The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140762 All Versions_Scoping Comments_20121205Depari:rl eir t of El VRI oument add Natwr fi esourees Project Review FotrTO1 Project Number- 13-0200 County W2tauga and Ashe Date R_ecetved• 12/05/2Gy2 Due Date: 12/31/2012 P oaect Descnotion Environmental Assessment - Proposal to widen US 221 to a four lane, meclf9r divided facility from US 4.21 to the Deep Gap community to US 721 Business NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson TiP No R-2915 This Project is being reviewed as mdreated below Regional Office Regional Office Area In -House Review Asheville ✓ All Marine Fisheries Fayetteville ✓ Water Coastal Management __ Moores ville ✓ Aquifer Protection Water Resources Mgmt Raleigh ✓ Land Quality Engineer ✓ Water Supply Section ___ Washington ./ UST ✓ Parks & Recication _ Wilmington Water Quality ✓ Winston Salem ✓ Water Quality — DOT -Amy Eultss (, % a , y.6 q y1 Wildlife _ ✓ WildIife — DOT Marla Chambers Waste Mgmt Air Quality Manager Sign Off/Region Date In -House Reviewer/Agency [Respose (check all applicable) (&k l;: i c ,_r No objection to project as proposed No Comment p ` _ • I }- �) __ _ Insufficient mformatTon to complete review Other (specify or attach comments) _ ___ DEC 1 0 2012 VVEDEN WATER QllAL1jy if you have any questions, please contact TLAPJDSAND;T(yZ,,�WA�RB�vCM Lyn Hardison at €yn hardason( nedenr Gov or (252) 948-3842 Proposed US 221 Widening From US 421 to US 221 Business/NC 88 in Jefferson Watauga and Ashe Counties WBS Element 34518.1.1 Federal Aid Project STP -0221(13) STIP Project No. R -2915 Project Commitments The following special commitments have been agreed t o by NCDOT: • NCDOT will coordinate with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to determine the status of the potential WRC public access project at South Fork New River. • NCDOT will comply with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s moratorium prohibiting in -stream work in South Fork New River during the fish spawning season of May 1 through July 15. • NCDOT will comply with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s moratorium prohibiting in -stream work and land disturbance wi thin the 25 -foot trout buffer from October 15 to April 15 for all streams supporting wild trout, including, but not limited to, Beaver Creek, Call Creek, Cole Branch, Deep Gap Creek, Little Gap Creek, and Old Fields Creek. • NCDOT will provide an individual Section 404 permit for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. S -1 SUMMARY A. Type of Action In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of this proposed transportation improvement project. Acc ording to Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) toolkit on NEPA Documentation, an EA is prepared when the significance of a transportation project’s impacts is uncertain. The EA will disclose the project benefits and environmental impacts to the public a nd to other local, state, and federal agencies to obtain their comments on the proposed action and assist the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and FHWA in the decision - making process. If at any point in the process of preparing an EA, it is discovered that the project would result in significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. If after completing the EA, it is determined that there are no significant impacts associated with the project, a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared, addressing comments received on the EA from the public and local, state, and federal agencies. B. Description of Proposed Action The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four -lane, median - divided facilit y from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length and is shown in Figures 1A and 1B. C. Summary of Purpose and Nee d The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi - lane facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations, and reduce the rate of traffic crashes. D. Alternatives Considered A full range of alt ernatives was considered, including a No -Build Alternative, a Public Transportation Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, and improvements to the existing facility. The No -Build, Public Transportation, and TSM Alternatives wer e eliminated for the following reasons: The No -Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to the US 221 study corridor. The No -Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need identified for the proposed project. It would not S -2 im prove the traffic flow or level of service (LOS) of US 221 through the project study area, nor would it address the corridor’s higher -than -average crash rates. The project study area is not well served by mass transit. Based on the project context, impr ovements to public transportation would not improve vehicle flow or safety on US 221 and would not eliminate the need for widening the existing facilities and improving the alignment. Therefore, the Public Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the pu rpose and need for this project and was eliminated from further study. TSM improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the roadway within the existing right -of -way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing or adding additi onal through lanes to the existing road. TSM improvements will not increase capacity or improve levels of service enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2035 design year. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was eliminated from further study. E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative In consideration of the right -of -way impacts, mountainous terrain, environmental constraints associated with stream impacts, and sound engineering principles, the Merger Process Team agreed at the December 16, 2008 meeting f or Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options) to the “Best Fit” Widening Alternative. This alternative will widen US 221 at locations that “best fit” the current road location and surrounding land uses. “Best fit” locations were evaluated and selected to improve the existing roadway alignment, minimize impacts, and permit traffic maintenance during construction. Three typical sections for the widening of US 221 were evaluated. These typical sections are shown in Figures 6 -8 of Appendix A. The NCDOT - recommended alternative for the proposed US 221 widening improvements are shown in Figure 2 (sheets 1 -14). 1. Figure 6 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a 23 -foot -wide raised grassed median with curb and gutter and 8 - foot -wide shoulde rs (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421 to NC 194. 2. Figure 7 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a 36 -foot -wide depressed grassed median and 8 -foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of Long Street. 3. Figure 8 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a variable 17.5 -foot -wide raised grassed median and 8 -foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet so uth of Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson. S -3 F. Summary of Environmental Effects The project will result in the displacement of approximately 70 homes, 33 businesses, and two religious facilities. It crosses seven name d streams and their tributaries, with a total of 24 stream crossings, and will impact approximately 20,804 linear feet of jurisdictional stream and 3.7 acres of wetlands. Approximately nine (9) residences and no (0) businesses will experience traffic noise impacts. Two historic properties in the project study area were identified as eligible for National Register listing. The project will have No Adverse effects on these properties. An archaeological survey will be conducted after the Least Environmental Da maging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) is identified. Eleven (11) federally protected species are listed for Ashe and Watauga Counties. The project is anticipated to have no effect on ten (10) of those species, including the Bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big - eared bat, Spruce -fir moss spider, Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, Road mountain bluet, Spreading avens, Swamp pink, and Rock gnome lichen. The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, t he Virginia spiraea. A summary of the project impacts is provided in Table 1 . G. Permits Required An individual Section 404 permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certificatio n will be required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. H. Coordination Federal, state, and local government agencies were consulted at the outset of this study. The written comments that were received from these agencies are presented in A ppendix K. Coordination WITH us Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) is currently underway. A local official’s meeting (LOM) and citizen’s informational workshop (CIW) were held on October 24, 2006, and a second LOM and CIW were held on March 26, 2009 (see Appendix H for information regarding the meetings and workshops). Due to the anticipated impacts to stream and wetlands, a NEPA/Section 404 Merger meeting was held on January 22, 2008 for Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need and Study Area). A second Merger meeting was held on December 16, 2008 for Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives to Carry Forward for Detailed Studies). A Merger meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alignment Review and Bridging Decisions) was held on December 15, 2009, a nd the Merger Team requested that a site field visit be conducted. The Merger Team met on April 7, 2010 for the field review meeting. Concurrence was reached on S -4 each of these points. Another CP 2A meeting was held on April 12, 2012 to discuss changes to t he interchange between US 221 and US 421. It was determined that another field meeting would be conducted to review the design options and associated environmental impacts. The merger team met on May 24, 2012, and concurrence was reached on all sites exc ept Site 1, which is a stream crossing over Gap Creek at the proposed US 221/US 421 interchange. A meeting will be held in the following months to reach a decision on Site 1. (See Appendix J for details.) This document will be sent to federal, state, and local government agencies for review and comment, including the agencies represented in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team. NEPA/Section 404 Merger will continue throughout the project studies. I. Contact Information Additional information con cerning this proposal and document can be obtained by contacting the following individuals: John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 856 -4346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NC Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548 Telephone: (919) 707 -6000 S -5 Table 1 Summar y of Direct Project Impacts STIP Project R -2915 Feature Anticipated Impacts Project length – miles 16.1 Residential relocations 70 Business relocations 33 Total relocations 103 Major utility crossings 1 Historic Properties (See Note 1) No Adverse Eff ects – two properties Archaeological Sites TBD by NCDOT after LEDPA Cemeteries (See Note 2) 2 Wetland Impacts – acres (See Note 3) 3.7 Stream Impacts – linear feet (See Note 3) 20,804 100 -year floodplain crossings 5 Water supply/watershed protected a reas 0 Hazardous spill basin areas 2 Impacted noise receptors (See Note 4) 9 Federally protected species in Watauga and Ashe Counties (see Note 5) 11 Hazardous Material Sites 13 Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Impacts (acres) 1.5 Notes: (1) = Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and Barnett Idol House (2) = Gap Creek Cemetery and Baldwin Bethany Cemetery (3) = Shown acreage includes 25 -foot clearing limits outside slope stake lines (4) = Based upon preliminary traffic noise analysis (5) = Biological co nclusions: No Effect for Bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big -eared bat, Spruce -fir moss spider, Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, Road mountain bluet, Spreading avens, Swamp pink, or Rock gnome lichen; May Affect, Not Lik ely to Adversely Affect for Virginia spiraea. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROJECT COMMITMENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ S -1 A. Type of Action ......................................................................................... S -1 B. Description of Proposed Action ............................................................... S -1 C. Summary of Purpose and Need ............................................................... S -1 D. Alte rnatives Considered......................................................... . ..............S -1 E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative ..........................................................S -2 F. Summary of Environmental Effects ........................................................ S -3 G. Permits Required .................................................................................... S -3 H. Coordination ........................................................................................... S -3 I. Contact Informati on ................................................................................ S -4 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................. 1 A. General Description ................................................................................... 1 B. Historical Resume and Project Status ........................................................ 1 C. Project Cost ............................................................................................... 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT...............................................................1 A. Purpose of Proje ct ...................................................................................... 1 B. Need for Project ......................................................................................... 2 1. Description of Existing Conditions ..................................................... 2 a. Functional Classification ............................................................. 2 b. Physical Description of the Existing Facility ................................. 2 1. Roadway Cross -Section ......................................................... 2 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ......................................... 2 3. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................... 2 4. Speed Limits .......................................................................... 3 5. Intersections .......................................................................... 3 6. Railroads ............................................................................... 3 7. Structures ............................................................................. 3 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ................... 4 a. Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. 4 b. Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................... 4 c. Greenways ....................................................................... 4 9. Utilities .................................................................................. 4 c. School Bus Usage ........................................................................ 4 d. Traffic Carrying Capacity ... .........................................................5 1. Exist ing Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 5 2. Existing Levels of Service ....................................................... 6 3. Future Levels of Service (No -Build Scenario – year 2035) ....... 9 4. Future Levels of Service (Build Scenario – year 2035 ............. 9 e. Traffic Crash Data ...................................................................... 10 ii f. Airports ..................................................................................... 1 3 g. Public Transportation ................................................................ 13 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ................................................. 13 a. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program .................. 13 b. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors .......................................... 14 c. Local Thoroughfare Plans ........................................................... 14 d. Land Use Plans .......................................................................... 15 1. Wataug a County ................................................................. 15 2. Ashe County ........................................................................ 15 3. West Jefferson ..................................................................... 16 C. Benefits of Proposed Project ..................................................................... 16 III. ALTERNATIVES ........................... ...............................................................17 A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ................................................................ 17 1. No -Build Alternative ........................................................................ 17 2. Public Transportation Alternative .................................................... 17 3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative .................. 18 4. Improve Existing Facility ................................................................. 18 B. Detailed Study Alternatives ..................................................................... 21 C. NCDOT Recommended Alternative ........................................................... 21 IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........ ...............................................................21 A. Roadway Cross -Section and Alignment .................................................... 21 B. Right of Way and Access Control ............................................................. 22 C. Design Speed and Speed Limit ................................................................. 22 D. Anticipated Design Exceptions......................................................... .......22 E. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ................................................... 22 F. Service Roads .......................................................................................... 23 G. Railroad Crossings ................................................................................... 23 H. Structures ............................................................................................... 23 I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................. 23 J. Utilities .................................................................................................... 24 K. Noise Barriers .......................................................................................... 24 L. Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing ............................ 24 V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................25 A. Natural Resources ................................................................................... 25 1. Physical Characteristics .................................................................... 25 2. Biotic Resources ................................................................................ 25 a. Terrestrial Communities ................................................................ 25 b. Terrestri al Wildlife ......................................................................... 27 c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... 27 3. Water Resources ................................................................................ 28 a. Aquatic Communities .................................................................... 29 b. Invasive Species ............................................................................ 29 c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ..................................................... 29 4. Waters of the United States ............................................................... 30 a. Streams, Ri vers, Impoundments .................................................... 30 b. Riparian Buffers ............................................................................ 30 c. Wetlands ....................................................................................... 30 iii d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ..................................................... 30 e. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ....................................... 34 1. Avoidance ................................................................................... 34 2. Minimization .............................................................................. 34 3. Compensato ry Mitigation ............................................................ 35 f. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................... 35 g. Construction Moratoria ................................................................. 35 5. Rare and Protected Species ............................................................... 36 a. Federally Protected Species ............................................................ 36 b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................. 42 c. Endangere d Species Act (ESA) Candidate Species .......................... 43 6. Soils .................................................................................................. 44 B. Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 44 1. Historic Architectural Resources ....................................................... 44 a. Historic Properties ......................................................................... 44 1. Baldwin Bethany Cemetery ....................................................... 45 2. Barnett Idol House .................................................................... 46 b. Poten tial Project Effects ................................................................. 46 2. Archaeological Resources .................................................................. 47 C. Section 4(f) Resources and 6(f) Resources ................................................ 47 1. Section 4(f) Resources ....................................................................... 47 2. Section 6(f) Resources ....................................................................... 49 D. Farmland ................................................................................................. 49 1. Voluntary Agricultural Districts and Enhanced Voluntary Ag ricultural Districts ............................................................................................ 50 E. Social Effects ........................................................................................... 50 1. Neighborhoods/Communities ............................................................ 50 a. Community Profile and Demographics ........................................... 51 b. Population by Race ........................................................................ 52 c. Economic Status ............................................................................ 52 d. English Proficiency ........................................................................ 53 e. Housing Characteristics ................................................................. 53 f. Business and Employment ............................................................. 54 2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses .......................................... 55 3. Environmental Justice ....................................................................... 55 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................ 56 5 Public Facilities, Schools, and Institutions. ....................................... 56 F. Land Use ................................................................................................. 57 1. Existing Land Use ............................................................................. 57 2. Local Area Plans/Goals ..................................................................... 57 a. Watauga County ........................................................................... 57 b. Ashe County ................................................................................. 57 G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................. 58 1. Indirect Assessment ............................................................................ 58 2. Cumulative Assessment ...................................................................... 59 H. Flood Hazard Evaluations ........................................................................ 59 I. Hazardous Spill Basi ns ............................................................................ 60 J. Traffic Noise Analysis .............................................................................. 60 1. Characteristics of Noise ....................................................................... 60 2. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................... 61 iv 3. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................................... 61 4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ....................................... 62 5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ........................................... 62 6. Traffic Noise Abat ement Measures ....................................................... 65 a. Highway Alignment Selection ........................................................... 65 b. Traffic System Management Measures ............................................. 65 c. Noise Barriers .................................................................................. 66 d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered ............................................ 66 7. No -Build Alternative ............................................................................ 67 8. Construction Noise .............................................................................. 67 9. Summary ............................................................................................ 67 K. Air Quality Analysis ................................................................................. 67 1. Attainment Status ............................................................................... 68 2. Carbon Monoxide ................................................................................ 68 3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide ................................................................ 68 4. Particulate Matter and Sulfur .............................................................. 68 5. Lead .................................................................................................... 68 6. Mobile Source Air Toxics ..................................................................... 69 a. Background ..................................................................................... 69 b. NEPA Context .................................................................................. 70 c. Analy sis of MSAT in NEPA Documents ............................................. 71 d. MSAT Analysis ................................................................................ 71 e. Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project -Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis ......................................................... 72 f. MSAT Conclusions ........................................................................... 72 7. Construction ....................................................................................... 72 8. Summary ............................................................................................ 73 VI. COMMENTS AND COOR DINATION ................................. ..............................74 A. Citizens Informational Workshops ........................................................... 74 1. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 1 .............................................. 74 2. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 2 .............................................. 74 B. Local Officials Meetings ........................................................................... 75 1. Local Officials Meeting No. 1 ............................................................. 75 2. Local Officials Meeting No. 2 ............................................................. 76 C. Newsletters .............................................................................................. 76 D. Public Hearing ......................................................................................... 77 E. NEPA 404 Merger Process ........................................................................ 77 F. Additional Agency Coordination ............................................................... 78 VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................ ..............................78 LIST OF TABLES Tab le 1 – Summary of Direct Project Impacts ............................. ..............................S -5 Table 2 – 2007 and 2035 Average Daily Traffic ............................................................ 5 Table 3 – 2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS).......................................................... 7 Table 4 – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary ......................................... 8 Table 5 – Summary Table of Crash Data for US 221 .................................................. 10 Table 6 – Crash Data, 2004 -2007: US 221 ................................................................. 11 v Table 7 – High -Incidence Intersections, 2004 -2007: US 221 ...................................... 12 Table 8 – Crashes by Type, 2004 -2007 ...................................................................... 12 Table 9 – STIP Projects Near US 221 Project Area ...................................................... 13 Table 10 – Summary of Potential Impacts at the Functional Design Level .................. 19 Table 11 – Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ....................................... 28 Table 12 – Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for Study Area Streams .................................................................................. 28 Table 13 – Summary of Potential Impacts by Strea m Designation .............................. 31 Table 14 – Permanent Impacts to Wetlands...................................................... ......... 31 Table 15 – Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe and Watauga Counties .......... 36 Table 16 – Soils in the Study Area ............................................................................. 43 Table 17 – Population Gr owth, 1990 -2000 ................................................................. 52 Table 18 - Population by Race, 2000 .......................................................................... 52 Table 19 - Economic Data for the Study Area, 2000 .................................................. 53 Table 20 – English Proficiency for the Study Area, 2000 ............................................ 53 Table 21 - Housing Characteristics, 1990 -2000............................................... ......... 54 Table 22 - Predicted Number of Traffic Noise Impacts (Number of Receptors) ............. 63 Table 23 - Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts (Number of Receptors) ............. 64 Table 24 - Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contour Distances .......................... 65 Table 25 - VMT for US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties ........................................ 71 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 9 – National Register Boundary Proposed for Baldwin Bethany Cemetery..………………………………………………………………………………..46 Figure 11 – National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 -2050 for Vehicles Operating on Roadways U sing EPA’s Mobile6.2 Model………………………………………….70 APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures 1 -A and 1 -B – Project Location and Study Area Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Preferred Alternative (14 sheets) Figures 3 -A through 3 -D – 2007 Base Year No -Build Daily Forec ast Volumes Figures 4 -A through 4 -D – 2035 Future Year Build Daily Forecast Volumes Figure 5 – TIP Projects nearby US 221 Project Area Figures 6 through 8 – Proposed Typical Sections Figures 10 -A through 10 -D – Community Context Diagram Appendix B – Scientific Names of Species Identified in the Report Table B -1 – Project Study Area Streams Table B -2 – Project Study Area Stream Characteristics Table B -3 – Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetland in the Study Area Table B -4 – Culvert and Bridging Decisions Appendix C – SHPO Correspondence Appendix D – NCDOT Relocation Report and Relocation Programs vi Appendix E – Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects NRCS -CPA -106 Appendix F – Preliminary Traffic Noise Analysis Information Table F -1 Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily Table F -2 Noise Abatement Criteria Table F -3 Ambient Noise Levels (Leq) Traffic Noise Exposures Appendix G – Preliminary Air Quality Inform ation Appendix H – USTs, Landfills, and Other Potentially Contaminated Sites Appendix I – Citizens Information Workshop Materials Appendix J – NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms Appendix K – Scoping Comments Received from Federal and State Agencies and Regional and Local Governments 1 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. General Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen US 221 from US 421 in the Deep Gap community of Watau ga County to the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe County. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length and is shown in Figures 1A and 1B. The preferred widening improvements are shown in Figure 2. All figures are loc ated in Appendix A. B. Historical Resume and Project Status The NCDOT 2009 -2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) included the proposed widening of US 221 in Watauga and Ashe Counties, North Carolina. The STIP called for right -of -way acqu isition to begin in Fiscal Year 2012 and for construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2013. The STIP included total funding of $99,743,000 for the project, including $12,020,000 for right -of - way acquisition and utilities and $85,723,000 for construction. The NCDOT 2012 -2016 STIP includes the proposed widening of US 221 from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business/NC 68 in Jefferson, Ashe County to a four -lane divided facility, with a total project length of 16.1 miles. The STIP calls for right -of -way acqu isition to begin in Fiscal Year 2013 and for construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2015. The STIP includes total funding of $135,605,000 for the project, including $12,020,000 for right -of -way acquisition and utilities and $118,400,000 for construction. C. Project Cost The estimated project cost is $154,710,928, which includes $33,997,900 for right -of -way acquisition, $2,313,028 for utility relocation, and $118,400,000 for construction. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT A. Purpose of Project The purp ose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi - lane facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations, and reduce the rate of traffic crashes. 2 B. Need for Project 1. Description of Existing Conditions a. Functional Classification US 221 is classified as a major arterial on the Statewide Functional Classification System. b. Physical Description of the Existing Facility The US 221 project area is nestled in the Appalachian Mountains and is located only a s hort distance from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The terrain is mostly mountainous, with some relatively flat sections near each project terminus. The character of the surrounding area is mostly rural and agricultural, with scattered low -density residential uses and some minor commercial land uses. There are two municipalities that border the project area: West Jefferson and Jefferson. The small communities of Deep Gap, Fleetwood, Baldwin, and Beaver Creek are also located along existing US 221. The study area is approximately 10 miles northeast of the City of Boone and the Village of Blowing Rock. US 221 is a vital transportation link between Boone and Jefferson. 1. Roadway Cross -Section US 221 is generally a two -lane, 20 - to 24 -foot -wide roadway with usabl e shoulders that range in width from five to 12 feet. In some locations, the shoulders are partially paved, with pavement that varies from 2 to 4 feet in width. 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The existing US 221 roadway alignment does not conform to current NCDOT horizontal and vertical curve standards. The horizontal curvature and grades along the highway exceed current standards in some locations. The existing roadway alignment includes horizontal degrees of curvature as high as seven degrees and grades as high as eight percent. 3. Right of Way and Access Control The existing right of way ranges from 100 to 400 feet in width. There is partial control of access beginning in the vicinity of SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road), extending to the intersecti on of US 221 Business/NC 88 in Jefferson. 3 4. Speed Limits The posted speed limit on US 221 is 55 miles per hour (mph) within the project area, with the exception of the town of Jefferson, where the posted limit is 35 mph. 5. Intersections The proje ct area contains six signalized intersections along the project. The locations of these signalized intersections are listed below. • Southern project terminus at the intersection of US 221 and US 421 • US 221 at the intersection of NC 194 and SR 1272 (Vernon R otten Road) • US 221 at the intersection of US 221 Business/NC 194 and NC 183 • US 221 at the intersection of SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) • US 221 at the intersection of SR 1254 (Long Street) • Northern project terminus at the intersection of US 221 and US 221 Business/NC 88 (East Main Street) There are 22 intersections controlled by stop signs located along the project. 6. Railroads No railroads are located within the immediate project area. 7. Structures There are 24 stream crossings and two brid ges located along US 221 within the project area. The existing bridge over the South Fork of the New River is 230 feet long and was constructed in 1951. Because the existing bridge has a remaining service life of seven years, replacement of the bridge is r ecommended in conjunction with the widening improvements. The other bridge is an overflow structure for the floodplain along the South Fork of the New River. This structure is 136 feet long and was constructed in 1994. It is recommended that this structure be retained and that a new parallel bridge be constructed to accommodate the new travel lanes. 4 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways a. Bicycle Facilities This section of US 221 is not listed in the STIP as having a need for inciden tal bicycle accommodations, and US 221 is not included in a state -designated bicycle route system. However, the Ashe County Parks and Recreation Department reports that there is significant bicycle traffic along the US 221 corridor. Ashe County hosts an an nual bicycle event called the Blue Ridge Brutal that uses mountainous terrain to challenge bicyclists. In 2009, a portion of US 221 within the study area to the south of West Jefferson was used as part of the event route. b. Pedestrian Facilities There are no sidewalks along the US 221 project study area. c. Greenways The Town of West Jefferson recently completed a pedestrian plan that includes a proposed greenway along US 221 from Long Street to the north of the project terminus at the intersection of US 221 Business/NC 88. The proposed greenway will be located outside of the existing and proposed US 221 right -of -way limits. 9. Utilities Utilities in the project area include natural gas, water, sewer, electric, telephone, fiber -optic cabl e, and cable television. Frontier Energy has a six -inch high -pressure natural gas main along US 221 from Deep Gap to south of Idlewild Road. Charter Communications has an aerial fiber -optic TV cable along US 221 from Deep Gap to Liberty Grove Road. Ashe Co unty Cable has TV cables along US 221 from Baldwin to Liberty Grove Road. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation (BREMCO) has aerial power service lines throughout the project area, with high -tension transmission lines crossing US 221. US Sprint has un derground copper cables along US 221 from south of West Jefferson to Jefferson. Skyline Telephone has underground fiber -optic cables along US 221 from Deep Gap to Jefferson. MediaCom has buried fiber -optic TV cables along US 221 from Baldwin to Jefferson. c. School Bus Usage Based on coordination with the Ashe County Schools, approximately 30 buses use the US 221 corridor twice each day. These buses service Ashe County High School and Westwood Elementary School. 5 d. Traffic Carrying Capacity 1. E xisting Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes on US 221 in the year 2007 (see Figures 3 -A through 3 - D) ranged from 7,400 vehicles per day (vpd) near the southern project terminus (just north of Idlewild Road) to 15,200 vpd near the northern project terminus (ju st north of Ashe County High School Road). Traffic volumes in the design year (2035) (see Figures 4 -A through 4 -D) are expected to range from 17,400 vpd just north of Idlewild Road (SR 1003) to 30,400 vpd just north of Ashe County High School Road (SR 128 3). Table 2 presents the 2007 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and the projected 2035 ADT for each major link along US 221. As the data in Table 2 indicate, traffic levels are predicted to increase considerably from their present levels. Table 2 2007 and 203 5 Average Daily Traffic Link Description Average Daily Traffic 2007 2035 Percent Change SR 1206 (Luther Road) to NC 88/US 221 Business/Cherry Drive 18,600 37,200 100 NC 88/US 221 Business (East Main Street) to SR 1254 (Long Street) 13,800 27,600 100 SR 1254 (Long Street) to SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road 12,000 24,000 100 SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) to SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) 14,200 28,400 100 SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson St ate Park Road) to SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) 15,200 30,400 100 SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) to Lowe’s Drive 12,200 28,000 130 Lowe’s Drive to NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business 12,200 28,000 130 NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business to SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) 10,600 25,000 136 SR 1147 (Nettle Knob R oad) to SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) 10,200 23,200 127 SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) 9,600 21,800 127 SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) to SR 1272 (Vernon Roten Road/NC 194) 9,000 21,600 140 SR 1272 (Vernon Roten)/NC 19 4 Road to SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) 8,800 20,000 127 SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) to SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) 8,400 19,400 131 6 Table 2 2007 and 203 5 Average Daily Traffic Link Description Average Daily Traffic 2007 2035 Percent Change SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) to SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) 8,200 19,200 134 SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1178 (Pa ul Goodman Road) 8,400 19,400 131 SR 1178 (Paul Goodman Road) to SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) 8,600 19,800 130 SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) to SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) 8,400 20,200 140 SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) to SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) 8,000 18,2 00 128 SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) to SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) 7,400 17,800 141 SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) to SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) 7,600 18,000 137 SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) to SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) 7,400 17,400 135 SR 1003 ()Idlewild Road to SR1265 (Deep Gap Estates) 8,800 20,200 130 SR 1265 (Deep Gap Estates) to SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs) Road 8,800 20,200 130 SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road)/SR 1171 (West Pine Swamp Road) to Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Gr eene Road) 8,600 20,400 137 Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Greene Road) to US 421 8,600 20,400 137 Source: Traffic Forecasts for NCDOT STIP Project No. R -2915, US 221 Widening Ashe County and Watauga County, North Carolina, prepared by Martin Alexiou Brys on 2. Existing Levels of Service Two -lane and multi -lane highway and intersection analyses were performed for this project following the NCDOT Congestion Management Section’s Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Project Traffic Analyses . Traffic o perations analysis for individual two -lane and multi -lane segments were conducted using Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000). Synchro Version 7.0 was used to determine the level of service (LOS), number of lanes, corresponding delay, and capacity at signal ized intersections. Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) was used to determine the LOS corresponding delay and capacity at unsignalized intersections. A summary of the Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum is presented below. Tables 3 and 4 presen t comparisons of the LOS for the No -Build conditions in the current year (2007) and 2035 and for the preferred widening improvement in 2035 for the links and intersections along US 221, respectively. A copy of the entire report is available for 7 review in t he offices of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, located at 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27610, telephone 919 -707 -6002. Table 3 2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS) Link Description No -Build LOS Build LOS 2007 2035 2035 SR 1206 (Luther Road) to NC 88/US 221 Business (Cherry Drive) A C C NC 88/US 221 Business (East Main Street) to SR 1254 (Long Street) E F C SR 1254 (Long Street) to SR 1149 (Mount Jefferso n Road) D E B SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) to SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) D E B SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) to SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) D E B SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) to Lowe’s Drive D E B Lowe’s Drive to NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business D F C NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business to SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) D E B SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) to SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) D E B SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) D E B SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) to SR 1272 (Vernon Roten Road)/NC 194 D E B SR 1272 (Vernon Roten Road)/NC 194 to SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) D E B SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) to SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) D E A SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) to SR 1145 (Mulatt o Mountain Road) C E A SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1178 (Paul Goodman Road) D E B SR 1178 (Paul Goodman Road) to SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) D E B SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) to SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) D E B SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) t o SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) D E A SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) to SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) D E A SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) to SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) D E A SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) to SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) D E B SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) to SR 1265 (Deep Gap Estates) S D E B 8 Table 3 2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS) Link Description No -Build LOS Build LOS 2007 2035 2035 SR 1265 (Deep Gap Estates) to SR 1171(West Pine Swamp Road)/ SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road) D E B SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road)/SR 1171 (West Pine Swamp Road) to Moretz Farm Road/SR 13 60 Heg Greene Road D E B Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Greene Road) to US 421 D E B Source: STIP Project No. R -2915, Traffic Technical Memorandum, February 2009. Table 4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary 1 Intersection Traffic Control 2007 Existing 2035 No -Build 2035 Build AM PM AM PM AM PM US 221 at SR 1255 (Cherry Drive/E. Main Street) Signalized C C E D C C US 221 at SR 1254 (Long Street) Signalized C C D E B C US 221 at SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) Unsignalized 2 F F F F C C US 221 at SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) Unsignalized E F F F C F US 221 at SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) Unsignalized 2 F F F F B C US 221 at Lowe's Drive Unsignalized B B F F C C US 221 at NC 194/NC 163/US 221 Business Signalized D D F F D D US 221 at SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) Unsignalized C C F F B C US 221 at SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) Unsignalized B C E F C E US 221 at SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) Unsignalized D C F F C B US 221 at SR 1272 (Vernon Roten Road) Signaliz ed B A C B B B US 221 at SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) Unsignalized B B F F B B US 221 at SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) Unsignalized C C F F C B US 221 at SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) Unsignalized B B E D B B US 221 at SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) Unsignalized C C F F B C 9 Table 4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary 1 US 221 at SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road) Unsignalized C C F F C B US 221 at SR 1171 (West Pine Swamp Road) Unsignalized B B F F B C US 221 at US 421 Signalized D D F F Interchange Source: STIP Project No. R -2915, Traffic Technical Memorandum , February 2009. Notes: 1. LOS shown for unsignalized intersections is for the critical movement operating with the highest delay. 2. Intersection is stop -controlled for the 2007 Existing conditions and 2035 No -Build conditions and signal cont rolled for the 2035 Build conditions. As noted in Table 3, the existing two -lane highway analysis (for the year 2007) indicates that of the 25 mainline highway segments analyzed, 23 (92%) operate at an unacceptable LOS (D or E). As noted in Table 4, the existing intersections analysis indicates that six (33%) of the 18 intersections evaluated currently operate at LOS D or F during the morning or afternoon peak traffic periods. 3. Future Levels of Service (No -Build Scenario – year 2035) A No -Build traffic analysis was performed to assess how the existing roadway network would perform in the year 2035 if no improvements were made to the US 221 corridor. The 2035 No -Build highway analysis (see Table 3) indicates that of the 25 mainline highway s egments analyzed, 24 (96%) will operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F). The year 2035 No -Build intersection analysis (see Table 4) indicates that 16 (89%) of the 18 intersections evaluated will operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F). 4. Future Levels of Service – (Build Scenario – year 2035) The year 2035 Build Scenario highway analysis (see Table 3) indicates that all 25 mainline highway segments analyzed will operate at an acceptable LOS (A, B, or C). The year 2035 Build Scenario i ntersection analysis (see Table 4) indicates that 16 (89%) of the 18 intersections evaluated will operate at an acceptable LOS (B or C). One unsignalized intersection, US 221 at SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road), will operate at LOS F during the af ternoon peak traffic period. One signalized intersection, US 221 at NC 194/NC 163/US 221 Business, will operate at LOS D during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. 10 e. Traffic Crash Data A crash analysis was performed for US 221 from the southern project terminus at US 421 to the northern terminus at the intersection of US 221 Business/NC 88 (East Main Street) intersection in Jefferson, a distance of approximately 16.1 miles. Along this section of roadway, the total number of crashes duri ng the three -year period between June 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 was 243, with 1 being fatal, 78 being non -fatal injury crashes, and 164 involving property damage only (PDO). The US 221 crash data were compared to the county and NC Statewide crash data for s imilar facilities to determine if the project area is particularly vulnerable to crashes. In this case, US 221 was compared to other rural United States highways in North Carolina. As shown in Table 5, the US 221 total crash rate of 175.35 is lower than t he NC Statewide Accident Rate (SWAR) of 186.99. The crash rate is defined in terms of the number of crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. However, when the data were analyzed for specific links (segments) within the project area along US 221, the total crash rate, non -fatal injury rate, and severity index for the section through Watauga County were all found to exceed the statewide rates. The crash severity index is a weighted measure of the seriousness of traffic crashes occurring on a roadway se gment in terms of injuries and property damage. Table 5 Summary Table of Crash Data for US 221 Crash Rate (per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Travelled) Watauga County Ashe County Subject Section of US 221 2003 -2005 Statewide Rate Exposure Type US 221 Proj ect (2004 -7) County - Wide (2004) US 221 Project (2004 -7) County - Wide (2004) Total Crash Rate 239.17 320.57 170.37 212.75 175.35 186.99 Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 1.42 0.78 1.59 0.72 2.45 Non -Fatal Injury Crash Rate 109.62 97.16 52.12 78.49 56.28 73.07 Seve rity Index * 7.24 3.36 4.55 5.90 4.81 6.28 Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to 05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts Notes: * County -wide severity indices are based on three -year averages. , Division of Motor Vehicles, Traffic Records Branch; 2003 -2005 Three Year Crash Rates, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch Based on these results, a more detailed analysis of the crash data was comp leted for specific segments and intersections to identify specific areas that are particularly susceptible to crashes. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 6. There are eight segments with crash rates that are higher than the SWAR; two of these have a crash rate that is at least double the SWAR. These roadway segments represent particularly notable crash occurrence problems. As shown in the table, there are also Appreciably exceeds County and/or Statewide rates 11 several locations where the crash severity is higher than the state wide average. Ei ght intersections that are likely contributing factors to these high crash occurrences are noted in Table 7. The data for these intersections were also analyzed, and results of a more in -depth analysis are presented in Table 7. All eight of these intersect ions have at least five crashes attributed to them over the three -year period. Two of the intersections have crash severity rates at or exceeding the SWAR. Table 6 Crash Data, 2004 -2007: US 221 Segments Length (Miles) Crashes Fatal Crashes Total Crash Ra tes Severity Index Intersection* Watauga County US 421 to SR 1360 0.97 24 0 286.02 7.2 US 421/US 221 SR 1360 to Ashe County line 1.16 0 0 0.00 0.0 Watauga County Total 1.16 24 0 239.17 7.2 Ashe County Watauga County line to SR 1171 0.73 15 0 237.53 2.0 SR 1171 SR 1171 to SR 1003 1.15 19 0 190.99 3.3 SR 1003 to SR 1216 2.06 24 0 134.68 6.6 SR 1216 to SR 1106 1.46 19 0 150.44 7.3 SR 1106 to SR 1210 1.04 29 0 322.35 3.8 SR 1177, SR 1178 SR 1210 to SR 1200 1.00 29 0 335.24 3.8 SR 1145 SR 1200 t o NC 194/SR 1272 0.24 10 0 481.67 4.0 NC 194/SR 1272 to SR 1147 3.27 23 0 81.31 2.9 SR 1147 SR 1147 to NC 163 0.32 13 0 469.63 3.3 NC 163/NC 194 NC 163 to SR 1283 0.82 10 0 140.98 10.1 SR 1283 to SR 1149 0.91 24 1 304.88 5.4 SR 1149 SR 1149 to SR 12 54 1.13 4 0 40.92 1.0 SR 1254 to NC 88 0.73 0 0 0.00 0.0 Ashe County Total 14.86 219 1 170.37 4.5 Grand TOTAL 16.02 243 1 175.35 4.8 Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to 05/31/07 Notes Rate hig her than the SWAR or severity index Rate more than double the SWAR 12 Table 7 High –Incidence Intersections, 2004 -2007: US 221 US 221 Intersections Number of Crashes Number of Fatal Crashes Percent of Total Crashes* Intersection Severity Index US 421 15 0 6.2 9.5 SR 1171 5 0 2.1 2.5 SR 1177 5 0 2.1 5.4 SR 1178 6 0 2.5 4.2 SR 1145 7 0 2.9 5.6 SR 1147 7 0 2.9 4.7 NC 163/NC 194 8 0 3.3 3.8 SR 1149 (Mt. Jefferson Road) 20 1 8.2 6.3 Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branc h, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to 05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts Notes: * Combined total crashes on the subject section of US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties, 06/01/04 to 05/31/07 . , Division of Motor Vehicles, Traffic Records Branch; 2003 -2005 Three -Year Crash Rates, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branc h It is helpful to investigate the types of crashes occurring on a particular roadway facility. The rates of occurrence of particular ty pes of crashes at a site will often indicate some deficiency in the design or capacity of the facility and may lend understanding to the contributing factors. Table 8 includes a summary of crashes by type, classifying the crashes into 15 categories. Table 8 Crashes by Type, 2004 -2007 Crash Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total Crashes Watauga County Ashe County Total Angle 0 12 12 4.9 Animal 1 37 38 15.6 Fixed Object 4 55 59 24.3 Head On 0 6 6 2.5 Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 15 16 6.6 Left T urn, Same Roadway 9 8 17 7.0 Movable Object 0 2 2 0.8 Other Collision with Vehicle 0 1 1 0.4 Overturn/Rollover 0 3 3 1.2 Parked Motor Vehicle 0 3 3 1.2 Rear End, Slow or Stop 8 59 67 27.6 Rear End, Turn 0 3 3 1.2 Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 4 4 1.6 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 1 6 7 2.9 Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 5 5 2.1 TOTAL CRASHES 24 219 243 100 Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to 05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. , Di vision of Motor Vehicles, Traffic Records Branch; 2003 -2005 Three Year Crash Rates, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch 13 Fixed object and rear -end crashes, which jointly constitute approximately half of the crash occurrences along the subject section of US 221, are crash types that may be decreased through widening and/or the use of a median to separate opposing traffic flows. Animal collisi ons, the next largest crash category, might be reduced with right -of -way fencing and other improvements related to the proposed project but would not be directly eliminated by improvements to the US 221 facility. Many of the other recorded crashes are rela ted to conflicts between vehicles that would conceivably be reduced through the proposed improvements. f. Airports The Ashe County Airport is located approximately three miles east of the project area and Jefferson, is owned by Ashe County, and currently hosts 30 aircraft. g. Public Transportation Boone’s bus service, AppalCART, provides bus service throughout Watauga County, including one route that serves Deep Gap at the southern end of the project area. The Ashe County Transportation Authority, In c., located in West Jefferson, provides subscription and dial -a -ride transportation services for residents of Ashe County, including seniors, disabled residents, and disadvantaged youth. 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans a. NCDOT State Trans portation Improvement Program The 2012 -2016 NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program includes four other projects in the vicinity of STIP Project R -2915. These projects are presented in Table 9 and Figure 5. Table 9 STIP Projects Near US 221 Projec t Area STIP Number Project Description Length (miles) Schedule Status U -3812 Widen NC 88 to multi - lane facility from US 221 Business to NC 194. 1.6 Construction: *FY 12 Construction R -2100 Upgrade NC 16 from west of Blue Ridge Parkway to east of US 221 –NC 16 and add guardrail. 10.0 Construction: FY 10 Construction 14 b. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors The subject portion of US 221 is identified as a segment of Strategic Highway Corridor 13 connecting US 421 and US 221 from Boone to Wytheville, V irginia. The type of facility for the US 221 corridor is designated as a Boulevard. The NCDOT created the Strategic Highway Corridors initiative in collaboration with the N.C. Department of Commerce and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resou rces. The purpose of this initiative was to protect and maximize the mobility and connectivity on a core set of highway corridors throughout North Carolina while promoting environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing facilities to the e xtent possible and fostering economic prosperity through the quick and efficient movement of people and goods. The Strategic Highway Corridors policy was adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation in September 2004. c. Local Thoroughfare Plans There are two Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in the project -area: The Jefferson -West Jefferson Thoroughfare Plan , dated 2003, and the Thoroughfare Plan for Watauga County , dated 2002. The CTP for Watauga County proposes several improv ements throughout the county. There are two projects in the vicinity of the Deep Gap area, near the southern terminus of the proposed project: • US 221: Widen to four lanes from US 421 to the Ashe County line. • US 421: Construct four -lane facility on new loc ation from two miles east of US 221 to NC 194. This project is complete. The Jefferson -West Jefferson CTP proposes several improvements to the local transportation network. Nine projects are located in the vicinity of the proposed project: • US 221: Widen to four lanes from Deep Gap to US 221 Business in Jefferson. • NC 194: Widen to six lanes from Beaver Creek School Road (SR 1248) to US 221. • NC 163: Widen to four lanes from US 221 to Boggs Road (SR 1159). • Mount Jefferson Road (SR 1149): Widen to four la nes from US 221 to NC 163. 15 • NC 194 Bypass: New two -lane major thoroughfare from NC 88 to Mount Jefferson Road (SR 1149). • Long Street (SR 1254) Extension: New two -lane major thoroughfare from US 221 Business to NC 88. • NC 88: Widen to four lanes from NC 19 4 to US 221 Business. • NC 88/194: Widen to four lanes from B.C. Hunter Road (SR 1130) to NC 88. • US 221: Add turn lane to the section between US 221 Business and NC 16. One potential bicycle route is shown in the Jefferson – West Jefferson Transportation Plan Report (December 2002) from West Jefferson to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The report suggests that “routing through a culvert at US 221 or at the signal at NC 163 is needed for safe crossing of US 221.” d. Land Use Plans 1. Watauga County W atauga County is currently in the process of updating their land use and strategic plan, originally written in 1992. The 1992 version of the land use and strategic plan did not specifically address the area around US 221. Watauga County does not have a cou nty -wide zoning ordinance; instead, it relies on a High -Impact Land Use Ordinance and an Ordinance to Govern Subdivisions and Multi -Unit Structures to regulate development. Watauga County has also adopted the NC Mountain Ridge Protection Act, which is inte nded to protect the scenic vistas and natural beauty of the area. The Mountain Ridge Protection Act does not allow for any construction that is higher than 500 feet from the adjacent valley floor. 2. Ashe County Ashe County does not have a land use plan or a zoning ordinance, and no plans exist to develop a draft document. The County uses a Residential Subdivision Ordinance to regulate development. The Subdivision Ordinance directs development away from floodplains, sets bulk standards, and sets sta ndards for road names and road design. Ashe County has also adopted the NC Mountain Ridge Protection Act, preventing construction that is higher than 500 feet from the adjacent valley floor. 16 Ashe County has a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that regulat es development within floodplains defined by FEMA. The ordinance requires that new residences and non -residential buildings built within the 100 - year floodplain be elevated at least four feet above the base flood elevation. Likewise, any existing structure s within the floodplain could not be enlarged, replaced, or redeveloped without conforming to the Ordinance. 3. West Jefferson The Town of West Jefferson has a zoning ordinance that applies to the Town and its extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The area surrounding US 221 in West Jefferson is zoned HC (Highway Commercial) and is intended to provide land for “the retailing of durable goods, the provision of commercial services to industrial areas, and the provision of services to tourists”. Permit ted uses in this district primarily include retail services. Residential uses are not allowed unless included in a mixed -use development. C. Benefits of Proposed Project The proposed project will help motorists see an improvement in the safety, capacit y, and connectivity of US 221 between Boone and West Jefferson. 17 III. ALTERNATIVES A. Preliminary Study Alternatives Preliminary study alternatives for the proposed action included the Public Transportation, Transportation System Management (TSM), Improve Existing Facility, and No -Build Alternatives. 1. No -Bu ild Alternative The No -Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to the US 221 study corridor. Only typical maintenance activities would be provided along US 221, which would remain a two - lane facility with one lane in each directio n and turn lanes at a few intersecting streets. The No -Build Alternative would incur neither right - of -way nor construction costs. There would be no short -term disruptions along existing roadways during construction. There would be no impacts to streams, we tlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would there be any residential or business relocations. However, the No -Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need identified for the proposed project. It would not improve the traffic flow or level of service (LOS) of US 221 through the project study area, nor would it address the higher -than -average crash rates. While required by National Environmental Policy Act regulations, the No - Build Alternative was also studied in detail because it il luminates the need for improvements and serves as a baseline for comparing the other alternatives studied in detail. 2. Public Transportation Alternative The project study area is not well served by mass transit. Boone’s bus system, AppalCART, does provide in town bus service as well as several routes throughout Watauga County, including one to Deep Gap, located at the southern terminus of the project. The Ashe County Transportation Authority, Inc., located in West Jefferson, provides subscription an d dial - a -ride transportation services to seniors, disabled residents, and disadvantaged youth throughout Ashe County. Automobiles remain the dominant form of transportation for area residents, commuters, vacationers, and other travelers on US 221. Based on the project context, improvements to public transportation would not improve vehicle flow or safety on US 221, nor would they eliminate the need for widening the existing facilities and improving the alignment. Therefore, the Public Transportation Alterna tive does not satisfy the purpose and need for this project and was eliminated from further study. 18 3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capaci ty of the roadway within the existing right of way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing or adding additional through lanes to the existing road. The addition of turn lanes, stripping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments a re examples of physical TSM improvements. Examples of operational TSM improvements include traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and signal timing changes. However, TSM improvements will not increase the capacity or improve the LOS e nough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2035 design year. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was eliminated from further study. 4. Improve Existing Facility Of the four alternatives considered, the No -Build Alternative and various build alternati ves were retained and carried forward for further study for comparative purposes. The following is a summary of each alternative. The No -Build Alternative offers limited improvements to the project study area and assumes that all other projects currently planned or programmed in the STIP will be constructed in the area as proposed. These improvements include continued roadway maintenance and minor improvements on US 221. As such, they would not improve safety or increase capacity within the study area and therefore do not meet the purpose of or need for this project. During the December 16, 2008 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options) the following four widening scenarios were presented: 1. Widening Scenario 1 – Asymmetrical Widening to the East This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the east. 2. Widening Scenario 2 – Asymmetrical Widening to the West This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the west. 3. Widening Scenario 3 – Symmetrical Widening This alternative would widen US 221 symmetrically about the existing centerline of the roadway. 4. Widening Scenario 4 – “Best Fit” Widening Alternative This alternative will widen US 221 at locations that “best fit” the current road location and surro unding land uses. “Best fit” locations were evaluated and selected to improve the existing roadway alignment, minimize impacts, and permit traffic maintenance during construction. The impacts of the four (4) widening scenarios at the functional design lev el are presented in the following table. 19 Table 10 – Summary of Potential Impacts at the Functional Design Level Segments Length Alternative Wetlands Total Streams Trout Stream Relocation Alternative will require Right -of -Way From (ac) (ft ) Stream (ft) Home Business Historic Property Known Arch. Sites Park Church Cemetery Community Facility 1 US 421 in Watauga County to 1,500' North of South Fork of New River in Ashe County 4.54 East 1.14 4,419.93 4,419.93 58 18 2 1 West 1.56 7 ,055.74 6,772.02 55 14 2 1 Symmetrical 1.38 5,285.23 5,016.56 58 17 2 1 Best Fit 0.71 5,157.11 4,890.94 61 21 2 1 2 1,500' North of South Fork of New River to 900' South of Windy Hill Rd 0.66 East 0.00 14 1 West 0.00 10 3.47 78.48 9 1 Symmetrical 0.00 10 1 Best Fit 0.00 72.91 72.91 8 1 3 From 900' South of Windy Hill Rd. to Paul Goodman Rd. 1.51 East 0.00 1,554.36 1,554.36 9 6 West 0.01 3,818.27 3,818.27 9 7 Symmetrical 0.00 2,393.29 2,393.29 8 7 Best Fit 0.00 1,815.79 1,815.79 9 6 4 From Paul Goodman Rd. to 1500' South of Mulatto Rd. 4.45 East 0.00 12,015.67 12,015.67 2 3 West 0.00 8,957.46 8,957.46 1 5 Symmetrical 0.06 11,195.05 11,195.05 1 5 Best Fit 0.06 8,590.61 8,590.61 1 5 5 From 1,500' South of Mulatto Rd. to 500' North of US 221 Bus./SR 194/SR 163 1.14 East 4.04 1,073.43 1,073.43 26 West 3.91 1,739.22 1,739.22 31 Symmetrical 4.01 2,217.08 2,217.08 27 Best Fit 3.91 1,083.84 1,083.84 31 6 From 500' North of US 221 Bus./SR 194/SR 163. To 400' North of Long St. 2.88 East 2.09 4,904.42 3,213.73 9 West 2.09 2,125.47 1,679.46 9 20 Segments Length Alternative Wetlands Total Streams Trout Stream Relocation Alternative will require Right -of -Way From (ac) (ft ) Stream (ft) Home Business Historic Property Known Arch. Sites Park Church Cemetery Community Facility Symmetrical 2.09 5 ,014.48 3,222.05 9 Best Fit 2.09 2,140.00 1,685.18 9 7 From 400' North of Long St. to US 221 Bus./NC 88 in Jefferson 0.63 East 0.06 1,792.00 4 West 0.06 1,885.33 4 Symmetrical 0.06 1,587.49 4 Best Fit 0.06 1,957.34 4 Totals East 7.43 25,435.88 21,953.19 122 27 0 0 0 2 1 1 West 7.74 24,959.19 22,319.14 118 26 0 0 0 2 1 1 Symmetrical 7.71 26,981.95 23,333.36 117 29 0 0 0 2 1 1 Best Fit 6.84 20,804.44 18,139,27 120 29 0 0 0 2 1 1 21 B. Detailed Study Alternatives In consideration of the significant right -of -way impacts, mountainous terrain, environmental constraints associated with stream impacts, and sound engineering principles, the Merger Process Team agreed to thre e typical sections for detailed study for the widening of US 221. The typical sections are shown in Figures 6 -8 of Appendix A. 1. Figure 6 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a 23 -foot -wide raised grassed median with curb a nd gutter and 8 - foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421 to NC 194. 2. Figure 7 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a 36 -foot -wide depressed grassed median and 8 -foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of Long Street. 3. Figure 8 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes with a variable 17.5 -foot -wide raised grassed median and 8 -foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet south of Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson. Of the four widening scenarios studied, the Merger Process Team agreed to carry forward a detailed study of the Widening Scenario 4 - “Best Fit” Widening Alternative . C. NCDOT Recommended Alternative The “Best Fit” widening alternative has been selected by NCDOT and FHWA for preparation of preliminary roadway design plans and refinement of environmental impacts and cost. The recommended alternative will be carried forward and presented at a design public hearing. Comments received at the public hearing will be reviewed, and coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A. Roadway Cr oss -Section and Alignment The proposed US 221 widening improvements will consist of the following three (3) typical sections: 1.) Typical section one consists of a four -lane, median -divided roadway with a 23 -foot -wide raised grassed median with curb and gutter and 8 - foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421 to NC 194. See Figure 6 in Appendix A. 2.) Typical section two consists of a four -lane, median -divided roadway with a 36 -foot -wide depressed grassed median and 8 -foot -wid e shoulders 22 (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of Long Street. See Figure 7 in Appendix A. 3.) Typical section three consists of a four -lane, median -divided roadway with a variable 17.5 -foot -wide raised grassed median and 8 -foot -wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet south of Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson. See Figure 8 in Appendix A. B. Right of Way and Access Control The proposed right -of -way width varies along the p roject. The proposed right of way for the first half mile of the project is asymmetric to encompass the preliminary slope stakes needed for the interchange. From this point northward to approximately 1,500 feet south of the NC 194 intersection, the propose d right of way is symmetrical, with 100 feet on either side of the proposed new roadway centerline, for a total width of 200 feet. The mountainous topography in the project area will require various construction easements along this section of the roadway to construct the cut and fill slopes. Full control of access is proposed for the interchange area, and partial control of access is proposed from the interchange to the existing partial control just north of NC 194. From just north of the NC 194 intersect ion to the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in Jefferson, the existing right -of -way width varies from approximately 300 to 475 feet. The existing right of way along this section of the project is sufficient to contain a majority of the widening improveme nts. There are several areas where the addition of the new travel lanes will require new right of way. Partial control of access exists along this section of US 221 and will continue to be designated partial control after the construction of additional tra vel lanes. C. Design Speed and Speed Limit The proposed design speed for this facility is 60 mph. The anticipated posted speed limit should be 55 mph, which is typically 5 mph lower than the design speed. The Regional Traffic Engineer will make recommend ations for the posted speed limit later in the design process. D. Anticipated Design Exceptions Because the project is located in mountainous terrain, there are several locations where horizontal and vertical curves will require design exceptions. E. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control Except the intersection at US 421, all intersecting roads will remain at grade. The intersection with US 421 will be converted to an interchange. Traffic signals are proposed at the intersection of NC 194/NC 163, SR 23 1283 (Ashe County High School Drive), SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road), and SR 1254 (Long Street). The existing stop sign control will be maintained at the remaining intersections. F. Service Roads There are two service roads proposed. G. Railroad Crossi ngs There are no railroad crossings on this project. H. Structures There are two existing bridges located within the projects limits. A new bridge will be constructed to grade separate the US 221 ramp/loop from US 421. The existing bridge over the Sout h Fork of the New River is to be replaced with new dual structures that are approximately 230 feet long. The other bridge is an overflow structure for the floodplain along the South Fork of the New River. It is recommended that this structure be retained a nd that a new parallel bridge be constructed to accommodate the new travel lanes. The proposed structures for the remaining stream crossings presented in Table 9 of Appendix B are based on the preliminary hydraulic design recommendations and bridging deci sions agreed to by the Merger Process Team at the Concurrence Point 2A Field Meeting on April 7, 2010 and the follow -up 2A meeting on May 24. The proposed structure for the stream crossing at Site 1 will be determined by the Merger Process Team in another follow -up meeting in the upcoming months. The Merger Process Team agreed to carry forward both a bridge and culvert design at Site 1 at Gap Creek, Site 1B at unnamed tributary to Gap Creek, and Site 6 at unnamed tributary to Gap Creek, as well as to a new bridge at Site 8 over Gap Creek. For all other crossings, the Merger Process Team agreed to extend the remaining culverts. I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities This section of US 221 is not listed in the STIP as having a need for incidental bicycle accom modations, and US 221 is not included in a state -designated bicycle route system. However, the Ashe County Parks and Recreation Department reports that there is significant bicycle traffic along the US 221 corridor. At the pre -Hearing Map meeting, there wa s a discussion regarding whether to include six -foot paved shoulders instead of four -foot paved shoulders to better accommodate bicyclists on the proposed facility. However, it was decided that four -foot paved shoulders would be more appropriate for US 221 , as the proposed greenway would accommodate the existing bicycle traffic on US 221. No sidewalks are proposed for the project. 24 J. Utilities Construction of the proposed project will require relocation or modifications of existing public utilities. Any adjustments, relocations, or modifications will require coordination with the affected utility company. K. Noise Barriers Traffic noise abatement measures, including buffers, berms, and walls, were evaluated but are not proposed for this project. Refer to Section V., Part J., on page 60 of this report for a discussion on highway traffic and construction noise analysis. L. Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing Construction phasing will be utilized to maintain traffic along US 221 and US 421 during construction. All traffic control devices used during the construction of this project will conform to the most current FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 25 V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Natural Resources This section of the EA provides a summary of the potential impacts to the natural environment. Further details and analysis related to the natural environment are provided in the Natura l Resources Technical Report (NRTR) and NRTR Addendum . Impacts to the natural environment were analyzed for the study area. Field investigations were conducted in April, May, and June of 2007 and February 2012. Walking surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and document natural communities, wildlife, and the presence of protected species or their habitats. Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed using the three - parameter approach prescribed in the Corps of Engineers We tlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Supplemental technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrological indicators was also utilized. Jurisdiction features within the project area are shown in Figure 2 (sheets 1 -14). 1. Physical Characteristics The study area is located in the Mountain physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography in the study area is generally characterized as gently sloping in the stream valleys along the existing US 221 right of way, with steeper areas along ridge tops. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 2,800 to 3,440 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL). 2. Biotic Resources The biotic resources located in the project study area include bot h terrestrial and aquatic communities. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a system used by the North Carolina Natural H eritage Program (NCNHP), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common names, when applicable, are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the species include the common name only. a. Terrestrial Communities Nine (9) terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed, successional land, pasture land, agricultural land, tree farm, mixed hardwood/white pine forest, w hite pine forest, montane oak -hickory forest, and northern hardwood forest. A brief description of each community type follows. The scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B. 26 Maintained/Disturbed Land The maintained/distur bed land within the study area includes places where vegetation is periodically mowed, such as roadside shoulders and residential lawns. Dominant species in this community include witchgrass, goldenrod, broom sedge, and various grasses along with planted a nd manicured ornamentals. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose. Successional Land The successional land within the study area includes areas that have been recently clear ed where new growth has been established. This successional land includes winged sumac, multiflora rose, blackberry, Queen Anne’s lace, fescue, and various saplings, such as white pine, red maple, and oaks. Small wetland areas within this community are cha racterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and jewelweed. Pasture Land Pasture land is located mostly in the southern portion of the study area and the western portion of the Addendum study area. Fence -restrained cows and horses mainly inhabit these areas, feeding on grasses and early successional species. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of jewelweed, soft rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose. Agricultural Land Agricultura l land is located throughout the study area. These lands are maintained and harvested throughout the growing season and do not include tree farms. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of jewelweed, soft rush, and skun k cabbage. Tree Farms Christmas tree farming is a staple industry throughout the study area. These farms harvest mostly Fraser fir Christmas trees. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of jewelweed, soft rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose. Mixed Hardwood/White Pine Forest Mixed hardwood/white pine forest occurs throughout the study area, mostly at a post -successional stage with some mature growth trees. Species include white oak, white pine, red maple, black oak, northern red oak, Fraser fir, black cherry, and mountain chestnut oak dominating both the canopy and midstory layers. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and jewel weed. 27 White Pine Forest White pine forest is located on steep exposed slopes with very acidic sandy or rocky soil. The canopy is dominated by white pine, with or without the association of eastern hemlock or rock chestnut oak. Vegetation observed in th e herbaceous layer includes blueberry, rhododendron, and huckleberry. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and jewelweed. Montane Oak -Hickory Forest Montane oak h ickory forest is located on dry -mesic slopes and partly sheltered ridge tops at moderate to fairly high elevations. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks, hickories, and other hardwoods, with white oak, northern red oak, and mountain chestnut oak be ing most common. The shrub layer varies in density, with such species as rhododendron, huckleberry, maple leaf viburnum, and American witch hazel. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swam p rose, tag alder, and jewelweed. Northern Hardwood Forest Northern hardwood forest is typically found in medium - to high -elevation coves, flats, and slopes. This community is dominated by combinations of mesophytic trees, including such species as Amer ican beech, yellow birch, and yellow buckeye. Additional species in some sites include American basswood, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swa mp rose, tag alder, and jewelweed. b. Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed are indicated wit h *). Mammal species that commonly populate forested habitats and stream corridors found within the study area include white -tailed deer*, gray squirrel*, red fox*, eastern cottontail*, eastern chipmunk*, woodchuck*, raccoon*, Virginia opossum*, and beaver *. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include blue jay*, northern cardinal*, American goldfinch*, and American crow*. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study area are red -winged blackbird*, mallard*, wood d uck, turkey vulture, red - tailed hawk, killdeer, belted kingfisher, and chimney swift. Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include the five -lined skink, eastern newt, eastern garter snake*, black race r, American toad, Fowler’s toad, and spring peeper. c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Terrestrial communities in the project study area will be impacted by project construction as result of potential grading and paving portions of the project study area . Table 11 presents the extent of each terrestrial community type 28 in the project study area and the anticipated impact to each community type based on the preliminary roadway design plans. Table 11 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities Communit y Coverage (ac) Maintained/Disturbed Land 152.47 Successional Land 26.08 Pasture Land 31.48 Agricultural Land 3.4 Tree Farm 10.9 Mixed Hardwood/White Pine Forest 20.3 White Pine Forest 45.24 Montane Oak -Hickory Forest 98.53 Northern Hardwood Fores t 21.23 Total 409.63 3. Water Resources Water resources in the study area are part of the New River Basin [US Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 05050001]. Seven (7) named streams as well as unnamed tributaries to these streams and unnamed tribut aries to two other named streams are located within the project study area. See Table 12 below for a description of these streams, including the stream index number (SIN) and best usage classification (BUC). The location of each water resource is shown in Figure 2. The complete list of water resources and physical characteristics of the study area streams are provided in Tables B -1 and B -2 in Appendix B. Table 12 Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for the Study Area Streams Stream Name SIN BUC Description Sub -basin 05 -07 -01 Gap Creek 10 -1 -23 C;Tr:+ From source to South Fork New River Little Gap Creek 20 -1 -23 -1 C;Tr:+ From source to Gap Creek South Fork New River 10 -1 -(20.5) WS -V; HQW From a point 0.4 miles upstream of Couches Creek to a point 2.8 miles upstream of Obids Creek Old Field Creek 10 -1 -22 -(0.3) C;Tr:+ From source to Call Creek Old Field Creek 10 -1 -22 -(0.7) C;Tr, ORW From Call Creek to South Fork New River Beaver Creek 10 -1 -25 C;Tr:+ From source to South Fork New River Cole Branch* 10 -1 -25 -1 C;Tr:+ From source to Beaver Creek South Beaver 10 -1 -25 -2 C;Tr:+ From source to Beaver Creek 29 Table 12 Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for the Study Area Streams Stream Name SIN BUC Description Creek* Naked Creek 10 -1 -32 C:+ From source to South Fork New River Sub -basin 05 -07 -02 Little Buffalo Creek 10 -2 -20 -1 C;Tr:+ From source to B uffalo Creek * Stream does not occur within the study area, only unnamed tributaries to these streams occur within the study area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has identified Gap Creek (S1), Little Gap Creek (S37), Old Field Creek (S56), Beaver Creek (S124), Call Creek, and South Beaver Creek as trout waters. There are no designated anadromous fish waters or primary nursery areas present in the study area. Little Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2010 Final 303(d) list as impaire d waters for Aquatic Life due to impaired ecological/biological integrity. There are ORWs (Old Fields Creek) as well as High -Quality Waters (HQWs, South Fork New River) within the study area. There are no Water Supply (WS -I or WS -II) Waters within 1.0 mile upstream or downstream of the study area. No benthic or fish monitoring data has been collected within 1.0 mile upstream or downstream of the study area. a. Aquatic Communities Aquatic habitats within the study area include ephemeral waters present in depressional wetlands and semi -permanently impounded palustrine and riverine habitats. According to previous NCDWQ Biological Assessment Unit sampling in the watershed, perennial streams within the study area provide a habitat that could support common fi sh species, including tonguetied minnow, bluehead chub, New River shiner, rainbow trout, mountain redbelly dace, longnose dace, western blacknose dace, central stoneroller, white sucker, brown trout, mottled sculpin, greenside darter, and fantail darter, a s well as common reptiles and amphibians, including bullfrog, green frog, pickerel frog, northern water snake*, snapping turtle, and bog turtle. b. Invasive Species Three (3) species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were foun d to occur in the study area. The species identified were multiflora rose (Threat), Japanese knotweed (Threat), and Chinese privet (Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate. c. Summary of Anticipated Effects Construction of the pr oposed project may cause temporary impacts to aquatic communities due to sedimentation and reduced water quality resulting from project construction. Permanent impacts are not expected 30 due to the implementation of NCDOT’s Best Management Practices (BMP) an d other measures to avoid and minimize harm to natural systems in the project area. 4. Waters of the United States “Waters of the United States” include surface waters and wetlands (inundated or saturated areas that support vegetation typically adapted t o wet conditions) as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and under the jurisdiction of the NCDENR DWQ through the Section 401 Wate r quality Certification Process (NC General Statues Chapter 143 Article 21, Part 1). a. Stream, Rivers, Impoundments One -hundred and ninety -three (193) jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area. The locations of streams are shown in Figur e 2. The water quality designations of the water resources in the study area can be found in Table B -1 of Appendix B. The physical characteristics of each jurisdictional stream are detailed in Table B -2 of Appendix B. The South Fork New River is designated a cool water stream, and all of the remaining study area streams are designated as cold water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. b. Riparian Buffers The proposed project is located entirely within the New River Basin. The New River Basin do es not have NCDWQ river basin buffer rules in effect at this time. Therefore, no streams in the study area are subject to river basin buffer rules. c. Wetlands One -hundred and forty -five (145) jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study ar ea (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). All wetlands in the study area are within the New River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001). The jurisdictional characteristics of the wetlands in the study area, including Cowardin classification (NCWAM classification fo r those in the Addendum), hydrologic classification, and quality rating data, are presented in Table B -3 of Appendix B, and general descriptions are provided under appropriate terrestrial communities in Section V.2. d. Summary of Anticipated Effects Anti cipated impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands are presented in Tables 13 and 14, respectively. Approximately 20,804 linear feet of jurisdictional streams will be impacted as a result of the project. These impacts include 18,139 linear feet of desi gnated trout waters. Approximately 3.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted. The impacts are based on an additional 25 feet of clearing area beyond the slope stake lines. These impacts are based upon preliminary design mapping and could chan ge during final project design. 31 Table 13 Summary of Potential Impacts by Stream Designation (Best Fit Alternative, 25 feet from Slope Stakes) Stream Name Total Stream Length Total Unnamed Tributaries Length BUC Crossings (including Unnamed Tributaries) Impacts (Linear Feet) St r e a m s Un n a m e d Tr i b u t a r i e s To t a l De s i g n a t e d Tr o u t S t r e a m s De s i g n a t e d Tr o u t S t r e a m s – Un n a m e d Tr i b u t a r i e s To t a l De s i g n a t e d Tr o u t S t r e a m s Sub -basin 05 -07 -01 Gap Creek 23,331 22,040 C;Tr:+ 8 2,368 2,522 4,891 2,368 2,523 4,891 Little Gap Creek 609 C;Tr:+ 0 South Fork New River 1,260 1,355 WS -V; HQW 2 Old Field Creek 20,532 23,064 C;Tr:+; ORW 4 3,929 4,119 8,047 3,929 4,119 8,047 Beaver Creek 3,811 1,260 C;Tr:+ 4 166 1,558 1,725 167 1,558 1,725 Cole Branch 1,547 C;Tr:+ 0 South Beaver Creek 3,592 C;Tr:+ 0 361 361 361 362 Naked Creek 5,104 7,734 C:+ 5 286 450 736 Sub -basin 05 -07 -02 Little Buffalo Creek 2,526 3,139 C;Tr:+ 1 102 371 473 102 371 473 Total 57,173 63,730 -- 24 8,719 12,086 20,804 6,922 12,721 19,643 Note: *Unnamed tributary Table 14 Permanent Impacts to Wetlands Site ID Area Within Study Area (Acres) Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Score Impacts (Acres) Within Slope Stake Li nes Add’l Clearing* Total W1 0.08 PEM Non -Riparian 12 - - - W2A 0.21 PSS Non -Riparian 14 0.13 0.03 0.16 W2B 0.56 PEM Non -Riparian 14 0.26 0.08 0.34 W6 0.15 PEM Non -Riparian 8 0.10 0.05 0.15 W8 0.08 PEM Non -Riparian 8 0.01 0.01 0.02 W9B 0.10 PEM Non -R iparian 11 0.03 0.02 0.05 32 Table 14 Permanent Impacts to Wetlands Site ID Area Within Study Area (Acres) Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Score Impacts (Acres) Within Slope Stake Li nes Add’l Clearing* Total W11 0.26 PSS Non -Riparian 23 0.13 0.04 0.17 W14 0.02 PSS Non -Riparian 24 - 0.01 0.01 W15 0.12 PSS Riparian 24 0.10 0.02 0.12 W16 0.04 PFO Non -Riparian 24 0.01 0.01 0.02 W17A 1.05 PEM Non -Riparian 16 - 0.04 0.04 W31 0 PSS Rip arian 24 - - - W32 0.01 PSS Riparian 24 0.01 - 0.01 W33 0.02 PSS Non -Riparian 36 - 0.02 0.02 W34 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 - 0.01 0.01 W35 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 0.01 - 0.01 W36 0.02 PFO Riparian 19 0.02 - 0.02 W37 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 - 0.01 0.01 W38 0.06 PSS Non -Riparian 21 0.03 0.03 0.06 W39 0.01 PSS Riparian 49 - 0.01 0.01 W40 0.01 PSS Riparian 49 - - - W41 0.01 PFO Non -Riparian 14 0.01 - 0.01 W42 0.08 PFO Riparian 54 - 0.02 0.02 W45 0.11 PSS Riparian 36 - 0.02 0.02 W47 0.03 PSS Riparian 15 0.02 0 .01 0.03 W48 0.01 PEM Non -Riparian 13 - 0.01 0.01 W52 0.04 PEM Non -Riparian 13 - 0.01 0.01 W53 0.02 PSS Non -Riparian 31 - 0.01 0.01 W58 0.04 PSS Non -Riparian 29 - 0.01 0.01 W56 0.03 PEM Riparian 29 - - - W57 0.04 PSS Non -Riparian 29 - - - W58 0.05 P SS Riparian 29 0.01 0.02 0.03 W59 0.14 PSS Riparian 21 0.05 0.09 0.14 W63 0.39 PEM Non -Riparian 18 0.26 0.10 0.36 W72 0.02 PSS Non -Riparian 14 0.01 - 0.01 W76 0.30 PFO Riparian 15 0.02 0.03 0.05 W77a 1.23 PFO Riparian 66 - 0.03 0.03 W78b 0.62 PFO Rip arian 66 0.03 0.03 0.06 W79a 0.24 PSS Non -Riparian 30 0.07 0.01 0.08 W79b 0.01 PSS Non -Riparian 8 0.01 - 0.01 W80 0.06 PFO Riparian 28 - - - W81 0.01 PFO Riparian 15 0.01 - 0.01 W82 0.06 PEM Non -Riparian 15 0.06 - 0.06 W85 0.03 PSS Riparian 17 0.01 0 .01 0.02 33 Table 14 Permanent Impacts to Wetlands Site ID Area Within Study Area (Acres) Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Score Impacts (Acres) Within Slope Stake Li nes Add’l Clearing* Total W86 0.18 PSS Non -Riparian 49 0.18 - 0.18 W88a 0.02 PFO Riparian 17 - 0.01 0.01 W89 0.09 PFO Non -Riparian 19 0.01 0.03 0.04 W91 0.23 PSS Non -Riparian 24 0.07 0.14 0.21 W93 0.54 PEM Riparian 26 0.14 0.11 0.25 W94 0.04 PEM Non -Riparian 18 0.04 - 0.04 W95a 0.24 PEM Non -Riparian 30 - 0.04 0.04 W95b 0.28 PEM Riparian 30 0.06 0.12 0.18 W96 0.30 PSS Riparian 17 0.06 0.01 0.07 W98 0.07 PSS Riparian 17 0.04 0.01 0.05 W101 0.01 PEM Non -Riparian 10 - 0.01 0.01 W104 0.17 PEM Non -Riparian 10 0.04 0.0 5 0.09 W109 0.09 PSS Non -Riparian 12 0.03 0.04 0.07 W110 0.62 PSS Riparian 24 - - - W112 0.46 PSS Non -Riparian 24 0.05 0.05 0.10 W113 0.01 PEM Non -Riparian 32 0.01 - 0.01 W115 0.03 PFO Riparian 31 0.02 - 0.02 W116 0.03 PSS Non -Riparian 32 0.03 - 0.03 W119 0.05 PSS Riparian 51 0.02 0.03 0.05 W121 0.04 PEM Non -Riparian 9 0.02 0.02 0.04 W123 0.05 PEM Non -Riparian 8 - - - WA 0.07 NTFM Riparian 40 - - - WB 0.20 NTFM Riparian 37 - - - WC1 0.45 NTFM Riparian 39 - - - WC2 0.22 NTFM Riparian 39 - - - W C3 0.07 NTFM Riparian 39 - - - WD 0.07 HF Riparian 50 - - - WE 0.04 HF Riparian 56 - - - WF 0.04 HF Riparian 56 - - - WG 0.34 HF Riparian 58 - - - WH 0.19 HF Riparian 56 - - - WI 0.31 HF Riparian 45 - - - WJ 0.11 HF Riparian 45 - - - WK 0.07 HF Rip arian 52 - - - WL 0.07 HF Riparian 57 - - - WM 0.07 HF Riparian 45 - - - WN 0.02 HF Riparian 51 - - - WO 0.10 HF Riparian 43 - - - 34 Table 14 Permanent Impacts to Wetlands Site ID Area Within Study Area (Acres) Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Score Impacts (Acres) Within Slope Stake Li nes Add’l Clearing* Total WP 0.28 HF Riparian 43 - - - WQ 0.04 HF Riparian 43 - - - WR 0.05 HF Riparian 34 - - - Note: * Within 25 feet of the slope stake lines a Wetland Type: PFO palustrine forested, PEM palustrine emergent, PSS palustrine scrub -shrub, NTFM non -tidal freshwater marsh, HF headwater forest b Riparian wetland are those wetlands that are within the “zone of influence” of a stream, creek, or river. Non -riparian wetlands are those wetlands that are not adjacent to or hydrologically influenced by a stream, creek, or river. Total: 3.7 e. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Land development activities that may adversely impact wet lands require consent through permit approval from the regulating agency. At the federal level, under the CWA Section 404b(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4), the USACE is obligated to require mitigation for any unavoidable imp acts to wetlands and streams as a condition of permit approval. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts. 1. Avoidance Avoidance examines the appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to wetlands and streams. The primary purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi -lane facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations, and reduce the rate of traffi c crashes. This project consists primarily of upgrading the existing US 221 from its intersection with US 421 northward to the town of Jefferson, and because the jurisdictional resources are located parallel to the existing roadway, avoidance of jurisdicti onal features, particularly streams, is not possible. 2. Minimization Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts to streams and wetlands. General steps that should be implemented during the final design stage to minimize impacts by the proposed project include: • Minimizing “in -stream” activities; • Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control recommended in NCDOT’s BMPs for the protection of streams and wetlands; 35 • Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of right -of -way widths and the steeping of fill slopes where possible: • Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating streams. Specific minimization efforts performed thus far include: • El imination of alternatives that would result in higher stream and/or wetland impacts when similar alternatives would perform the same function with fewer impacts. The “Best Fit” alternative was designed to minimize stream and wetland impacts. • Various altern ative hydraulic structure recommendations were evaluated during the CP 2a field meeting, including: (1) at Site 6, replace the existing RCP with a new box culvert, (2) at Site 8, replace the existing box culvert with a new bridge, and (3) at Site 13, inves tigate the design of a new bottomless box culvert. 3. Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation is meant to replace, on at least a one -to -one basis, the lost functions and values of natural streams and wetlands affected by development activities. N CDOT will investigate potential on - site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once a preferred alternative has been chosen. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). In acc ordance with the “2003 Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the US Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources” (MOA), the NCEEP will be requested to provide off -site mi tigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirement for this project. f. Anticipated Permit Requirements The factors that may determine the applicability of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) as authorized by 33 CFR 33 include tot al stream and wetland impacts, impacts to cultural resources, impacts to federally protected species, or impacts to HQWs. Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, the overall cumulative impacts from a single and complete project ma y require authorization under an Individual Permit (IP). The proposed project is being processed as an Environmental Assessment (EA) document. A Section 404 IP is anticipated for this project. There is the potential for cumulative impacts to wetlands tota ling greater than 0.5 acres and more than 300 linear feet of cumulative loss or degradation of a single jurisdictional stream for this project. The USACE holds the final decision as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. In add ition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401 water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWQ. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 IP. 36 g. Construction Moratoria The NCWRC has identified Cole Branch, Gap Creek, Little Gap Creek, Call Creek, Old Field Creek, Beaver Creek, and their unnamed tributaries to be subject to an October 15 to April 15 in -water trout moratorium, based on corresponden ce from NCWRC (see Appendix K). The South Fork New River and nearby tributaries are subject to a moratorium prohibiting in -stream work during the fish spawning season, which runs from May 1 through July 15, according to the letter dated May 26, 2006 (see A ppendix K). Little Buffalo Creek, South Beaver Creek, Naked Creek, and their unnamed tributaries have no construction moratoria. 5. Rare and Protected Species a. Federally Protected Species As of January 5, 2012 and September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists eleven (11) federally protected species for Ashe and Watauga Counties, respectively (see Table 15). A brief description of each species’ habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence. Table 15 Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe and Watauga Counties Scientific Name Common Name Federa l Status a County b Habitat Present Biological Conclusion Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T(S/A) A/W Yes Not Required Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E A/W No No Effect Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Virginia big -eare d bat E W No No Effect Microhexura montivaga Spruce -fir moss spider E W No No Effect Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T A/W No No Effect Liatris helleri Heller’s blazing star T A/W No No Effect Hedyotis purpurea var . montana Roan mountain bluet E A/W No No Effect Geum radiatum Spreading avens E A/W No No Effect Helonias bullata Swamp pink T A Yes No Effect Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T A Yes MA -NLAA c Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E A No No Effect a T(S/A) –Threatened due to s imilarity of appearance, E – Endangered, T –Threa.tened b County: A – Ashe, W – Watauga c MA -NLAA – May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect 37 Bog Turtle USFWS Optimal Survey Window : April 1 – October 1 (visual surveys); April 1 - June 15 (optimal for br eeding/nesting); May 1 – June 30 (trapping surveys) Habitat Description : Bog turtle habitat consists of open, groundwater - supplied (springfed), graminoid -dominated wetlands along riparian corridors or on seepage slopes. These habitats are designated as mo untain bogs by the NCNHP, but they are technically poor, moderate, or rich fens that may be associated with wet pastures and old drainage ditches that have saturated muddy substrates with open canopies. Plants found in bog turtle habitat include sedges, ru shes, marsh ferns, shrubs (tag alder, golden hardhack, blueberry, etc.), and wetland tree species (red maple and silky willow). These habitats often support sphagnum moss and may contain carnivorous plants (sundews and pitcher plants) and rare orchids. Pot ential habitats may be found in the western Piedmont and Mountain Counties from 700 to 4,500 ft elevation in North Carolina. Soil types (poorly drained silt loams) from which bog turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua, Chewacla, Dellwood, Cordorus complex, Hatboror, Nikwasi, Potomac -Iotla complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate -Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuchasegee - Cullasaja complex, Tusquitee, Watauga, and Wehadkee. Biological Conclusion : Consultation Not Required. Species listed as threatened due to si milarity of appearance (T S/A) do not require Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. A review of NCNHP records on February 6, 2012, indicates one known bog turtle occurrence on the west side of Gap Creek 0.35 mile south of the Watauga County line. Potent ially suitable habitat for bog turtle is present within the study area, particularly Wetlands WA, WB, and WC. These wetlands are dominated by herbaceous species and are located along a riparian corridor (Stream SA). Additionally, soil mapping units known to promote bog turtle habitat (Nikwasi and Watauga) are identified as being present in the study area. On June 3, 2008, a team of NCDOT biologists found a female bog turtle in a wetland adjacent to Gap Creek (W5 within the original study area), constitut ing a new bog turtle occurrence in Ashe County. It is recommended that all precautions be taken to minimize disturbance to this habitat. Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel USFWS Optimal Survey Window : May – October; coldest days in the coldest winter mon ths (nest box surveys). Habitat Description : There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern flying squirrel in the mountains of North Carolina. This nocturnal squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous (red spruce, Fraser fir, or eas tern hemlock) and mature northern hardwood forests (American beech, yellow birch, sugar maple, eastern hemlock, red oak, and yellow buckeye), typically located at elevations above 4,500 ft. In some instances, the squirrels may be found on narrow, north -fac ing valleys above 4,000 ft. Both forest types are used to search for food, and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. Mature forests with a thick evergreen understory and 38 numerous snags are most preferable. In the winter, squirrels inhabit tree cav ities in older hardwoods, particularly yellow birch. Biological Conclusion : No Effect No potentially suitable habitats for the Carolina northern flying squirrel are present within the study area. Elevations within the study area are below 3,500 ft and do not represent a conducive habitat for this species. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Carolina northern flying squirrel occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Virginia Big -eared Bat USFWS Optima l Survey Window : May 15 through August 15; January 15 through February 15 (winter). Habitat Description : Virginia big -eared bat has been recorded in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina. They occupy caves in the summer and winter. Hibernating colo nies are typically located in deep cave passageways that have stable temperatures and air movement. The temperatures in these hibernacula may be lower than those tolerated by other bats. Roost sites are generally located in mines or caves in oak -hickory fo rests. They will use alternate roost sites, but there is no record of long migrations. They are nocturnal and leave their roost to forage on moths, beetles, and other insects. This species feeds mostly over open pastures, corn and alfalfa fields and around tree crowns. Biological Conclusion : No Effect No potentially suitable habitats for the Virginia big -eared bat are present within the study area, with the exception of foraging habitat. The Watauga County portion of the study area is dominated by maintai ned/disturbed lands and pasture land, and no mines or caves were observed. In addition, there are only two bridges within the project study area, both of which are located in Ashe County. Per NCDOT communication with Troy Wilson of the USFWS on February 5, 2009, given that the Virginia big -eared bat is not listed for Ashe County, “inspection [of the bridges] for evidence of bat roosting won’t be necessary.” Review of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Virginia big -eare d bat occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Spruce -fir Moss Spider USFWS Optimal Survey Window : May – August. Habitat Description : This species is known only from spruce -fir forests in the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. The spruce -fir moss spider occurs in well -drained moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks or boulders. These mats are found in well -shaded areas in mature, high -elevation (>5,000 feet) Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce -fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires environments of high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss 39 mats, which cannot become too parched or the mats will become dry and loose. Likewise, the moss mats cannot be too wet because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the spider. The spider constructs its tube - shaped webs in the interface between the moss mat and rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the interior of the moss mat. Biological Conclusion : No Effec t No potentially suitable habitats for the spruce -fir moss spider are present within the study area. Elevations within the study area are below 3,500 ft and do not represent a conducive habitat for this species. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 200 8 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known spruce -fir moss spider occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Blue Ridge Goldenrod USFWS Optimal Survey Window : July – September. Habitat Description : The Blue Ridge goldenrod, endemic to the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee, occurs in the high -elevation Rocky Summit natural community at or above elevations of 4,600 ft above MSL along cliffs, ledges, balds, and dry rock crevices of granite outcrops of the higher mountain peaks. This e arly pioneer herb grows in full sun on generally acidic soils of shallow humus or clay loams that are intermittently saturated. The encroachment of woody vegetation, such as ericaceous shrubs, can eliminate the goldenrod through competition and shading. Ro an Mountain bluet, Heller’s blazing star, and spreading avens are a few of its common associate species. Biological Conclusion : No Effect No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The communities present in the study area do not support the necessary elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that provide a suitable habitat for the Blue Ridge goldenrod. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Blue Ridge golden rod occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Heller’s Blazing Star USFWS Optimal Survey Window : July -September. Habitat Description : Heller's blazing star, endemic to the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, occurs in the high -elevation Rocky S ummit natural community on high -elevation ledges, rock outcrops, cliffs, and balds at elevations of 3,500 to 5,999 ft above MSL. This early pioneer, perennial herb grows in acidic and generally shallow humus or clay loams on igneous and metasedimentary roc k. Known populations are intermittently saturated and excessively to moderately poorly drained. The plant generally occurs in full sunlight with grasses, sedges, and other composites. Blue Ridge goldenrod, Roan Mountain bluet, and spreading avens are a few of its common associate species. 40 Biological Conclusion : No Effect No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The communities present in the study area do not support the necessary elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft ) or soil conditions that provide suitable habitat for Heller's blazing star. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Heller's blazing star occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Roan Mountain Bluet US FWS Optimal Survey Window : June -July. Habitat Description: Roan Mountain bluet occurs on thin, gravelly talus slopes of grassy balds, cliff ledges, shallow soils in crevices of rock outcrops, and steep slopes with full sun at the summits of high -elevation peaks of the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. The plant is found at elevations of 4,200 to 6,300 ft above MSL and often has a north, northwest, south, or southwest aspect. Known occurrences typically grow in gravel -filled, acidic, and metamorphic -derived so il pockets between underlying mafic rock. Fraser fir and red spruce dominate the forests adjacent to known populations. Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, and spreading avens are a few of its common associate species. Biological Conclusion : No E ffect Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. The communities present in the study area do not support the necessary elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that provide suitable habitat for Ro an Mountain bluet. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Roan Mountain bluet occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Spreading Avens USFWS optimal survey window : June -September. Habitat Description : Spreading avens occurs in areas exposed to full sun on high -elevation cliffs, outcrops, and bases of steep talus slopes. This perennial herb also occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species prefers a northwest aspect bu t can be found on west -southwest through north -northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known occurrences are generally dominated by either red spruce -Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered spruce, or high -elevation northern red oaks. Spreading avens typically occur in shallow, acidic soil (such as the Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous, metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be well drained but almost continuously wet, with soils at some known populations subject to drying out in summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at elevations ranging from 4,296 to 6,268 ft above MSL. Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, and Roan Mountain bluet are a few of its common associate species. 41 Biological Conclusion : No Effect No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The communities present in the study areas do not support the necessary elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that provide suitable h abitat for spreading avens. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known spreading avens occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Swamp Pink USFWS optimal survey window : April -May. Habitat Description : Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of groundwater -influenced wetland habitats, including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white cedar swamps, swampy forests bordering meandering small streams, boggy meadows, headwater wetlands, and sp ring seepage areas. The perennial herb requires a constantly saturated, but not flooded, water supply. The plant often grows on hummocks formed by trees, shrubs, and sphagnum moss, and exhibits varying degrees of shade tolerance. Swamp pink occurs in acidi c soils that contain a very thin layer of decomposed organic matter over a dark silt loam and a subsoil of sand, loam, and gravel. Atlantic white cedar, pitch pine, and red spruce are a few of its associate species. Biological Conclusion : No Effect A sui table habitat for this species exists within the study area. ESI biologists Gavin Blossner and Daniel Macken surveyed the suitable habitat, consisting of the wetland areas within the study area, on June 2 -4, 2008 for swamp pink. No swamp pink individuals w ere observed within the study area. Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 indicated no known swamp pink occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Virginia Spiraea USFWS optimal survey window : May -early July. Habitat Description : Virginia spi raea occurs in flood -scoured, high -gradient sections of rocky river banks of second - and third -order streams. This perennial shrub also occurs on meander scrolls and point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, gorges, an d canyons. The plant grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily over sandstone, and tends to be found in often -disturbed early successional land. The shrub often grows in thickets, although overtopping by arboreal species or fast -growing herbac eous vegetation eventually eliminates it. Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition occurs after high water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than along areas of maximum erosion. Many populations are either establi shed among riparian debris piles where eroded vegetative modules or portions of a plant were deposited during flood events or can occur between boulders and in fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits. 42 Biological Conclusion : May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect Suitable habitat for this species exists within the study area. ESI biologists Gail Tyner and Robert Turnbull surveyed the large streams within the study area, including, but not limited to, Gap Creek, South Fork New River, Old Fields Creek, and Beaver Creek for Virginia spiraea on June 2 -4, 2008. No Virginia spiraea individuals were observed within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on June 25, 2012, indicates three known Virginia spirea occurrences within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area on the banks of the South Fork New River. The closest occurrence is approximately 1,400 ft downstream of the study area. Re -surveys of relevant areas of habitat within the study area were conducted on July 7, 2010 (of all major stream cross ings) and June 27, 2012 (of the entire D section); no Virginia spiraea individuals were observed during either of these surveys. Informal concurrence with the USFWS will be necessary for this species. Rock Gnome Lichen USFWS optimal survey window : year r ound. Habitat Description : Rock gnome lichen occurs in high -elevation coniferous forests (particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir), typically on rocky outcrop or cliff habitats. This lichen only grows in areas with a great deal of humidi ty, such as high elevations above 5,000 ft MSL, where there is often fog, or on boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges at lower elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The species requires a moderate amount of sunlight, but cannot tolerate high - intensity solar radiation. The lichen does well on moist, generally open sites with northern exposures, but requires at least partial canopy coverage on southe rn or western aspects because of its intolerance to high solar radiation. The rock mosses Andreaea and Grimmia are common associate species in the vertical intermittent seeps. Biological Conclusion : No Effect Suitable habitat for this species does not ex ist within the study area. The communities present in the study areas do not support the necessary elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) that provide suitable habitat for rock gnome lichen. A review of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008, indica tes no known rock gnome lichen occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area. b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Effective August 9, 2007, the bald eagle was delisted from the Endangered Species Act. A Biological Conclusion is no longer neces sary for this species. The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Protection Act. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines restrict disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 660 ft ou tward from a nest tree, which is considered critical for maintaining acceptable conditions for bald eagles. 43 Habitat for the bald eagle consists primarily of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are u tilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. Bald eagle is not listed by USFWS as having ranges that extend into Ashe and Watauga Counties. A review of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 indicated no known bald eagle occurrences wit hin 1.0 mile of the study area. The open water of the South Fork New River may provide a potential foraging habitat for bald eagle. However, the area adjacent to the South Fork New River within the project study area is active pasture land, and there are n o suitable nesting trees within 660 feet of the project study area. c. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Candidate Species As of January 5, 2012 and June 27, 2010, the USFWS does not list any Candidate species for Ashe or Watauga Counties, respectively. 6. Soils The Ashe County and Watauga County Soil Surveys identify twenty -nine (29) soil types within the study area, as shown in Table 16. Table 16 Soils in the Study Area Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status a Nikwasi loam (0 -3% slop es) NkA Very Poorly Drained H Toxaway loam (0 -2% slopes) To Poorly -Very Poorly Drained H Colvard fine sandy loam Co Well Drained H* Saunook -Nikwasi complex (2 -15% slopes) SwC Well -Very Poorly Drained H* Tusquitee loam (8 -15% slopes) TsD Well Drained H* Braddock gravelly loam (2 -8% slopes) BrB Well Drained NH Braddock gravelly loam (8 -15% slopes) BrD Well Drained NH Braddock –Urban Complex (2 -15% slopes) BuC Well Drained NH Chandler loam (25 -65% slopes) CaF Somewhat Excessively Drained NH Chandler fi ne sandy loam (30 -50% slopes) CdE Somewhat Excessively Drained NH Chestnut -Edneyville complex (15 -30 % slopes) CkD Well Drained NH Chestnut -Edneyville complex (30 -50 % slopes) CkE Well Drained NH Clifton loam (8 -15% slopes) CfD Well Drained NH Clifton lo am (15 -25% slopes) CfE Well Drained NH Evard stony loam (25 -60% slopes) EsF Well Drained NH 44 Table 16 Soils in the Study Area Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status a Evard loam (15 -25% slopes) EvE Well Drained NH Evard loam (25 -45% slopes) EvF Well Drained NH Fannin loam (8 -15% slopes) FnD Well Drained NH Fannin loam (15 -25 % slopes) FnE Well Drained NH Saunook loam (2 -8% slopes) SnB Well Drained NH Saunook loam (8 -15% slopes) SnC Well Drained NH Saunook loam (15 -30% slopes) SnD Well Drained NH Saunook loam (15 -30% slopes), very stony SoD Well Drained NH Tusquitee loam (15 -25% slopes) TsE Well Drained NH Tusquitee - Spiney stony soils (15 -25% slopes) TuE Well Drained NH Watauga loam (8 -15% slopes) WaC Well Drained NH Watauga loam (15 -30% slopes) WaD Well Drained NH Watauga loam (15 -25% slopes) WaE Well Drained NH Wata uga loam (25 -45% slopes) WaF Well Drained NH a Hydric Status: H – Hydric; H* - Non -hydric with Hydric Inclusions; NH – Non -Hydric B. Cultural Resources This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that Federal agencies account for the effect of their undertakings (federall y funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 1. Historic Architectural Resources NCDOT conducted an architectural survey in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for nomination to the National Register. The findings are presented in the Historic Architectural Resources Report (March 2009). The July 2008 survey identified thirty -nine (39) historic properties within the APE. Photographs of these properties, along with their evaluations, were shown to staff members of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a meeting on August 11, 2008. At that meeting, SHPO staff concurred that thirty -five (35) properties were not eligible for National Register listing due to a lack of architectural integrity and that four (4) properties warranted further investigation. 45 a. Historic Properties Properties evaluated in the report and recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places include: Property 31 – Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and Property 39 – Barnett Idol House (AH 454). By a letter d ated May 21, 2009, SHPO concurred with the finding that the above properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix C, page C -1). Properties evaluated in the report and recommended not eligible for listing in th e National Register of Historic Places include: Property 1 – Walter Scott Moretz House and Property 25 – Onzo Baldwin House (AH507). By a letter dated May 21, 2009, SHPO concurred with the finding of not eligible for listing in the National Register of H istoric Places for the Walter Scott House. However, SHPO requested more information to make a final determination of eligibility for the Onzo Baldwin House (see Appendix C, page C -1). The additional information was provided in a letter dated June 24, 2009 to SHPO, and in a letter dated July 10, 2009, SHPO concurred with finding that the Onzo Baldwin house is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix C, pages C -3 through C -5). 1. Baldwin Bethany Cemetery SHPO concu rred that the Baldwin Cemetery is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C (Design/Construction). Baldwin Bethany Cemetery is a good, representative example of a continuously used cemetery in the mountains of north western North Carolina. The material used for markers begins with the use of local stone on the earliest markers and progress to commercially manufactured granite and marble markers after the turn of the twentieth century. The Baldwin Bethany Cemetery is l ocated approximately 0.25 miles from the intersection of US 221 and Frank Edwards Road (SR 1200, see Figure 2, Sheet 8). The proposed National Register Boundary is limited to that portion of the cemetery where the oldest extant markers are located. The bo undary does not extend further to the north or west so as not to include modern monoliths dating from the 1940s to the present, which do not contribute to the historic significance of the property. This boundary includes all markers dating from the turn of the twentieth century and earlier and contains sufficient integrity to accurately embody a historic rural community cemetery in northwestern North Carolina. The boundary follows the property line on the south side. Figure 9 is a map showing the National R egister Boundary proposed for Baldwin Bethany Cemetery. 46 Figure 9 –National Register Boundary Proposed for Baldwin Bethany Cemetery 2. Barnett Idol House 2. Barnett Idol House The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurr ed that the Barnett Idol House is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C (Design/Construction). The Barnett Idol House is an intact, unaltered example of an early twentieth -century dwelling with simplified Queen Anne elements. This property typifies modest houses found throughout western North Carolina mountains towns that show both the influence of nationally popular architectural styles as well as the increased availability of sawn millwork. The proposed Nation al Register boundary is the current tax parcel, Ashe County PIN 2978 3022 9325. This 0.33 -acre parcel contains the house and its landscaped surroundings. See Figure 2, Sheet 14 for the location of this resource. b. Potential Project Effects Representativ es of the State SHPO, FHWA and NCDOT met on November 23, 2010 to discuss the assessment of effects of the proposed action on the Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and ]Barnett Idol House. SHPO rendered the following decision regarding the Best Fit Alternative: No E ffect for both properties because there will be no construction within the historic boundary and no changes to elements that make it eligible. A copy of the signed concurrence form from the November 23, 2010 meeting is included in Appendix C (see pages C -6 and C -7). 47 2. Archaeological Resources The proposed improvements to US 221 from US 421 in Deep Gap, Watauga County, to US 221 Business/NC 88 in Jefferson, Ashe County is a federally funded project. Therefore, the project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires the lead Federal agency (the NCDOT on behalf of the FHWA) to consult with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO [on behalf of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation]) regard ing the project’s potential to impact archaeological resources eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Consultation began in 1977 when personnel with the Archaeology Section of the NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, conducted an archaeological survey of the section of proposed US 221 between Baldwin and Jefferson 1 . The survey identified 26 archaeological sites, all of which were recommended ineligible for the NRHP. SHPO concurred wit h these recommendations, and the section was later constructed as a two -lane road. The consultation continued through the years, and updated scoping information was submitted to SHPO on April 7, 2006. On May 24, 2006, SHPO recommended that a comprehensiv e archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project (ER # 06 -1023). As mentioned above, the section between Bal dwin and Jefferson was surveyed for archaeological sites in 1977. In May 2012, NCDOT sponsored an archaeological survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of the section between Deep Gap and Baldwin. The survey identified five archaeological sites an d four isolated finds dating from the prehistoric Native American period to the nineteenth and/or twentieth centuries. All of these resources have been disturbed by various activities, including agriculture, erosion, logging, and/or road construction, hav e no further research potential, and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. NCDOT will submit the archaeological survey report to SHPO in late August or early September 2012 for their review and concurrence. C. Section 4(f) Resources and 6(f) Resourc es 1. Section 4(f) Resources The US DOT Act of 1966 included a special provision, Section 4(f), which stipulated that the FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl 1 Scheitliln, Thomas E., Mark A. Mathis, Jerry L. Cross, Thomas H. Hargrove, John W. Clauser, Jr., Michael T. Southern, Dolores A. Hall, Linda H. Pin kerton, Dale W. Reavis, and Thomas D. Burke 1977. North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 11. Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. 48 re fuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and • The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from that use . The project study area includes four Section 4(f) resources: Baldwin Bethany Cemetery (National Register eligible), Barnett Idol House (National Register eligible), Fleetwood Community Center, and Foster Tyson Park. These four resources are discussed b elow: Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and Barnett Idol House Baldwin Bethany Cemetery, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, is located on the east side of Frank Edwards Road (SR 1200), approximately 0.25 miles from the inte rsection of US 221 (see Figure 2, Sheet 8). The Barnett Idol House, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, is located on the east side of US 221 in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Long and Academy Streets i n Jefferson (see Figure 2, Sheet 14). The preliminary design plans in the vicinity of the Baldwin Bethany Cemetery utilizes a retaining wall to avoid impacting any of the property within the proposed national register boundary. However, some right -of -way taking is required for portions of the property outside of the proposed National Register Boundary adjacent to the existing US 221 roadway. The Barnett Idol House is located outside of the existing US 221 right of way, and no additional right of way is re quired for the proposed widening improvements along this section of US 221. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred that the project, as currently designed, will have No Adverse Effect on the Baldwin Bethany Cemetery (se e Section V.B.1c. above). SHPO has concurred that the project, as currently designed, will have No Effect on the Barnett Idol House (see Section V.B.1c. above). Because there will be no Section 4(f) use of these properties, the requirements of Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 are satisfied. Fleetwood Community Center The Fleetwood Community Center is located on the west side of US 221 just south of the intersection of Railroad Grade Road (SR 1106) and US 221 (See Figure 2, Sheet 6). The property, a for mer Ashe County School facility, consists of buildings and recreational facilities and is currently owned by the Ashe County Board of Education. The Greater Fleetwood Preservation Organization leases the property from the Ashe County Board of Education and is responsible for the use and maintenance of the school facility. The facility provides the community with rooms for meetings, a library, gym, and ball field. Organized activities include softball and T -ball. Based on the preliminary roadway design pla ns prepared by Parsons, the widening of US 221 will require acquisition of land from the Fleetwood 49 Community Center. The proposed improvements to US 221 will result in the taking of available parking from the front of the school building and the relocation of the existing drive entrance. Also, further investigations will be needed to determine if an underground storage tank (UST) and well site will be impacted. The proposed right of way for the US 221 widening improvements will not require acquisition of th e school building and will not impair the use of the school facilities by the Greater Fleetwood Preservation Organization. Based on the minimum use of the property by the proposed US 221 widening project, FHWA is considering a 4(f) de minimis finding pend ing public input. Foster Tyson Park Foster Tyson Park is located at the intersection of East Main Street and US 221 in the Town of Jefferson (see Figure 2, Sheet 14). The 3.5 -acre park is owned and operated by the Town and includes trails and picnic faci lities. Access to the park will be maintained during construction, and no acquisition of land from the park is required for the widening improvements along US 221. 2. Section 6(f) Resources No properties purchased or improved using Section 6(f) (of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965) funds are located within the project study area. Thus, no Section 6(f) properties will be affected by the project. D. Farmland The Farmland Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 568), implemented by the US De partment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), requires all federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction activities on prime and important farmland soils in an effort to “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non -agriculture uses” (Public Law 97 -98, Section 1539 -1549, 7 USC 4201, et seq). North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands , requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils are delineated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Serv ice (SCS) based upon crop yield and level of input of economic resources. This project was coordinated with NRCS. A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects (NRCS - CPA -106) was completed for this project (see Appendix E). Approximately 36,452 acres of land in Ashe County (13.3%) and 18,192 acres in Watauga County (8.4%) are farmland in government jurisdiction. The US 221 widening improvements will convert approximately 152 acres of farmland to highway use. The total prime and unique far mland impacted by the project is approximately 37 acres. The total statewide and local important farmland impacted by the project is 54 acres. 50 1. Voluntary Agricultural Districts and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Districts Both Watauga and Ashe Count y have implemented a Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance to promote agricultural values, encourage the economic and financial health of agriculture, and increase protection from non -farmland development and other negative impacts on farms. T he proposed improvements will require the acquisition of approximately 1.5 acres of land from a voluntary agricultural district (VAD) in Ashe County located just south of the Cedar Crossing subdivision. The VAD is shown in Figure 2 (see Sheet 2). NCDOT wil l contact the Ashe County Planning Department regarding the project’s anticipated impacts to VADs. If needed, NCDOT will request a public hearing in accordance with the Ashe County VAD Ordinance and North Carolina General Statute 106 -740 as appropriate. E. Social Effects 1. Neighborhoods/Communities The predominant land use within the Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) is primarily farming, with some residential neighborhoods and several businesses. The land use in the vicinity of the Towns of West Je fferson and Jefferson is more urban than in the remainder of the project. However, the majority of the area around the proposed project is largely rural in nature. The project will affect the cohesion of three unincorporated communities, Deep Gap/Pine S wamp, Fleetwood, and Baldwin, as well as the incorporated Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson. The areas are displayed graphically in Figures 10 -A through 10 -D. These communities were identified based on conversations with local planners and comments rec eived from public meetings. Potentially high cohesion impacts to these communities will come from the project in the form of relocations, physical intrusions, and visual impacts. Businesses will also be impacted in the area, including the 221 Grocery an d Produce convenience store located north of Church Hill Street. Based on the preliminary design, the relocation of this business will not be required; however, its parking and access will be affected. Additionally, depending on the location of the fuel ta nks, the business owner may be required to relocate the USTs on the property. Many of the businesses in this area serve the local community, and if they are forced to relocate outside of the community, community cohesion will be affected. Two churches tha t are centrally located within the community may be affected by the project. One of the buildings owned by the Gap Creek Baptist Church and some parking will be need to be relocated. The Emmanuel Baptist Church will also be relocated due to the US 221 wide ning improvements. Community cohesion impacts to Fleetwood will be in the form of impacts to two community facilities, the Fleetwood Community Center and the 51 Fleetwood Volunteer Fire Department. The Community Center provides recreational opportunities, meeting rooms, and a public library. Both facilities are located immediately adjacent to the road, and both have direct access to the road. The Fleetwood Community Center is a recreational facility leased by the Greater Fleetwood Preservation Organization from the Ashe County School Board. Access to the Community Center from US 221 is expected to remain, and the design includes a left -over turning movement for northbound travelers to accommodate the Community Center. The Volunteer Fire Department, however, will likely be relocated to accommodate the project. The Volunteer Fire Department is a central part of the Fleetwood community, and its relocation would have a negative impact on community cohesion. It is recommended that NCDOT provide relocation assista nce to the Volunteer Fire Department to find a new location in the same vicinity as the existing station. The existing right of way along the northern portion of US 221 in the Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson is, in most areas, sufficient to accommod ate the widening, resulting in fewer relocations. This section of the road is used to access retail, schools, and other destinations, and construction of the project is not expected to have isolating effects. a. Community Profile and Demographics Accord ing to the State Demographics Branch of the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, the estimated population of Ashe County in 2008 was 26,319, an increase of 1,935 people from 2000. The population of Watauga County grew by an estimated 2,626 people during that same period. During the 1990s, the growth rates for the two counties, the Demographic Study Area (DSA), and the towns of Jefferson (9.4 percent) and West Jefferson (7.9 percent) can be described as moderate. The State Demographics branc h also provides population projections for counties up to the year 2029. Their projections show that the population of Ashe County is expected to grow to 30,807 people, an increase of 26.3 percent compared with 2000. Watauga County is expected to grow to 5 7,337 people, an increase of 34.3 percent from 2000. Table 17 shows the population growth for the Census Block Groups within the study area and the two counties for the time period of 1990 - 2000. As of the 2000 Census, the study area had a population of 13 ,981, while the total population of Ashe County was 24,384 and the total population of Watauga County was 42,693. During the 1990s, the population of the two counties grew by 9.8 percent in Ashe County and 15.5 percent in Watauga County. The population of the DSA grew by 14.1 percent. 52 Table 17 Population Growth, 1990 -2000 Area 1990 Population 2000 Population Actual Growth (1990 -2000) Percent Increase Ashe Co. 22,209 24,384 2,175 9.8% Watauga Co. 36,952 42,693 5,741 15.5% DSA Total 12,256 13,981 1,725 14.1% North Carolina 6,628,637 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Project Area is Census Block Groups 9704.02, 9704.03, 9704.04, 9705.02, 9705.03, 9705.04, 9705.05, 9707.01, 9707.02, 9707.03, 9707.04, and 9807.01 b . Population by Race The racial composition of the study area, Ashe County, and Watauga County is shown in Table 18. Whites in the area make up the majority of the population within the study area at 96.9 percent, with African Americans (0.9 percent) and A merican Indians (0.4 percent) being the two largest minorities. The category of “Other” race makes up 1 percent of the total study area population. County -wide totals for both Ashe and Watauga Counties indicate that the study area’s racial composition is i ndicative of the larger region. Table 18 Population by Race, 2000 Race Project Area Ashe County Watauga County North Carolina Pop. Percent Pop. Percent Pop. Percent Pop. Percent White 13,554 96.9% 23,691 97.2% 41,181 96.5% 5,804,656 72.1% African -Am erican 119 0.9% 162 0.7% 680 1.6% 1,737,545 21.6% American Indian 53 0.4% 79 0.3% 108 0.3% 99,551 1.2% Asian 39 0.3% 57 0.2% 251 0.6% 113,689 1.4% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 0.01% 2 0.01% 16 0.4% 3,983 0.1% Other 140 1.0% 257 1.1% 194 0.5% 289,889 3.6 % Total 13,981 100.0% 24,384 100.0% 42,693 100% 8,049,313 100% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Project Area is Census Block Groups 9704.02, 9704.03, 9704.04, 9705.02, 9705.03, 9705.04, 9705.05, 9707.01, 9707.02, 9707.03, 9707.04, and 9807.01 c. Ec onomic Status Table 19 shows the economic data for the study area, the two counties, and the State. Poverty rates are higher in the study area and the two surrounding counties than for the state as a whole. Median household income for the area is lower tha n the statewide average. 53 Table 19 – Economic Data for the Study Area, 2000 Area Percent of Population Below Poverty Median household income Ashe Co. 13.5% $28,824 Watauga Co. 17.9% $32,611 DSA Total 12.5% $29,994 North Carolina 9.0% $39,184 Sour ce: US Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Project Area is Census Block Groups 9704.02, 9704.03, 9704.04, 9705.02, 9705.03, 9705.04, 9705.05, 9707.01, 9707.02, 9707.03, 9707.04, and 9807.01 d. English Proficiency Table 20 shows the English proficiency of the study area, the two counties, and the State. The limited English proficiency (LEP) population in the study area is higher than those of Ashe and Watauga Counties but lower than the statewide average. Because the study area’s LEP population is less than five perc ent of the total population and less than 1,000 individuals, the Safe Harbor LEP threshold is not met. Table 20 – English Proficiency for the Study Area, 2000 Block Group Percent of Population with Limited English Proficiency Ashe Co. 1.0% Watauga Co. 0.8% DSA Total 1.2% North Carolina 2.4% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Project Area is Census Block Groups 9704.02, 9704.03, 9704.04, 9705.02, 9705.03, 9705.04, 9705.05, 9707.01, 9707.02, 9707.03, 9707.04, and 9807.01. e. Housing Characteristics Overall, the growth in the number of housing units in the study area has remained consistent with the growth rates of the state as a whole. The growth rate in the study area is more than that in the surrounding counties. Housing data are shown in Table 21. The growth in housing is partly attributable to the area being a destination for retirees and an appealing vacation home location. There are several new neighborhoods that have been constructed or are in the process of being constructed along US 221 (neig hborhoods are displayed on Figure 10 -A through 10 -D in Appendix A). In the Deep Gap/Pine Swamp area, there are many neighborhoods both established and in development. The largest neighborhoods are Gap Creek Estates (34 homes), Cedar Crossing (48 homes), No ah’s Knoll and Noah’s Heights (55 homes), and Stonecrest at the Parkway (31 homes). All of these neighborhoods are accessible from US 221. In Fleetwood, there are fewer new and established neighborhoods that are immediately adjacent to US 221. There are se veral neighborhoods away from the project that use US 221 to access 54 jobs and shopping destinations. The larger of these neighborhoods are Twin Bridges Estates (37 homes) and Fleetwood Falls (145 homes). The Baldwin area has several large neighborhoods adj acent to US 221, including Evening Shadows (73 homes), Laurel Ridge Estates, (55 homes), Indian Lake Estates (42 homes), and Eau Claire (35 homes). There are also several neighborhoods away from the project that use US 221 to access jobs and shopping, incl uding Crown Point (65 homes) and Shadow Brook Estates (37 homes). The West Jefferson/Jefferson area includes the neighborhoods of Beaver Hill Acres (37 homes), Candle Light Park (44 homes), and Woodcroft Estates (46 homes). The median value for homes, ho wever, is lower than the median value in the state and two surrounding counties. Table 21 Housing Characteristics (1990 -2000) Block Group Total Housing Units 1990 Total Housing Units 2000 Increase Percent Increase Median Value (2000) Ashe 11,119 13,268 2,149 19.3% $91,600 Watauga 19,538 23,155 3,617 18.5% $139,300 Study Area 6,107 7,563 1,456 23.8% $101,792 North Carolina 2,818,193 3,523,944 705,751 25.0% $108,300 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Project Area is Census Block Groups 9704.02, 9704.03, 9704.04, 9705.02, 9705.03, 9705.04, 9705.05, 9707.01, 9707.02, 9707.03, 9707.04, and 9807.01 Furthermore, the study area is experiencing a higher -than -average growth in vacation and second home construction. As of the 2000 Census, the percent of vacan t homes in the study area was roughly 2.5 times the State average. f. Business and Employment According to employment statistics obtained from the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the economy of Ashe County remains heavily dependent on the manufacturing sector, although the total number of jobs within manufacturing fell by 1,543 jobs (42.4 percent of total jobs) between 1990 and 2007. Manufacturing still accounts for 6.7 percent of total jobs within Ashe County, and of the top ten employers in the County, four are within the manufacturing sector. Healthcare and social assistance and retail trade are also major employment sectors within the Ashe County, together accounting for 10.1 percent of total employment. The tourism industry in Watauga County, reflected in the accommodation and food service sector, is the primary employment driver for the county, accounting for 17.1 percent of all jobs. Other areas of major employment include educational services, in large part due to 55 Appalachian State University and retail trade. Educational services accounts for 16.4 percent of all workers in the county, and retail trade accounts for 15.8 percent of all workers. Of the top ten major employers in the county, four are within the education and health serv ice sector. 2. Relocation of Residence and Businesses NCDOT anticipates that 70 homes, 33 businesses, and two religious facilities will be relocated as a result of the proposed improvements. A relocation report for the project is included in Appendix D (see page D -1). That report provides preliminary information regarding the ownership status and income level of the anticipated displacements. Information regarding NCDOT’s relocation programs is included in Appendix D (see pages D -2 and D -3). These relocat ions are pending the completion of a Relocation Report by NCDOT. Based on the preliminary relocation study performed for this project, NCDOT anticipates that no special relocation services will be necessary, the project will not cause a housing shortage, additional housing programs will not be needed, Last Resort housing will not be needed, public housing programs will not be needed, and replacement housing within financial means will not be an issue. In addition, business services will still be available after the project is completed, and suitable replacement business sites are available in the project area. 3. Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination on the grounds of race, age, color, reli gion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations,” states that each federal agency must make achieving environmental justice a part of it s mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low -income populations. Special populations may include the elderly, children, the disabled, low -income areas , American Indians, and other minority groups. In order to assess social impacts associated with this project, a field review and review of demographic information, available through the US Census Bureau, were performed. The demographics of the Census Tr acts in which the project corridor is located were obtained, as were the demographics of Watauga and Ashe Counties. The 2000 Census demographics information indicates that whites in the area make up a majority of the population within the Demographic Study Area (DSA) at 96.9 percent, with blacks (0.9 percent) and American Indians (0.4 percent) being the two largest minority populations. The median household income for the DSA is 1.5 percent above the Ashe county median income of $28,824 and 10 percent below the Watauga County median income of $32,611. Approximately 12.5 percent of the population within the DSA lived below the poverty level in 2000, which is less than those for Ashe and Watauga Counties. 56 As noted in the relocation report in Appendix D, none of the 70 residences to be relocated as a result of the project is owned by minority or low -income individuals. None of the 33 businesses anticipated to be relocated are owned by minority individuals. The proposed widening improvements will not result in m ajor changes in access to homes, and services are not anticipated to fall disproportionately on low -income or minority populations. NCDOT has solicited public involvement throughout this project with a public notice and citizens informational workshops (CIWs). Based on the demographic findings and public comments, environmental justice issues have not been raised. 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There is very little pedestrian activity along US 221, likely the result of high speeds, high traffic volumes, lack of pedestrian destinations, limited sight distances, and the lack of sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities along the corridor. The Town of Jefferson recently completed a pedestrian plan, which includes a proposed greenway along US 221 from Long Street to north of the project terminus at the intersection of NC 88 (Figure 10 -D). The proposed greenway would be located outside the right -of -way fencing. The current preliminary design does not include the proposed greenway. Pedestrian activity i n downtown West Jefferson along US 221 Business (S. Jefferson Ave.) is much higher because of the mixture of uses and pedestrian destinations. There are sidewalks on both sides of the road through the downtown. Beyond West Jefferson on US 221 Business, ped estrian activity is limited because of the lack of pedestrian facilities and auto -oriented site designs. There were no bicyclists observed during the site visit to the project location. According to local planners, bicyclists likely avoid using US 221 for the same reason that pedestrians do because of unsafe conditions. Currently, one -foot paved shoulders exist along the entirety of the project from the intersection of US 421, with a short section of four -foot paved shoulders around Westwood Elementary Sch ool. County planners also said that bicyclists frequently use Railroad Grade Road, which runs from Fleetwood to Todd, as a bicycle route, particularly on weekends; however, those cyclists rarely use US 221. Ashe County also hosts an annual bicycle event ca lled the Blue Ridge Brutal, which uses the mountain terrain to challenge bicyclists. The route varies from year to year, but in 2009, US 221 to the south of West Jefferson was used as part of the route. NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportat ion recommended that four -foot paved shoulders be included in the project’s design. The current design is consistent with this recommendation. 5. Public Facilities, Schools, and Institutions Watauga County includes approximately three miles of the US 221 project area. No public facilities, schools, or institutions are located along this section of the project. The majority of the project is located within Ashe County. In the community of Fleetwood, there are two public facilities located 57 adjacent to US 22 1, the Fleetwood Community Center and the Fleetwood Volunteer Fire Department. To the north of the community center and fire station, there is a community recycling facility in the community of Baldwin that is immediately adjacent to US 221 and is accessed from US 221. The Westwood Elementary School is located on the east side of US 221 approximately two miles south of the US 221 Business/NC 163 intersection. The Ashe County High School is located just east of US 221 in West Jefferson. Mount Jefferson State Park is located to the east of US 221 between the towns of West Jefferson and Jefferson and has access from US 221. F. Land Use 1. Existing Land Use Land use in the project area is primarily farming, with some residential neighborhoods and several busi nesses. There are several large residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project, including Cedar Crossing, Stonecrest at the Parkway, Titus Ridge, and Evening Shadows. Additionally, there are pockets of business activity in the vicinity of Deep Ga p, Fleetwood, and Baldwin. The land use in the vicinity of the Towns of West Jefferson and Jefferson is more urban than in the remainder of the project. However, the majority of the area around the proposed project is largely rural in nature and will remai n as such in the foreseeable future. 2. Local Area Plans/Goals a. Watauga County Watauga County is currently in the process of updating their land use and strategic plan, which was originally written in 1992. The 1992 version of the land use and strategi c plan did not specifically address the area around US 221. Watauga County does not have a county -wide zoning ordinance and instead relies on a High -Impact Land Use Ordinance and an Ordinance to Govern Subdivisions and Multi -Unit Structures to regulate dev elopment. Watauga County has adopted the North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act, which is intended to protect the scenic vistas and natural beauty of the area. The Mountain Ridge Protection Act does not allow for any construction higher than 500 feet from the adjacent valley floor. b. Ashe County Ashe County does not have a land use plan or a zoning ordinance, and no plans exist to develop them. The County uses a Residential Subdivision Ordinance to regulate development. The Subdivision Ordinance di rects development away from floodplains, sets bulk standards, and sets standards for road names and road design. Ashe County has adopted the North Carolina Mountain Ridge Protection Act to protect the scenic vistas and natural beauty of the area. Ashe Cou nty has a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that regulates development within floodplains defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The ordinance requires that new residences 58 and non -residential buildings built within the 100 -year floodpla in are elevated at least four feet above the base flood elevation. Likewise, any existing structures within the floodplain cannot be enlarged, replaced, or redeveloped without conforming to the Ordinance. The Town of West Jefferson has a zoning ordinance that applies to the Town and its extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The area surrounding US 221 in West Jefferson is zoned HC (Highway Commercial) and is intended to provide land for “the retailing of durable goods, the provision of commercial services to industrial areas, and the provision of services to tourists”. Permitted uses in this district include primarily retail services. Residential uses are not allowed unless included in a mixed -use development. The proposed US 221 widening project is consis tent with the Jefferson/West Jefferson Thoroughfare Plan , which calls for the widening of US 221 to a four -lane facility. The 2008 West Jefferson Land Use Plan recommends that the Town collaborate with NCDOT in the implementation of the thoroughfare plan. G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects 1. Indirect Assessment The widening of US 221 from its existing two -lane configuration to a four - lane, median -divided facility will decrease travel times between US 421 (and Boone to the west) and Jefferson and West Jefferson. The travel time savings will come as a result of an increase in the capacity and decrease in traffic congestion on US 221. Residential development is expected to continue, particularly along the southern portion of the project, where it has al ready been occurring. The area has been, and will likely remain, a popular retirement and second home destination because of its scenic charm and rural appeal. The project is expected to result in a slight increase in this type of development, and the loca tion will be driven by the proximity to Boone and secondarily to the Towns of West Jefferson and Jefferson in the north. The intensity of the development along the southern portion of the project will be limited by the lack of water and sewer infrastructur e. Future development will likely come in the form of single -family, larger -lot development. The increased number of residences will slightly strengthen the demand for commercial services. More intense development is possible in the Beaver Creek area and the Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson. These areas are experiencing growth and have water and sewer facilities and the capacity to handle larger, more intense development. There is also ample available land in these areas to handle larger -scale develop ment. Very few development regulations exist aside from the Trout Stream buffer requirements, which require a 50 -foot buffer along waters designated as Trout Streams, and the Mountain Ridge Protection Act development regulations, which prevent constructi on higher than 500 feet from the 59 adjacent valley floor. No notable indirect effects are anticipated to result from this project. 2. Cumulative Assessment Cumulative effects considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Fut ure Land Use Study Area. Past manmade actions include previous development along the alignment and the widening of US 421 to the south of the study area. Current or present actions include the project itself and construction of the Cedar Crossing and Titus Ridge neighborhoods along US 221. Future actions include the construction of the proposed water intake valve for the Town of Boone and the subsequent reclassification of its watershed to a WSW -IV, as well as TIP Project U -3812, which will upgrade NC 88. The proposed project crosses the South Fork New River, which is classified as High -Quality Water (HQW), and Old Field Creek, which is classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). It also crosses Little Buffalo Creek, which is listed by the state as hav ing impaired water quality. Indirect effects in the form of land use changes as a result of this existing location widening project may occur in the form of increased residential development and redevelopment. Increased commercial and industrial developmen t is possible at the northern end of the project. Impacts to storm water runoff and downstream water quality are not expected from this change in development patterns due to a lack of water and sewer utilities and existing storm water runoff controls. The project is expected to result in a slight increase in residential development, which will likely take the form of larger -lot, single - family residences. However, the cumulative effect of this project, when considered in the context of other past, present, a nd future actions, and the resulting impact to notable human and natural features is considered minimal. No notable cumulative impacts are anticipated to result from this project. H. Flood Hazard Evaluations Watauga and Ashe Counties are currently parti cipating in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Five stream crossings in the project area are located within detailed flood study areas: the South Fork New River, Gap Creek, Old Field Creek, Beaver Creek, and Naked Creek, (see Figure 2 for the 10 0 -year floodplain limits associated with these five streams). One stream crossing, Little Buffalo Creek, is not located within a detailed flood study area. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the project with regard to the applicability of NCDOT’s Memorandum of Agreement with the FMP (dated June 5, 2008) or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMAR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR). This project will involve construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA - regulated streams. Therefore, the NCDOT Division Office shall submit sealed 60 as -built constructi on plans to the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100 -year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally a nd vertically. I. Hazardous Spill Basins Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major improvement projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in the containment and clean up of accidental spills. Th e determination of these strategic locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas, such as parking sites at rest areas, weigh stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close proximity to particularly sensitive waters, such as OR Ws and WS -1 water supply sources. The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a receiving stream. Water resources in the study area are part of the New River Basin (US Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 05050001). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has identified Gap Creek (S1), Little G ap Creek (S37), Old Field Creek (S56), Beaver Creek (S124), Call Creek, and South Beaver Creek as trout waters. Old Field Creek is also designated as ORW. Based on NCDOT “Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters”, a study to determine the best location for construction of hazardous spill basin(s) in the vicinity of Old Field Creek will be completed by the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit during the preparation of the project’s hydraulic design plans. J. Traffic Noise Analysis 1. Characteristics of Noise Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources, including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is typically a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire -roadway interaction. The magnitude of noise is typically described by its sound pressure. Because the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common reference lev el, typically the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency -weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). The weighted -A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise me asurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000 -6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted -A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA. 61 In relative terms, human hearing cannot typically distinguish between noise level differences of + 3 dBA. Noise level changes of 5 dBA are typically readily detectable, and a change of + 10 dBA is commonly perceived as half or t wice as loud. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table F -1 in Appendix F (see page F -1), which indicates that most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis. The degree of disturban ce or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: 1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise. 2) The relationship between the background noise and intruding noise. 3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard. Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises, including airplane noise, factory noise , railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years. 2. Noise Abatement Criteria The FHWA has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and proce dures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Proc edures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table F -2 OF Appendix F (see page F -2). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the equivale nt steady -state sound level, which, in a stated period of time, contains the same acoustic energy as a time -varying sound level during the same period. With regard to traffic noise, fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of Leq, the steady, or ‘equivalent’, noise level with the same energy. 3. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this no ise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The ambient measurement locations used for this study are described in Table F -3 of Appendix F (see page F -3).The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, which were measured 50 feet from the edges of pavement, ranged from 66 dBA to 68 dBA. An existing ambient noise level of 45 dBA was utilized in areas where no other noise sources – including traffic noise – could be identified. 62 4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that describe different cars driving at different speeds through continually changing highway configura tions and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model ® (FHWA TNM v. 2.5) was used to predict future noise levels for the receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. This noise evaluation included only predicted noise levels from the proposed new highway facility and existing roadway traffic noise sources. Using TNM, predicted build -condition nois e levels were calculated for noise -sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. The TNM model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated), noise receptor locations, receptor heights above the roadway, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation. In this regard, it must be noted that because only preliminary alignment information was available for use in this noise analysis, a worst -case analysis was conducted. Peak hour design and LOS C volumes were compared and traffic volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits. All roadway sections and proposed inter sections were assumed to be flat and at grade. Thus, this analysis represents topographical conditions under which sound waves are allowed to travel unimpeded and approximately represent conditions that are worse than those expected to actually occur. Thes e assumptions mean that actual noise levels will not be greater than the levels presented in this report. The noise predictions made in this report are highway -related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the 2035 Design Year. The Leq traf fic noise exposures associated for the project Build and No -Build conditions are listed in Table F -4 of Appendix F (see pages F -4 through F - 16). Information included in the tables includes listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their respective ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each listed receptor. 5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours A receptor is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels approachi ng or exceeding the FHWA NAC and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels either: (a) Approach or exceed the FHWA noise ab atement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table F -2 (see Appendix F) value, or (b) Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of Table F -2. 63 The numbers of receptors in each FHWA NAC activity categor y that are predicted to become traffic noise impacts are shown in Table 22. These receptors are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in e xterior noise levels, as defined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. Table 22 Predicted Number of Traffic Noise Impacts (Number of Receptors) Roadway Segment by Alternative Activity Category A B C D E Build US 421and US 221 Intersectio n 0 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 0 5 0 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 0 4 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 0 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 9 0 0 0 No -Build US 421and US 221 Interse ction 0 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 0 23 2 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 0 13 1 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 0 18 1 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 0 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 54 4 0 0 Based on this analysis an d under Title 23 CFR Part 772, nine (9) residences are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area with the proposed widening option. In comparison, fifty -four (54) residences and four (4) businesses are predicted to become im pacted due to future traffic if the project is not constructed (the No -Build Alternative). The relatively large difference between the Build and No -Build alternatives represents the number of residences and business that lie within the proposed right of wa y and will be acquired by NCDOT prior to construction. Consequently, these structures will be removed and will no longer be considered noise impacts. Table 23 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway sec tion. There are no (0) substantial noise level impacts anticipated due to this proposed widening project. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +9 dBA. 64 In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, Federal and S tate governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development where building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the “Date of Public Knowledge”. The Date of Public Knowledge of the l ocation of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document. Local governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility for development occurring afte r this date. With the proper information on future traffic noise contours and predicted noise levels, local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses. Table 23 Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts (Number o f Receptors) Build Alternative Exterior Noise Level Increase Substantial Noise Level Increase 1 Impacts Due to Both Criteria 2 < 9 dBA 10 -14 dBA > 15 dBA US 421 and US 221 Intersection 2 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 38 0 0 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 23 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 18 0 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 3 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 1 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 34 0 0 0 0 Total 119 0 0 0 0 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE US 421 and US 221 Intersection 2 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 63 0 0 0 0 SR 1 003 to SR 1106 54 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 45 0 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 3 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 1 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 34 0 0 0 0 Total 202 0 0 0 0 The noise contours for the 72 -dBA and 67 -dBA noise levels are located seventy -three feet (73’) and one -hundred and nineteen feet (119’) from the centerline of the proposed roadway, respectively. Contour information and predicted future noise levels are shown by roadway sections in Table 24. This information is included to assist lo cal authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. 65 Table 24 Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contour Distances Build Alternative Maximum Predicted Leq Noise Levels (d BA)1 Maximum Contour Distances 2 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA US 421and US 221 Intersection 69 65 58 70 113 US 421 to SR 1003 69 65 59 62 105 SR 1003 to SR 1106 69 64 58 <61 100 SR 1106 to NC 194 69 65 59 62 105 NC 194 to SR 1145 69 65 58 68 11 1 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 70 65 59 71 117 US 221 Business to NC 88 70 65 59 73 119 No Build US 421and US 221 Intersection 69 65 58 70 113 US 421 to SR 1003 69 64 58 42 78 SR 1003 to SR 1106 69 63 58 41 78 SR 1106 to NC 194 69 64 58 42 78 NC 194 to SR 1145 70 64 58 42 79 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 70 64 58 43 80 US 221 Business to NC 88 70 64 58 42 80 6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures The following discussion addresses the applicability of potential traffic noise impact abatement measures for the benefit of the nine (9) impacted receptors predicted for this project. a. Highway Alignment Selection Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts an d costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balances between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise -sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement on this project. b. Traffic System Management Measures Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and LOS of the proposed facility. These options and other traffic system management measures, such as the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered consistent with the project's objective of providing a high -speed, limited -access facility. 66 c. Noise Barriers Physical measures to abate predicted traffic noise impacts are often applied successfully on fully controlled roadway facilities. These solid mass, attenuable measures, such as earth berms or structural noise walls, when strategically placed between the traffic noi se source and receptors, effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access to the roadway, meaning that most commercial establishments and residents will have di rect access connections to the proposed roadway and that all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For noise barriers to provide sufficient noise reduction, they must be sufficiently high and long to shield each receptor from a sufficiently long section of the highway (barriers should normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor). For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the centerline of the new roadway would normally require a 400 -foot -long barrier. Further, access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Given the large number of openings that would be n eeded, it is economically unreasonable to construct barriers for this project, given their limited effectiveness. Introduction of barriers would introduce a safety concern at each access opening (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) by introducing restricte d sight distances. Additionally, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid -mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would conflict with the need to maintain unlimited access to the roadway, would not be very effective given the required number of openings, would introduce a potential safety concern, and are generally not consistent with adjacent business and commercial uses. Thus, these m easures would generally not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered The acquisition of property to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for thi s project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost of $35,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be acc omplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to provide effective vegetative barriers. FHWA research has shown that a 67 v egetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet (100’) wide to provide a 3 -dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5 -dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right of way would be required. The cost of the additional right of way and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost of $35,000 allowed per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non -profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this p roject. 7. No -Build Alternative The traffic noise impacts for the No -Build Alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening does not occur, fifty -eight (58) receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. These receptors could ant icipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels of approximately 3 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2 – 3 dBA. A 5 -dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed. 8. Construction Noise The maj or construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers -by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short -term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and manmade structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. 9. Summary Traffic noise impacts can be an undesirable consequence of transportation projects. A ll predicted traffic noise impacts identified in this analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless significant project design changes occur, no additional noise reports are necessary for this project. K. Air Quality Analysis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions fr om industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primar y concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and lead (Pb) (l isted in order of decreasing emission rate). 68 1. Attainment Status The project is located Ashe and Watauga Counties, which have been determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proposed project is located in attainmen t areas; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these attainment areas. 2. Carbon Monoxide In accordance with 40 CFR 93.126, this project is an air quality neutral project. It is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project -level CO analysis is not required. 3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form O 3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Automotive emissions of HC and NOx are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued install ation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, on a regional basis, these technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area. The photochemical reactions that for m O 3 and NO 2 require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur ten to twenty kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, this mixture reacts to form O 3 , NO 2 , and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog th at forms in Los Angeles, California. 4. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) or sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of PM emissions and less than two percent of SO 2 emissions. PM and SO 2 emissions are predominantly the result of non - highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of PM and SO 2 from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to susp ect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for PM and SO 2 to exceed the NAAQS. 5. Lead Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline co ntaining tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has requir ed a reduction in the lead content of 69 gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Thus, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. 6. Mobile Source Air Toxics a. Background Cont rolling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expans ive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integ rated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html ). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional -scale cancer risk drivers from their 199 9 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999 /). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene and polycyclic organic matter. Wh ile FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overa ll health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project -specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate ho w the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project -level decision -making within the context of the NEPA. Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the scien ce emerges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in our environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define poten tial risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through c leaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle -miles travelled, VMT) increases by 145 % as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 % in the total annual emission 70 rate for the prior ity MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11: National MSAT Emissions Trends 1999 – 2050 for Vehicles Operating on Roadways using EPA’s Mobile6.2 Model Notes: (1) Annual emissions of polycyclic organic matter are projected to be 561 tons/yr for 1999, decreasing to 373 tons/yr for 2050. (2) Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle -miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission c ontrol programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. MOBILE6.2 Model run 20 August 2009. b. NEPA Context The NEPA requires, to the fullest extent possible, that the policies, regulations, and laws of the Federal Government be interpreted and administered in accordance with its environmental protection goals. The NEPA also requires Federal agencies to use an interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision -making for any action that adversely impacts the enviro nment. The NEPA requires and FHWA is committed to the examination and avoidance of potential impacts to the natural and human environment when considering approval of proposed transportation projects. In addition to evaluating the potential environmental e ffects, we must also take into account the need for safe 71 and efficient transportation in reaching a decision that is in the best overall public interest. The FHWA policies and procedures for implementing NEPA is prescribed by regulation in 23 CFR § 771. c . Analysis of MSAT in NEPA Documents The FHWA developed a tiered approach for analyzing MSAT in NEPA documents, depending on specific project circumstances. The FHWA has identified three levels of analysis: 1. No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects; 2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or 3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the seven priorit y MSAT should be analyzed. This project has a low potential for MSAT effect, therefore only a qualitative analysis is required. d. MSAT Analysis For both Build and No Build alternatives in this air quality analysis, the amount of MSAT emitted would be p roportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Refer to Table 25. Table 25 VMT for US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties Alternative VMT 2007 2035 No -Build 173,200 3 57,333 Build 180,478 373,000 Regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA - projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT g rowth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. Consequently higher levels of MSAT are not expected from the Build Alternative compared to the No Build. The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternative will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under the alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under the Bu ild Alternative than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the expanded roadway sections of widened US 221 that extend 72 outward from the existing centerline, throughout the project lim its. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases, compared to the No -Build alternative, cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project -specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT emissions will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almos t all cases, will cause region - wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. e. Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project -Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predic t the project -specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process throug h assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or ant icipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assess ing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. f. MSAT Conclusions What we know about mobile source air toxics is still evolving. As the science progresses FHWA will continue to revise and update this guidance. To that end we ex pect that a number of significant improvements in model forecasting and air pollution analysis guidance are forthcoming in the EPA's release of the final MOVES model and the issuance of the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Modeling Guidance. 7. Construction During constr uction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applica ble local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditi ons are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures 73 will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. 8. Summary Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in conges tion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increas ed rapidly. The project is located in Ashe and Watauga Counties, which complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or create a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Th erefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. 74 VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Citizens Informational Workshops Two Citizens Informational Workshops (CIW) for the project were held on October 24, 2006 and March 26, 2009 in the Ashe County High School Cafeteria located at 184 Campus Drive in West J efferson. 1. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 1 The first CIW was held on October 24, 2006 between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Approximately 125 citizens, local officials, local government staff, media representatives, and NCDOT representatives from the Division 11 Office, Roadway Design Unit, Right of Way Branch, Location and Surveys Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, and Parsons were present at the workshop. A copy of the news release for the workshop is included in A ppendix H . A project informational packet included in Appendix H was given to each attendee. Aerial photog raphs of the project study area and an environmental constraints map were displayed at several locations in the meeting room. The aerial mosaics show ed the project study area, project termini, and major points of interest within the study area. The major comments and information received from the public at this meeting are summarized below: • The road is narrow , and the truck traffic combined with the h igh traffic volumes make i t unsafe to access and pass slow -moving vehicles. • E levated noise levels resulting from higher speeds are a concern. • The Fleetwood School and F ire D epartment need to be protected from road construction , as they are very importa nt parts of the community. 2. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 2 The second CIW was held on March 26, 2009 between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximately 200 citizens, local officials, local government staff, media representatives, and NCDOT representatives from the Division 11 Office, Roadway Design Unit, Right of Way Branch, Location and Surveys Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, and Parsons were present at the workshop. A copy of the news release for the workshop i s included in Appendix H . The project informational packet included in Appendix H was given to each attendee. Functiona l Roadway Design Plans for the Best Fit 75 Alternative and various roadway typical sections were displayed at several locations in the meet ing room, and participants were able to review these design plans prior to the meeting. The Functional Roadway Design Plans showed the location of the additional travel lan es and the approximate right -of -way requirements for the proposed widening improveme nts, project termini, and major points of interest within the study area. The major comments and information received from the public at this meeting are summarized below: • A bike lane or walking path would help with tourism. Comments varied from includi ng a bi ke lane only in the vicinity of Jefferson and West Jefferson to including bike lanes along the length of the road. • The Lemly Hill road segment needs to be straightened , and drainage needs to be addressed to improve safety. • T he road is dangerous , a nd there are safety concerns. B . Local Officials Meetings L ocal officials meeting s (LOMs) were held prior to each of the two CIW in the Ashe County High School Cafeteria located at 184 Campus Drive in West Jefferson . 1. Local Officials Meeting N o. 1 The first LOM was held from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Meeting officials included elected officials from the Town of West Jefferson, Town of Jefferson, Watauga County Board of Commissioners, and Ashe County Board of Commissioners; staff from Watauga and Ashe counties; and representatives from the NC High Country Council of Governments. NCDOT representatives included staff from the Division 11 Office, Project Development and Env ironmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit, and Public Involvement Commun ity Studies Unit , as well as planners and engineers from Parsons, a private engineering consultant to NCDOT. A copy of the CIW information packet include d in Appendix H was given to each attendee. Aerial photographs of the project study area were displaye d at several locations in the meeting room, and participants were able to review these aerials prior to the meeting. The aerial mosaics sho wed the project study area, project termini, and major points of interest within the study area. NCDOT representativ es and the consultant presented a summary of the information included in the packet and a description of the information shown on the aerial mosaic. Officials from the Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson and Ashe and Watauga Counties 76 indicated strong sup port for the proposed US 221 widening improvements. 2 . Local Officials Meeting No. 2 The second LOM was held on March 26, 2009 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Meeting officials included elected officials from the Town of West Jefferson, Town of Jefferson, Watauga County Board of Commissioners, and Ashe County Board of Commissioners; staff from Watauga and Ashe counties; and representatives from the NC High Country Council of Governments. NCDOT representatives included staff from the Division 11 Office, Proj ect Development and Env ironmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit, and Public Involvement Community Studies Unit , as well as planners and engineers from Parsons. A copy of the CIW information packet included in Appendix H was given to each attendee. Functional Roadway Design Plan s for the Best Fit Alternative and various roadway typical sections were displayed at several locations in the meeting room, and participants were able to review these design plans prior to the meeting. The Functional Roadway Design Plans showed the location of the additional travel lanes and the approximate right -of -way requirements for the proposed widening improvements, project termini, and major points of interest within the study area. NCDOT representatives and the consul tant presented a summary of the information included in the packet and a description of the information shown on the Functional Roadway Design Plans. Officials from the Towns of Jefferson and West Jefferson and Ashe and Watauga Counties indicated strong su pport for the proposed US 221 widening improvements. C. Newsletters Three newsletters were sent to property owners in the project vicinity. The first newsletter was sent in early October 2006 to approximately 3,000 citizens in the project area. T his newsletter announced the first CIW to be he ld on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 and discussed the study process to be used in the project’s development process. The ma iling list for the newsletters ha s been maintained and updated as needed. A second newsle tter was sent in December 2007 to citizens on the updated mailing list. This newsletter requested public input on the draft Purpose and Need Statement for the US 221 widening improvements. A third newsletter was sent in early March 2009 to citizens on th e updated mailing list. This newsletter announced the second CIW to be held on Thursday, March 26, 2009 and provided an update on recent 77 project activities , including a description of the Best Fit A lternative to be studied in detailed. D. Public Hea ring A public hearing will be scheduled for this project following the distribution of this Environmental Assessment. During the hearing, citizens will have an opportunity to review the preliminary roadway design plans for the project, and to ask question s and state their comments regarding the proposed improvements. E. NEPA 404 Merger Process In a May 1992 agreement, USDOT , the Office of the Assistant of the Army (Civil Wo rks), and EPA developed a policy to improve interagency coordination and in tegrate policies of NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 1997, the Wilmington District of the USACE, the North Carolina Division of the FHWA, and NCDOT signed an Interagency Agreement that provided procedures to integrate NEPA and Section 404 for transportation projects in North Carolina. This integrated approach, called the Merger Process, was part of an effort to streamline the project development and permitting processes with the objective of incorporating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 into the NEPA decision - making process. The Merger Process allows agency representatives to work more efficiently by providing a forum for them to discuss and find ways to comply with key elements of their agencies’ missions. The Merger Process helps to document how competing agency mandates are balanced to reach a “compromise -based decision” to the regulatory and individual agency mandates. A Merger Screening Meeting was held for this project on October 19, 2005. Based on the anticipated impac ts, the agencies determined that the project should be included in the Merger Process. A Scoping Meeting was held for the project in Raleigh on June 15, 2006. Merger 01 concurrence has been reached on Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need and S tudy Area Defined), Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives to be Carried Forward for Detailed Study), and Concurrence Point 2A (Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review). Copies of the forms are included in Appendix J. Coordination with the Merger process agenc ies will continue throughout project studies, including Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA, or Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative), Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts), Concurrence Point 4B (30% Hydraulic Design Review), and Concurrence Point 4C (Permit Drawings Review). 78 F. Additional Agency Coordination Letters were sent to the following federal and state environmental agencies and regional and local g overnments at the beginning of the project studies: U S Ar my Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service US Geological Survey US Department of Agriculture US Department of the Interior, National Park Service Tennessee Valley Authority NC Department of Administration, NC Stat e Clearinghouse NC Department of Public Instruction NC Department of Cultural Resources NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Watauga County Administration Ashe County Administration Ashe County Board of Education Town of Jefferson Town of We st Jefferson High Country Rural Planning Organization The following agencies and governments provided written comments on the project (see Appendix K ): US Fish and Wildlife Service US Department of the Interior, National Park Service US De partment of Agriculture Tennessee Valley Authority N C Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse N C Department of Cultural Resources NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources NC Wildlife and Resources Commissio n VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Based on the planning and environmental studies , there is no indication that this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state and local agencies , and no substantial objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were voi ced at the CIWs held. For these reasons, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project. 79 FHWA and NCDOT are making this document available for a period of 30 days to provide resource agencies and the public an opportunity t o review the document. A public hearing will be scheduled also to allow for additional public comment. Comments received will be reviewed and taken into account prior to the determination to prepare and approve a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Appendix A Figures 1-A and 1-B – Project Location and Study Area Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph of Preferred Alternative (14 sheets) Figures 3-A through 3-D: 2007 Base Year No-Build Daily Forecast Volumes Figures 4-A through 4-D: 2035 Future Year Build Daily Forecast Volumes Figure 5 – TIP Projects nearby US 221 Project Area Figures 6 through 8 – Proposed Typical Sections Figures 10-A through 10-D – Community Context Diagram 421 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NAD 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 1 OF 1 BLUE RID G E PARKWA Y 221 221 421 221 421 194 221 163 221 BUS 194 221 BUS 221 88 194 88 221 16 88 16 88 N.T.S.Figure 2 v v v LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LINE IMPROVEMENTS LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LIMITS PROP. CONSTRUCTION R/W LINES EXIST. PROPERTY & EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS S2 S4 S6a W2a S3 W1 W2b S1a S6b W3 S5 S1b S7 S9 S8 S11 S10a S10b SA1 WA WB SA2 SA3 WC1 SA4 WC2 SA5 WC3 S1 S3 WO SE2 WJ WI SC2 SL WF SM WH WG SG SH SF SK SJ WE SI WQ WP SU SV SD WD SE1 S2 S2 NAD 83 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS OF TRANSPORTATION NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 1 OF 14 1" = 400’ GA P CR E E K H E G G R EE N E R D . S R 1 3 6 0 221 421 B L U E R I DG E P A R K W AY Figure 2 SW1 U S 42 1 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WATAUGA COUN T Y ASHE COUNT Y W A T A U G A C O U N T Y AS H E C O U N T Y JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU 66+ 0 7 . 5 7 6 7 0 9 S26b S13d S13e S1c W5 S17 S12b S13c S14c S14d W4 S12a SW1 S13b S13a S14a S16 S15 S18a S14b S18b S1c S20 S21c S21b S19a S21a S23 W7a S22 S19c S19b W6 S11 S10b W9a S25 W7b S24 W9b W8 NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 2 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 W9b W7b S25 S24 W9b W8 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS FARMLAND PRESERVATION LAND (VAD) GA P C R E E K C H U R C H H I L L R D . S R 1 1 0 0 C R A N B E R R Y S P R I N G R D . S R 1 1 7 1 W E S T P I N E S W A M P R D . W A T A U G A C O U N T Y AS H E C O U N T Y SR 1 3 6 0 HE G G R E E N E R D . G A P C R E E K R D . 221 v CO N C v v v v v v v W D WD JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S26a S26b S27a S27b S28 W10 SW2 S29 S30 S31 S32a S32b S33 S35b S35a S34 S1c W1 1 S3 6 a S3 6 b W1 2 W7a W9a S25 W7b S24 W9b W8 NAD 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 3 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 W11 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS TITTUS RI D G E R D . S R 1 0 0 3 I D L E W I L D R D . CA M B E L G L E N L A N E ST O N E C R E S T D R . GAP CREEK 221 v v v v v v v v v v W D CO N C CONC v CONC v v JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU W11 S38 S39a S39b W13 S37 S36a S36b S36c W12 W15 W16 S40 S41 W14 S42 S1c W17a W17b W17c S43 NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 4 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS GAP C R E E K S R 1 1 0 3 L I B E R T Y G R O V E C H U R C H R D . TITU S R I D G E D R . RI V E R B L U F F S D R . SO U T H F O R K O F NE W R I V E R 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU W17 a S43 S44e S44d S44c S44b W18 S44a S45 W19a W19b S48a W21 S47a S46b S47b W20 S46a S48b S56e S50a S50b W23a S51 W22 W23b S52b NA D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 5 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS 221 RI V E R R I D G E R D . SR 1 2 1 6 LE M L Y R D . SOUT H F O R K O F NEW R I V E R SR 1 1 6 9 W I N D Y H I L L R D . OLD F I E L D C R E E K v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WD WD v v v v ZC 1 ZC 2 ZC 3 ZC 4 JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S48a S56e S50a S50b S56d S53 W23a S51 W22 W23b S52b S52a S54 S55a W24 S55b S62a S49 S65 S64 S62b S62c W30 S63a S56d S68 W32 W31 S67 W29 S63c S63b W28 S66 W27 S61 S60 W26 S59b S58 W25 S59a S57 S55c S71b S72 S70a S71a S70b S69b W33 S69a S73c S73b NA D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 6 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 S50a S50b LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS S R 1 1 7 7 W A T E R T A N K R D . G R A N D F A T H E R P I N E S D R . SR 1106 RAILROAD GRADE RD. OLD FIELD CREEK FLEETWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER FLEETWOOD VOLUNTEER FIRE AND RESCUE 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WD WD WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S56d S68 W32 W31 S71b S72 S70a S71a S70b S69b W33 S69a SW3 S74 SW4 S73c S73b S73a W37 W36 W35 W34 S76b S76a W38 S75 W40 S77 W39 S78 W41 S79 W44 S81 W43 W42 S80 S82 W45 W46 S83 W47 S56c W48 W52 W49 W50 W5 1 S84a S84b SW 5 NA D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 7 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS SR 114 5 MULA T T O M O U N T A I N R D . IR A J O R D A N R D . S R 1 1 7 8 P A U L G O O D M A N R D . S R 1 2 1 0 J O E O W E N S R D . L A U R E L R I D G E R D . OLD FIELD CREEK 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WD v v v v v v v v v v W D v v v v v v v v v v v WD JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S 9 4 a S 5 6 c S83 W48 W52 W49 W50 W51 S84a S84b SW5 S85 S86 W54 W55 S88 S87c S87a S87b W53 SW6 S89a S89b W56 S90a W57 W58 S92e S92d W59 S91 S90b W61 W60 S93 S92c S92b S92a W62 NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 8 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 S83 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS I N D I A N L A K E D R . SR 1112 WOODSTO W N R D . SR 120 0 FRAN K E D W A R D S R D . SR 12 7 2 VERNO N R O T E N R D . EARN E S T H O W E L L R D . NC 194 / US 221 BUS. BALDWIN RD. BALDWIN-BETHANY CEMETERY OLD FIELD C R E E K 194 194 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WLB WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S56b S56a W63 S95b W65 W64 S97 S96 S94b S95c S94a S56c S98a S98b S98c S99a W66 S100 S99b S99c S95a S101 S103 W68 W69 S102 S104 W67 S92 e W5 9 W6 1 W6 0 S93 S92 c S92 b S92 a W6 2 S105 W70 S106c W71 S106b S107 S106a NA D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 9 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS SR 11 4 3 CLAR E N C E L Y A L L R D . S R 1 2 4 8 C L A R E N C E L Y A L L R D . OLD F I E L D C R E E K 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v CO N C WLB WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S114c S117 S119 S120a S120b S120c S121 S122 W84 W85 W86 W88a S118b S118a W87a W87b W88b S124a S123 S104 W67 S105 W70 S106c W71 S106b S107 S106a W72 W78a W78b W74 S108 W73c W73a W73b S109a W76 W75 S110 S111b S111a S112a W79a W79b S112b W77a W77b W77c W77d W77e S111c W80 S113a S115 S116 W81 W82 S113b SW7 S113c W83 S114b S114a N A D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 10 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS LEGEND 100 YEA R F L O O D Z O N E PROPOS E D P A V E M E N T PROP. R / W L I N E LIMITS O F P R O P . - Y - LINE IM P R O V E M E N T S PROP. C O N S T R U C T I O N LIMITS EXIST. P R O P E R T Y & R/W LIN E S EXIST. S T R E A M S & P O N D S EXIST. W E T L A N D S WESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v B S T WD v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v C O N C WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S128a W99a W98 SW8 W79b S112 b W77a W77e W80 S113a S115 S116 W81 W82 S113 b SW7 S113c W83 S114 b S114 a W84 S118a S118b W85 W87b S120b S121 S120a W88b W88a S123 S117 W86 S119 W87a S120c S122 S114c S124a W90 S170 S125 W89 W91 W92a S127 W93 W92b S124b S124c S126b W94 W95a S126a W95b S171 W96 S128b W97 S129 W99b NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 11 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 SW7 W83 S114b S113c S114a LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS N C 1 9 4 SO U T H J E F F E R E O N A V E . N C 1 6 3 JE F F E R S O N R D . SR 1 1 4 5 MU L A T T O M O U N T A I N R D . N E T T L E K N O B R D . BEAVER CREEK 194 194 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S1 7 1 W9 6 S128b W9 7 S129 W99 b SW8 S128a W98 W99a W100a W101 S130 W103 W100b S134c W102 S134b S134a W105 W104 W107 W106 S135a S133 S132 S130 S131 S135b NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 12 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 S129 W97 S128b W99b LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS S R 1 2 8 3 C O U N T Y H I G H S C H O O L D R . SR 1 1 5 2 JE F F E R S O N S T A T E P A R K R D . LI T T L E B U F F A L O C R E E K NC 194 SOUTH JEFFER S O N A V E . WEST JEFFERSON ASHE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 194 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU W 1 2 1 W 1 2 2 a S 1 4 8 a W107 W106 S135a S135d S142d S142c S142b W114 S141a W113 W112 S135c S140 W108 W109 S135b S137b W110 S139b W111 S139a S136 S137a S138 S141b W115 S142a W117 W116 S143a S143c S143b S144b SW9 S144a S145 W118 S146a S147 W120 W119 NAD 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 13 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 S135a W106 W107 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS LI T T L E B U F F A L O C R E E K S R 1 1 5 2 JE F F E R S O N S T A T E P A R K R D . SR 1 1 4 9 MOUN T J E F F E R S O N R D . JEFFERSON 221 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v WLB JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU JS NEU S1 6 7 S1 6 8 a S1 6 8 b SW9 S144a S145 W118 S146a S147 W120 W119 S148a W122a W121 W122b S149 S150 S148b S155 S156a S156b S156c S151a S151b S151c S152 S154 S151d S153 S157b S157a S151e S158b W124 S161a S161b S160 S163 S162b S151f S162a W123 S158a S159 S164 S165a S151g S165b W125 S166 N A D 8 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYSIS BRANCH US 221 (R-2915) ASHE and WATAUGA COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREFERED ALTERNATIVE SHEET 14 OF 14 1" = 400’Figure 2 S146a W119 W120 LEGEND 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROP. R/W LINE LIMITS OF PROP. -Y- LINE IMPROVEMENTS PROP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXIST. PROPERTY & R/W LINES EXIST. STREAMS & PONDS EXIST. WETLANDS SR 1254 LONG ST. SR 12 5 5 / N C 8 8 EAST M A I N S T . ASHE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL NAKED CRE E K BARNETT IDOL HOUSE JEFFERSON FOSTER TYSON PARK 88 221 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson FIGURE 1: US 221 PROJECT WIDENING LIMITS & FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS MAP SOURCE Draft Purpose and Need Statement prepared by Parsons Transportation Group in June, 2004 Not to Scale N LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson South Fork New River South Fork New River FIGURE 2: US 221 SURROUNDING LAND USE Matchline B Matchline A SR 1147 Nettle Knob Road SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1272 Vernon Roten Road Matchline A SR 1254 Long Street SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1251 Candlelight Drive SR 1152 Mount Jefferson State Park Road East Main Street Campus Drive Matchline C Matchline C Matchline B SR 1177 Water Tank Road SR 1106 Railroad Grade Road SR 1178 Paul Goodman Road SR 1169 Windy Hill Road SR 1216 Lemly Hill Road Hemlock Drive SR 1003 Idlewild Road SR 1171 West Pine Swamp Road SR 1265 Deep Gap Estates SR 1103 Liberty Grove Church Road SR 1100 Cranberry Springs Road SR 1360 Heg Greene Road Moretz Farm Road Lemly Hill Road SR 1206 Luther Road SR 1254 Long Street 163 194 221 BUS 194 421 221 421 LEGEND 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 Not to Scale Section A Section A —Open Space, Rural Section B —Open Space, Rural Section C —Open Space, Rural Section D —Urban Section E —Urban Section E Section D Section C Section B 88 16 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road 221 88 SR 1206 Luther Road SR 1255 Cherry Drive SR 1254 Long Street SR 1254 Long Street 88 221 221 SR 1664 Hospital Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1251 Candlelight Drive SR 1152 Mount Jefferson State Park Road Campus Drive East Main Street East Main Street A B F E G I N O Q R S T V W 7,800 (2005)C 15,000 (2005)D 12,000 (2005)H 5,200 (2005) J 10,000 (2005) K 3,200 (2004)L 4,800 (2005)M 1,900 (2005)P 430 (2004)R 3,400 (2005) U 9 10 FIGURE 3a: EXISTING STREET INVENTORY & TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS 2 5 8 7 Matchline A Matchline A SR 1283 Ashe County High School Road Lowe’s Dr 34 33 1 3 4 6 Intersection TMC collected by M/A/B in 2007 (16 -Hour) LEGEND Most Recent Historical AADT count collected by NCDOT; AADT {Year} 48 -hour vehicle class count collected by M/A/B in 2007 Unsignalized Intersection Intersection Not Counted NCDOT Intersection Turning Movement Count taken in 2002 or 2003 Signalized Intersection Not to Scale 16 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline B Matchline B 221 221 Matchline A Matchline A 194 163 221 BUS SR 1147 Nettle Knob Road SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1272 Vernon Roten Road 194 SR 1200 Frank Edwards Road GG KK 4,400 (2005)Y 12,000 (2005)Z 9,300 (2005) AA 1,000 (2004)BB 620 (2005)DD 250 (2000)FF 7,500 (2005) HH 1,800 (2005)JJ 12 13 14 15 16 11 II MM 11,000 (2005) X LL X 194 194 194 194 CC EE Y Intersection TMC collected by M/A/B in 2007 (16 -Hour) LEGEND Most Recent Historical AADT count collected by NCDOT; AADT {Year} 48 -hour vehicle class count collected by M/A/B in 2007 Unsignalized Intersection Intersection Not Counted NCDOT Intersection Turning Movement Count taken in 2002 or 2003 Signalized Intersection FIGURE 3b: EXISTING STREET INVENTORY & TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS Not to Scale LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline C Matchline C 221 221 Matchline B Matchline B SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1177 Water Tank Road SR 1106 Railroad Grade Road SR 1112 Woodstown Road SR 1178 Paul Goodman Road SR 1169 Windy Hill Road SR 1216 Lemly Road Hemlock Drive QQ RR WW 80 (2004)NN 7,000 (2005) OO 100 (2004)PP 540 (2005)TT 8,000 (2004) UU 1,100 (2005)VV 450 (2001)XX 6,900 (2004) YY 17 20 18 19 21 22 23 ZZ AAA SS Intersection TMC collected by M/A/B in 2007 (16 -Hour) LEGEND Most Recent Historical AADT count collected by NCDOT; AADT {Year} 48 -hour vehicle class count collected by M/A/B in 2007 Unsignalized Intersection Intersection Not Counted NCDOT Intersection Turning Movement Count taken in 2002 or 2003 Signalized Intersection FIGURE 3c: EXISTING STREET INVENTORY & TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS Not to Scale LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson South Fork New River South Fork New River 221 Matchline C Matchline C SR 1003 Idlewild Road SR 1171 West Pine Swamp Road SR 1265 Deep Gap Estates SR 1103 Liberty Grove Church Road SR 1100 Cranberry Springs Road SR 1360 Heg Greene Road Moretz Farm Road 221 221 421 421 BBB FFF PPP Lemly Hill Road 350 (2005)CCC 6,000 (2005) DDD 1,100 (2005)EEE 980 (2005)JJJ 360 (2000)III 8,000 (2005) KKK 7,600 (2005) NNN 8,600 (2005)OOO 12,000 (2005)PPP 25 28 29 32 27 31 30 26 GGG MMM 24 HHH LLL EEE Intersection TMC collected by M/A/B in 2007 (16 -Hour) LEGEND Most Recent Historical AADT count collected by NCDOT; AADT {Year} 48 -hour vehicle class count collected by M/A/B in 2007 Unsignalized Intersection Intersection Not Counted NCDOT Intersection Turning Movement Count taken in 2002 or 2003 Signalized Intersection FIGURE 3d: EXISTING STREET INVENTORY & TRAFFIC COUNT LOCATIONS Not to Scale LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline A Matchline A SR 1206 Luther Road SR 1255 Cherry Drive SR 1254 Long Street SR 1254 Long Street 88 221 221 SR 1664 Hospital Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1251 Candlelight Drive SR 1152 Mount Jefferson State Park Road East Main Street East Main Street Figure 3 -A: 2007 BASE YEAR NO -BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES 3,800 2,400 200 1,100 100 1,100 20 0 10 0 1 - 4,950 2,150 900 4,950 150 15 0 40 0 2, 1 5 0 90 0 40 0 1 - 12,000 300 6,800 800 6,800 30 0 80 0 2,950 4,650 1,450 4,650 2, 9 5 0 1, 4 5 0 100 100 200 3,250 100 750 75 0 5, 9 5 0 20 0 3, 2 5 0 5, 9 5 0 10 0 800 9, 0 0 0 10 0 100 300 9, 0 0 0 30 0 85 0 3, 2 5 0 12,200 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV Lowe’s Dr Campus Drive SR 1283 Ashe County High School Road 3,800 18 , 2 0 0 (4 , 1 ) PM 55 8 800 5, 4 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 55 8 2, 6 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 9 60 10,400 (2,1) PM 12 55 4,200 (2,1) PM 10 55 6,100 1,100 5,000 1, 1 0 0 12,200 3,200 (2,1) PM 12 65 1,300 300 1,300 800 80 0 30 0 350 950 600 100 950 150 15 0 35 0 60 0 10 0 35 0 35 0 2, 2 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 14 65 500 1,500 3,200 250 1,500 150 15 0 1, 0 5 0 3, 2 0 0 25 0 1, 0 5 0 50 0 3, 6 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 12 18 , 6 0 0 (3 , 3 ) PM 55 8 60 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 60 10 14,200 15,200 1, 6 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 65 14 8, 8 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 65 9 2, 2 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 10 Not to Scale 221 88 16 8, 2 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 9 55 8, 6 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 9 55 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline B Matchline B 221 221 Matchline A Matchline A 194 163 221 BUS SR 1147 Nettle Knob Road SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1272 Vernon Roten Road 194 SR 1200 Frank Edwards Road 12,200 400, 4,900 200 4,900 40 0 20 0 10,600 10,200 300 4,800 1 - 4,800 30 0 1 - 9,600 8,800 9,000 8,400 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 194 194 194 194 550 2,550 2,200 450 2,550 3,100 3, 1 0 0 2, 0 0 0 2, 2 0 0 45 0 2, 0 0 0 55 0 14 , 6 0 0 (3 , 2 ) PM 55 9 1, 2 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 60 7 60 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 80 9 50 4,200 250 150 4,200 450 45 0 1 - 25 0 15 0 1 - 50 40 0 (2 0 , 3 ) PM 10 60 1, 4 0 0 (3 , 2 ) PM 9 65 50 3,900 450 50 3,900 550 55 0 1 - 45 0 50 1 - 50 4,200 1 - 4,200 200 20 0 1 - 2, 0 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 8 60 40 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 10 60 6, 0 0 0 (6 , 2 ) PM 10 55 Figure 3 -B: 2007 BASE YEAR NO -BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 7 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline C Matchline C 221 221 Matchline B Matchline B SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1177 Water Tank Road SR 1106 Railroad Grade Road SR 1112 Woodstown Road SR 1178 Paul Goodman Road SR 1169 Windy Hill Road SR 1216 Lemly Road Hemlock Drive 8,400 8,200 1 - 4,100 100 4,100 1 - 10 0 8,400 1 - 4,200 100 4,200 1 - 10 0 8,600 200 4,100 100 4,100 20 0 10 0 8,400 8,000 300 3,700 1 - 3,700 30 0 1 - 7,400 7,600 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 4,100 1 - 4,100 100 10 0 1 - 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 60 10 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 60 10 60 0 (4 , 1 ) PM 55 9 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 3,750 250 3,750 450 45 0 25 0 50 3,700 50 1 - 3,700 1 - 1 -1 - 50 1 -1 - 50 60 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 60 9 1, 4 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 11 60 Figure 3 -C: 2007 BASE YEAR NO -BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson South Fork New River South Fork New River Matchline C Matchline C SR 1003 Idlewild Road SR 1171 West Pine Swamp Road SR 1265 Deep Gap Estates SR 1103 Liberty Grove Church Road SR 1100 Cranberry Springs Road SR 1360 Heg Greene Road Moretz Farm Road 221 421 421 Lemly Hill Road 8,600 7,400 50 3,650 750 3,650 50 75 0 1 - 3,800 1 - 3,800 1 -1 - 221 8,800 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 8,600 8,800 7,600 3,650 50 3,650 150 15 0 50 40 0 (1 8 , 2 ) PM 7 60 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 150 3,950 200 150 3,950 300 30 0 1 - 20 0 15 0 1 - 15 0 1 - 4,300 1 - 1 - 4,300 1 - 1 -1 -1 - 1 -1 -1 - Figure 3 -D: 2007 BASE YEAR NO -BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 1, 6 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 65 11 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 1, 0 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 55 9 4,400 1 - 4,400 1 - 1 -1 - 60 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 60 9 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 800 3,500 3, 5 0 0 3, 9 0 0 80 0 3, 9 0 0 14 , 8 0 0 (7 , 2 ) PM 65 9 9, 4 0 0 (7 , 2 ) PM 65 9 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline A Matchline A SR 1206 Luther Road SR 1255 Cherry Drive SR 1254 Long Street SR 1254 Long Street 88 221 221 SR 1664 Hospital Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1149 Mount Jefferson Road SR 1251 Candlelight Drive SR 1152 Mount Jefferson State Park Road East Main Street East Main Street Figure 4 -A: 2035 FUTURE YEAR BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES 7,600 4,800 350 2,250 150 2,250 35 0 15 0 50 9,850 4,300 1,800 9,850 350 35 0 75 0 4, 3 0 0 1, 8 0 0 75 0 50 24,000 600 13,600 1,600 13,600 60 0 1, 6 0 0 4,400 10,800 3,200 10,800 4, 4 0 0 3, 2 0 0 150 200 350 6,500 200 1,500 1, 5 0 0 11 , 9 5 0 35 0 6, 5 0 0 11 , 9 5 0 15 0 1,400 18 , 0 5 0 15 0 150 550 18 , 0 5 0 55 0 1, 7 0 0 6, 5 0 0 28,000 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV Lowe’s Dr Campus Drive SR 1283 Ashe County High School Road 7,600 36 , 4 0 0 (4 , 1 ) PM 55 8 1,400 10 , 8 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 55 8 5, 2 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 9 60 20,800 (2,1) PM 12 55 9,600 (2,1) PM 10 55 14,000 2,200 11,800 2, 2 0 0 28,000 7,400 (2,1) PM 12 65 3,150 550 3,150 1,650 1, 6 5 0 55 0 650 1,950 1,200 200 1,950 250 25 0 75 0 1, 2 0 0 20 0 75 0 65 0 4, 4 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 14 65 950 3,250 6,200 350 3,250 200 20 0 1, 2 0 0 6, 2 0 0 35 0 1, 2 0 0 95 0 5, 0 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 12 37 , 2 0 0 (3 , 3 ) PM 55 8 1, 0 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 60 10 28,400 30,400 3, 2 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 65 14 15 , 2 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 65 9 4, 4 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 10 Not to Scale 221 88 16 16 , 4 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 9 55 17 , 2 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 9 55 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline B Matchline B 221 221 Matchline A Matchline A 194 163 221 BUS SR 1147 Nettle Knob Road SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1143 Clarence Lyall Road SR 1272 Vernon Roten Road 194 SR 1200 Frank Edwards Road 28,000 25,000 23,200 21,800 20,000 21,600 19,400 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 194 194 194 194 1,500 6,700 4,300 1,200 6,700 6,100 6, 1 0 0 4, 2 0 0 4, 3 0 0 1, 2 0 0 4, 2 0 0 1, 5 0 0 29 , 2 0 0 (3 , 2 ) PM 55 9 2, 6 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 60 7 1, 4 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 80 9 100 10,000 700 300 10,000 600 60 0 10 0 70 0 30 0 10 0 10 0 1, 0 0 0 (2 0 , 3 ) PM 10 60 2, 8 0 0 (3 , 2 ) PM 9 65 100 9,050 850 100 9,050 1,650 1, 6 5 0 1 - 85 0 10 0 1 - 10 0 9,600 100 9,600 400 40 0 10 0 5, 0 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 8 60 1, 0 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 10 60 13 , 8 0 0 (6 , 2 ) PM 10 55 Figure 4 -B: 2035 FUTURE YEAR BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 1,100 11,400 200 11,400 1, 1 0 0 20 0 700 10,900 1 - 10,900 70 0 1 - 40 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 70 7 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson Matchline C Matchline C 221 221 Matchline B Matchline B SR 1145 Mulatto Mountain Road SR 1177 Water Tank Road SR 1106 Railroad Grade Road SR 1112 Woodstown Road SR 1178 Paul Goodman Road SR 1169 Windy Hill Road SR 1216 Lemly Road Hemlock Drive 19,400 19,200 50 9,550 150 9,550 50 15 0 19,400 1 - 9,700 200 9,700 1 - 20 0 19,800 300 9,600 500 9,600 30 0 50 0 20,200 18,200 450 8,650 250 8,650 45 0 25 0 17,800 18,000 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 9,550 50 9,550 150 15 0 50 40 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 60 10 40 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 60 10 1, 6 0 0 (4 , 1 ) PM 55 9 40 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 8,800 300 8,800 1,300 1, 3 0 0 30 0 50 8,900 50 1 - 8,900 1 - 1 -1 - 50 1 -1 - 50 1, 4 0 0 (3 , 1 ) PM 60 9 3, 2 0 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 11 60 Figure 4 -C: 2035 FUTURE YEAR BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 LOCATION: US 221 —From SR 1206 (Luther Road) in Ashe County to US 421 in Watauga County PROJECT: US 221 Widening COUNTIES: ASHE & WATAUGA DIVISION: 11 DATE: October, 2007 TIP Project No. R -2915 Martin/Alexiou/Bryson South Fork New River South Fork New River Matchline C Matchline C SR 1003 Idlewild Road SR 1171 West Pine Swamp Road SR 1265 Deep Gap Estates SR 1103 Liberty Grove Church Road SR 1100 Cranberry Springs Road SR 1360 Heg Greene Road Moretz Farm Road 221 421 421 Lemly Hill Road 20,400 17,400 200 8,500 1,600 8,500 20 0 1, 6 0 0 1 - 9,000 1 - 9,000 1 -1 - 221 20,200 DHV =DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30 K30 = 30th HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME PM =PM PEAK PERIOD D =DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) INDICATES DIRECTION OF D REVERSE FOR AM PEAK (d,t)DUALS, TT -ST’S (%) LEGEND (d, t) PM D DHV 20,400 20,200 18,000 8,650 50 8,650 350 35 0 50 80 0 (1 8 , 2 ) PM 7 60 10 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 400 9,250 550 250 9,250 600 60 0 50 55 0 25 0 50 40 0 50 10,100 50 50 10,100 50 50 1 - 50 50 1 - 50 Figure 4 -D: 2035 FUTURE YEAR BUILD DAILY FORECAST VOLUMES Not to Scale 3, 6 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 65 11 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 2, 4 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 55 9 10,050 50 10,050 50 50 50 1, 4 0 0 (6 , 1 ) PM 60 9 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 20 0 (2 , 1 ) PM 10 60 1,900 8,300 8, 3 0 0 8, 4 0 0 1, 9 0 0 8, 4 0 0 33 , 4 0 0 (7 , 2 ) PM 65 9 20 , 6 0 0 (7 , 2 ) PM 65 9 2 :1 6 :1 0 .02 L C -L- H I N G E P O I N T F O R F I LL S 0 .08 24’ 12’12’ 30’ FDPS PGL 4’ 0 .02 0 .08 24’ 12’12’ FDPS 4’ 23’ MEDIAN C & G C & G 6 :1 6 :1 8’ VC 2 :1 15’10’6’ EXIST. PAV’T * 2’-9"2’-9" 0 .02 0 .02 11’ W/ GR 11’ W/ GR 4’ VC GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL SOUTHERN END (BEGIN PROJECT TO NC 194) REVERSE FOR (WIDENING EAST SIDE) WITH RAISED MEDIAN (WIDENING WEST SIDE) PROPOSED 4-LANE DIVIDED SHOULDER SECTION TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 SLOPES VARIABLE F O R C U T S H I N G E P O I N T 8’8’ * EXIST. PAVEMENT WIDTH VARIES Figure 6 0 .02 24’ 12’12’ PGL 0 .02 24’ 12’12’ PGL EXIST. PAV’T * 5 :1 FDPS 2’ 6’ 5 :1 FDPS 2’ 6’ 0 .02 0 .02 36’ MEDIAN NORTHERN END (NC 194 TO SR 1149) REVERSE FOR (WIDENING EAST SIDE) WITH DEPRESSED MEDIAN (WIDENING WEST SIDE) PROPOSED 4-LANE DIVIDED SHOULDER SECTION TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 2 :1 6 :1 H I N G E P O I N T F O R F I LL S 0 .08 30’ FDPS 4’ 0 .02 11’ W/ GR GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL SLOPES VARIABLE 8’ 0 .08 FDPS 4’ 6 :1 6 :1 8’ VC 2 :1 15’10’6’ 4’ VC GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL F O R C U T S H I N G E P O I N T 8’ 0 .02 11’ W/ GR L C -L- * EXIST. PAVEMENT WIDTH VARIES Figure 7 0 .02 L C -L- 24’ 12’12’ PGL 0 .02 24’ 12’12’ MEDIAN EXIST. PAV’T * 2’-9" SOUTHERN END (SR 1149 TO LONG STREET) REVERSE FOR (WIDENING EAST SIDE) WITH RAISED MEDIAN (WIDENING WEST SIDE) PROPOSED 4-LANE DIVIDED SHOULDER SECTION TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3 17’-6" 2’-9" C & G C & G 2 :1 6 :1 H I N G E P O I N T F O R F I LL S 0 .08 30’ FDPS 4’ 0 .02 11’ W/ GR GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL SLOPES VARIABLE 8’ 0 .08 FDPS 4’ 6 :1 6 :1 8’ VC 2 :1 15’10’6’ 4’ VC GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL F O R C U T S H I N G E P O I N T 8’ 0 .02 11’ W/ GR * EXIST. PAVEMENT WIDTH VARIES Figure 8 ³æ ! !! 3 Id l e w i l d C h u r c h H i l l Railro a d G r a d e C a m p b e l l G l e n L i b e r t y G r o v e C h u r c h Wind y H i l l South Fork N e w R i v e r TITUS RIDGE LANGER SOUTHFORK HILLS PHIL TEMPLETON PROPERTY RIVER RIDGE ! Antiques Store ! Retail Nursery ! James Cline Church Property £¤221 Fleetwood Community Center Fleetwood Vol. Fire & Rescue 01,2002,400 600 Feet Legend Community Context Diagram ¯ Fleetwood Vehicular Traffic Commercial Figure 10b Neighborhood US 221 Widening Community Facilities !Cemetery ³æ Church !Community Center !Fire Station Direct Community Impact Area Baldwin Deep Gap/Pine Swamp Fleetwood Farmland Preservation Land (VAD) ! ! ! Wind y H i l l EVENING SHADOWS LAUREL RIDGE ESTATES W a t e r T a n k P a u l G o o d m a n M u l a t t o M o u n t a i n W o o d s t o w n Baldwin ¬«194 LIDDLE,BARRY K. &SANDRA T. INDIAN LAKE ESTATES EAU CLAIRE Old Fie l d C r e e k Call C r e e k £¤221 Baldwin-Bethany Cemetery Westwood Elementary School Baldwin Convenience Center 01,2502,500 625 Feet Legend Community Context Diagram ¯ Baldwin Vehicular Traffic Commercial Figure 10c Neighborhood US 221 Widening Community Facilities !Cemetery ³æ Church Direct Community Impact Area Baldwin Fleetwood West Jefferson/Jefferson !Recycle !School Farmland Preservation Land (VAD) ! ! ³æ ! ®v ³æ ³æ ³æ ³æ ³æ Wind y H i l l EVE N I N G SHA D O W S LAU R E L RID G E EST A T E S W a t e r T a n k P a u l Go o d m a n M u l a t t o M o u n t a i n W o o d s t o w n Baldwin ¬«194 LID D L E , BAR R Y K . & SAN D R A T . IND I A N LAK E EST A T E S EAU CLA I R E Ol d F i e l d C r e e k C a l l C r e e k CANDLE LIGHT PARK WOODCROFT ESTATES £¤221 Bus ¬«88 B e a v e r C r e e k S c h o o l Long ¬«163 Mount Jefferson State Park Mo u n t J e f f e r s o n Be a v e r Cre e k South Beaver Creek Littl e Buff a l o Cree k Na k e d Cre e k £¤221 Bus Barnett Idol House DUVALL, THELMA W 0 £¤221 Jefferson West Jefferson 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ashe County Rescue Squad Ashe County High School Westwood Elementary School 02,5005,000 1,250 Feet Legend Community Context Diagram ¯ Jefferson/West Jefferson Vehicular Traffic Commercial Figure 10d Neighborhood US 221 Widening Community Facilities !Cemetery ³æ Church Direct Community Impact Area Baldwin West Jefferson/Jefferson !School ®v EMT Town Boundaries Parks Churches 1 - Midway Baptist Church 2 - West Jefferson United Methodist Church 3 - Fletcher Memorial Baptist Church 4 - Jefferson Memorial Baptist Church 5 - Faith Fellowship and Harvest Ministries 6 - St. Francis of Assisi Jefferson Proposed Greenway West Jefferson Proposed Bike Lane Farmland Preservation Land (VAD) Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in the Report Table B-1 Project Study Area Streams Table B-2 Project Study Area Stream Characteristics Table B-3 Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area Table B-4 Culvert and Bridging Decisions Table B-1. Project Study Area Stream s Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S1aGap Creek10-1-23C; Tr:+S1bGap Creek 10-1-23 C; Tr:+S1cGap Creek 10-1-23 C; Tr:+S2UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S3UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S4UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S5UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S6aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S6bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S7UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S8UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S9UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S10aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S10bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S11UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S12aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S12bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S13aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S13bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S13cUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S13dUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S13eUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S14aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S14bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S14cUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S14dUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S15UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S16UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S17UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S18aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S18bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S19aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S19bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S19cUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S20UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S21aUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S21bUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S21cUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S22UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S23UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S24UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S25UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S26aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S26bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S27aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S27bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S28UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S29UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S30UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S31UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S32aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S32bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S33UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S34UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S35aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S35bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S36aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S36bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S36cUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S37Little Gap Creek20-1-23-1C; Tr:+S38UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S39aUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S39bUT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S40UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S41UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S42UT Gap Creek10-1-23*C; Tr:+S43South Fork New River10-1-(20.5)WS-V; HQW S44aUT S.F. New River10-1-(20.5)*WS-V; HQW S44bUT S.F. New River10-1-(20.5)*WS-V; HQW S44cUT S.F. New River10-1-(20.5)*WS-V; HQW S44dUT S.F. New River10-1-(20.5)*WS-V; HQW S44eUT S.F. New River10-1-(20.5)*WS-V; HQW S45UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S46aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S46bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S47aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S47bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S48aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S48bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S49UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S50aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S50bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S51UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S52aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S52bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr, ORW S53UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S54UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S55aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S55bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S55cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S56aOld Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.3)C; Tr:+S56bOld Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.3)C; Tr:+S56cOld Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.3)C; Tr:+S56dOld Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.3)C; Tr:+S56eOld Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.7)C; Tr, ORW S57UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S58UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S59aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S59bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S60UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S61UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S62aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S62bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S62cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S63aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S63bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S63cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S64UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S65UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S66UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S67UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S68UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S69aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S69bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S70aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S70bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S71aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S71bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S72UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S73aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S73bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S73cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S74UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S75UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S76aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S76bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S77UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S78UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S79UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S80UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S81UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S82UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S83UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S84aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S84bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S85UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S86UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S87aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S87bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S87cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S88UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S89aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S89bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S90aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S90bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S91UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S92aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S92bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S92cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S92dUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S92eUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S93UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S94aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S94bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S95aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S95bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S95cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S96UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S97UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S98aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S98bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S98cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S99aUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S99bUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S99cUT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S100UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S101UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S102UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S103UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S104UT Old Field Creek10-1-22-(0.3)*C; Tr:+S105UT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S106aUT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S106bUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S106cUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S107UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S108UT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S109UT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S110UT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S111aUT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S111bUT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S111cUT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S112aUT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S112bUT South Beaver Creek10-1-25-2*C; Tr:+S113aUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S113bUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S113cUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S114aUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S114bUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S114cUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S115UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S116UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S117UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S118aUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S118bUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S119UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S120aUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S120bUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S120cUT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S121UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S122UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S123UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S124aBeaver Creek 10-1-25 C; Tr:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S124bBeaver Creek10-1-25C; Tr:+S124cBeaver Creek10-1-25C; Tr:+S125UT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S126aUT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S126bUT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S127UT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S128aUT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S128bUT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S129UT Beaver Creek10-1-25*C; Tr:+S130UT Cole Branch10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S131UT Cole Branch10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S132UT Cole Branch 10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S133UT Cole Branch 10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S134aUT Cole Branch 10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S134bUT Cole Branch 10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S134cUT Cole Branch 10-1-25-1*C; Tr:+S135aLittle Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 C; Tr:+S135bLittle Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 C; Tr:+S135cLittle Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 C; Tr:+S135dLittle Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 C; Tr:+S136UT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S137aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S137bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S138UT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S139aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S139bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S140UT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S141aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S141bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S142aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S142bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S142cUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S142dUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S143aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S143bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S143cUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S144aUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S144bUT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S145UT Little Buffalo Creek10-2-20-1*C; Tr:+S146UT Naked Creek 10-1-32*C:+S147UT Naked Creek 10-1-32*C:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, continued. Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S148UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S148bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S149UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S150UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S151aNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151bNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151cNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151dNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151eNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151fNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151gNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151hNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151iNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S151jNaked Creek10-1-32C:+S152UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S153UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S154UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S155UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S156aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S156bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S156cUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S157aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S157bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S158aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S158bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S159UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S160UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S161aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S161bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S162aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S162bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S163UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S164UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S165aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S165bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S166UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S167UT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S168aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S168bUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S168cUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S168dUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+Table B-1. continues Table B-1. Project Study Area Streams, concluded . Map IDStream Name DWQ Stream Index Number Best Usage Classification S169aUT Naked Creek10-1-32*C:+S169bUT Naked Creek 10-1-32*C:+S169cUT Naked Creek 10-1-32*C:+S170UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+S171UT Beaver Creek 10-1-25*C; Tr:+SAUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S1 1 Ga p Cree k 10-1-23 C; Tr:+S2 1 UT Ga p Cree k 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SDUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SE1UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SE2UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SFUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SGUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SHUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SIUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SJUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SKUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SLUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SMUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SN1UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SN2UT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SOUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SPUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SQUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SRUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SSUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+S3 1 UT Ga p Cree k 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SUUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+SVUT Gap Creek 10-1-23*C; Tr:+UT=Unnamed tributary + Identifies waters subject to a special management strategy to protect downstream waters that are designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). 1 Stream number corresponds to that assigned to these same streams in the original 2009 NRTR. * No Stream Index Number assigned. Stream Index Number is for the closest named stream. Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity S1a371gravel/cobblemoderateclear S1b5253cobble/bouldermoderateclear S1c7352cobble/bouldermoderateclear S24120.5gravel/cobblemoderateclear S3 *0.520siltn/an/a S4250.5gravel/cobbleslowclear S5360.25gravel slowclear S6a *380siltn/an/a S6b *380siltn/an/a S7 *260silt/sandn/an/a S834<0.25cobble moderateclear S948<0.25cobblemoderateclear S10a3120.5cobble/bouldermoderateclear S10b36<0.25silt/sandslowslighty turbid S11415<0.25siltslowslighty turbid S12a5100.5cobble/bouldermoderateclear S12b4100.5cobblemoderateclear S13a *230silt/sandn/an/a S13b68<0.25sandslowslighty turbid S13c36<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S13d36<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S13e36<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S14a13<0.25sand/gravelmoderateclear S14b24<0.25sand/g ravel moderate clear S14c24<0.25 sand/g ravel moderate clear S14d24<0.25 sand/g ravel moderate clear S1525<0.25 silt/sand slow slighty turbid S1634<0.25 sand/gravel slow slighty turbid S17512<0.25 sand/gravel slow clear S18a *6100 silt/sand n/a n/a S18b *6100 silt/sand n/a n/a S19a13<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S19b13<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S19c13<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S2039<0.25 sand/gravel slow clear S21a13<0.25gravel/boulder moderate clear S21b13<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S21c25<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S22 *130 sand n/a n/a S2324<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S2413<0.25 sand/gravel slow clear S2513<0.25 sand/gravel slow clear S26a412<0.25 sand/gravel slow clear S26b310<0.25 silt slow slighty turbid S27a13<0.25 silt slow slighty turbid S27b13<0.25 silt slow slighty turbid S2813<0.25 silt slow slighty turbid S2912<0.25 silt/sand slow clear S30 *360 silt/sand n/a n/a Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, continued. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity S310.53<0.25silt/sandslowslighty turbid S32a2150.5gravel/bouldermoderateclear S32b2150.25gravel/bouldermoderateclear S33370.25gravel/bouldermoderateclear S3446<0.25gravelslowclear S35a *350graveln/an/a S35b410<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S36a2.57<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S36b2.57<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S36c512<0.25sand/gravelslowclear S374100.25gravel/bouldermoderateclear S3815<0.25sand/gravelmoderateclear S39a612<0.25silt/sandslowclear S39b49<0.25silt/sandslowclear S4025<0.25gravelslowclear S4126<0.25gravelslowclear S4225<0.25gravel/cobbleslowclear S4381003sand/gravel/cobblemoderateslighty turbid S44a220.25sandmoderateclear S44b221sandmoderateclear S44c230.25sandmoderateclear S44d220.25sandmoderateclear S44e220.25sandmoderateclear S45240.25sand/gravelmoderateclear S46a16<0.25sand/cobbleslowclear S46b480.25sand/cobblemoderateclear S47a130.5sand/cobblemoderateslighty turbid S47b140.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S48a140.5sand/cobblemoderateslighty turbid S48b140.5sand/clayslowslighty turbid S490.510clayn/an/a S50a0.51<0.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S50b230.5sand/bouldermoderateslighty turbid S510.51<0.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S52a*120sandn/an/a S52b12<0.25sand/gravelmoderateclear S5312<0.25sand/cobbleslowclear S5415<0.25clay/cobbleslowclear S55a14<0.25sand/cobbleslowclear S55b14<0.25sand/gravel/cobbleslowclear S55c *1.51.50clayn/an/a S56a25<0.25silt/sand/cobblefastclear S56b *340clayn/an/a S56c25<0.25silt/sand/cobblefastclear S56d3182sand/cobblefastclear S56e3152cobblefastclear S57110.5sandmoderateclear S5811<0.25silt/sandmoderateclear S59a11<0.25silt/sandmoderateclear Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, continued. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity S59b11<0.25silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S60*10.50sand/graveln/an/a S61*120sand/graveln/an/a S62a330.5sand/gravelslowslighty turbid S62b*430sand/graveln/an/a S62c340clayn/an/a S63a3121sand/cobble/bedrockfastclear S63b460.5sand/cobble/boulderfastclear S63c44<0.25sand/cobble/bouldermoderateclear S640.510clayn/an/a S650.510clayn/an/a S6611<0.25silt/sandmoderateclear S6720.5<0.25silt/sandmoderateclear S68*0.510silt/sandn/an/a S69a261.5bedrockfastclear S69b110.5sand/cobblefastclear S70a130.25sand/gravelslowclear S70b130.5sand/gravelslowclear S71a0.51.50.25sand/cobblemoderateclear S71b0.51.50.25sand/cobblemoderateclear S7211.50.25sandslowslighty turbid S73a230.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S73b110.5sand/gravelmoderateclear S73c110.5sand/gravelmoderateclear S74110.25sand/gravelslowclear S750.54.50.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S76a26<0.25sand/cobblefastclear S76b3101sand/cobblefastclear S77140.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S78120.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S790.51<0.25silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S8011<0.25silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S8121<0.25sandmoderateclear S82520.5sandslowclear S83240.25silt/sand/cobbleslowclear S84a*40.50sandn/an/a S84bn/an/an/apipedn/an/a S85110.5sand/gravelmoderateclear S861.51.50.25sand/gravelmoderateclear S87a12<0.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S87b12<0.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S87c12<0.25sand/clayslowslighty turbid S8811.5<0.25sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S89a0.51<0.25silt/sand/gravelslowclear S89b0.50.50.25sand/gravel/cobblefastclear S90a221sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S90b221sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, continued. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel Substrate Velocity Clarity S91110.5 silt/sand moderate clear S92a230.5 sand/cobble moderate clear S92b2.530.5 sand/cobble moderate clear S92c44<0.25 sand/cobble moderate clear S92d130.5 silt/sand slow slighty turbid S92e130.5 silt/sand slow slighty turbid S93230.5sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S94a320.5sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S94b320.5sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S95a561 silt/sand/cobble moderate clear S95b231silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderate clear S95c351silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderate clear S96120.5 silt/sand/gravel slow slighty turbid S97 *0.510 sand/cobble n/a n/a S98a120.5 sand/cobble moderate clear S98b120.5 sand/cobble moderate clear S98c120.5 sand/cobble moderate clear S99a0.530.25 sand/cobble slow clear S99b13.50.5 sand/cobble slow clear S99c13.50.5 sand/cobble slow clear S1000.54<0.25 sand slow clear S101240.5sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S10212<0.25 sand/gravel moderate clear S103130.5sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S104240.5sand/cobble/bouldermoderate clear S105430.25sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S106a230.25silt/sand/gravel/cobble slow clear S106b11.5<0.25sand/gravel/cobble moderate clear S106c110.25 silt/sand/gravel moderate clear S107 *120 sand/silt n/a n/a S108350.25silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderate clear S109240.5 silt/sand/gravel moderate clear S110220.25 silt/gravel slow clear S111a120.75silt/sand/gravel/cobble fast clear S111b130.5silt/gravel/cobble moderate clear S111c281silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderate clear S112a110.25 silt/sand/gravel slow clear S112b120.5 silt/sand/gravel slow clear S113a *210 silt/sand/gravel n/a n/a S113b240.5sand/gravel/cobble slow clear S113c240.5sand/gravel/cobble slow clear S114a320.5 silt/sand/cobble slow clear S114b330.5silt/sand/gravel/boulder slow clear S114c241 silt/sand/cobble moderate clear S115321sand/gravel/cobble/boulderslow clear S116220.25sand/gravel/boulder slow clear S117230.5 silt/sand/cobble moderate clear S118a *120 silt/sand/cobble n/a n/a S118b *120 silt/cobble n/a n/a Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, continued. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity S119120.25silt/gravelslowclear S120a *110silt/graveln/an/a S120b220.5sand/gravelslowclear S120c130.5sand/gravelslowclear S121120.25sand/gravelslowclear S122130.25silt/cobblemoderateclear S1230.51<0.25silt/sandslowclear S124a5102silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S124b4102silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S124c4122silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S125 *0.510silt/sandn/an/a S126a320.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S126b330.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S127220.5silt/sandslowclear S128a0.520.25silt/sandslowslighty turbid S128b240.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S129220.5silt/sandmoderateclear S130110.25silt/sandslowclear S131 *110silt/sandn/an/a S132 *110silt/sandn/an/a S133 *110silt/sandn/an/a S134a *0.520silt/graveln/an/a S134b11.50.5siltslowclear S134c11<0.25silt/sandslowclear S135a0.50.50.25silt/sandslowclear S135b220.5silt/sand/gravel/cobbleslowclear S135c36<0.25silt/cobble/bouldermoderateclear S135d350.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S136 *110silt/sand/graveln/an/a S137a120.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S137b220.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S1380.510.25silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S139a120.5silt/cobbleslowclear S139b220.5silt/gravel/cobbleslowclear S14012<0.25sand/bouldermoderateclear S141a320.25sand/gravel/cobbleslowclear S141b220.5silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S142a *230sand/gravel/cobblen/an/a S142b330.5silt/sand/cobbleslowclear S142c120.5silt/sand/gravelslowclear S142d120.5silt/sand/gravelslowclear S143a130.5sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S143b130.5silt/gravel/cobbleslowclear S143c130.5silt/gravel/cobbleslowclear S144a120.5silt/gravel/cobbleslowclear S144b230.5silt/cobbleslowclear S145 *1.52.50silt/gravel/cobblen/an/a S146 *230silt/sand/gravel/cobblen/an/a S147 *120silt/sand/graveln/an/a Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, continued. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity S148241silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S148b341silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S149330.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S150320.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S151a381silt/cobblemoderateclear S151b381silt/cobblemoderateclear S151c381silt/cobblemoderateclear S151d381silt/cobblemoderateclear S151e331sand/gravel/cobble/boulderfastclear S151f251silt/sand/cobble/boulderfastclear S151g261silt/sand/cobble/bouldermoderateclear S151h3122silt/cobble/boulder/bedrockmoderateclear S151i6142silt/boulder/bedrockmoderateclear S151j6142silt/sand/boulder/bedrockmoderateclear S152261silt/sandslowslighty turbid S15311.50.5silt/sandslowclear S15411.50.5silt/sandslowclear S155240.5silt/sand/cobble/bouldermoderateclear S156a220.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S156b220.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S156c330.5silt/cobblemoderateclear S157a240.5silt/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S157b240.5silt/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S158a230.5sand/cobblemoderateclear S158b320.5sand/cobblefastclear S159220.5cobble/concretefastclear S160240.25silt/cobblemoderateclear S161a120.5silt/sandmoderateclear S161b230.5silt/sandmoderateclear S162a230.25silt/cobblemoderateclear S162b240.25silt/cobblemoderateclear S163320.25silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S164120.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S165a120.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S165b121silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S166342silt/sand/cobble/bouldermoderateclear S167130.5silt/sandmoderateclear S168a420.5silt/sand/gravel/cobblemoderateclear S168b430.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S168c430.5silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S168d630.5silt/sand/cobblemoderateclear S169a110.25silt/sand/cobblefastclear S169b110.25silt/sand/cobblefastclear S169c110.25silt/sand/cobblefastclear S170210.5silt/sand/gravelmoderateclear S171*130silt/graveln/an/a SA<13<1sand/mudfastclear S1 1 4101 cobble/sand fast clear S2 1 3102boulder/cobble/g ravel/sandfast clear SD12<1 gravel/sand/mud moderate slighty turbid Table B-2. continues Table B-2. Project Study Area Stream Characteristics, concluded. Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Water Depth (ft)Channel SubstrateVelocityClarity SE123<1cobble/gravel/mudmoderateclear SE2361boulder/cobblefastclear SF11<1sand/mudmoderateclear SG<12<1boulder/cobblefastclear SH<11<1sand/mudslowslighty turbid SI<12<1sand/mudslowslighty turbid SJ<12<1sand/mudslowslighty turbid SK<12<1cobble/sandslowslighty turbid SL<12<1sand/gravelslowclear SM<12<1cobble/sandfastclear SN123<1cobble/gravelmoderateclear SN236<1boulder/cobble/sandfastclear SO12<1sand/mudslowslighty turbid SP<12<1sand/mudmoderateclear SQ<12<1sand/mudmoderateclear SR23<1cobble/gravelmoderateslighty turbid SS121cobble/gravel/sandmoderateslighty turbid S3 1 <12<1 silt slow clear SU<11<1 sand/mud slow slighty turbid SV<11<1 sand/mud slow slighty turbid * Feature was flowing in 2007, but there was no water in the fall of 2008. 1 Stream number corresponds to that assigned to these same streams in the original 2009 NRTR. Table B-3. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area Map ID Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Vegetative Community Area (Ac.) W1PEMNon-Riparian12pasture0.08 W2aPSSNon-Riparian14successional0.21 W2bPEMNon-Riparian14successional0.56 W3PEMRiparian14pasture0.05 W4PEMNon-Riparian16successional0.07 W5PFONon-Riparian25pasture0.71 W6PEMNon-Riparian8tree farm0.15 W7aPSSNon-Riparian12tree farm0.01 W7bPSSNon-Riparian12pasture0.04 W8PEMNon-Riparian8pasture0.08 W9aPEMNon-Riparian11pasture0.04 W9bPEMNon-Riparian11pasture0.10 W10PEMNon-Riparian9pasture0.08 W11PSSNon-Riparian23pasture0.26 W12PSSNon-Riparian23montane oak -hickory0.05 W13PSSNon-Riparian4successional0.66 W14PSSNon-Riparian24successional0.02 W15PSSRiparian24maintained/disturbed0.12 W16PFONon-Riparian24montane oak -hickory0.04 W17aPEMNon-Riparian16pasture1.05 W17bPEMNon-Riparian16pasture0.13 W17cPEMNon-Riparian16pasture0.01 W18PSSRiparian23maintained/disturbed0.03 W19aPSSNon-Riparian19montane oak -hickory0.09 W19bPSSRiparian19montane oak -hickory0.29 W20PSSRiparian19montane oak -hickory0.03 W21PSSRiparian30montane oak -hickory0.01 W22PFONon-Riparian24maintained/disturbed0.08 W23PFORiparian24successional0.07 W24PEMNon-Riparian37white pine0.03 W25PSSNon-Riparian30montane oak -hickory0.01 W26PSSNon-Riparian30montane oak -hickory0.00 W27PEMNon-Riparian30montane oak -hickory0.01 W28PEMRiparian30montane oak -hickory0.07 W29PEMNon-Riparian24white pine0.00 W30PSSRiparian19northern hardwood0.00 W31PSSRiparian24white pine0.00 W32PSSRiparian24white pine0.01 W33PSSNon-Riparian36maintained/disturbed0.02 W34PFORiparian19northern hardwood0.01 W35PFORiparian19northern hardwood0.01 W36PFORiparian19northern hardwood0.02 Table B-3. continues Table B-3. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area, continued. Map ID Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Vegetative Community Area (Ac.) W37PFORiparian19northern hardwood0.01 W38PSSNon-Riparian21northern hardwood0.06 W39PSSRiparian49northern hardwood0.01 W40PSSRiparian49northern hardwood0.01 W41PFONon-Riparian14northern hardwood0.01 W42PFORiparian54northern hardwood0.08 W43PFORiparian54northern hardwood0.05 W44PEMRiparian36pasture0.00 W45PSSRiparian36pasture0.11 W46PSSNon-Riparian36pasture0.06 W47PSSRiparian15northern hardwood0.03 W48PEMNon-Riparian13maintained/disturbed0.01 W49PEMNon-Riparian13pasture0.02 W50PEMNon-Riparian13pasture0.01 W51PEMNon-Riparian13pasture0.01 W52PEMNon-Riparian13maintained/disturbed0.04 W53PSSNon-Riparian31maintained/disturbed0.02 W54PSSNon-Riparian11tree farm0.13 W55PSSNon-Riparian21tree farm0.07 W56PEMRiparian29maintained/disturbed0.03 W57PSSNon-Riparian29maintained/disturbed0.04 W58PSSRiparian29maintained/disturbed0.05 W59PSSRiparian21maintained/disturbed0.14 W60PSSNon-Riparian11pasture0.04 W61PSSNon-Riparian11pasture0.09 W62PSSRiparian20maintained/disturbed0.01 W63PEMNon-Riparian18pasture0.39 W64PEMNon-Riparian10pasture0.02 W65PSSRiparian19mixed hardwood/pine0.17 W66PFORiparian17maintained/disturbed0.04 W67PSSRiparian19mixed hardwood/pine0.07 W68PSSNon-Riparian45tree farm0.04 W69PSSNon-Riparian45tree farm0.29 W70PSSNon-Riparian26maintained/disturbed0.02 W71PSSRiparian26tree farm0.75 W72PSSNon-Riparian14tree farm0.02 W73aPSSRiparian34maintained/disturbed0.25 W73bPSSRiparian34montane oak -hickory0.16 W73cPSSRiparian34montane oak -hickory0.16 W74PEMRiparian15montane oak -hickory0.03 W75PFORiparian15montane oak -hickory0.08 W76PFORiparian15montane oak -hickory0.30 W77aPF0Riparian66montane oak -hickory1.23 Table B-3. continues Table B-3. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area (R-2915), continued. Map ID Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Vegetative Community Area (Ac.) W77bPSSRiparian66successional0.24 W77cPSSRiparian66successional0.01 W77dPSSRiparian66successional0.19 W77ePSSRiparian66successional0.19 W78aPFORiparian66successional0.12 W78bPFORiparian66successional0.62 W79aPSSNon-Riparian30successional0.24 W79bPSSNon-Riparian8successional0.01 W80PFORiparian28maintained/disturbed0.06 W81PFORiparian15white pine0.01 W82PEMNon-Riparian15successional0.06 W83PSSRiparian28montane oak -hickory0.00 W84PEMRiparian19northern hardwood0.05 W85PSSRiparian17successional0.03 W86PSSNon-Riparian49successional0.18 W87aPSSNon-Riparian49successional0.01 W87bPSSNon-Riparian49northern hardwood0.05 W88aPFORiparian17successional0.02 W88bPFORiparian17northern hardwood0.04 W89PFONon-Riparian19mixed hardwood/pine0.09 W90PSSRiparian24maintained/disturbed0.13 W91PSSNon-Riparian24maintained/disturbed0.23 W92PEMRiparian28maintained/disturbed0.68 W93PEMRiparian26maintained/disturbed0.54 W94PEMNon-Riparian18maintained/disturbed0.04 W95aPEMNon-Riparian30maintained/disturbed0.24 W95bPEMRiparian30maintained/disturbed0.28 W96PSSRiparian17maintained/disturbed0.30 W97PSSRiparian18maintained/disturbed0.19 W98PSSRiparian17maintained/disturbed0.07 W99aPSSNon-Riparian18maintained/disturbed0.10 W99bPSSNon-Riparian18maintained/disturbed0.04 W100aPSSRiparian30maintained/disturbed0.35 W100bPSSRiparian30maintained/disturbed0.07 W101PEMNon-Riparian10agricultural land0.01 W102PSSNon-Riparian25maintained/disturbed0.27 W103PSSNon-Riparian25maintained/disturbed0.22 W104PEMNon-Riparian10agricultural land0.17 W105PEMNon-Riparian10agricultural land0.01 W106PEMRiparian35maintained/disturbed0.04 W107PEMRiparian35maintained/disturbed0.03 W108PSSNon-Riparian12pasture0.02 W109PSSNon-Riparian12montane oak-hickory0.09 Table B-3. continues Table B-3. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area (R-2915), concluded. Map ID Cowardin/ NCWAM Classification a Hydrologic Classification b DWQ Wetland Quality Rating Vegetative Community Area (Ac.) W110PSSRiparian24successional0.62 W111PSSRiparian16maintained/disturbed0.05 W112PSSNon-Riparian24successional0.46 W113PEMNon-Riparian32mixed hardwood/pine0.01 W114PSSNon-Riparian32maintained/disturbed0.06 W115PFORiparian31maintained/disturbed0.03 W116PSSNon-Riparian32mixed hardwood/pine0.03 W117PFORiparian56montane oak-hickory0.20 W118PSSRiparian51montane oak-hickory0.01 W119PSSRiparian51maintained/disturbed0.05 W120PEMRiparian51montane oak-hickory0.04 W121PEMNon-Riparian9maintained/disturbed0.04 W122aPSSRiparian32maintained/disturbed0.06 W122bPSSRiparian32maintained/disturbed0.08 W123PEMNon-Riparian8maintained/disturbed0.05 W124PSSNon-Riparian12maintained/disturbed0.02 W125PEMRiparian9maintained/disturbed0.02 WANTFMRiparian40-0.07 WBNTFMRiparian37-0.20 WCNTFMRiparian39-0.74 WDHFRiparian50-0.07 WEHFRiparian56-0.04 WFHFRiparian56-0.04 WGHFRiparian58-0.34 WHHFRiparian56-0.19 WIHFRiparian45-0.31 WJHFRiparian45-0.11 WKHFRiparian52-0.07 WLHFRiparian57-0.07 WMHFRiparian45-0.07 WNHFRiparian51-0.02 WOHFRiparian43-0.10 WPHFRiparian43-0.28 WQHFRiparian43-0.04 WRHFRiparian34-0.05 TOTAL AREA (Ac):21.22 a Wetland Type: PFO palustrine forested, PEM palustrine emergent, PSS palusrine scrub-shrub,NTFM non-tidal freshwater marsh, HF headwater forest b Riparian wetland are those wetlands that are within the "zone of influence" of a stream, creek, or river. Non-riparian wetlands are those wetlands that are not adjacent to or hydrologically influenced by a stream, creek, or river. Ex i s t i n g Re c o m m e n d e d Ne w Hy d r a u l i c S t r u c t u r e Hy d r a u l i c S t r u c t u r e To t a l Nu m b e r - S i z e , S t r u c t u r e T y p e , N u m b e r - S i z e , S t r u c t u r e T y p e , C u l v e r t (L e n g t h ) (A d d i t i o n a l L e n g t h ) Le n g t h ( f t ) 1 G a p C r e e k ( S 1 a ) C; T r : + 7 No n e Ne w 3 - 8 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 1 3 5 f t ) 13 5 $ 2 0 6 , 0 0 0 $ 9 5 , 9 9 2 8 5 $ 7 3 3 , 0 0 0 2 . 9 7 1 4 2 T o B e D e t e r m i n e d N/ A G a p C r e e k ( S 1 a ) C; T r : + 7 No n e No n e N/ A N / A $ 1 0 4 , 7 8 0 N / A N / A 2 . 9 7 1 5 5 I n t e r c h a n g e I m p a c t - B e t w e e n s i t e 1 a n d s i t e 1 A N/ A U T G a p C r e e k ( S 2 ) C; T r : + 1 2 No n e No n e N/ A N / A $ 8 4 , 5 0 0 N / A N / A 0 . 4 7 1 2 5 Interchange Impact - Between Gap Creek and Site 1B-1 1B - 1 U T G a p C r e e k ( S 2 ) C; T r : + 1 2 No n e Ne w 1 - 1 2 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 3 0 4 f t ) 30 4 $ 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 9 , 5 6 0 4 3 5 $ 2 , 5 8 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 4 7 3 1 0 2 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 1 0 b ) C; T r : + 6 1 - 6 ' x 4 ' R C B C ( 1 7 0 f t ) Ex t e n d 1 - 6 ' x 4 ' R C B C ( 6 7 f t ) 23 7 $ 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 8 , 2 0 8 - -0.1982 Ba n k Fu l l Wi d t h (f t ) Co s t o f Cu l v e r t Co s t o f Mi t i g a t i o n ($ 3 3 8 / l i n e a r ft ) Le n g t h o f Po t e n t i a l Br i d g e ( f t ) Cost of Potential Bridge Drainage Area (sq miles)Linear Stream Impacts (ft)Comments Ta b l e B - 4 : S t r e a m I m p a c t s US 2 2 1 W i d e n i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s ( R - 2 9 1 5 ) Cu l v e r t a n d B r i d g i n g D a t a f o r U S 22 1 / U S 4 2 1 I n t e r c h a n g e A l t e r n a t i v e 1 Si t e Nu m b e r St r e a m N a m e ( N R T R N o . ) Be s t U s a g e Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n 3 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 1 2 a & S 1 2 b ) C; T r : + 1 0 2 - 9 ' x 5 ' R C B C ( 4 7 f t ) Ex t e n d 2 - 9 ' x 5 ' R C B C ( 7 9 f t ) 12 6 $ 1 3 4 , 0 0 0 $ 3 7 , 4 9 6 9 0 $ 7 5 2 , 0 0 0 0 . 8 4 1 0 9Investigate Improvements 4 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 1 4 a ) C; T r : + 3 2 - 4 2 " R C P ( 1 0 7 f t ) Ex t e n d 2 - 42 " R C P ( 7 0 f t ) 17 7 $ 1 3 , 0 0 0 $ 3 4 , 4 0 0 - -0.16100Minor Site - No concurr ence required 5 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 1 9 b ) C; T r : + 3 2 - 4 2 " R C P ( 1 2 0 f t ) Ex t e n d 2 - 42 " R C P ( 1 2 f t ) 13 2 $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 9 , 2 8 8 - -0.1727Minor Site - No concurrenc e required 6 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 2 1 b & S 2 1 c ) C; T r : + 5 1 - 6 6 " R C P ( 6 6 f t ) Ne w 1 - 6 ' x 4 ' R C B C ( 6 4 f t ) 13 0 $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 $ 3 2 , 3 3 6 - -0.4194 7 U T t o G a p C r e e k ( S 3 2 b ) C; T r : + 1 5 2 - 8 ' x 7 ' R C B C ( 6 4 f t ) Ne w C u l v e r t 24 9 $ 2 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 6 8 , 8 0 0 1 6 5 $ 1 , 5 2 1 , 0 0 0 1 . 1 5 2 0 0 8 G a p C r e e k ( S 1 c ) C; T r : + 3 5 3 - 1 2 ' x 1 0 ' R C B C ( 4 5 f t ) Ne w B r i d g e 15 0 $ 3 3 4 , 0 0 0 N / A 1 3 0 $ 1 , 1 0 3 , 0 0 0 1 1 . 6 N / A 9 S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r O v e r f l o w ( W 1 7 b ) N / A: W e t l a n d N / A Br i d g e ( 1 3 6 f t ) Re t a i n & A d d N e w S t r u c t u r e N/ A N / A N / A 1 4 0 $ 6 6 3 , 0 0 0 1 5 0 N / A 10 S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r ( S 4 3 ) WS - V ; H Q W 1 0 0 Br i d g e ( 23 0 f t ) Ne w D u a l S t r u c t u r e s N/ A N / A N / A 2 3 0 $ 1 , 9 0 0 , 8 0 0 1 5 0 N / A 11 U T t o O l d F i e l d s C r e e k ( S 4 8 a & S 4 8 b ) C ; T r , O R W 4 1 - 4 ' x 5 ' R C B C ( 1 7 8 f t ) Ex t e n d 1 - 4 ' x 5 ' R C B C ( 1 2 0 f t ) 2 9 8 $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 $ 5 1 , 6 0 0 - -0 .13150Minor Site - No concurrence required 12 U T t o O l d F i e l d s C r e e k ( S 6 3 b & S 6 4 ) C ; T r , O R W 6 1 - 7 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 1 8 5 f t ) Ex t e n d 1 - 7 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 1 8 5 f t ) 3 7 0 $ 1 3 2 , 0 0 0 $ 7 3 , 9 6 0 - -0 .46215 13 O l d F i e l d s C r e e k ( S 5 6 c & S 5 6 d ) C; T r , O R W 1 8 3 - 1 0 ' x 9 ' R C B C ( 9 2 f t ) Ne w B o t t o m l e s s C u l v e r t 28 2 $ 5 0 1 , 0 0 0 $ 7 5 , 6 8 0 2 0 0 $ 2 , 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 6 . 7 4 2 2 0 14 U T t o O l d F i e l d s C r e e k ( S 9 0 b ) C; T r , O R W 2 1 - 8 4 " C M P ( 2 1 2 f t ) E xt e n d 1 - 8 4 " C M P ( 8 f t ) 22 0 $ 4 , 4 0 0 $ 7 , 9 1 2 - -1.0823Look to see if e xisting culvert can be shortened. 16 O l d F i e l d s C r e e k ( S 5 6 b ) C; T r , O R W 4 2 - 8 4 " C M P ( 17 0 f t ) Ex t e n d 2 - 8 4 " C M P ( 8 0 f t ) 25 0 $ 6 1 , 6 0 0 $ 3 2 , 6 8 0 - -2.0895 17 B e a v e r C r e e k ( S 1 2 4 c ) C; T r : + 1 2 3 - 1 0 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 1 6 2 f t ) Ex t e n d 3 - 1 0 ' x 8 ' R C B C ( 6 5 f t ) 2 2 7 $ 2 3 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 , 5 2 0 2 6 0 $ 2 , 8 7 6 , 0 0 0 4 . 7 0 8 0 I n vestigate Improvements 18 U T t o B e a v e r C r e e k ( S 1 2 6 b ) C; T r : + 3 2 - 6 0 " C M P ( 2 2 0 f t ) Ex t e n d 2 - 6 0 " C M P ( 5 5 f t ) 27 5 $ 2 1 , 2 0 0 $ 2 4 , 0 8 0 - -0.3070 Total2197 NO T E S : - A l l t r i b u t a r i e s f l o w t o t h e N e w R i v e r B a s i n Le n g t h s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e w i t h a d j u s t m e n t s t o r o a d w a y d e s i g n - Le n g t h s su b j e c t to ch a n g e wi t h ad j u s t m e n t s to ro a d w a y de s i g n . - T r i b u t a r i e s g i v e n s a m e r a t i n g a s t h e s t r e a m i n t o w h i c h t h e y f l o w . - A l l s t r e a m s a r e p e r e n n i a l . - A 2 : 1 r a t i o w a s u s e d w h e n d e t e r m i n i n g c o s t o f m i t i g a t i o n Appendix C S HPO Correspondence Appendix D NCDOT Relocation Report Appendix E Farmland Conversion Impact Rating For Corridor Type Projects NRCS-CPA-106 Appendix F Preliminary Traffic Noise Analysis Information TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS US 221 from US 421 to US 221 Business- NC 88 (East Main Street) Watauga & Ashe Counties WBS Element No. 34518.1.1 TIP Project No. R-2915 Prepared for: North Carolina Departme nt of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Submitted By: Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group May 7, 2010 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS US 221 from US 421 to US 221 Business- NC 88 (East Main Street) Watauga & Ashe Counties WBS Element No. 34518.1.1 TIP Project No. R-2915 Prepared for: North Carolina Departme nt of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Submitted By: Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group __________________________________ Gregory A. Smith, PE Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor __________________________________ Ric Cox Traffic Noise Engineer i Executive Summary The North Carolina Department of Transporta tion proposes widening US 221 from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business-NC 88 (East Ma in Street) in Ashe County from a two/three lane facility to a four lane, me dian divided facility. The purpose of this widening project is to improve both traffic flow and safety. Increased traffic noise levels can be an undesira ble consequence of transportation projects. A Traffic Noise Analysis was performed for th e US 221 widening project. Utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5), existin g and predicted traffi c noise levels were assessed, traffic noise impacts were determined, a nd potential impact mitigation options (if any) were evaluated. The alignment analyzed is that shown on prelim inary plans provided by Parsons Engineering in March 2010. Based on this analysis, nine (9) tra ffic noise impacts are predicted. In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Polic y, traffic noise abatement measures are not considered feasible or reasonable for this pr oject. Consequently, no noise abatement is recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed due to uncontrolled or limited control of access. Please note that this noise analys is utilized only Preliminary Plans. The number of traffic noise impacts may change if the Final Plan alignment varies from that found on the Preliminary Plans. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless a major project change develops, such as that noted in the pr evious paragraph, no additional noise reports will be necessary for this project. ii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 1 2.0 Characteristics of Noise 1 3.0 Noise Abatement Criteria 1 4.0 Ambient Noise Levels 3 5.0 Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 4 6.0 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours 5 7.0 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures 7 7.1 Highway Alignment Selection 7 7.2 Traffic System Management Measures 8 7.3 Noise Barriers 9 7.4 Other Mitigation Measures Considered 9 8.0 “No Build” Alternative 9 9.0 Construction Noise 10 10.0 Summary 10 Appendices Traffic Noise Exposures Build Alternative A1 Traffic Noise Exposures No Build Alternative B1 Traffic Analysis Ambient and Predicted Traffic C1 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy D1 Chapter 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 E1 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise iii List of Tables Table 1 Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily Page 2 Table 2 Noise Abatement Criteria 3 Table 3 Ambient Noise Levels (Leq) 4 Table 4 Predicted Number of Traffic Noise Impacts 6 Table 5 Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts 7 Table 6 Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contour Distances 8 List of Figures Figures 1 - 4 Project Area Map and Ambient Measurement Sites Page 11 - 14 Figures 5 – 17 Predicted Traffic Noise Contours 15 - 27 Figures 18 – 33 Traffic Noise Receptor Locations 28 - 43 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Trans portation proposes widening US 221 from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business-N C 88 (East Main Street) in Ashe County from a two/three lane facility to a four lane , median divided facility. The purpose of this widening project is to improve both traffic flow and safety. Please note that this noise anal ysis utilized only Preliminary Pl ans. The number of traffic noise impacts may change if the Final Plan alignment varies from that found on the Preliminary Plans. 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroad s, power generation plants, a nd highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usua lly a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction. The magnitude of noise is usually describe d by its sound pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic s cale is used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the de cibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency- weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the fr equency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound leve ls measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA. In relative terms, human h earing can typically not dis tinguish between noise level differences of + 3 dBA. Noise level changes of 5 dB A are usually readil y detectable, and a change of + 10 dBA is commonly perceived as half or twice as loud. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are list ed in Table 1, which indicates that most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound de pends essentially on three things: 1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise. 2) The relationship between the back ground noise and the intruding noise. 3) The type of activity occurri ng when the noise is heard. Over time, particularly if the noises occu r at predicted intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the no ises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway tr affic noise, methods of analysis and control have develope d rapidly over the past few years. 2 3.0 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the pl anning and design of highways to determine whether highway noise levels ar e or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). A summary of the noise abat ement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the equivalent steady-state sound level which, in a stated period of time, contains the same acoustic energy as a time- varying sound level during the same period. With regard to traffic noise, fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of Leq, the steady, or ‘equivalent’, noise level with the same energy. TABLE 1 HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY 1 140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD 130 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Firecrackers 120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer Hockey crowd Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD 110 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Textile loom 100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor Power lawn mower, newspaper press Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD 90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D Diesel truck 65 km/h at 15m away E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal C Average factory, vacuum cleaner I Passenger car 80 km/h at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD B 70 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E Quiet typewriter L 60 Singing birds, wi ndow air-conditioner S Quiet automobile Normal conversation, average office QUIET 50 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household refrigerator Quiet office VERY QUIET 40 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average home 30 Dripping faucet Whisper at 1.5m away 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING Whisper JUST AUDIBLE 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING 1 World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski a nd E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.) 3 TABLE 2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, play grounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hot els, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above D -- Undeveloped lands E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospita ls, and auditoriums 1 Title 23 Code of Federal Re gulations (CFR) Part772, U.S. De partment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE 2 HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing in Leq(h) Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels <= 50 >= 15 51 >= 14 52 >= 13 53 >= 12 54 >= 11 >= 55 >= 10 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (September 2, 2004) 4.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise 4 level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increas es. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from the e dges of pavement ranged from 66 dBA to 68 dBA. An existing ambient noise level of 45 dBA was utilized in areas where no other noise sources – including traffic noise – coul d be identified. The ambient measurement locations are shown in Figures 1 - 4 and described in Table 3. To confirm the validity of the TNM model fo r this project, the TNM-predicted traffic noise levels were calibrated agai nst the noise level data obtaine d in the field. Per industry standards, a TNM model is cons idered ‘calibrated’ if predicted noise levels are within + 3 dBA of the Leq data obtained in the field. The calibrated TNM computer model for the US 221 widening project predicted traffic noise levels to an average of less than 1 dBA difference from the noise levels obtained in the field. Differences in decibel levels can be attributed to ‘bunching’ of ve hicles, low traffic volumes, a nd actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's evenly-spaced vehicles and single vehicular speed. TABLE 3 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq) 1 SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION NOISE LEVEL (dBA) 1 US 221 approximately 800’ southwest of SR 1171 (West Pine Swamp Road) Paved 67 2 US 221 approximately 700’ southwest of SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) Gravel 68 3 US 221 approximately 250’ northwest of Ashe County High School Road Grassy 66 Y1 US 421 south of US 221 Modeled 66 1 Ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic. 5.0 PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that describe different cars driving at different speeds through c ontinually changing highway configurations and surrounding te rrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be ma de to predict highway traffic noise. The Federal Highway Administra tion Traffic Noise Model ® (FHWA TNM v. 2.5) was used to predict future noise levels for the receptor lo cations in the vicinity of the project. This noise evaluation included only predicted noise levels from the proposed new highway facility and existing roadway traffic noise sources. Using TNM, predicted build- 4 condition noise levels were calculated for noise -sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. 5 The TNM model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depre ssed, elevated), noise receptor locations, receptor heights above the roadway, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation. In this regard, it must be noted that only preliminary alignment information was available for use in this noise analysis. Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits. During all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those evaluated in this report. All road way sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents topographical conditions where sound waves are allowed to travel unimpeded and approximately represent conditions that are worse than those exp ected to actually occur. The noise predictions made in this report ar e highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the 2035 Design Y ear. The Leq traffic noise exposures associated for this project are presented in tabular form in Appe ndices A and B for the project “build” and “no-build” conditions, re spectively. Information included in the tables includes listings of all receptors in cl ose proximity to the project, their respective ambient and predicted noise levels, and the es timated noise level increase for each listed receptor. 6.0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT S AND NOISE CONTOURS A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abat ement criteria (NAC) and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise impact occurs when th e predicted traffic noise levels either: (a) Approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table 2 value), or (b) Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of Table 2. The numbers of receptors in each FHWA NAC activity category that are predicted to become traffic noise impacts are shown in Tabl e 4. These receptors are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels, as defined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatem ent Policy. Based on this analysis and under Title 23 CFR Part 772, nine (9) residences are predicte d to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area w ith the proposed wideni ng option. Fifty-four (54) residences and four (4) businesses are predicted to become impacted due to future traffic if the project is no t constructed (No-Build). Th e relatively large difference between the build and no-build alternatives represents th e number of residences and business that lie within the proposed right of way and will be acquired by NCDOT prior to construction. Consequently, these struct ures will be removed and will no longer be considered noise impacts. 6 TABLE 4 PREDICTED NUMBER OF TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS Build ACTIVITY CATEGORY A B C D E US 421and US 221 Intersection 0 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 0 5 0 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 0 4 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 0 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 9 0 0 0 No Build ACTIVITY CATEGORY A B C D E US 421and US 221 Intersection 0 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 0 23 2 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 0 13 1 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 0 18 1 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 0 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 0 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 54 4 0 0 Table 5 exhibits the exterior traffic noise le vel increases for the identified receptors by roadway section. There are no (0 ) substantial noise level imp acts anticipated due to this proposed widening project. The predicted nois e level increases for this project range up to +9 dBA. In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic No ise Abatement Policy, Federal and State governments are not responsible for provi ding noise abatement measures for new development where building permits are issu ed within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the “Date of Public K nowledge”. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway projec t will be the approval date of the final environmental document. Local governing bodie s are responsible for ensuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility for development occurring after this public knowledge date. With the proper information on future traffi c noise contours and pr edicted noise levels, local authorities can prevent fu rther development of incompatible activities and land uses. 7 TABLE 5 PREDICTED SUBSTANTIA L NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS Build EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUBSTANTIAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASE 1 IMPACTS DUE TO BOTH CRITERIA 2 < 9 dBA 10-14 dBA > 15 dBA US 421and US 221 Intersection 2 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 38 0 0 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 23 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 18 0 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 3 0 0 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 1 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 34 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 119 0 0 0 0 No Build EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUBSTANTIAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASE 1 IMPACTS DUE TO BOTH CRITERIA 2 < 9 dBA 10-14 dBA > 15 dBA US 421and US 221 Intersection 2 0 0 0 0 US 421 to SR 1003 63 0 0 0 0 SR 1003 to SR 1106 54 0 0 0 0 SR 1106 to NC 194 45 0 0 0 0 NC 194 to SR 1145 3 0 0 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 1 0 0 0 0 US 221 Business to NC 88 34 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 202 0 0 0 0 The maximum extent of the 72-dBA and 67-dBA noise level contours, measured from the center of the proposed roadway, are seventy-three feet (73’) and one hundred-nineteen feet (119’), respectively. Contour informa tion and predicted future noise levels are shown by roadway sections in Table 6 and in Figures 5 through 17. This information is included to assist local authorities in ex ercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the ro adway within local jurisdiction. 7.0 TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES If traffic noise impacts are predicted, ex amination and evaluation of noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. The following discussion addresses the applicab ility of potential traffic noise impact abatement measures for the benefit of the nine (9) impacted receptors predicted for this project. 7.1 Highway Alignment Selection Highway alignment selection involves the hor izontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to mi nimize impacts and costs. The selection of 8 TABLE 6 PREDICTED Leq NOISE LEVELS a nd NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES Build MAXIMUM PREDICTED Leq NOISE LEVELS (dBA)1 MAXIMUM CONTOUR DISTANCES 2 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA US 421and US 221 Intersection 69 65 58 70 113 US 421 to SR 1003 69 65 59 62 105 SR 1003 to SR 1106 69 64 58 <61 100 SR 1106 to NC 194 69 65 59 62 105 NC 194 to SR 1145 69 65 58 68 111 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 70 65 59 71 117 US 221 Business to NC 88 70 65 59 73 119 No Build MAXIMUM PREDICTED Leq NOISE LEVELS (dBA)1 MAXIMUM CONTOUR DISTANCES 2 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA US 421and US 221 Intersection 69 65 58 70 113 US 421 to SR 1003 69 64 58 42 78 SR 1003 to SR 1106 69 63 58 41 78 SR 1106 to NC 194 69 64 58 42 78 NC 194 to SR 1145 70 64 58 42 79 SR 1145 to US 221 Business 70 64 58 43 80 US 221 Business to NC 88 70 64 58 42 80 alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and envir onmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement on this project. 7.2 Traffic System Management Measures Traffic system management measures, whic h limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not considered ap propriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and level-of -service of the proposed facility. Past project experience has shown that a re duction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of approxi mately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA, and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not consid ered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management m easures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the pr oject's objective of providing a high-speed, limited-access facility. 9 7.3 Noise Barriers Physical measures to abate predicted traffi c noise impacts are often applied successfully on fully controlled facilities. These solid ma ss, attenuable measures, such as earth berms or structural noise wa lls, when strategically placed be tween the traffic noise source and the receptors, effectively diffracts, absorbs, a nd reflects highway traffi c noise emissions. The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all inters ections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduc tion, it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a suffici ent reduction, a barrier should normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to th e receptor. For example, a receptor located fifty feet from the barrier would normally re quire a barrier four hundred feet long. An access opening of forty feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Conse quently, uncontrolled or limited control of access along this project effectiv ely eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as potential noise mitigation measures. Additionally, businesses, chur ches, and other related esta blishments located along a particular highway normally require accessi bility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise ab atement would conflict with these two considerations and, thus, would generally not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. 7.4 Other Mitigation Measures Considered The acquisition of property in or der to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost of $35,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer z ones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this coul d be accomplished through land use control. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to provide effective vegetative barriers. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet (100’) wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way are required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost of $35,000 allowed pe r benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non -profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project. 10 8.0 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The traffic noise impacts for the “no-build” a lternative were also considered. If the proposed widening does not occur, fifty-eight (58) receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. These receptors coul d anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels of approximately 3 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2 – 3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels are more readily noticed. 9.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE The major construction elements of this projec t are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction no ise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or wo rking near the project, can be expected particularly from paving opera tions and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not expect ed to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structur es are believed to be sufficient to moderate the eff ects of intrusive construction noise. 10.0 SUMMARY Traffic noise impacts can be an undesirable c onsequence of transporta tion projects. All predicted traffic noise impacts identified in this analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary st udies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement meas ures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requi rements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless significant project design changes occur, no additional noise reports are necessary for this project. Appendix G Preliminary Air Quality Information AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS US 221 from US 421 to US 221 Business- NC 88 (East Main Street) Watauga & Ashe Counties WBS Element No. 34518.1.1 TIP Project No. R-2915 Prepared for: North Carolina Departme nt of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Submitted By: Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group May 7, 2010 i AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS US 221 from US 421 to US 221 Business- NC 88 (East Main Street) Watauga & Ashe Counties WBS Element No. 34518.1.1 TIP Project No. R-2915 Prepared for: North Carolina Departme nt of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Submitted By: Human Environment Unit Traffic Noise & Air Quality Group __________________________________ Gregory A. Smith, PE Traffic Noise & Air Quality Supervisor __________________________________ Bobby Dunn Air Quality Specialist ii Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Page 1 2.0 Air Quality Analysis 1 3.0 Attainment Status 1 4.0 Carbon Monoxide 1 5.0 Ozone & Nitrogen Dioxide 1 6.0 Particulate Matter & Sulfur 2 7.0 Lead 2 8.0 Mobile Source Air Toxics 2 9.0 Burning of Debris 7 10.0 Summary 8 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 – 2050 4 Table 1 Project area VMTs 5 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 10 Figure 3 Vicinity Map 11 Figure 4 Vicinity Map 12 Figure 5 Vicinity Map 13 1 1.0 Introduction The North Carolina Department of Trans portation proposes widening US 221 from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business-N C 88 (East Main Street) in Ashe County from a two/three lane facility to a four lane , median divided facility. The purpose of this widening project is to improve both traffic flow and safety. 2.0 Air Quality Analysis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissi ons from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sour ces. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying exis ting air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patter ns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the im provement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), a nd lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). 3.0 Attainment Status The project is located Ashe and Watauga Counties, which have been determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Qual ity Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment areas; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of these attainment areas. . 4.0 Carbon Monoxide Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to determine the ambient CO concentrati on at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be us ed: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissi ons from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 400 f eet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Caro lina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as “the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentr ation at the upwind edge of the local sources.” A microscale air quality analysis is performed to determine future CO concentrations resulting from the pr oposed highway improvements. “CAL3QHC – A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollu tant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections” is used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.126, this project is an air quality neutral project. It is not required to be included in the regional emi ssions analysis (if app licable) and a project level CO analysis is not required. 2 5.0 Ozone & Nitrogen Dioxide Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone (O 3 ) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Automotive emissions of HC and Nox are expect ed to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and ma intenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, th ese technological improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area. The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak leve ls of ozone generally occur ten to twenty kilometers downwind of the source of hydro carbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mi x in the atmosphere, and, in the presence of sunlight, this mixture reacts to form ozone , nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California. 6.0 Particulate Matter & Sulfur Automobiles are not regarded as significant so urces of particulate ma tter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emi ssions are predominantly the result of non- highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Be cause emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from auto mobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS. 7.0 Lead Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline contai ning tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with Catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline, th ereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline. The ove rall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 gram per liter. The Clean Air Act Amen dments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. 3 8.0 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 8.1 Background Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, wher eby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in thei r Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/nc ea/iris/index.html ). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributi ons from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999 /). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene and polycyclic orga nic matter. While FH WA considers these the priority mobile source air t oxics, the list is subject to ch ange and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. Air toxics analysis is a con tinuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and tec hniques for assessing project-sp ecific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposur e remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the c ontext of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Nonetheless, air toxics concer ns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emer ges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in our environmental documents. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Instit ute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential ri sks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires co ntrols that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cl eaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, ev en if vehicle activ ity (vehicle-miles travelled, VMT) increases by 145 % as assu med, a combined reduction of 72 % in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Figure 1. 4 Figure 1: NATIONAL MSAT EM ISSION TRENDS 1999 – 2050 FOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON ROADWAYS USING EPA’s MOBILE6.2 MODEL Note: (1) Annual emissions of polycyclic organic matter are projected to be 561 tons/yr for 1999, decreasing to 373 tons/yr for 2050. (2) Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MOBILE6.2 Model run 20 August 2009. 8.2 NEPA Context The NEPA requires, to the fulle st extent possible, that the policies, regulations, and laws of the Federal Government be interpreted and administered in accordance with its environmental protection goals. The NEPA al so requires Federal agencies to use an interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making for any action that adversely impacts the environment. The NEPA requires and FHWA is committed to the examination and avoidance of potential imp acts to the natural and human environment when considering approval of proposed transp ortation projects. In addition to evaluating the potential environmental effects, we must al so take into account the need for safe and 5 efficient transportation in reaching a decision th at is in the best ove rall public interest. The FHWA policies and procedures for impl ementing NEPA is prescribed by regulation in 23 CFR § 771. 8.3 Analysis of MSAT in NEPA Documents The FHWA developed a tiered approach fo r analyzing MSAT in NEPA documents, depending on specific project ci rcumstances. The FHWA has identified three levels of analysis: 1. No analysis for projects with no poten tial for meaningful MSAT effects; 2. Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or 3. Quantitative analysis to differentiate altern atives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the seven priority MSAT should be analyzed. This project is included in level 2. above. 8.4 Qualitative MSAT Analysis For both Build and No Build alternatives in th is air quality analysis, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle m iles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. Refer to Table 1. Regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be Table 1 VMTs for US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties No Build VMTs Build VMTs 2007 173,200 2007 180,478 2035 357,333 2035 373,000 lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local contro l measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VM T growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lowe r in the future in virtually all locations. Consequently higher levels of MSAT are not expected from the Build Alternative compared to the No Build. 6 The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternative will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to near by homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under the alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under the Build Alternat ive than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrati ons would likely be most pronounced along the expanded roadway sections of widened US 221 that extend outward from the existing centerline, throughout the project limits. Ho wever, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases, compared to the No-Build alternative, cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a highw ay is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be hi gher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Al so, MSAT will be lowe r in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. 8.5 Incomplete or Unavailable Informatio n for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project- specific health impacts due to changes in MS AT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The out come of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introdu ced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure a ssociated with a proposed action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air po llutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Ai r Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazar dous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assess ing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health e ffects" (EPA, www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html ). Each report contains assessments of non-cance rous and cancerous e ffects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the re search and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Eff ects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interi m Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among th e adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in 7 animals; and irritation to th e respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health e ffects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, h ttp://pubs.healtheffect s.org/view.php?id=282 ) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheff ects.org/view.php?id=306 ). The methodologies for forecasting health imp acts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final de termination of health impacts - each step in the process building on the model predicti ons obtained in the pr evious step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetim e (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. Th e results produced by the EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the California EPA's Emfac2007 mode l, and the EPA's Draft MOVES2009 model in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent. Indications from the development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly underestimates diesel particulate matter (P M) emissions and significan tly overestimates benzene emissions. Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline CAL3QHC model was conduc ted in an NCHRP study (www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_alt.htm#hyroad ), which documents poor model performance at ten sites across the country - three where inte nsive monitoring was conducted plus an additional seven with le ss intensive monitoring. The study indicates a bias of the CAL3QHC model to overestimat e concentrations near highly congested intersections and underestimate concentra tions near uncongested intersections. The consequence of this is a tendency to overst ate the air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections. Such poor model performance is less difficult to manage for demonstrating compliance with National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards for relatively short time frames than it is for forecasting individual exposure over an entire lifetime, especially given that some information need ed for estimating 70-year lifetime exposure is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the portion of time that pe ople are actually e xposed at a specific location. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the gene ral population, a concern expressed by HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.or g/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assume d to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#g ) and the HEI (http://pubs.healtheffect s.org/getfile.php?u=395 ) have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings. 8 There is also the lack of a national consen sus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent contro ls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmenta l effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The deci sion framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "saf e" or "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is genera lly no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum indi vidual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circ uit upheld EPA's approach to a ddressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects woul d result in levels of risk gr eater than safe or acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts be tween alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated w ith predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be us eful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project bene fits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved acc ess for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. 8.6 MSAT Conclusion What we know about mobile sour ce air toxics is still evolvin g. As the science progresses FHWA will continue to revise and update this guidance. To that end we expect that a number of significant improvements in mode l forecasting and air pollution analysis guidance are forthcoming in the EPA's re lease of the final MOVES model and the issuance of the PM 2.5 Hot Spot Modeling Guidance. 9.0 Burning of Debris During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 . Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practic al from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during constr uction, measures will be taken to reduce the 9 dust generated by construction when the contro l of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary. 10.0 Summary Vehicles are a major contributor to decrease d air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic pa tterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the im provement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highw ays increase localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle emissions w ill decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reduci ng criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly. The project is located in Ashe and Watauga Counties, which complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or create a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any a dverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. Appendix H USTs, Landfills, and Other Pote ntially Contaminated Sites S TATE OF N ORTH C AROLINA D EPARTMENT OF T RANSPORTATION B EVERLY E AVES P ERDUE E UGENE A. C ONTI , J R . G OVERNOR S ECRETARY MAILING ADDRESS: NC D EPARTMENT O F T RANSPORTATION G EOTECHNICAL E NGINEERING U NIT 1589 M AIL S ERVICE C ENTER R ALEIGH NC 27699-1589 T ELEPHONE : 919-250-4088 FAX: 919-250-4237 www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/highway/geotech L O C ATION: C ENTURY C ENTER C OMPLEX B UILDING B 1020 B IRCH R IDGE D RIVE R ALEIGH NC 27610 Augu st 13, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Hart, PE, CPM Project Development Unit-Unit Head Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph Qubain Project Development Unit – Consultant Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch F R OM: Ethan J Caldwell LG, PE GeoEnvironmental Project Manager GeoEnvironmental Section Geotechnical Engineering Unit TIP NO: R-2915 WBS: 34518.1.1 COUNTY: Ashe-Watauga DIVISION 11 DESCRIPTION: US 221 From US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Bus / NC 88 in Jefferson Ashe County SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report for Planning The Geotechnical Engineering Unit has completed the Geotechnical Report for Planning. This report has the following components and is transmitted as: ___X _ Hazardous Materials Report ( 10 ) pages _____ G eotechnical Impact Report ( ) pages Please contact the project team members listed in the report if you have any questions concerning this project. Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 1 of 6 Hazardous Materials Report T h e GeoEnvironmental Section of the Geotechnical Engineering Unit has investigated the above referenced project to identify hazardous material sites for inclusion in the environmental document. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EVALUATION P u rpose T hi s section presents the results of a hazardous material evaluation conducted along the above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify properties within the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if acquired by the Department. Hazardous material impacts may include, but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites. Techniques/Methodologies T h e Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted to identify known sites of concern in relation to the project corridor. Geotechnical Engineering Unit personnel conducted a field reconnaissance along the Project Corridor on June 24, 2010. A search of appropriate environmental agencies' databases was performed to assist in evaluating sites identified during this study. Findings U S T Facilities Based on our study, thirteen (13) sites may contain petroleum USTs within the project limits. Hazardous Waste Sites No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits. Landfills No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. Other GeoEnvironmental Concerns No other geoenvironmental concerns were identified within the project limits. Anticipated Impacts T hi rteen (13) possible UST facilities were identified within the proposed project corridor. We anticipate low monetary and scheduling impacts resulting from these sites. (See the following table and appendices for details) Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 2 of 6 Known and Potential Hazardous Material Sites 1) Property Name Property Owner: Dollar Mart #5 656 H ighway 421 North Deep Gap, NC 28618 Colvard Oil Co. Inc. PO Box 7 West Jefferson, NC 28694 Facility ID #: 0-001968 UST Owner: Incident #: 5569 Colvard Oil Co. Inc. PO Box 7 West Jefferson, NC 28694 This facility was previously a Shell gas station and last operated as a Dollar Mart. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry five (5) tanks were installed in 1980. One (1) UST was closed in December of 1994. Observations from the field visit indicated recent removal of the remaining USTs. There are several monitoring wells on site and the site appears to be under remediation. Facility ID # 0- 001968 ha s been assigned to this location. Groundwater Incident # 5569 has been assigned to this facility. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 2) P r operty Name Property Owner: Repair Shop 260 D eep Gap Drive. Deep Gap, NC 28618 Ray and Carol Greer 210 Deep Gap Dr. Deep Gap, NC 28618 Facility ID #: None Identified Incident #: None Identified This property currently operates as an automobile repair shop. Observations from the field visit indicate this site could have historically operated as a gas station. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry there are no identified Facility Ids or Groundwater Incidents associated with this property. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 3) P r operty Name Property Owner: Former Jack Welborn Property T h ree Way Grocery Deep Gap, NC 28618 NCDOT Facility ID #: 0-023388 UST Owner: Incident #: 15488 Jack Wellborn PO Box 83 Deep Gap, NC 28618 This property is currently NCDOT Right of Way. Historically the site operated as a gas stat ion. NCDOT removed 5 USTs from this site in 1997 under TIP R-0529BB. 966 cubic yards of petroleum c o ntaminated soil was removed during the UST closer. A minor amount of residual petroleum impacted soil remains on site. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 3 of 6 4) Property Name Property Owner: 221 Gulf 13010 H ighway 221 South Deep Gap, NC 28618 Bernard Miller RT 1 Box 66 Deep Gap, NC 28618 Facility ID #: 0-004028 UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Bernard Miller RT 1 Box 66 Deep Gap, NC 28618 This facility was formerly 221 Gulf gas station. Currently the site appears to be used for storage. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry three (3) tanks were removed in September of 1990. There are no known Groundwater Incidents associated with this property. T h is site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 5) P r operty Name Property Owner: 221 Grocery 12843 H ighway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Ronald Cheek 12855 US 221 South Fleetwood, NC, 28626 Facility ID #: 0-003062 UST Owner: Incident #: 12914 Eller and Huffman Cashion Oil Co. 600 Edge Wood Dr. Wilkesboro, NC 28697 This facility currently operates as 221 Grocery. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry five (5) USTs were closed in June of 2002. Observations from the field visit indicate two (2) ASTs are currently in use. There is a monitoring well on site near the Auto Body shop. A possible UST was observed on the west side of the Auto Body shop. Groundwater Incident # 12914 has been assigned to this facility. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 6) P r operty Name Property Owner: Fleetwood Elementary School 8996 H ighway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Ashe County Board of Education PO Box 604 Jefferson, NC 28640 Facility ID #: 0-028098 UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Ashe County Board of Education PO Box 604 Jefferson, NC 28640 This site is currently Fleetwood Elementary School. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry two (2) USTs are currently being used for heating oil. One (1) UST was observed on the west side of the driveway entrance, near the northeast corner of the building. The second UST was observed just north of the other UST, across the driveway. There are no known Groundwater Incidents associated with this site. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 4 of 6 7) Property Name Property Owner: Residence 8946 H ighway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Christopher Moore; Charles and Victoria Hamby 228 Grandfather Pines Dr. Fleetwood, NC 28626 Facility ID #: None Identified UST Owner: Unknown This site is a private residence. Visual observations identified a heating oil UST near the south side of the building. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry there are no known Facility IDs or Groundwater Incidents associated with this property. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 8) P r operty Name Property Owner: Fleetwood Falls 8864 H ighway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Travis Hamby; Marie Woodie 178 Railroad Grade Rd. West Jefferson, NC 28694 Facility ID #: 0-023991 UST Owner: Incident #: 7192 J. Gwyn Gambill Inc. PO Box 360 West Jefferson, NC 28694 This facility was previously a gas station and currently operates as an antique market. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry one (1) UST was removed in December of 1988. Field observations indicate that more than one UST has been removed from the property. Groundwater Incident # 7192 has been assigned to this facility. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 9) P r operty Name Property Owner: Jack and Dean’s Comm. Corner Mart 8742 H ighway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Charles and Theresa Jones 8742 Highway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 Facility ID #: 0-000454 UST Owner: Incident #: 13684 Seagraves Oil Co. Inc. 920 E. Main St. Jefferson, NC 28640 Facility ID #: 0-028118 UST Owner: Charles and Theresa Jones 8742 Highway 221 South Fleetwood, NC 28626 This facility is a vacant Pure Gas Station. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry two (2) USTs were removed in July of 1991 and two (2) USTs are currently on site. Several monitoring wells were observed on site. Groundwater Incident # 13684 has been assigned to this facility. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 5 of 6 10) Property Name Property Owner: Carrier Air Conditioning 6529 H ighway 221 South West Jefferson, NC 28694 Joann Greer 6513 US 221 West Jefferson, NC 28694 Facility ID #: 0-021858 UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Herbert Greer 6531 US 221 West Jefferson, NC 28694 This facility was previously Herbert’s Grocery and BP gas station and currently operates as a Carrier Air Conditioning retailer. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry three (3) USTs were removed in January of 1993 and three (3) USTs are currently not in use. There are no known Groundwater Incidents associated with this facility. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 11) P r operty Name Property Owner: Antiques on Beaver Creek 217 B eaver Creek School Rd. West Jefferson, 28694 Town Centre, LLC 413 Raven Rock Dr. Boone, NC 28607 Facility ID #: None Identified UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Unknown This facility is currently operating as an Antique Strip Mall. Historically the site appears to have operated as a gas station and a garage. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry there are no known Facility IDs or Groundwater Incidents associated with this property. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. 12) P r operty Name Property Owner: Mike’s Comm. Mart (Citgo) 203 B eaver Creek School Rd. West Jefferson, NC 28694 Michael and Cindee Aloia PO Box 759 Jefferson, NC 28640 Facility ID #: 0-034443 UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Michael Aloia DBA Aloia Enterprises PO Box 704 Jefferson, NC 28640 Currently this facility operates as a gas station. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry three (3) USTs were installed in 1995. A possible former dispenser island was observed in front of the current dispenser pumps. A possible former UST basin was observed near the nor thern corner of the building. There are no known Groundwater Incidents associated with this facility. T h is site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. Project # 34518.1.1 T .I.P.#: R-2915 Page 6 of 6 13) Property Name Property Owner: Run In #833 21 B eaver Creek School Rd. West Jefferson, NC 28694 Smokie Greene; Roger Smithey RT 1 PO Box 742A Millers Creek, NC 28651 Facility ID #: 0-034680 UST Owner: Incident #: None Identified Raymer Oil Co. PO Box 271-1547 Salisbury Rd Statesville, NC 28687 This facility is currently a BP gas station. According to NCDENR's UST Section registry three (3) tanks were installed in 1996. There are no known Groundwater I ncidents associated with this property. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. T h e Geotechnical Engineering Unit can provide assessments on each of the above properties after identification of the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur. The Geotechnical Engineering Unit should be notified immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s) may be assessed. If there are questions regarding the geoenvironmental issues, please contact me, at 919-250-4088. Ethan J. Caldwell, LG, PE GeoEnvironmental Project Manager GeoEnvironmental Section Geotechnical Engineering Unit cc: Glenn Mumford, PE, Roadway Design Engineer Daneil Miles Division 11 Right of Way John Pilipchuck, LG, PE, Geotechnical Engineering Unit Field Office File Appendix B Page 1 TIP: R -2915 WBS: 34518.1.1 S ite Photographs June 24, 2010 Site 1: Dollar Mart #5. View to the south. S i te 2: Repair Shop. View to the south. Site 4: 221 Gulf. View to the northwest. S i te 5: 221 Grocery. View to the east. Site 5: 221 Grocery. View to the north. S i te 6: Fleetwood Elementary. View to the northwest. Appendix B Page 2 TIP: R -2915 WBS: 34518.1.1 S ite Photographs June 24, 2010 Site 7: Private Residence. View to the northwest. Site 8: Fleetwood Falls. View to the southwest. Site 9: Jack and Dean’s Comm. Corner Mart. View to t h e south. Site 10: Carrier Air Conditioning. View to the north. Site 11: Antiques on Beaver Creek. View to the north. Site 12: Mike’s Comm. Mart (Citgo). View to the no rth. Appendix B Page 3 TIP: R -2915 WBS: 34518.1.1 S ite Photographs June 24, 2010 Site 13: Run In #833. View to the east. Appendix I News Release , Citizens Information , Workshop Materials , and Newsletters 2 Introduction Welcome to the first Citizens Informational Workshop for the US 221 Improvement Study. Today’s meeting is an important step in th e North Carolina Department Transportation’s (NCDOT) procedure for making you, the public, a part of the project deve lopment process. At today’s workshop you will be able to: • Meet the study team from the NCDOT, • Learn about the study process and schedule, • Identify any resources of concern to you th at we need to analyze in the study, and • Hear about opportunities to be involved in the study. Take a moment and review the boards and maps placed around the room. Please submit your written comments this evening or take comment forms home with you and mail them in later. We’ll be glad to answer any questions that you might have. We thank y ou for your participation in this study. Purpose of the Project The study is being conducted to identify potential widening alternatives for improving US 221 from US 421 to US 221 Business / NC 88 in Je fferson. Projected traffic congestion and current accident rates create a need for improved highw ay capacity and safety enhancements on US 221. Also, future traffic (2030) is anticipated to reach unacceptable levels. Finally, existing crash rates are relatively high a nd will likely worsen if no improveme nts are done. The quality of life of the area’s residents and the region’s desi re for economic development depend heavily on an efficient transportation system, of which US 221 is a vital part. Project Description The US 221 study area includes approximately 16.1 miles of existing US 221. The majority of the study area is in Ashe County, with a little mo re than a mile being in Watauga County. This area includes the municipalities of West Jeffers on and Jefferson, as well as the communities of Deep Gap, Fleetwood, Baldwin and Beaver Creek. Fi gure 1 is a map of the US 221 study area. This proposed project is anticipated to consist ma inly of widening of th e existing roadway to the east, west, or symmetri c but may include new roadway segmen t(s). All alternatives will be investigated to determine whic h are reasonable and feasible for further study. The “Build Alternatives” will be further ev aluated and examined to sel ect a preferred alternative. 3 Project Development Process Briefly, the following activities w ill take place during each of the study phases. We are currently in Phase 1 of the study process. Phase 1 - In addition to this Citizens Information Workshop, Phase 1 will include an inventory of planning transportation needs. Du ring this phase of the process, data is collected on a variety of aspects of the study area including: • Land use data • Social environment information • Local and regional economy data • Cultural resources • Utilities • Physical features • Natural environment features • Visual resources • Traffic data Phase 2 - During Phase 2, alternatives wi ll be developed based on init ial field investigations and data collected during Phase 1 of the process. A lternatives will be developed after considering physical and environmental constr aints and known cultural resources. Phase 3 – This phase of the planning process will consist of the development of functional designs, the conduct of detailed fi eld studies, environmental anal ysis and technical analysis. During this phase the project team will analy ze potential impacts to the environment, and develop measures to avoid, minimize and mitigat e impacts. Impacts will be assessed by comparing the anticipated changes to the existin g environment due to proposed improvements. Alternatives will be narrowed to those which best address expected traffic demands and community needs. Analysis will be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 a nd associated environmental regulations. Phase 4 - During Phase 4 an Environmental Assessment document will be completed. The document will describe the antic ipated environmental and other impacts for each of the “Build Alternatives” as well as proposed mitigation m easures. The public will have a chance at this point to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment. Phase 5 – After considering all agency and public comments on the Environmental Assessment, a preferred “Build Alternative” will be selected. Next a Public Hear ing will be held to present the preliminary designs for th e preferred alternative. Phase 6 – A final environmental document known as the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared. This document will address all review agency comments, public comments, and comments received at the Public Hearing. 4 Evaluation Factors During the study, economic, social and environmenta l aspects of the study area will be analyzed to identify alternative alignments which create the least negative imp acts. The evaluation of potential impacts will be performed consistent with the requirements of federal and state regulations. The study team will examine: land us e, social, economic, cultural, utility, physical environment, natural resource, visu al and construction impacts. How Can I Participate? • Submit a Comment Sheet Tonight • Attend Future Informational Meetings Contact Us By Mail: Mr. Joseph Qubain, Project Planning Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 2769-1548 Telephone (919) 733-7844, ext. 209 Fax (919) 733-9794 Email address: jqubain@dot.state.nc.us Or: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Project Manager – US 221 Study Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 217 Raleigh, NC 27606 Telephone: (919) 854-1341 Fax: 919-851-2103 Email address: franklin.vick@parsons.com Tentative Project Schedule • Environmental Assessment August 2008 • Finding of No Significant Impact – April 2010 • Right-of-Way Acquisition – To Be Determined • Construction – To Be Determined 01 2 3 Mi l e s St u d y A r e a B o u n d a r i e s Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n No r t h C a r o l i n a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d y US 2 2 1 - N C D O T P r o j e c t # R - 2 9 1 5 As h e a n d W a t a u g a C o u n t i e s , N C (1 0 0 0 ' - 3 0 0 0 ' i n w i d t h ) Le g e n d ²µ Va r i a b l e W i d t h S t u d y A r e a ¹º Pu b l i c S c h o o l s Fl e e t w o o d V o l u n t e e r F i r e & R e s c u e , I n c . ²³ Hi s t o r i c S i t e s ï Pa r k s 3, 0 0 0 ' S t u d y A r e a 4, 0 0 0 ' S t u d y A r e a 6, 0 0 0 ' S t u d y A r e a n o ¹º ¹º ¹º ¹º ¹º ²³²³ ²³ ²µ ï ï M ulattoMou n t a i n R d (SR1145) D i c k P h i l l i p s R d P a u l G o o d m a n R d ( S R 1 1 7 8 ) I d l e w i l d R d ( S R 1 0 0 3 ) BaldMou ntainRd (SR1138) Bog g s R d ( S R 1 1 5 9 ) W a t e r T a n k R d ( S R 1 1 7 7 ) E M i l l C r e e k R d ( S R 1 1 1 2 ) Bald M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1138 ) Ne t t l e K n o b R d (S R 1 1 4 7 ) NC -16 & 8 8 As h e C o u n t y H i g h S c h o o l So u t h e r n Pr o j e c t Te r m i n u s No r t h e r n Pr o j e c t Te r m i n u s We s t J e f f e r s o n Je f f e r s o n Mo u n t J e f f e r s o n St a t e N a t u r a l A r e a S o u t h F o r k N e w R i v e r £¤22 1 !(19 4 !(16 3 £¤22 1 !(19 4 Wa t a u g a C o u n t y As h e C o u n t y Wi l k e s C o u n t y !(88 H eg G r e e n e R o a d (S R 1 3 6 0 ) Cl a r e n c e L y a l l R o a d (S R 1 1 4 3 ) Buc k M o u n t a i n R d (S R1 133 ) D e e p G a p C r e e k C a l l C r e e k N a k e d C r e e k O l d F i e l d s C r e e k B e a v e r C r e e k L i t t l e B u f f a l o C r e e k L i t t l e G a p C r e e k S o u t h B e a v e r C r e e k B l u e R i d g e P a r k w a y NC 1. What issues related to US 221 concern you the most? 2. Do you use US 221 regularly? For commuting? Other purposes? 3. If you use US 221, what problems have you en countered? What suggestions would you make? 4. Other comments (Environmental, Structural, Aesthetics, etc.): Name: Organization: Address: Please leave this comment form at the designated location, or mail your comments to the address shown on the back of this form. E-mail: Comment Form for Citizens Informational Workshop North Carolina Department of Transportation US 221 - Environmental St udy (T.I.P. No. R-2915) Joseph S. Qubain North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC27699 -1548 Place Stamp Here Appendix J NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms Appendix K Scoping Comments Received from Fe deral and State Agencies and Regional and Local Governments 1 June 21, 2006 Memorandum To: File From: Dana Brantley, PE, AICP Parsons Transportation Group – Raleigh Subject: Scoping Meeting Minutes US 221, From US 421 to NC 88 / US 221 Business in Jefferson in Watauga and Ashe Counties Project R-2915 On June 15, 2006, a Scoping Meeting was held for the subject US 221 project. Those in attendance at the meeting were as follows: Name Agency / Department / Unit e-mail Address Trent Beaver * NCDOT Division 11 tbeaver@dot.state.nc.us Nathan Phillips NCDOT Traffic Engineering nphillips@dot.state.nc.us Erin Hendee NCDOT Traffic Engineering ehendee@dot.state.nc.us Jerry Snead NCDOT Hydraulics jsnead@dot.state.nc.us Tim Williams NCDOT Traffic Engineering / Signals twilliams@dot.state.nc.us Craig Hughes High Country RPO chughes@regiond.org Meredith McDiarmid NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control mmcdiarmid@dot.state.nc.us Van Argabright NCDOT TIP Unit vargabright@dot.state.nc.us Carl Storch NCDOT Photogrammetry cstorch@dot.state.nc.us Jaime Adrignola NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch jadrignola@dot.state.nc.us Erin Schubert NCDOT Natural Environment Unit ekschubert@dot.state.nc.us Bill Barrett NCDOT Natural Environment Unit wbarrett@dot.state.nc.us Omar Azizi NCDOT Structure Design Unit oazizi@dot.state.nc.us Steve Gurganus NCDOT Human Environment Unit sjgurganus@dot.state.nc.us Glenn Mumford NCDOT Roadway Design Unit gmumford@dot.state.nc.us Tim Coggins NCDOT Structure Design Unit tcoggins@dot.state.nc.us Ron Allen NCDOT Roadway Design Unit rallen@dot.state.nc.us Pat Tuttle NCDOT Location and Surveys ptuttle@dot.state.nc.us David Hering NCDOT Geotechnical Unit dhering@dot.state.nc.us Stacy Baldwin NCDOT PDEA stacybaldwin@dot.state.nc.us Joseph Qubain NCDOT PDEA jqubain@dot.state.nc.us Victor Chavez Parsons Transportation Group victor.chavez@parsons.com Joel Lee Parsons Transportation Group joel.lee@parsons.com William Kerr Parsons Transportation Group william.kerr@parsons.com Dana Brantley Parsons Transportation Group dana.brantley@parsons.com Robert Beres Parsons Transportation Group robert.beres@parsons.com * Participated via conference call. R-2915, US 221 6/15/06 Scoping Meeting Minutes 2 The US 221 study area is located in the northwestern portion of North Carolina. The majority of the 16.1-mile project is in Ashe County; approximately one mile of the project is in Watauga County. There are two municipalities that border the project area: West Jefferson and Jefferson. The small communities of Deep Gap, Fleetwood, Baldwin and Beaver Creek are located along existing US 221. The study area is approximately 10 miles northeast of the cities of Boone and Blowing Rock. The proposed improvements include widening of existing US 221 to a four-lane divided highway. It is estimated that the existi ng pavement is 22 feet in width. The typical section to be used is a Boulevard Type II section. Horizontal and vertical alignments on the existing facility include substandard design elements that may necessitate flattening curves, etc. A handout, including project description, schedule, environmentally sensitive areas, and project area map, was provided for each participant. Joseph Qubain opened the meeting with an introduction of the project and its purpose. Dana Brantley then gave a project overview including the following information:  Location map.  Range of alternatives.  Description of US 221 as a rural boulevard.  Feasibility study conducted in 1993.  Related TIP projects - R-2310 and U-3812.  Purpose and need for project (improve traffic and safety conditions).  Identification of environmental concerns including trout streams, wetlands, protected species, parks/recreation facilities, hazardous materials, historic resources, air quality, environmental justice, indirect and cumulative effects.  Additional identified project concerns are multi-jurisdictional coordination and public involvement. GENERAL QUESTIONS / COMMENTS  The project will probably be broken up into various sections based on ROW requirements.  The project team will keep attendees posted as the process continues.  There is a superstreet intersection at US 1 Bypass between Sanford and Southern Pines that can be used as an example (Nathan Phillips).  There may be a reason to look along the other side of the roadway even where right-of-way is wider to one side, depending on environmental concerns (i.e., species and habitats) identified later in the project development process  Community center in Fleetwood may be considered a 4(f) property.  There is a fire department across from t he community center and many schools along the alignment.  There is a US Post Office in Fleetwood.  Are there limitations on the use of Scenic Byways as detours? R-2915, US 221 6/15/06 Scoping Meeting Minutes 3 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM ATTENDEES NCDOT Natural Environment Unit  Found additional species and streams.  Wants copies of agency letters (DWQ). NC State Historic Preservation Office Did not attend, but sent letter with comments in advance. NCDOT Human Environment Unit No comments. NCDOT Public Involvement No comments. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Asked if we needed traffic forecasts and asked us to put in a request for updates. NCDOT Program Development Branch No comments. NCDOT Right of Way Branch No comments. NCDOT Structures No comments. R-2915, US 221 6/15/06 Scoping Meeting Minutes 4 NCDOT Division 11  Division wants to begin construction at the south end of the project.  Division has received many comments from public due to heavy congestion near Ashe/Watauga county line.  NC 163 has seen quite a bit of improvement and would be a good alternate detour route.  There is a new bridge over South Fork.  Requested copies of letters received from other agencies.  Comments from Division Engineer Mike Pettyjohn:  Request that an interchange at US 421 be a top priority for the project. Fog causes safety problems/accidents and is an issue at this intersection.  There may be more traffic in the corridor than is generally expected. A recent roadway project caused traffic to back up to the county line.  A number of roadways may need to be realigned due to undesirable skew, including Cranberry Springs Road, Pine Swamp Road, and Idlewild Road.  SR 1149 may need to be converted to a right-in, right-out at crossing roads. NCDOT Roadway Design Unit  Along the portion of the project approaching Jefferson, it appears that the ROW opens up to the right side – there is 350’ ROW going in to Jefferson.  Problems are anticipated along the southern section near US 421 in terms of traffic maintenance.  It is not practical to consider limited access.  The proposed 350’ ROW and median widths should be discussed at a later date.  There are concerns about the frescos at St. Mary’s Episcopal Church due to vibration and blasting concerns.  Local government is very concerned about construction timing due to tourist seasons, especially times of year and contract time. NCDOT Hydraulics  There are approximately 20 major stream cro ssings, 2 bridge structures and 2 bridges in the study area. The two bridges span the South Fork of the New River; these are 136’ and 230’ in length. Built in 1951, they have a remaining life of 7 years and may need to be replaced.  Four older culverts (three are 12’ x 10’) that were built in 1940 may need to be replaced but should be looked at during the merger process. Some of the culverts (a 3’ x 9’, three 10’ x 8’ culverts along Beaver Creek built in 1981, and two 10’ x 6’ culverts on Naked Creek) should be replaced.  The following culverts should be retained and extended: Old Field Creek culvert - constructed in 1960 (82% sufficiency); Beaver Creek - constructed in 1981 (94% sufficiency); Naked Creek (98% sufficiency). There are also 14 other sites where the size of the culvert is not known.  Encroachment should be avoided on floodways in the New River Basin, including Gap Creek, Old Field Creek and Naked Creek. R-2915, US 221 6/15/06 Scoping Meeting Minutes 5  Hazardous spill measures may be needed for Old Field Creek since it is an ORW.  Hydraulics will coordinate closely with FEMA during the development process.  There are telephone cables on top of many of these culverts. NCDOT Geotechnical  General comments will be sent to the project team.  Natural slopes are relatively high.  Cut sections steeper than 2:1 may run into ROW issues.  Cuts should be minimized where possible. NCDOT Photogrammetry No comments. NCDOT Location and Surveys Unit  Provided written comments.  There are many utilities are present along the alignment, but they are not densely compacted.  There are 8-inch crossings in 4 places including near Westwood Elementary School. The following utility providers are present in the project corridor:  High pressure gas along US-421 (Frontier Energy)  Fiber optic cables (Turner Communications)  Utilities (Town of Jefferson)  Water lines and sewer lines at Jefferson Elementary  Electrical service (Blue Ridge Electrical)  Fiber optics (US Sprint)  Telephone (Skyline Telephone, BellSouth)  Bridge 24 has a US Sprint cable attached NCDOT Work Zone/Traffic Control  Representative of the Work Zone division should be informed of any moratoriums.  Shoring may be required for any large grade changes.  Representative wants to be involved with any detours or any bridge construction.  Temporary pavement may need to be constructed for 2-way, 2-lane travel.  Work may involve hauling and blasting, staging areas will have to be identified.  Meteorological and seasonal restrictions should be considered.  Detours may be needed:  Possible detour should be considered along NC 194 and NC 16.  Detours through park areas could be an issue.  Timing of detours could be an issue for local businesses.  Are scenic byways limited as detour routes based on ADT restrictions? R-2915, US 221 6/15/06 Scoping Meeting Minutes 6  Maintenance and protection of traffic will be needed during construction. NCDOT Congestion Management  Consider directional crossovers and U-turns. Are there median width and U-turn requirements?  Safety may be an issue.  Sight distances are limited in some areas.  A letter is forthcoming from regional traffic engineering regarding additional lanes, re-alignments, and steep slopes.  SR 1149 is the site of a spot safety project (right in, right out).  Coordination should take place with the many schools along the project alignment.  There are 5 signals along US 221. There are also 2 signals near the alignment on cross streets. A new signal is recommended at NC194. NCDOT Utilities No comments. High Country RPO No comments. Copies: Meeting attendees