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m 0.00 ha
LT - L- 200 CSP
g 13+450 LT -13+475 600 RCP 0.01. ha
<0.01ha
0.00 ha
0m
0m
Om
0.00 ha
RT -L-
10 13+669 LT -13+773 1050 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 88 m 110 m 167 m
0.00 ha
LT/RT -L- • 1200 RCP
11 14+057 RT- 14+140 450 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m
0.00 ha
RT -LREV- 750 RCP
12 14+876 RT-15+469 1050 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.08 ha 29 m 470 m 520 m 0.00 ha
LT -LREV-
13 15+469 LT- 3@2.4mX 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha 80m Om 82m
0.00 ha
15+502 RT -LREV- 2.4 m RCBC
14 0+420 LT - 0+485 450 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01, ha 11 m 8 m 23 m 0.00 ha
LT/RT -Y14REV-
1 j 15+618 LT - 15+635 600 RCP 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0 m 0 m 0 m
0.01 ha
LT -LREV-
j li 15+861 RT. 15+910 1350 RCP 0.00 ha 0.00 ha 0.01 ha 85 m 0 m 100 m
0.00 ha
LT -LREV-
33 ha
0
0.03 ha 0.36 ha
967m
1177 m
1966 m
0.04 ha
Tota ls .
r
Note: Prop. enclosed channel. length represents
net additional channel length to be piped,
determined by total length prop. piping
minus total length existing piping to be
removed.
Note: At site # 11, There is an additional
0.01 ha. of surface water in the pond that
will be drained.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT 6.759002T
PROPOSED US 421 FROM 0.38KM
EAST OF SR 1357 TO 0.6KM WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET 1(o OF

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO NAMES ADDRESSES

1 Charles R. & Betty Watson Church 614 Tompkins Ct.
Gastonia, NC 18054
IA D. Grady Moretz, Jr. 506 Poplar Drive
Boone, NC 28607
6A James D. Brown Rt. 1 Box 720A
Boone, NC 28607
6 Bill Brown Rt. 1 Box 721
Boone, NC 28607
7 Betty V. Brown Rt. 1 Box 721
Boone, NC 28607
10 Joel L. Coffey, Jr. Rt. 1 Box 150
Deep Gap, NC 28618
14 James C. Watson P.O. Box 2270
Boone, NC 28607
15 Louise Watson 8891 US Hwy. 421 S
Deep Gap, NC 28618
17 Deep Gap Volunteer Fire Dept. P.O. Box 516
Deep Gap, NC 28618
18 Lloyd Watson(Nella Watson Heirs) 9017 US Hwy. 421 S
Deep Gap, NC 28618
22 George D. Watson 711 W. King St.
Boone, NC 28607
23 N. H. Green (W. C. Green) 300 Hot Rod
Deep Gap, NC 28618
26 Kenneth Brook Greer et al. Rt. 1 Box 81
Deep Gap, NC 28618
33 Paul S. Idol 9439 US Hwy. 421 S
Deep Gap, NC 28618

7N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT 6.759002T
PROPOSED US 421 FROM 0.38KM
EAST OF SR 1357 TO 0.6KM WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET 1-7 OF 49
34
35
37
39
40
45
46
47
49
51
52
53
58
61
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAIlMS AND ADDRESSES (CONTD.)
1435 Lewisville-Clemmons Rd
Joyce Idol Coffey Clemmons, NC 27012
Mrs. Worth Clawson Rt. i
Deep Gap, NC 28618
9639 US Hwy. 421 S
Sammy Critcher Deep Gap, NC 28618
P.O. Box 511
Scott Moretz Deep Gap, NC 28618
P.O. Box 1549
Sterling Carrol Boone, NC 28607
145 Juniper Lane
D&R Ventures Boone, NC 28607
4100 Liberty Grove Rd
Pete Yates Electric Inc. Fleetwood, NC 28626
588 Dick Watson Rd
John J. Brady Deep Gap, NC 28618
10501 US Hwy. 421 S
Joyce Ann Bowman Deep Gap, NC 28618
Jimmy Dean Moretz

Fleetwood Falls Inc. P.O. Box 128
Fleetwood NC, 28626
223 Current Drive
Mary Sue Payne W. Jefferson, NC 28694
Jan Wellbom(Russell Welborn) P.O. Box 161
Deep Gap, 28618
Mary S. & Clarence Gough et al. 60t4 Car final D1 riv
1620 NE 139th St.
Kent Moretz Miller North Miami, Fla., 33181

. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
F. N
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT 6.759002T
PROPOSED US 421 FROM 0.39KM
EAST OF SR 1357 TO 0.6KM WEST OF
THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
SHEET 16 OF1q
14
E
E
i

Y1 .?
E? l Ill
ti IQ ,
CY I
fit i/
1? I1 '
1
I o I ,.
a
• 00
t
r
' R j N
Kj
' t7*91;
%
N I
mi.
9g?
• i

z
o
F

O

F

o
a
w
U

d

a
?

z
?
?
A

z

C7

N
d
3
c

o
?

?
?

?
V
ti
a:
a

3
?

C
a

w
?
e
.
?

d'
G

F
d

z ?

z
a
w ?
J ?
LL
ct -9
vi
_ w
Q
U-
0
z
C
F
a
z z
F
we
z z a
i
in D vi
w
0
w
w
d
U
O