Upgrade Existing US 221

IZ_
tin
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 13, 2004
Concurrence Point 2a
Bridging and Alignment Review
for TIP R-2310
Upgrade Existing US 221 From NC 16 near Jefferson to
just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line,Ashe County,
Federal Aid No. STP-221(8),VMS Element 34419.1.1,
State Project No. 8.1711001
Concurrence Team History
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need of the Project
At the Merger Team meeting for.Concurrence Point 1 held on February 5, 2002,
the Merger Team concurred that the purpose and need for the subject project is:
` "to improve safety on US 221 and to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork
of the New River'in Alleghany County as part of Transportation Improvement Project
(T.I.P.)R-2310. The need for safety improvements along US 221 is based on correcting
a restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has
contributed to an accident rate that is 140%greater than the statewide average for similar
roadways. The need for replacing Bridge No. 39 is based on the most recent bridge
report, completed on January 9,2001,which determined that Bridge No. 39 has a
sufficiency rating of 44.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted
weight restrictions and has recurring scour problems as well as spalling and corrosion.
The project is 9.8 miles(15.7 km) in length. The project location is.shown on the
attached map.
Preliminary Discussion for Concurrence Point 2
Once concurrence was reached on Concurrence Point 1,the Merger team
discussed Concurrence Point 2, specifically the alignment alternatives and the bridge
replacement alternatives that would be carried forward. The following three alignment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WLMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: W.WWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGHNC
RALEIGH NC 276 99-1 54 8

' o
alternatives were discussed and the team tentatively agreed that they would be carried
forward:
Alignment Alternatives:
1. No-build/routine maintenance continues
2. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders,2 foot
paved and 2 foot grass,from NC 16 in Jefferson to approximately
0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line. Realign
substandard horizontal and vertical curves where possible.
3. Widen SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to two 12 foot lanes
with 4 foot shoulders,2 foot paved and 2 foot grass,from NC 16
in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with
4 foot shoulders from SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Resign SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)-as US 221.
Realign substandard horizontal and vertical curves where
possible.
Plan sheets for the project were displayed and the merger team went through the
above listed alignment alternatives and looked at each individual curve that did not meet
the design speed of the proposed project. Based on the existing location of wetlands and
streams,the team was able to identify on the plan sheets which curves would be studied
for realignment and which curves would not. Roadway Design used the "marked"plan
sheets to develop the preliminary design for these alignment alternatives and also
generated a"no curve realignment"alternative. The impacts associated with these three
alignment alternatives was provided in a table that were included in the"merger
package"for the Concurrence Point 2 meeting..
The merger team also discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River.
The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its substandard sufficiency
rating. One alternative for replacement was presented by NCDOT;replacing Bridge No.
39 over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing location and
maintaining traffic along US 221 during construction phase of new bridge. The merger
team requested that NCDOT also study replacing the bridge in its current location,which
would require an off-site detour. It was also requested of NCDOT to study the use of a
temporary detour bridge,both on the north and south side of the existing bridge,while
Bridge No 39 is replaced in place. Although impacts to an historic property would result
from any work on the north side of the existing bridge,this alternative was studied as a
possible bridge replacement alternative.

Preliminary Designs
In the weeks following the February,2002 meeting,the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative notified NCDOT that there was no need to study the north side
detour bridge alternative since it would adversely effect the New River General Store and
the approach curvature of US 221 to the bridge would be worse than it is now. NCDOT.
studied the off-site detour alternative during the planning phase for T.I.P. Project B-1037,
which proposed to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River. T.I.P.
Project B-1037 had a signed Categorical Exclusion.(CE), dated September 18, 1996, and
was incorporated into T.I.P. Project R-2310 in 1997. In the CE, it was determined that
there were "no reasonable detour routes" so an off-site detour preliminary design was not
pursued.
NCDOT generated three alignment alternatives, as stated above,that reflected the
alternatives discussed at the February 5,2002 meeting. The bridge alternatives were
narrowed to replacing Bridge No. 39 immediately south of its existing location, as
recommended in the CE for T.I.P. Project B-1037. The three alignment alternatives
discussed are as follows:
Alternative 1 —Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new
location curve realignment along US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson.
to approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River just south of its existing location and maintain traffic along
US 221 during construction phase of the new bridge.
Alternative 2-Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new
location curve realignment along SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs
Road)from NC 16 in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US 221 to two
12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new location curve
realignment from SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Resign SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) as US 221.
Replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River just
south of its existing location and maintain traffic along US 221
during construction phase of the new bridge.
Alternative 3 -Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders on existing
alignment along US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line
with no new location curve realignment. Replace Bridge No. 39
over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing
location and maintain traffic along US 221 during construction
phase of the new bridge.

Concurrence Point 2
The Concurrence Point 2 meeting was held on December 11,2002. This meeting was a
follow-up of the concurrence meeting from February of 2002. At the previous
concurrence meeting,the merger team had reviewed the preliminary designs and had
developed various alignment alternatives for each of the curves that did not meet the
required curvature for the proposed design speed. Roadway Design used these"marked
up"preliminary designs to developed three alignment alternatives for the subject project.
Calculated impacts to wetlands, streams, and homes/businesses (see attached table)were
presented at the meeting and the Merger Team reviewed each area of realignment on a
case by case basis. Comments for each area, along with the recommended alignment
improvement, are as follows:
Area 1 —Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 2—Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 3—Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area and requested that
the existing pavement be removed once the alignment is switched.
Area 4—Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 5 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 6 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 3 for this area.
Area 7—Merger Team requested that the Alternative 1 alignment be shifted in
order to avoid or reduce impacts to the stream in this area. Roadway
Design will investigate this requested alignment shift.
Area 8 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative l/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 9 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 10 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 11 —Merger Team requested more detailed information regarding the
terrestrial resources located within the new location corridor of
Alternative 1/Alternative 2. PDEA biologist will research field notes
and provide more info. In addition, select Merger Team members
noted that they would be in the project vicinity over the next few weeks
and would look at this area in question while in the field. The decision
for this area was left"pending further information" at this time.

Area 12 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative l/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area. Additional comments were received from USFWS team
member via telephone after the Merger Meeting. Comments were
related to the visual effect the curve realignment and bridge relocation
would have on the northwestern slope as seen from the New River, a
Federally designated Wild& Scenic River. USFWS asked about
possibly minimizing slopes in this area and possibly re-vegetating the
slopes with natural species to cover open cut sections of the cut slope.
PDEA will investigate landscaping of slope. Roadway Design will
investigate minimizing the cut slope proposed in this area.
Area 13 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 14-Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 15 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative l/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 16 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
In addition,the merger team discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River. The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its substandard
sufficiency rating. One alternative for replacement was presented by NCDOT;replacing
Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing location
and maintaining traffic along US 221 during construction phase of new bridge. Methods
for demolishing the old bridge and constructing the new bridge were discussed prior to
the Merger meeting with the NCDOT Area Bridge Construction Engineer. His
comments are noted below:
-Demolition of Existing Bridge
➢ Can saw cut the existing deck and lift the pieces out without dropping into
the river:.
➢ Removal of existing footings without getting in the river will be difficult.
The footings are spread footings and removing the entire footing would leave
a large hole in the river bed that would need to be filled in.
➢ In order to remove the existing bents,the contractor would need a large saw
to cut the bents into manageable sections which would then be lifted out by
crane. This method would be expensive and the saw would produce a slurry
that would be hard to keep contained.
➢ An easier method of bent removal would be to push the bents over and then
remove them from the river in large chunks.
-Construction of New Bridge
➢ Not economically feasible to build new bridge without getting into the river
via a temporary work bridge or a causeway.

➢ Rough field estimate by Area Bridge Engineer suggests that there would
only need to be one new bent placed in the river; however, it would most
likely need to be a drilled shaft bent.
The Merger Team concurred with the"Alternatives to Be Studied", as discussed at
this meeting and signed the Concurrence Point 2 signature sheet. It was agreed that the
two areas that are pending,Areas 7 and 11,will be re-evaluated and the designs will be
sent to the Merge Team for comments once they are completed.
The Merger Team agreed that Alternative 2, as discussed in the Merger meeting,was
the preferred alternative due to its minimization of overall impacts to both the natural and
human environment. However, it was agreed that both Alternative 2 and Alternative 1
will be carried forward to the Public Hearing Map stage and presented to the public for
their review and comments.
Project Status
Staff biologists have concluded their wetland and stream delineations. These
delineations have been verified by the Corps of Engineers representative and have been
incorporated into the preliminary designs presented at the upcoming concurrence
meeting. No Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered species have been found along
the subject project.
A Phase I inventory of the project's Area of Potential Effect(APE) was
conducted in March 1999. It was determined that of the 47 historic architectural
resources within the Area of Potential Effect(APE),two (the New River Outfitters store
and Bridge No. 39)had previously been determined (and continue to remain) eligible for
listing on the National Register; 3 8 resources were not eligible for National Register
listing and required no further evaluation; and seven resources were worthy of further
evaluation to determine their potential National register eligibility.
In November 1999,the Phase II survey of the APE was completed and
recommendations for eligibility for the National Register were made for the seven
resources in question. It was determined that the seven resources were not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
A private firm has been contracted to conduct archaeological surveys, and has
submitted its archaeological survey and evaluation draft report, dated February 28, 2002.
Sixteen unidentified archaeological sites and five previously recorded archaeological
sites were identified in the project's area of potential effect. The consultant firm
recommended that three of these sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D:

r
Concurrence Point 2a
Because the Merger Team has already reviewed the alignment for this project during
Concurrence Point 2, only the hydraulic structure recommendations will need to be
discussed at the Concurrence Point 2a meeting. Attached are copies of the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit's hydraulic recommendations for the project. An initial hydraulic review
was completed in September 1998. Since then, an updated review was done based on the
curve realignment information developed as part of the Concurrence Point 2 meeting. In
addition, a"Hydraulic Table"is included and will be the primary focus of the
Concurrence Point 2a meeting.
CMY/
Attachments:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 1, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
ATTN: Craig Young
FROM: D. R. Henderson, P.E. ��,�n----
State Hydraulics Engineer
Y g
SUBJECT: Additional Hydraulic Information for the Proposed
Widening of US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to just east of
the Ashe/Allegany County Line, Ashe County, State Project
No. 8.1711001, TIP No. R-2310
Information contained in the Hydraulic Aspects Memorandum date September 1, 1998 for
the subject project is still valid. The following information is in response to a request for
additional hydraulic structure input at new location areas for alternate 1 and a new
western termini (alternate 2)between SR 1571 (East Shatley Road) and SR 1512 (Tom
Fowler Road) at NC 16,north of Jefferson. Hydraulics Unit staff recently conducted a
second preliminary evaluation for the subject project and the hydraulic recommendations
follow:
Site Alternate Stream Location Existing Structure Recommendation Flood
Zone
Status
1' 1 Trib.To 1.9 km. (1.2 mi.) 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 Remove None'
Dog Creek east of NC 16 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC
1A"" 1 Trib.To 1.8 km. (1.1 mi.) N/A, New Location 1 @ 2.1 m. x 1.8 m. (1 None
Dog Creek east of NC16 @ 7 ft.x 6 ft.) RCBC
1B"' 1 Dog Creek 2.2 km. (1.35 mi.) N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.1 m. (2 None
east of NC 16 @ 8 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC
2 1 Trib.To 3.4 km. (2.1 mi.) L=9.1 M. (32 ft.) 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 None
Dog Creek east of NC 16 Reinforced Concrete @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC
Bridge (Bridge No. 29)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
HYDRAULICS UNIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590

r
Site Alternate Stream Location Existing Structure Recommendation Flood
Zone
Status
3 1 Trib.To 6.5 km. (4.0 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m. x 1.2 m. (1 Retain, and extend None
Nathan's east of NC 16 @ 8 ft. x 4 ft.) existing culvert
Creek Bottomless RCBC
4* 1 Nathan's 76 m. (250 ft.) east 2 @ 2.4 m.x 2.1 m. (2 Remove Flood
Creek of SR 1571 @ 8 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
4A** 1 Trib.To Just east of SR N/A, New Location 1 @ 2.1 m. x 2.1 m. (1 Flood
Nathan's 1571 @ 7 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Creek Zone
4B** 1 Nathan's 183 m. (600 ft.) N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 Flood
Creek east of SR 1571 @ 8 ft.x 8 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
5* 1 &2 Long 69 m. (225 ft.) east 2 @ 2.4 m.x 2.4 m. (2 Remove Flood
Branch of SR 1602 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
5A** 1 &2 Long 69 m. (225 ft.) east N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.1 m. x 2.1 m. (2 None
Branch of SR 1602 @ 7 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC
6 1 &2 South Fork 3.1 km. (1.9 mi.) L= 141 m. (462 ft.) To be replaced with Detailed
River west of county line Reinforced Concrete new bridge (see B- Flood
Bridge (Bridge No. 39) 1037) Study
7 1 &2 Trib.To 1.1 km. (0.7 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m.x 1.8 m. (1 Retain, and extend None
Beaver west of county line @ 8 ft. x 6 ft.) existing culvert
Branch -Bottomless RCBC
8 2 Nathan's At SR 1571, 1.1 1 @ 2100 mm. (1 @ 84 1 @ 2.4 m. x 1.8 m. (1 None
Creek km. (0.7 mi.) in.) CSP @ 8 ft.x 6 ft.) RCBC
northwest of US
221
9 2 Nathan's Just east of SR N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.1 m. (2 None
Creek 1571, 0.3 km. (0.2 @ 8 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC
mi.) northwest of
US 221
RCBC:reinforced concrete box culvert(dimensions are base width x height)
CSP: corrugated steel pipe(dimensions are diameter)
*: Improvements to horizontal ailment will eliminate existing structure.
**: Improvements to horizontal ailment will require new drainage structure.
Recommendations of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on
a more detailed analysis during the final design phase of the project. Attached are the
Hydraulic Aspects Memorandum, dated September 1, 1998,which contains pertinent
environmental information relating to the current project status,USGS Quad Maps
"Jefferson,N.C."and"Laurel Springs,N.C."with stream crossing sites identified. If you
have any questions or require additional information,please contact Jerome Nix,NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit, at 250-4100 ext. 212.
DRH/MSL/djn

a
s nkt
G
.._Z.0.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR_ P.O.BOX25201.RALEIGH..N.C. 27611-5201 E. Norris Tolson
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 1, 1998
r.
MEMORANDUM TO. Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: �,,iA. L. Hankins, Jr., P.E..
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Aspects of the Environmental Impact for widening
of US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany County
Line,Ashe County, State Project No. 8.1711001,
TIP No. R-2310
This project involves the widening of US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany
County Line, Ashe County. The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and
alignment of the facility. The existing roadway is primarily a winding two-lane facility with
numerous hazardous.curves.and narrow shoulders and lane widths: The proposed
improvements will include reducing or eliminating hazardous curves and increasing shoulder
and pavement widths to meet current design standards. These improvements will enhance
sight distance and reduce accident potential along the project.
The terrain in the vicinity of the project is mountainous and rolling with numerous draws and
streams located such that the project may be drained without difficulty. Local Highway
Maintenance Personnel reported no flooding problems at any of the major stream crossings
in the project vicinity. There are 20 jurisdictional stream crossings involved with this
project, of which 7 are major stream crossings (see attached quad map for location of
streams). Based on recent field review and a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the following
table summarizes the major stream crossings and recommendations for accommodation of
the proposed improvements (Note, to avoid confusion in directions, the terms "left" and
"right" are in reference to proceeding from the west"to east termini of the project:)

Site Stream Location Existing Structure and Recommendation Flood
Channel Geometry Zone
Status
1 Tributary to 1.9 km (1.2 mi.) 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.4 m (8 ft. x 8 ft.) Retain, and extend None
Dog Creek east of NC 16 RCBC to the right.
Bed to crown of 2.7 m (9 ft),. (Note:Preliminary
base width of 2.4 m (8 ft), hydraulics analysis
channel depth of I(3 ft.) indicates structure is
oversized.)
2 Dog Creek 3.4 km (2.1 mi.) Bridge No 29 L=9.7 m(31 ft. Replace with a 2@ None
east of NC 16 11 in.)RC Brg. 2.4 m X 2.4 m (8 ft.
Bed to crown of 4 m(13 ft), X 8 ft.)RCBC
base width of 2.4 m (8 ft),
channel depth of I(3 ft.)
3 Tributary to 6.5 km (4.0 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m x 1.2 m(8 ft. x 4 ft.) Retain,and extend None
Nathan's east of NC 16 Bottomless RCBC to the right.
Creek' Bed to crown of 1.8 m (6 ft),
base width of 2.4 m (8 ft),
channel depth of 1 m(3 ft.)
4 Nathan's Creek 76 m(250 ft.)east 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.1 m(8 ft x 7 ft.) Retain; no extension Flood
of SR 1571 RCBC needed.Structure Hazard
Bed to crown of 4.3 m(14 ft), and approaches Zone
base width of 3 m(10 ft built in 1995 to
channel depth of 1.5 m(5 ft.) current standards.
5 Long Branch 69 m(225 ft.) east 2 @ 2.4m x 2.4 m(8 ft. x 8 ft.) Retain, and extend Flood
of SR 1602 RCBC symmetrically Hazard
Bed to crown of 3 m (10 ft),' Zone
base width of 1.2 in (4 ft),
channel depth of 0.6m(4 ft.)
6 South Fork 3.1 km (1.9 mi.) Bridge 39 *L= 141 m(461' 6") To be replaced with Detailed
New River. west of county line RC Bridge new bridge(see B-
Bed to crown of 13.7 m(45 ft), 1037,Proposed
base width of 67 m (220 ft), letting in FY 99)
channel depth of 12 m (40 ft.)
7 Tributary to 1.1 km (0.7 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m x 1.8 m(8 ft. x 6 ft.) Retain, and extend None,
Beaver Branch west of county line RCBC to the right
Bed to crown of 2.4 m (8 ft),
base width of 1.5 m (5 ft),
channel depth of 0.6m(2 f3.)
From recent field review and a preliminary hydraulics analysis, all of the existing
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBCs) were determined to be hydraulically adequate,
and appeared to be in good condition. Therefore, it is recommended that these structures
be retained and extended as indicated in the above table and that a detailed assessment of
structural integrity be obtained from the Bridge Maintenance and Structure Design Units.
The existing structure over tributary to Dog Creek(Bridge no. 29) was built in 1922 and
has a sufficiency rating of 73.2% with an estimated remaining life of 10 years. This

a
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete deck girders deck with reinforced concrete
vertical abutments. The bridge is a single span structure measuring 9.70 m (31 ft. 10 in.)
in length. The stream has a normal flow depth of 0.2 m (0.5 ft.) and the banks are stable
with natural vegetation. Bridge scour information at the existing bridge indicates that it is
considered to be low risk as the footings are in rock. Recent high water marks at this
bridge are 2.1 m (7.0 ft.) from the bottom of the bridge. Based on recent field review and
a preliminary hydraulics analysis, considering the age and condition of the existing
bridge, it is recommended that the bridge be replaced with a 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.4 m (8 ft. x 8
ft.) RCBC.
The existing structure over South Fork New River(Bridge no. 39) was built in 1922 and
has a sufficiency rating of 44.5%with an estimated remaining life of 10 years. This
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete deck girders deck with reinforced concrete
abutments. The bridge is 141 m (462 ft.) in length measuring the following spans 1 @ 6.8
m (22 ft. 3 in.), 1 @ 15.7 m (51 ft. 6 in.), 6 @ 16.0 m (52 ft. 6 in.), and 1 @ 6.8 m (22 ft. 3
in.). Bridge scour information at the existing bridge indicates that it is considered to be
low risk as the.footings are on rock. The bridge is to be replaced with a new bridge 145 m
(475 ft.) in length under TIP Project B-1037, scheduled to be let in the FY 99.
Ashe County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
crossing of South Fork New River(Site 6) is in a designated flood hazard zone and is
included in a detailed flood study with an established 100-year floodplain and floodway with
corresponding regulatory water surface elevations. As the existing bridge is proposed to be
replaced with a bridge having equivalent or improved conveyance, it is anticipated that a
floodway revision will not be required at this crossing. Attached are copies of the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, on which are delineated the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of this stream crossings. For those crossings listed in
the above table which are in a designated flood hazard zone, copies of the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps are attached showing the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain in the
vicinity of those stream crossings. For the remaining stream crossings which are not in a
designated flood hazard zone, a copy of the USGS Quad Topographic Map is attached
showing an approximate delineation of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of those
stream crossings. Most of the floodplain areas at the major stream crossings are rural and
wooded or cleared pasture and cultivated areas. In recent.field review it was noted that there
is a residential home upstream of the crossing of the Tributary to Dog Creek(site 2) in which
the finished floor elevation is approximately 2.4 m (8.0 ft.) below the low chord of the bridge
which happens to be approximately the same elevation as the top of bank for the upstream
cross section, and is therefore below the 100-year flood level. No other structures with floor
elevations below that of the 100 yr. flood level were observed in the field. Existing flood
hazards to adjacent properties will be evaluated in detail in final hydraulics design. .The.
proposed roadway improvements and associated drainage accommodations will have no
adverse effect on the existing floodplains nor on the associated flood hazards. If needed,
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local
authorities in final design to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.

a
The following major stream crossing sites are above headwaters: Dog Creek, Tributary to
Dog Creek, Tributary to Nathan's Creek,Nathan's Creek, Long Branch, and Tributary to
Beaver Branch. The remaining sites are below headwaters. No major wetlands will be
affected the project; however, most of the stream crossings in the are designated trout
streams or tributaries to trout streams. Based on the length of the project and the
involvement with numerous trout stream crossings, it is anticipated that an individual
environmental permit will be required for this project. Hydraulics Unit, in conjunction with
Planning &Environmental Branch, will coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to facilitate the permitting process and to
ensure that all environmental concerns are appropriately addressed. Regarding the use of
culverts on trout streams, it should be noted that a recent field review of several culvert sites
on mountain streams has confirmed that a properly located and designed culvert can
adequately provide for the fish habitat, and could in some instances be viewed as an
enhancement to the habitat. Fish passage and restriction of the low flow channel are two
primary concerns which will be addressed in the final hydraulics design stage. The bottom
of any new culverts will be placed sufficiently below the bed elevation so as to not restrict
the low flow, and consideration will be given to utilization of bottomless structures, if
necessary and if foundation conditions are satisfactory. An analysis will be made of the flow
velocities and bed material movement to determine whether additional special design
measures, such as baffles or sills, will be required in the culvert to promote retention of bed .
material and to ensure proper fish passage. Many of the recommendations made in the above
table are based on minimizing the amount of major channel realignment or modification;
however, other constraints may dictate the selection of other alternates, in which case,
considerable channel realignment.may be.involved due to the close proximity of streams
parallel to the roadway along this project. All of the recommended culvert extensions or
replacements can be accommodated as recommended with minor channel modification or
realignment. The crossing of the South Fork New River is located within a water supply .
watershed and a high quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled for this project through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of more stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures appropriate for
high quality waters.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and improved to the extent practicable.
Groundwater resources should be assessed in final hydraulics design to ensure that measures
are taken, if necessary, to prevent groundwater contamination. Recommendations of this
report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on information obtained from a
more detailed analysis during the final hydraulics design phase of the project.
ALHjr/AMR/dcd
attachment
cc: Mr. R.L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Hal Bain, Planning & Environmental Branch

f
J,
C
29iO
L ::c
em
V'
r/
Orr
7
.00 f •
a
I /` -V 4(
/� \�.,� -,\\. `,/� -- \�' \ � -r\�-_-_�1�_- l! t
2800
' coo
ou
zz 2� �\� \ f. ���f;_—�,�77j �,`� ��� 1;.. f I e; SITE 4 \\
----------------
�l � j'1'r\ � -\ ��:�l—���``,J �.T`�`�_�--�� o �� ,�_--__ ��� -=f" I � \\',<J�l�/ 3Z� �� jy/ ��, �j \� \` � \\ '\
0
;; I.\�� Lam. / f -/ t \,. ..i SIT
E 8
Ld
L
SITE 9
s \, �� \�>`�- P'��c'P-_.'\\.`\H\•,♦.��-I:�CIl`��/--,\�1�\\��\:}.`1` \\\\,\��.�.////�!''!���r��l�-��;,;���.�,��-��/��'gq 1 o __J
"),"Iler,Y (1'�
2 1�),\ �III•l,:f;ir>�,•J�\�'�/ /�\�'i///'1`1 \ I�rJ J�SITE 4A
0)) ;� •f'',`\'�'�'� /��� // ;\:,\ �\ ;:- - r '�� (C,��1'�,/ �—�r/ 6d, /J/ /(, �Pr .\✓, \.\/•�� 1 \�, e /� ���'RN
4
'51 Zli I _J
��`.r �� � -_-"_ ./ ,, - �_;\�, ''I �-1( ��.,� ,. \(`J I ,-- = =_�-' ��� /, '-'i .� .�' , ,( ��, �( '`r I ,"tea- '`�" it !v" ,t\ •; SITE 4B
-m00
n" IN
'311- t
V_
7
\, �+' �i I ( - f:J\ \ _.\\\..� �`.•- •�'/ _�=�•�/•f�- C��-/r-% Jl\1 .`�/ QI -�- � / //ice �'~ �� _ '�� /\ I + u\ �\ :1) ,^\q (6 � `, �..- �- \
`.'•\'• :\ ,\, .\.� - \.`.�- _ \f:'/ -��' _j--J� \��) / //fir ,.[ ✓ ✓ \ l o 1 r .\\\ ( 00 ` L/ - i' %'. -
SITE 3
S
THAN L;
-jiii­ Jo Jr J
/ /��_,���) ��. �� :�_� _ ---.� ./, �� \ \ \ /` � •^r. „ /n 11� p athans-Crek
I P
,. -- i 1j����� \\�` ��)' .( � `J[i� 3ioo" � \ •( ,.-/ _1r�Ll� � � I i / � ,! `�... _ � 'I \v � X 303
BEGIN PROJECT
Water
Avelcolue HOM(
S
k .._1
SITE 1B
SITE IA: '
V. '000
UA)
��/v/: cb - \ , y !' ( �, 8 / I` � j V+ icrCic'
.3120".
50
SITE I
0
Ce
SITE
k
-N
0
V.Denotes: Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream
"'?Son
Den
otes: Major Stream Crossing and
Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream
V"
ear flood plain
c
d,
AI 1 41 4
i� III. L� r !k "q
Denotes: Approximate 100 ye "A",
X295-0
jv.
e r's�o
'174
\A
%
%r; , _•-� }� �•% Y;-n.� i , n , r �, / "�-;r----- \ l < -,\ \ '�� �.. _ )�L,, I,' .ft ,-=� Ij \,y \ }[. l./ 1 -11 t 17-A 3

UNITED STATES
c%Nr`L DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ' LE
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
831022'30" i 46700om.E. a68 169 170 20' a 4757 u/SE 7.
36 i 1) (MOUTH OF W 3.6 M/. TO N.C. 93� 17'
\'''/.L1. ILSONI '73 30,+ '74 1 330000 FEET ) 175
J -
b' 'i
J•
,
r•: 11
1; I t
. ♦ �\. �t"
39OOOm.
'` .�=-- '-{ � � , \ :', � �-- �5��.--.;' -- � =":_ `� ,'��'�. 1' \1 , ,_ '. .- ':. .._ .•:1 �,' .•_ i� 1, '�-:. \ ,'--.,• ,.-�--
I{ 1
ao f (J
'j ii\mil ._ .\ \ 1,�\\I(" . ��__��1��•�^�,1`.�-1` 1 � ( \J ;'r,'/ .. � �•r.. € - _-_ _ �' b'-.� _ )�// !`l`\t � \ � 1� �` / `/'"/�' �-' r,-1�\�����
�_ 0
�\ 3007 _ \' , �� ��/ ^ �l \1�f`. !` 1•-J I b/ r —�.1 �: � '1% �i\ / I " / \ �!- \
�- /� + ' ` \.''s•�'. 1 ti �= `,1� � 1 F' » it �:.
�J ' 1✓ �� ��, /I/� J I - C.� T'�c��.''_� �.ct !1 ij a' II-:-I �, /(�\ ti I! ! J' �_ , \\
-/ '.�\-/ ��. .��./ :� '�•� '\\ 'l � % '�`' / 1,� T� ./ � \,\\ 1 / C .� �'`.,lam., �\ i, ,
�]�,p 'n�• 1 - .'',`�' `_�_�\ (1,. / ✓ ✓ I..`., - \\`', s ='� '% ( 1 '/ .�� �Jr�a(,, 1 /r 1 2819;1
r a / ,�ll't ,to•� . '7 f; ��/ o \ 1 J u �, ) �,
- '1'� �� l '( I' `r1` �r • \ ( 1
4038 l �.. ! , , ' r-��" /j -\. ,_ 1! `G�`�-%\� ✓ ` /• :C �`- r: ) , \ \ .v � � �lf- D, o\' � ` ,.:� - / •' -/
ranks Knob m.-c ,o
I ( -<Q a',! 1\I�` . -;%''/ ,\s F_J�• t. - � .,.� � /'�- � \J / i t'{ �/ •�- \ � �� 1�^J 4 ' aesa
�
ICOD
SITE 6 �,
ao 37tVll)E
I \�' �1 � �J 1 �1� >'• o�. T - ', I; as /I ;, c - �; \ \ �- J
Lein \ 1 z \n
,�% �
,; .� - � '�` `` t _ Zz'- �_2698 \;o� \\' ND PROJECT
- Lza6s � _ ' BER=� \ ��op��\� 'a � :Cem' 1 - �� `?� �\ _ ��✓ ��. . \ zaa/ -.-�\ � \'`�-• � 1�,,:
rS
mil .c a :' SITE 7 - ! r�, e03 1 ' r��,
�/�i `����� I`��--' fl�';� 0 `�
036
1�
,—
) �,/'I C - lJ �: \•� /�I �- ?790
Z2 SITE 5A
z8,)0
�W� 'J .f .�_ .- - _ �\ / i;,Jr �\�'i`_` �`_`�\ � ,1 \\� � ;i 1 - -.� '. J �\\ l7/I-�,\� \J �/��„/\t„\` \'i,� /� �•� ,�._. %�
26 J_ �� 1�'- - .� 261 !" - .�' � ,1 , \��` - �• { �I `y_. _ - \o•�. , \/l�t�� �f U! -1 \, :��'. \-
035
/� � - �;�, ��``\� 1` l; ry \:•L`,..��0. •°' •e0 - n'/�� �-�'� �'f:� 1\ _ / i 7 \I, - %l `..��`� `+.1 , j 0 /!C i � \ 1
•,'1C� \ � �j ! /� _ Rl �.. �- ) ��v�� ,,Fy�_ \\\ •\�i� \ ��/��\"\ '\�.� �' � \�-.��+� �� -__ �/ /mil ` \ �� �\ .i/. _ _
. �.. �_ \\` �:i^ ':t.1 `II:: l - `\ yap -.� I � �i —t:l-��� I /�.'\ �\ Il• �\"' _
27 30' i ��\ �\ � SITE 5 �� � �
\:�� � \' � �� _.��:-.,--=•=`-�i-,j: �i:. (� I \, � I i�. ) \ �t'�\ \/lf 6p0`-��--�-�\\ �.�✓�_l� � /11��� �3 c\ I � ;� �;_._ / J\`
Denotes: Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream
Denotes: Major Stream Crossing and71
- 1 aG)`'\ Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream034
ear flood lain
�'.` - 1� _ F �„ Denotes: Approximate 100y p (�1eh•iewCh
NI
-
t
_ I \ \ -/ 'I :�� _ \ � �1.� I Il {1• ,. l i' .,1;!, / \! l- 11 +rl�{r--��au!\ \' 1 '" ii .� i%/�"! ;;/.11A1V -,:`\\\\ �?;..��' -� /! / l ��a,C-\ �� /Ch, �

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-221
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/RCBC(Alt.1) $ 150,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
me' Des t Sec No Description ud x Quantity Unit g Pace Amounts
RCBC 2@8'x8',981,TFH,90Skew 98 LF $ 1,195.00 $ 117,110.00
Msc.&Mob. (10%) 1 LS $ 11,711.00
Contract Cost ............................................. $ 128,821.00
E.&C. (15%) ............................................. $ 21,179.00
Construction Cost ............................................. $ y 150000 00.`
Note This cost does not include other roadway items.

North Carolina Department of Transportation f '
Preliminary Estimate
•TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-221
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/Cored Slab Bridge(Alt.2) $ 275,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
,Liner as QUBntlt� Unit t '
Des Sec No Description y 4 Price Amount
w „
Prop.Cored Slab Bridge(40'W x 52'L) 2,080 SF $ 100.00 $ 208,000.00
Msc.&Mob. (10%) 1 LS $ 20,800.00
Contract Cost ............................................. $ 228,800.00
E.&C. (15%) ............................................. $ 46,200.00
Construction Cost ............................................. $ 275,000 00
Note This cost does not include other roadway items.

t i
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-221
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/Con Span(Alt.3) $ 425,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested.By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
Des ec Descrlptlon Quantity UIIIt Price a AmOUnt
Item Rio x¢� Fes.. .
Con Span(Alum.Bottomless Culv.on Cone.Footings 98 LF $ 3,250.00 $ 318,500.00
1@36'x 9',981,2'FH,90 Skew
Msc.&.Mob. (10%) 1 LS $ 31,850.00
Contract Cost ............................................. $ 350,350.00
E.&C. (15%) ............................................. $ 74,650.00
Construction Cost ............................................. $: , ,,425;000
Note This•cost does not include other roadway items.

r
s
�,E 1 .
BiOJ
/ SITE
-... I D
17
EXISTING U�9221
PROPOSED
-�_
J iL
I
_
L -
e �
. '. � ' ,"•' _ `'\\ \1., � •'�:..: ��'--„ E`er
/ SITE 1B

r
�\ US 22/
CD
GO
- _
1 J
SITE
t
i
f
\ J.

f ,
777
N
'
'oy
re
r
,y � ,,� •,{� � .SITE 3 ..
ti \:
s

G
PRAISED. US ` 22!
-
SITE 5
SITE 5A .
47
IX
.r � �- ` ..- \ \ /�/ \ a. yr. ^�i'i ^{ a'���•

l
• N `
c
// ��' • ij
SITE
r �
r
- PROPOSED U$ 221..' .
- c• __ _,:.:_$tit, __=-`- _
W
1
.. _
— — /
E_...�—
u 1\ \t v 1 / / > V
Al t._.:a

U _
913.3
\\ \ `� • 912.9
EA�� % .SHATLE SPRlN S D F \* ;\�
• \ �� ,�\ . `�� -TERN.AT/VE 2
869.5
\.
Is 8
858.E
\ 7 � •
S-I.T E-. 8
361.8 I
. �/8iY5�
/ '`'
7777
T-.- A ;:FOWLER? D R _ . t\
� / t
\
87 G i
' 0.E- 869.7
• `\
869.8 F \ \.• �
' \l ' 841.6
• 896.9 y1' o� - \ • 4
ED _

1
�- 54
\ \� 834.5
SITE 9 ,
X-x
` -. SITE 4 - -
EA, SHATLEY SPRINGS
IP
•-s
,
J
5

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Am
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary � ���
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM D
61998
TO: Melba McGee,DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
WEtLA p1.1 .-
FROM: Mary Kiesau,DWQ SEPA Coordinator I 1 WATER
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping,DENR#98-E-0666, DWQ# 12051
US 221 Improvements, from NC 16 to Ashe/Alleghany County
Lines; Ashe and Alleghany Counties
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)requests that the following topics be
discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz- Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz.- Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

vi) Quality of wetlands impacted
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-ldnd mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:restoration,creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss project alternatives in detail.
K. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)requires that the EA for this
project evaluate all direct,indirect and cumulative impacts on the environment. It is
the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts to changes in land
uses that the EA should focus its indirect impacts section. This section of the EA
should discuss the known relationship between road widening and inducements for
urban development along the project right-of-way. The EA must further address the
long-term environmental impacts of this road project,including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment. To
address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor(and what
land use figures were used in this estimate)? `
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to existing roads, such as turn lanes and
traffic signs and signals?
iii) Are any cross streets in the project area projected to see additional traffic
flows due to the proposed project? If so,how will land uses along these
secondary roads be influenced by the project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
v) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant parcels of land in
the road right-of-way?
vi) Will these once less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this widened road serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way,given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities,and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future),of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity)in the area? To what degree will this widening
encourage further urbanization of this corridor?

viii) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to effectively manage development potential along the
road right-of-way to reduce the potential indirect land use changes and
environmental impacts?
ix) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from this additional development.
x) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
L. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT EA:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project,typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction,the current quality of the waters and ecosystem,of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities,the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality,how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water,etc. An indirect impact of a transportation project
may include increases in development in the vicinity of the road widening,if the
project will be providing new or improved access to future growth areas that are
currently undeveloped. One typical impact of increased development might include
increasing amounts of urban stormwater in the project service area. Land-
disturbing activities associated with road construction and land development may
also result in increased stream sedimentation.And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in the creek,loss of aquatic
habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as fertilizers,pesticides,
sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These impacts could be of
special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state and federally
endangered species or if the waters are high quality or nutrient sensitive.
M. DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont,DOT will need to commit to
full control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for
wetland mitigation.
N. Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01 C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA
Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS)has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or
General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please

r .
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:V80666; US 221 Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell- DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group

t
Cyndi B
From: Cox, David R. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 6:54 AM
To: Cyndi Bell
Subject: RE: R-2310
12
R231 a1.D00
Cyndi, I am planning to attend the meeting. Joe Mickey drove the project and
noted some concerns which he e-mailed to me. I have attached a copy for you. Thanks.
From• Cyndi Bell °, - F
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: R-2310
Date: Friday, March 20, 1998 12:47PM
This is US 221 Widening from NC 16 to the Allegheny County Line in Ashe County. Michael
Paylor will be having a scoping meeting on 3/26/98. As I will be out of the state that day, I have
already forwarded my comments and a highlighted map to Michael, and have discussed it with
him. I repeated AVOID the trout streams and ORW located immediately adjacent to this project
through much of its length. I told him mitigation is nowhere near being an option. AVOID AVOID
AVOID. I just wanted you to know, so when you get this meeting, I relayed some very, very
strong concerns about this project. He has been warned. Thanks for your time.

MEMORANDUM
TO: David Cox
FROM: Joe Mickey
DATE: March 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for Improvements to US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to the
Alleghany County Line, Ashe Co., Federal Aid Project No. STP-221(8), State
Project No. 8.1711001, TIP NO. R-2310
While in Ashe County on Friday, March 6, 1998, I was able investigate the above project
in order to provide you with scoping comments for the March 26, 1998 meeting. I drove 221
from Hwy 16 to the Alleghany/Ache County line. I broke my comments down into the following
sections, which you should be able to identify on a Ashe County secondary road map.
Our major concerns will be with impacts to streams and wetlands in the area, which as you will
note are numerous. Some of the wetlands could contain bog turtles. I strongly recommend that
NCDOT design the new improvements to avoid stream and wetland impacts. NCDOT should
also submit a mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts along with the proposed route (if I review
the permit application without an attached mitigation plan by site, I will deny it until it is finalized,
mitigation plans should not be developed after the project is permitted!). Nathan's Creek and
Dog Creeks would be good candidates for some stream restoration work.
US 221 comments from NC 16 to Alleghany/Ashe Co. line (travelling west to east for a distance
of approximately 10.7 miles {note that NCDOT's scoping sheet list the length of the project as
0.7 miles or 15.8 KM, something amiss here}). Note that my mileage references are for each
section between secondary roads and do not correspond to the total length of the project.
Dog Creek drainage
1. From NC 16 to SR 1578 - 1.1 miles. No concerns with this section. However, 221 crosses an
unnamed tributary to Dog Creek in a 2 cell box culvert. If this culvert is replaced one cell
needs to set one foot below the normal stream bottom.
2. From SR 1578 to SR 1584- 0.6 miles. There is a small wetland located adjacent to the road
(on right) approximately 0.3 miles below SR 1578. At 0.5 miles an unnamed tributary to Dog
Creek parallels 221 to SR 1584. It will be tough not to work in 25' trout stream buffer zone.
Suggest NCDOT move road away from stream, opposed to encroachment in existing buffer
zone or a relocation.
3. SR 1584 to Dog Creek culvert and SR 1592 - 0.3 miles. No problem with this section, normal
culvert remarks.
4. SR 1592 to SR 1593 - 1.1 miles. This section parallels a small, degraded unnamed tributary

to Dog Creek. Avoid encroachment in buffer zone. At 0.55 miles there is a small tributary
crossing. At 0.7 miles small tributary adjacent to the road on the left, avoid piping or
relocation, move road away from stream.
Nathan's Creek drainage (Nathan's Creek is NCWRC DPMTW)
5. SR 1593 to SR 1571 - 1.4 miles. At 0.3 miles there is a small wetland on the right. From
0.3 - 0.6 miles there is a small stream on the right. Avoid any additional work in the buffer
zone, move road to left to avoid encroachment. No cutting of existing vegetation. Another
wetland located at 0.8 miles and a small crossing at 0.85 miles (no problem).
6. SR 1572 to SR 1595 - 0.3 miles. At 0.05 miles Nathan's Creek crossing 221 in a well
constructed box culvert (NCDOT should use this one for future reference on the correct way
to do box culverts, bottom is set low and contains normal stream substrate). Nathan's Creek
is adjacent to 221 at 0.1 and 0.2 miles. There is a large wetland located on the right for 0.1
mile along 221 to SR 1595. This area should be avoided at all costs and drainage into this
area must not be impacted by new road construction.
7. SR 1595 to SR 1602 - 1.1 miles. At 0.1 miles small tributary crossing, no problem.
At 0.25 miles there is a large wetland on the right. At 0.9 miles the creek is adjacent to the
road, move road away from the creek. At 1.05 miles there appears to be a small wetland on
the right.
8. SR 1602 to SR 1570 - 0.75 miles. At 0.03 miles there is a tributary crossing in a 2 cell box
culvert, no problem with this site. From 0.2 to 0.6 miles a small tributary parallels 221, to
avoid impacts move road to the left away from stream.
Unnamed Tributary drainage to South Fork New River
9. SR 1570 to 221 bridge over South Fork- 0.8 miles. At 0.25 miles there are two small
springs/wetlands. At 0.4 miles to the South Fork a small stream parallels 221, move road
away from stream, maintain existing buffer. This is going to be a tough area to work, the
stream and road occupy most of the existing flatland.
Cranberry Creek drainage (Cranberry Creek is NCWRC DPMTW)
10. 221 bridge to SR 1635 - 1.25 miles. At 0.4 miles, small spring crossing, OK. At 0.55 miles
road parallels Cranberry Creek on right- avoid impacts to stream (there is a severe eroding
streambank at this location which might be a good candidate for restoration). At 0.65 and 0.8
miles there are small stream crossings, no problems with these. From 0.8 to 0.9 miles there is
a small stream on the right-avoid impacts. At 1.0 and 1.25 miles there are small stream
crossings.
11. SR 1635 to SR 1158 - 2.0 miles (County line at Scottsville) No major concerns, some small
seepage's.

v
J1
N
�[V .
f 1

C nde B
From: Cynthia Lynn Bell [clbell @mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:18 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: R-2310 -Reply
Return-Path: <M Paylor@ mail.dot.state.nc.us>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 08:09:12-0500
From ry rchgq_ Paylar M1?aytor@mail dot state.rtc
To: clbell6m!n spring.com __..
Subject: R-2310-Reply
Content-Disposition: inline
Au contraire, mon am!!!
You didn't ruin my day....YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE!!! Perhaps it would be
a good idea to get together and review the mapping for the project area.
I'm hoping that the minimal widening that we are proposing in conjunction
with this project will offset the potential environmental (water resource)
impacts that my be incurred (sounds like I know a little, doesn't it??).
Since I'm not nearly as busy as you are, tell me what open dates and
times you have prior to the scoping meeting so we can set up a quick get
together. Also, besides the aerial and general project information, let me
know what else I can bring to facilitate discussion on this project.
Thanx for nuthin. Wish you were still here in P&E, though. I miss you.
Talk to you soon!!
Michael
P. S. Cynthia Lynn??? You look more like a Cynthia Diane to me.
Cynthia Lynn Bell <:clbell@ mind rin .con-1>w1/08/98 09:t opm >>>
Michael my friend, I will not be able to attend your scoping meeting, as I
will be out of state. I regret this, not only because it means I'll miss a
chance to say hello to you, but also because this project occurs in a
very
sensitive area. 1 will ask David Cox to voice my concerns during your
meeting. In the meantime, please note:
1. It appears you have thousands of feet of trout streams directly
adjacent
(parallel mostly)to the existing road. These include Dog Creek, Nathan's
Creek, Long Branch, Cranberry Creek, and Beaver Branch, along with
several
unnamed tribs. The South Fork New River is an Outstanding Resource
Water.
Obviously, if you widen this road, we ask that you widen in the direction
opposite of these streams. I haven't been onsite, so I don't know if
you've got homes lining the road on the other side. If you do, we've got
problems. I suspect the terrain is pretty steep, and you don't have a lot
of space to work in. Most of all, we don't want to see these streams
culverted or turned into trapezoidal ditches. I repeat -before we even
think about stream mitigation, we seriously need to accomplish avoidance
of

From: Cynthia Lynn Bell [[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 6:10 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: R-2310
Michael my friend, I will not be able to attend your scoping meeting, as I will be out of state. I
regret this, not only because it means I'll miss a chance to say hello to you, but also because this
project occurs in a very sensitive area.. I will ask David Cox to voice my concerns during your
meeting. In the meantime, please note:
I. It appears you have thousands of feet of trout streams directly adjacent (parallel mostly)to
the existing road. These include Dog Creek, Nathan's Creek, Long Branch, Cranberry Creek,
and Beaver Branch, along with several unnamed tribs. The South Fork.New River is an
Outstanding Resource Water. Obviously, if you widen this road, we ask that you widen in the
direction opposite of these streams. I haven't been onsite, so I don't know if you've got
homes lining the road on,the other side. If you do, we've got problems. I suspect the terrain
is pretty steep, and you don't have a lot of space to work in. Most of all, we don't want to see
these streams culverted or turned into trapezoidal ditches. I repeat - before we even think
about stream mitigation,we seriously need to accomplish avoidance of these streams.
II. 1 will recommend High Quality Sediment and Erosion Control and Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds throughout.,We will also recommend Hazardous Spill Catch Basins at
the river.
I'm sorry buddy, but this project is a dog. If you want to talk about this before your meeting,
please give me a call. I'll be glad to go over the maps with you.
.Now that I've ruined your day, have a good day anyway.
Sincerely, CB.

1 � o
o
I
L . i
/VG
C T�
o C,-ee R Q
LIt-
• at

r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O.BOX25201.RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 25, 1998
LEB7 ; ��n��'3����? '
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. CyndiBell W{<TER
DWQ - DENR
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager /�
Planning and Environmental Br:r
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to US 221 from
NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany County Line,Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-221(8), State Project No. 8.1711001,
TIP No. R-2310
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project(see
attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure
is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the purpose and need of this project and scope of
work that should be performed,thereby enabling us to better implement the project. A scoping
meeting for this project is scheduled for March 26, 1998 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room(Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets,please call Michael Paylor, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 231.
MLP/plr
Attachment

4 _ _
5 n tJ 1525 Ford (V 1303 S
`1362 a 1527 I 3•
4 1523 9 1550 1 ♦ 1316 i� Rr
Brandon S>/-, 1573 1554.5 � 3`
1.3 . 1520 3 1528 1553 13 131�6
1655 1524 ,•G W1552 S 4 r
3 1366 �; p3 1521 C� P G 1539 ` o ry u 1309 6 1308
i
.4 1516 1523 1536 : W 1549 1303 N
3t Tudcerdale _9 ° 4 _\ N 1538 1322 N
- \ �, e /
' 4 1537 _ 0 1556 p 1555 15591.2 �� rn .
3 ti'LICh ty =t. 16 D _ 1308 1351
+' W 1522 1.0 tlr 1540 s 1558 END c 8 n 1303 11
° 1353 194 1519 \' 1.2 0 PROJECT 194 y .4 1.3 1307
S 6 1523 1541 11151 tq v c (o '•.••
1553 1557
1513 G ,ro - 8 AN1552 ,1j 1549. 1306 Topia •''•.
I 9J S 1500 1539 0 1558 1 .2 1,3 n 1320 l i I A,--•r�•.; _ _
1560 N 1 ••'a4piton rass
1324
1.2 v 157 D •0, 1305 •`' i• Sturg,lls roe
.'J �•, 1516 1522 ' 1523 a 1563 1561 � 1304 Mt.Zion Ii ,� F
336 l
- 1544 Ch. 1 4 A S. t�. H Fj
1.4 1516 1513 a •.-\..
y \• \` ' \ ' o- 4 Crumple a \, 1562 6 2 7 Lans g l
`; 1517 > \• O v C nkr}r 1552 6 um
N i 41 Warren sv a prin /Scottvill \
I.O �` Hill- � �`�; ''�� �, 1327�,_k' s 6
196r, C' 1300 I Ashland2 eer Chapel `' 1573 1563 h" �Chft n3 I IJef a{o_n �eRi-
p LANSING`- Fos 1517 500 1667 •� 1543 1542 /0 2 1566 1 p 4 .8 9 Creston
POP.172 1639 \ 1328 Smet ort Mr Laurel Springs
W 2 /.6 -t 1567 .6 1567• 1567 1545 302 Pwxlrrn 1 i 88> West Jeff sr.rk� n
1514 ;t; a" 1573 3 `� ,6 �' ■l 13 221 G
1347 Bina � 1523 g 6 2'S �` a G en'�ale
1642 1658 0 1673 Mtn -Ch.rrel i \` Baldwin Sprits
6 ASh ley 2 6 /.S 2 1573 !s 1573 1647 0 \Y300 t; 1 9 /-8br s
( Chapei 7 t9 a ° , O 6 1568 I _ * vir $ Flee wood I ewrl
1349 151' 8 i�i 1301 0 vJ 1Y^
1351 1644 1642 9 O 16 s,,*m� O `",Gapi
1501 11�11 1513 11574 O 1570 0 1645 --. ,6
2 Oak HIII v ,6 1575 4.0 /
BEsIN Ch. ( 1678 1575\1.1 S 1571 1347 1570 y,
�1�FpS
PROJECT - � haHey •s F � r■, ° 1 158
PHOENIX \ •o / Springs^ (rob
t.3
1.5
FAS BB MTN. 0 1573 15T/ko101-w 1576 47 `/1572 S 1\11 1.2 FAS '�� � '� 1600• 1603 636 Ti .� 1 158 Al _ ----ASHE .COUNTY
13 `
�•
2 Warrensville t649, e. Of V �:�: zz1 �a4 de■ 1 tre®rlaaa ss� � 1 ts7 1
Ch.
roveH FPS ��� ` 1595 Liberty 1602 p
194 / �p� 1668 .r3 1651 `;��� Hill Ch. 5 C/.o __ GZO b I
1 130 6 c1 B 1508 1, 1578 'e 6 \ 6 NO}IlanS 1.4 1594 rn � v L 15
1509 Pleasant _ 1.4 ■ .7
5 1512 N 1578 1, 1579' 1660 Creek > W W Volley Ch. 160G
1185 0 + v 1657 1593 1606 ;� S
W 16 v 6 1( Y�J' 1593 1198 m � \r n
1595 1666
JEFFERSON to ®°® `�' r n�,�61 3.0
1591 `Q 1601 \
1 193 POP.1,333 16oa _\
1131 / 7 �.1 /
S 608
6 Ashe County W 1592 1
;g .O -I -�---i _ ---j•=L m � .5 167o Ai
� g • • �Qd•1 011� {Ql KJU
2 •g 1 190 Smefhporf v 1\ I__ n 6 1596 0 14c'
Mt.Paddy o 6 g 221 I�I 7 1586 'c� 4 1595 P 1599 1609 I 1603
4 Ch. \ 1 �. S! F 582 1585 3.1 1589 1597 J
11 _ S
33 ° 1733 r- 1'2 / 9 1587 1 9 58 Ry�R ' 4.0 l
p N 194 221 1 ------ \ - � . 1590 1599 - ----- - ----WEST -- - 22i 16 71682• 1588 2 1591 THE PEAK 1612 16 Be JEFFERSONI
9
1 138 J FFERSON `� �`? _ w MT. JEFFERSON .7 j 2` 1s90 91611 ,bra n T�� - -
N P-1,017 z21 , e t0 Wagoner 1597 1595 1612 i 2 I :`•LA ZIREL SPRINGS
N 1 _ 1261 > 1583 P"' i 0' > h 1733 _ � 1 " 1155 � 88 � FAS LOw Ga 1599 1613QUAD MAPS
1270 p 2 1686 h 7614
0 .p 1627 , Ch. 1598 '. 4 TranSOu- - - - - -
1665
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
. i 154 2 6 p 0 p 1662r�
5epyerr'm 1' Orion W 1628 �\ 2 , s 1595 1 1 2 :•.
- -- - - - - r a____ •9_Fq 4 6 TRANSPORTATION
reeks., ---t t97 - --- In ---- - - - - - -- - ---
N r �• 1156 S W W6_26 .7 ' (p 5 -1' 1616J \ 1640 1613 • DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
7627 -' f: r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
N 16
1.6 1225 �/ A N 1155 a; '9 - Big Ridge A �� 8 0 re 1623 163- 1653UiL N ' �"r BRANCH
FAS ,8 1219 i:X, Ch' 1622 Ebenezer 1 • 1
1239 9 '\l•4 1628 1625 . .i Ch. 1617• ;• US 221
1248 ' \ _ r n N 1 z3o ,�. �1 16`3 i `9 622 6 �' 1�i s I UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITY
1618 ,4 1516 '�;
1 144. 221 i '�1259 1 1628 n 1616 • 1 FROM NC I6 TO THE
a 1 0 J 1145 s ' 1 \ 1.15 1 l s9 W �� 1631, > a ^ 1619 �\ •: ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE
194 125E a 1 156 '� \ v "1624,W /' 'W - C)
1246 2 Z 1;43 2 1 147 1 199 yr 1529 �� z 5 s 1 16zo ASHE COUNTY
\ 1222 { 'rY,9�� p ` ,{ 0 MILE 1.5
Othello• 2 a 1628
1143 W 1146 � 11_58
1246 1 145 \ tp S 1 0 11�0 ' 6 - ,- : 0 KILOMETER 3.6 FIGURE 1
I

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date February 24, 1998
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2310
State Project # 8.171 1001
F.A. Project# STP-221(8)
Division: ELEVEN
County: ASHE
Route(s): US 221
Functional Classification: RURAL MAJOR CONNECTOR
Length: 15.8 KM (0.7 MILES)
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major elements of work: Upgrade
the existing roadway. with some new location. utilizing curve widening from NC 16. in
Jefferson, to the Ashe/Alleahany County Line. Some bridge or culvert replacement/
im.provement will he nerecscry in conit motion with this project_
Purpose of Project: The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a safer highway
for motorists along the subiect section of roadway by improving the horizontal alignment.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment
Environmental Study Schedule: EA-JAN 00; FONSI - DEC 00
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or %)
How and when will this be paid?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Number of Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings Approximately Six (see below)
Bridge/Culverts Rridge No.499 at SR 1 ASO (Ray Goodman Road)7 Rridge No_ 473 at
SR 1680 (Ray Coadman Rand)? Rridge No_ 29 at SR 1592_(Dag Creek
Rnnrl; C'i ilvilv@rt Iprntarl anct of PPnningtpn Fnrm Rnnd; Rridga_ Mr)
SR 1572 (Shatley Springs Road): and Culvert at Chingua ip n Ridge
See Vicinity Map (Figure 1).
Typical Section: Existing Two-lane, variable 5.4 to 6.6-meter (18 to 22-foot) roadway
plus shoulders.
Proposed Two-lane, variable 6 to 7.2-meter (20 to 24-foot) roadway
plus shoulders.
Traffic (ADT): 1997- 1,900 VPD Design Year (2020) - 14.000 VPD
TTST 1 Duals 3
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: Proposed 75 km/h (45 mph)
Current Cost Estimate (2-20-98):
m
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies).... $ 9,300,000
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ...... $
ForceAccount Items .......................................................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ...................................................................... $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ...................................................... $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction .......................................................................................... $ 7,000,000
Rightof Way .......................................................................................... $ 1,700,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .......................................................... $ 8,400,000
2

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface (Resurface).......................................................... $ 1,504,135
Base .................................................................................... $
Milling & Recycling .......................................................... $
Turnouts .............................................................................. $
X Tie-in Approaches to Existing US 221............................. $ ?10,000
_X—Pavement Removal.......................................................... $ 1 1,745
X Earthwork ..................................................................................... $ 2,250,000
Subsurface Items ........................................................................ $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ...................................................... $ 124,650
X Drainage (list any special items) ............................................. $ 660,000
Sub-Drainage ............................................................................. $
Structures
BridgeRehab ................................................................... $
NewBridge ....................................................................... $
X Remove Bridge ................................................................ $ 7,600
X New Culvert (4).................................................................. $ ?39.959
Culvert Extension .............................................................. $
RetainingWalls ................................................................. $
NoiseWalls ........................................................................ $
X Detour............................................................................... $ 200,000
X Guardrail Items........................................................................... $ 146,400
Concrete Sidewalk .................................................................... $
Utilities .......................................................................................... $
Fencing
W.W. ................................................................................... $
C.L. ..................................................................................... $
X Erosion Control ........................................................................... $ 194,400
Landscaping .............................................................................. $
Lighting ........................................................................................ $
X Traffic Control ............................................................................. $ 144,000
Signing
New .................................................................................... $
Upgraded ......................................................................... $
Traffic Signals
2 New .................................................................................... $
Revised .............................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ................................................................................... $
Revised ............................................................................. $
With/without Arms ........................................................... $
3

ti
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement ..................................... $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade ................................... $
X Pavement Markings
Paint .................................................................................... $
X Thermoplastic ..................................................................... $ 115,200
Raised Pavement Markers ............................................... $
Delineators .................................................................................. $
X Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) ......................... $ 2,272,918
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .................................. $ 8,081,000
Engineering & Contingencies ................................................................ $ 1,219,000
PECosts .................................................................................................... $
ForceAccount ........................................................................................ $
Subtotal ................................... $ 9,300,000
Right-of-Way
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No X
Existing Width
New R/W needed Estimated Cost ............ $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost ............ $
Utilities ............................................................................................ $
Right-of-Way Subtotal ......................................................... $
Total Estimated Cost ............. $
Prepared by: Michael L. Paylor Date 02/25/98
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Ihit. Date Init. Date
Highway Design B.O.T. Member
Roadway Mgr Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer- Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer- Oper
Geotechnical Sec Roads Officer
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. &Surveys Roadside Environ.
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
PreL Est. Engr. DL 2-16-98 Bridge Maintenance
Ping & Environ. Statewide Planning
4

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date Init. Date
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/ Municipality DENR
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
5

• er�t^�
RECEIVED
� t
•> ✓• MAR 141997
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EnrvutoNn "r"`SQ1E"�e
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201.RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR- Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Br
Planning and Environmentalntal Br
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to US 221 from
NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany County Line, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-221(8), State Project No. 8.1711001,
TIP No. R-2310
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project (See
attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure
is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and
thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled
for April 15, 1997 at 2:30 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room
(Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to
that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Michael Paylor, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 231. / 40
MLP/plr / 6-G/ll f01
Attachment /0/7 � ��G� �/ ��
Ln r- �/d Pc-f
Co r C \/
c, a -•fie S; �/

I
5 N 1525 O' \ / 1536 N ; �� Ford N I 1303 3! S
1362 .r 1523 1527 `, •9 1550 ` ♦ 1316 i CO h�!
3 1554.5
Brandon S�j `1 1573 .6 0 1316 '
\ 3 1520 .3 4r 1528 1553 r ; L31fi' 1323 .9 i
1366 r - 1656" 1524 ,-6 i W 1552 f 1308 .4 .1
a3 1521 C� G 6 1539 1 O N u 1309 6 p / 4 1321 \ 1
4 1366 9 2 1523 1536 W 1549 1303 v .2- N.0-
31 T�1dCerlaale 1516 r O ,N .538 1559 0'p 8 / 1322 u
1• 3 Liberty - a 1537 16 0 1556 p 1555 1:2 1308 1351
Ch. O
L+1 S 1558 END c 8 r` T303 113
W 1522 1'0 N 1540`
1353 1 2 0 PROJECT 560 y t.3 1307
0 194 1519
y O 1523 1541 i 1 151 h 1 1553 1557 - :c i 4 '/ •••'•.
6 1518 6 0 1552 / 1549 1306 Topia 1320 i ••_•'•r _
1558 .2 > 1 '•:,-
9� S 1500 1539 p ( 1560 \'3 n 1 1 •�.+ Iton rass {v
1324 1516 1.2 v 157 p 3 1305 1304 Mt.Zion i Sturgdls �`
J , 1522 1,523 1563 \ 5 1561 /r N : .0 Ch. 1 A S. � H �� �'•.\:
336 - \. ` `-� 4 1516 p 1513 p 154- = Q Crum ler \ 1562 2 i Lans 9 r
,7 naney Scottvill
\` \ \• p 4 ♦P ip Chestn�rf 1; 1552 6 `` �� 134� N 41 _ Warrensv 4e e SOrYngs a
t ' '> `' Z 43 N Hill, (� `,. 1327``�. JAshland2 5 / 7 6
1517 �;• 1565 �'1 1300 Chft n Jef son rl ..Ri-
\ - 1667 - *4 St.t.Pork
ser Chapel SING- F4S 1517 500 -- 1573 1563 1}' '2 1566 1 01 \4 .8 1328 9 CrestonSmet ort Mr (Laurel Springs
POP.172 1 1543 1542 /m
+ 2 1.6 1567 .6 1567 1567 1545 302 Panclen ` / d8 West Jeff Sr.Pk n .)
1514 it: C. 15733 ' 13 221
- .6 2.5 '� a Glerrd. l ^.
1347 Bina � 1523 •8 , .6 1673 •� C�rrue, \\ Baldwin Sprifi3s 1
6 k / 2 6 1 1642 1658 ° 1573 I 1647 p \y3pp:-, -' ,-4QA s
Ashley S 2,O S T573 6 1568 l vN $ Flee ood Idfewild
Chapel 1349 7 8 1�: 1513 8 p O ;�} Q 1301 4) \ a
1351 1642 lB ! l Sco1M� _ `\.Gapes
1644 1501 .9` 1513 11574 16 1570 O 1645 '-- ,6 v
` - Oak Hill v 11 .6 1575 4.0 1 /
2' BEGIN Ch. ,:;1 1 678 t 57s\ 1570\ \ s 1 s71 p
7 1347 PROJECT -, , hafley^ 'S ,�ri C
9 (y 221 �5 !p 1158 1.3 PHOENIX \ p ' •0 / Springs, 6 ,� �C I ' T4
1.5 MTN. 1573 1577 1576. y /1572 S 1571 • 1636 Ti 1 158 1 AS E COU
NTY
FAS p t1� 4P \ 1.2 FAS ♦♦♦ .� 1600 1603 �j N
13 T
Ba 2 Warrensville 1649, s• �; r z21 � " , n r rsa se ♦ 1 is7 O
1595 .6 Liberty to
Chrovey P`' F,�} l 1668 `'n��o Hill Ch. 1602 C�v J 1t G O
6 I88 / { o QUO N p1651 �.♦ 5 � V_ .N
3 ,'\�V 1578 '8 6 \ 6 Nafhan5 \'4 1594 rn Pleasant \.a .7
1 t 1508 1509 Creek Valle Ch..5 1512 d 1578 `� 1579' 1660 > y . r 160�
1185 O W v 1 1657 ♦� 1593 1606 `� s
i s' 16 m 7' p n�0 1593 •>- 1603 i' 2
1198 �6 ♦♦g '\_i""� 1595 1666
JEFFERSON to ••• `��. 11Y,66, ,60, 3 °
1 193 POP.1 333 t s91 16oa
s 1731 / Ashe Coup 1 01592
f 1608
�Y
7 ----t \ '� �•
1 -" •`9 .O -1 -- `•-` ro 4 -5 1670 Airport ro 15% O �� 9
9 1 190 Smef-1 rt v -_ p
2 � � l � I n ' 1586 c� N 1595 _
Mt,Paddy / O t 6 g 221 1-1 6 .4 1599 1609 1603
v Ch. \ Q� •.• �9�,f 582 1586 3•\ 1589 1591 J
\ 2 = S 1589 '�9
• O k_ , •9 1587 _ FR ! 4.0
i133 1133 1 0
S N0194 2211� -------rJr 16 \'1 ~ 1590 s 1599 1612 .4
WEST -- - 221 r°71682• 1 1c Z 1591 THE I PEAK 1� 9 BB
1 J
J FFERSON ' `n .l° i w MT. JEFFERSON .> 1590 9,611 Cra�,rrY
r 1138 N P.1,017 ; 2 i0 Wagoner 1597 1595 1612
1 221 , 1261'a �-- y 2 .> h
1588 `.a lS 1599 ,; � 1613
1133 1,_ _ V l 1155 88 FAS Low Gap 2 1686 5 4 TrarISOU 1614
r�,
1270 n 1627 ! Ch 1598 1665 rp 1662
1154 \'2 on 6 1628 y �\ S 1595 1 1.2 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
re
ek, (V r 1626 Z 9 FAS 4 1'a 1616 TRANSPORTATION
1 197 1156 Index s 627 fl 7 6 \ 1640 1613 .• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
t
•N PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL _
p ry N 16 9 Oro 1638
1.6 1225 rn •
1155 rn B1g Udge •p Knob '8 BRANCH 0 1623. . 1653 ti �••
i .'
- N � 1� Ch. 1622 Ebenezer
-40 FAS ,a 1279 N ] Ch. 1617. US 221
3 .1239 1628 1625 / `9 '•6 w 1615 UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITY
1248 \ J' N N 1230 ^t 1 1623 1622 1618 ,4 1616 ;7% � FROM NC 16 TO THE
_ -t 2s9 O16t 6 ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE
�1 7 1144.E 221 1145 !s \•5 �it 1631, 1628 n $ 1619 �1
PS 194 J 1258 ;I 1 \ ? 1159 9 1156 '� 1\ p •' � 1624•� /' •ut •�'� 2.5 - �'• I ASHE COUNTY
2 2 2 1; m 2 1 t.47 1 199' ` 1222 5 rN 1629 p _-6- / -� pad w 1 6 1 1620 TIP NO.R-2310
1245 'Th p
2 1 143 6 1 6\ OfltellO. �' 2 p 1628 /fi
\•�- 't 145 1 146 - ,158 qy _. 0 KILOMETER 2.1 0 MILE 7.3 FIG. ]
•�
1246 --t �� fQ ttgo \ 11 6 `�

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date FEBRUARY, 24, 1997
Revision Date
Project Development Stage .
- Programming .
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2310 ;
State Project# 8,1711001 "
F.A.Project# STP-221(8)
Division ELEVEN
County ASHE ;
Route(s) US 221
Functional Classification RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
Length 15.8 KM (9.8 MILES)
. .. 1. . .
Purpose of Project IMPROVETHE SAFETY AND ALIGNMENT OF THE
FACILITY.
Description of Project (including specificlimits) and major elements of work: UPGRADE
EXISTING ROADWAY, WITH SOME NEW LOCATION, UTILIZING CURVE WIDENING FROM
NC 16, IN JEFFERSON,TO THE ASHE/ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE: SOME BRIDGE OR CULVERT
REPLACEMENT/IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Environmental Study Schedule: EA -MAY 98 FONSI- FEB 99
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes. No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or %)
How and when will this be paid?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full Partial one x
Number of Interchanges Q Grade Separations 0
Stream Crossings APPROX. SIX
Typical Section: Existing VARIES FROM 18-22 FEET;TWO-LANE SHOULDER SECTION.
Proposed TWO-LANE, 20 TO 24-FOOT TRAVELWAY WITH SHOULDERS
Traffic (ADT): Current 1900 VED Design Year 42DD V_ED%TTST 1
Duals 3
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)....... $
Right of Way (including relocation, utilities, and acquisition) ........ $
Force Account Items .......'....................................................................$
Preliminary Engineering $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE ........................................... $
TIP Cost Estimate
Construction ........................................................................................ $ 6,700,000
Rightof Way ........................................................................................ $ 1,720,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE ......................................................... $ 8,420,000

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,which could affect cost or
schedule of project: INVOLVEMENT WITH CITIZENS IN THE PROJECT AREA,TERRAIN .
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface .:.................................................:........................... $
Base .................................................:.................................. $
Milling & Recycling ........................................................... $
Turnouts .........................:.................................................... $
Shoulders
waved ............................................................... $
Earthen ............................................................................... . $
Earthwork......:......:..........................................................::........... $
Subsurface Items .....:..........................................................:........ $
-Subgrade and Stabilization ........................................................
drainage (list any special items) .........................................:...... $
Sub-Drainage .......:..........................................................................
$
Structures t .
Bridge Rehab 1................::.. .
.. $.... .... ..
New Bridge $
Remove Bridge:.............:................................................... <$
New Culvert ..
......... - $
Culvert Extension . ...............................:..............................
Retaining Walls ... ............: . $
Noise Walls ..........................................
....................
.........
...
Other Misc. ..:..............................:..........................I...... $
Concrete Curb & Gutter........................................................... $
Concrete Sidewalk...................................................................... $
Guardrail $
Fencing
W.W. .................................................................................... $
C.L. .......................... ... ...................... $.... ........ .... ......... .
Erosion Control ...............:::.............................................:............. $
Landscaping .............................................................`....:......:....:
Lighting ....................... ................................................................... $
Traffic Control ............::..........................................:..................... $
Signing
New.................................. .............................................
Upgraded :.......................... $
Traffic Signals "
New .................... ........................................................... $
----Revised .............................................................................. ' $
RR Signals
New..........................................................: . .......:...... $.... .... .
Revised ........_..................................................................... . $,
With/without Arms $

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement ......................................................$
Roadside Safety Enhancement ..................................................... $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade .................................................. $
Pavement Markings
----Paint ................................................................................................. $
Thermoplastic ................................................................................. $
— Raised Pavement Markers ............................................................ $
Delineators ................................................................................................ $
Other (clearing, grubbing, misc., and mob.) ....................................... $
-Y- LINE TIE-INS
CONTRACT COST Subtotal .............................................. $
Engineering & Contingencies ........................................................................... $
PECosts ............................................................................................................... $
ForceAccount ..................:................................................................................. $
Subtotal
Right-of-Way
Will contain within existing R/W? Yes No X
Existing Width
New R/W needed A Estimated Cost .......................... $
Easements: Type Width
Estimated Cost .......................... $
Utilities .............................:..................... ................................................... $
Right-of-Way Subtotal $
Total Estimated Cost .......................... $
Prepared by: Date
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by:
Init. Date Init. Date
Highway Design B.O.T. Member
Roadway Mgr Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer- Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Op
Geotechnical Sec Roads Officer
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. &Surveys Roadside Environ.
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Ping & Environ. Statewide Planning

4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date Init. Date
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Biciycle Coordinator
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/ Municipality DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineering.)
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed
revisions or comments here:
,4
1

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 02 April 1998
CYNDIBELL DEM-DEHNR
MICHAEL L.PAYLOR P&E
ACTION
❑ NOTE A.. FILE ❑ PER OUR CONVERSATION
❑ NOTE ... RETURN TO ME ❑ PER YOUR PEG...T
❑ RETURN WIT. MORE DETAILS ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL
❑ NOTE ... SEE ME ABOUT T.I. ;R FOR YOUR INFORMATION
❑ PLEASE ANSWER ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
❑ PREPARE REPLY FOR MY 9IGNATURE ❑ SIGNATURE
❑ TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
sceyl,u�syouca yacc
71�6A-Dc�F7N� (s'��rncceArxrv)
A4P'

e®�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. P.O.BOX25201,RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
April 1, 1998 0 D
Swim
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ -DENR WEriANDS GROUP
IA ER UALITY SECTICN
FROM: Michael L. Paylor
Project Planning En
Planning and Environm r ch
SUBJECT: Scoping Minutes for Improvements to US 221 from
NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany County Line,Ashe
County,Federal Aid Project No. STP 221(8), State Project
No. 8.1711001,TIP No. R-2310
A scoping meeting was held on March 26, 1998 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). The purpose of the meeting
was to discuss the purpose and need of the project and determine the scope of work to be
performed. The following individuals attended the meeting:
•
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
David Cox NCWRC
Rob Allen Photogrammetry
Ron Lewis Photogrammetry
Julie Hunkins Planning and Environmental Branch
Aileen Mayhew Planning and Environmental Branch
Michael Paylor Planning and Environmental Branch
Lubin Prevatt Planning and Environmental Branch
Lanette Cook Program Development
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Jimmy Goodnight Roadway Design
Jason Moore Roadway Design
Don Sellers Right of Way
Roy Girolami Structure.Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Mark Cole Traffic Control
Jonathan Tyndall Traffic Engineering

�-lee

2 .
Following a brief description of the project, these major points were discussed:
• Few utilities exist along the project corridor;-therefore, it is anticipated that
this project will minimally impact utilities.
• Based on a preliminary review; agricultural resources (farmland) appear
abundant along the project corridor. It is anticipated that alignment
improvements,(on new location)may impact these farmland areas.
Coordination will be required with the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(MRCS). Additionally, existing farmland along the corridor may also coincide
with floodplain areas. It has been recommended that unless no feasible
alternate is available, these farmland properties should be avoided.
• A 75 km/h(45 mph) design speed was proposed for the project in the initial
scoping sheets. Due to the severe curvature along the existing alignment, the
Roadway Design Unit would like us to consider a 55 km/h(35 mph) design
speed. The Roadway Design Unit-expressed an alternative solution to this
issue which involves proposing a 75 km/h(45 mph) design speed in the
vicinity of the western project terminal and securing a 55 km/h(35 mph)
design speed exception for the remainder of the project. In conjunction with
the design speed exception, it would be recommended that roadway segments
designed for 75 km/h(45 mph)have a typical section of 7.2 meters (24 feet),
plus shoulders. Segments with a,design speed of 55 km/h(35 mph)would
have a typical section of 6.6 meters (22 feet),plus shoulders. Coordination
between the Roadway Design Unit and the Division 11 Office is necessary to
determine the most practical design speed and pavement width for this
corridor.
• Consideration will be given to bridge replacement where additional lateral
clearance is needed and/or realignment of the existing roadway is
recommended. It is anticipated that culverts will be retained and lengthened,
as needed, to accommodate roadway improvements proposed in conjunction
with this project. Difficulties are anticipated in maintaining traffic along
US 221 during the construction of new bridges/extension of culverts. These
difficulties will be resolved during the development of preliminary design
plans.
• There were two recommendations for additions to the project scope. One
recommendation proposes to extend the project limits eastward into Alleghany
County for approximately 0.8 km(0.5 mile) in order to correct extremely
hazardous curves. Another recommendation involves realigning US 221 so
"that it intersects with SR 1583 (Ashe.Central School Road) and ties into
NC 16 at less of a skew. This would eliminate three intersections being in
proximity with one another. Both:recommendations.have merit with regard to

- .. r ... r> .. ' . - . ... '.
t�`'.
„y -
-. ,. _ .._ � .. .. .. -r x r .. � -. ....

the increase in the safetyof,the facility. However, these two improvements
will be evaluated, independent of the main project, for further consideration
during project development. Should it be determined these improvements can
be accomplished at reasonable cost and within the project's scope, this branch
will initiate further coordination with the Program Development Branch and
others to make a final decision.
• The New River State Park abuts the project southwest of the crossing of
US 221 with South Fork New River. An evaluation will be conducted to
determine if the park has been developed using Land and Water Conservation
Funds and, therefore, would be subject to Section 6(f). It is highly
recommended that no widening iraprovernents be made on the south side of
US 221.in the vicinity of the park boundaries to avoid the Section 4(f)
property.
• The NCDENR-Division of Water Quality submitted written concerns prior to
this meeting regarding streams paralleling the existing alignment. Nathan's
Creek and Cranberry Creek are designated"Public Mountain Trout Waters."
Additionally, South Fork New River is an Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW). All streams are extremely sensitive trout waters (Nathan's Creek
may be a hatchery area) and the DWQ recommends implementation of High
Quality Water(HQW)Best Management Practices (BMP's)throughout the
entire project.
• The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC) stated'general
concerns about improvements to US 221. Mussels (type not specified) may be
present in South Fork New River and suitable habitat for the bog turtle, a
federally-protected species,may be present within the project corridor.
Additional studies will be conducted to determine the project's potential for
impacting this species. Also,NCWRC staff has identified several wetlands
and degraded streams (tributaries)along the project. If impacted, some
portions of degraded streams may eligible for stream restoration. A
meeting (on site) between NCWRC, Planning and Environmental Branch
(Project Planning and Environmental Unit), and-Roadway Design Unit staff
will be held in May 1998 to further discuss potential measures to avoid
impacts to streams and biotic communities and to identify potential mitigation
opportunities. This will assist the Roadway Design Unit in their development
of preliminary design plans. Planning and Environmental Branch staff will be
responsible for coordination with the NCWRC with respect to scheduling the
site visit(meeting date and time).
® Currently,the Environmental Assessment(EA) is scheduled for completion
by January 2000. The Finding of No Significant Impact is scheduled for
completion by December 2000. Right-of-way acquisition and construction are

4
scheduled for 2004' and post year, respectively. (Following this scoping
meeting, staff from the Roadway Design Unit and Planning and
Environmental Branch discussed the project schedule. The Roadway Design
Unit stated that preliminary design plans could be completed in
December 1998 if the meeting with the NCWRC were held in May. As a
result,these project schedules may require revision.)
MLP/plr

Y
surz
"ty1�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 13, 2004
WETLANDS/401 GROUP
Concurrence Point 2a APR 1 9 2004
Bridging and Alignment Review
for TIP R-2310 WATER OUALITYSECTION
Upgrade Existing US 221 From NC 16 near Jefferson to
just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line, Ashe County,
Federal Aid No. STP-221(8),WBS Element 34419.1.1,
State Project No. 8.1711001
Concurrence Team History
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need of the Project
At the Merger Team meeting for Concurrence Point 1 held on February 5, 2002,
the Merger Team concurred that the purpose and need for the subject project is:
"to improve safety on US 221 and to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork
of the New River in Alleghany County as part of Transportation Improvement Project
(T.I.P.)R-2310. The need for safety improvements along US 221 is based on correcting
a restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has
contributed to an accident rate that is 140% greater than the statewide average for similar
roadways. The need for replacing Bridge No. 39 is based on the most recent bridge
report, completed on January 9, 2001, which determined that Bridge No. 39 has a
sufficiency rating of 44.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted
weight restrictions and has recurring scour problems as well as spalling and corrosion.
The project is 9.8 miles (15.7 km) in length. The project location is shown on the
attached map.
Preliminary Discussion for Concurrence Point 2
Once concurrence was reached on Concurrence Point 1,the Merger team
discussed Concurrence Point 2, specifically the alignment alternatives and the bridge
replacement alternatives that would be carved forward. The following three alignment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH VNLMINGTONSTREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

r
alternatives were discussed and the team tentatively agreed that they would be carried
forward:
Alignment Alternatives:
1. No-build/routine maintenance continues
2. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders,2 foot
paved and 2 foot grass, from NC 16 in Jefferson to approximately
0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line. Realign
substandard horizontal and vertical curves where possible.
3. Widen SR 1572(East Shatley Springs Road)to two 12 foot lanes
with 4 foot shoulders,2 foot paved and 2 foot grass, from NC 16
in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with
4 foot shoulders from SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Resign SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) as US 221.
Realign substandard horizontal and vertical curves where
possible.
Plan sheets for the project were displayed and the merger team went through the
above listed alignment alternatives and looked at each individual curve that did not meet
the design speed of the proposed project. Based on the existing location of wetlands and
streams,the team was able to identify on the plan sheets which curves would be studied
for realignment and which curves would not. Roadway Design used the"marked"plan
sheets to develop the preliminary design for these alignment alternatives and also
generated a"no curve realignment"alternative. The impacts associated with these three
alignment alternatives was provided in a table that were included in the"merger
package"for the Concurrence Point 2 meeting..
The merger team also discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River.
The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its substandard sufficiency
rating. One alternative for replacement was presented by NCDOT;replacing Bridge No.
39 over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing location and
maintaining traffic along US 221 during construction phase of new bridge. The merger
team requested that NCDOT also study replacing the bridge in its current location,which
would require an off-site detour. It was also requested of NCDOT to study the use of a
temporary detour bridge,both on the north and south side of the existing bridge,while
Bridge No 39 is replaced in place. Although impacts to an historic properly would result
from any work on the north side of the existing bridge,this alternative was studied as a
possible bridge replacement alternative.

}
Preliminary Designs
In the weeks following the February,2002 meeting,the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative notified NCDOT that there was no need to study the north side
detour bridge alternative since it would adversely effect the New River General Store and
the approach curvature of US 221 to the bridge would be worse than it is now. NCDOT
studied the off-site detour alternative during the planning phase for T.I.P. Project B-1037,
which proposed to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River. T.I.P.
Project B-1037 had a signed Categorical Exclusion(CE), dated September 18, 1996,and
was incorporated into T.I.P. Project R-2310 in 1997. In the CE, it was determined that
there were"no reasonable detour routes" so an off-site detour preliminary design was not
pursued.
NCDOT generated three alignment alternatives, as stated above,that reflected the
alternatives discussed at the February 5,2002 meeting. The bridge alternatives were
narrowed to replacing Bridge No. 39 immediately south of its existing location, as
recommended in the CE for T.I.P. Project B-1037. The three alignment alternatives
discussed are as follows:
Alternative 1 —Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new
location curve realignment along US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson
to approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River just south of its existing location and maintain traffic along
US 221 during construction phase of the new bridge.
Alternative 2 -Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new
location curve realignment along SR 1572'(East Shatley Springs
Road)from NC 16 in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US 221 to two
12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders with some new location curve
realignment from SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Resign SR 1572(East Shatley Springs Road)as US 221.
Replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River just
south of its existing location and maintain traffic along US 221
during construction phase of the new bridge.
Alternative 3 -Provide two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders on existing
alignment along US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line
with no new location curve realignment. Replace Bridge No. 39
over the South'Fork of the New River just south of its existing
location and maintain traffic along US 221 during construction
phase of the new bridge.

Concurrence Point 2
The Concurrence Point 2 meeting was held on December 11,2002. This meeting was a
follow-up of the concurrence meeting from February of 2002. At the previous
concurrence meeting,the merger team had reviewed the preliminary designs and had
developed various alignment alternatives for each of the curves that did not meet the
required curvature for the proposed design speed. Roadway Design used these"marked
up"preliminary designs to developed three alignment alternatives for the subject project.
Calculated impacts to wetlands, streams, and homes/businesses (see attached table)were
presented at the meeting and the Merger Team reviewed each area of realignment on a
case by case basis. Comments for each area, along with the recommended alignment
improvement, are as follows:
Area 1 —Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 2—Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 3 —Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area and requested that
the existing pavement be removed once the alignment is switched.
Area 4—Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 5 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1 for this area.
Area 6 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 3 for this area.
Area 7—Merger Team requested that the Alternative 1 alignment be shifted in
order to avoid or reduce impacts to the stream in this area. Roadway
Design will investigate this requested alignment shift.
Area 8 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 9 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for.
this area.
Area 10 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area I I —Merger Team requested more detailed information regarding the
terrestrial resources located within the new location corridor of
Alternative 1/Alternative 2. PDEA biologist will research field notes
and provide more info. In addition, select Merger Team members
noted that they would be in the project vicinity over the next few weeks
and would look at this area in question while in the field. The decision
for this area was left"pending further information" at this time.

Area 12 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area. Additional comments were received from USFWS team
member via telephone after the Merger Meeting. Comments were
related to the visual effect the curve realignment and bridge relocation
would have on the northwestern slope as seen from the New River, a
Federally designated Wild& Scenic River. USFWS asked about
possibly minimizing slopes in this area and possibly re-vegetating the
slopes with natural species to cover open cut sections of the cut slope.
PDEA will investigate landscaping of slope. Roadway Design will
investigate minimizing the cut slope proposed in this area.
Area 13 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment'for
this area.
Area 14 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 15 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
Area 16 -Merger Team concurred on Alternative 1/Alternative 2 alignment for
this area.
In addition,the merger team discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River. The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its substandard
sufficiency rating. One alternative for replacement was presented by NCDOT;replacing
Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing location
and maintaining traffic along US 221 during construction phase of new bridge. Methods
for demolishing the old bridge and constructing the new bridge were discussed prior to
the Merger meeting with the NCDOT Area Bridge Construction Engineer. His
comments are noted below:
-Demolition of Existing Bridge
➢ Can saw-cut the existing deck and lift the pieces out without dropping into
the river.
➢ Removal of existing footings without getting in the river will be difficult.
The footings are spread footings and removing the entire footing would leave
a large hole in the river bed that would need to be filled in.
➢ In order to remove the existing bents,the contractor would need a large saw
to cut the bents into manageable sections which would then be lifted out by
crane. This method would be expensive and the saw would produce a slurry
that would be hard to keep contained.
➢ An easier method of bent removal would be to push the bents over and then
remove them from the river in large chunks.
-Construction of New Bridge
➢ Not economically feasible to build new bridge without getting into the river
via a temporary work bridge or a causeway.

➢ Rough field estimate by Area Bridge Engineer suggests that there would
only need to be one new bent placed in the river;however,it would most
likely need to be a drilled shaft bent.
The Merger Team concurred with the"Alternatives to Be Studied", as discussed at
this meeting and signed the Concurrence Point 2 signature sheet. It was agreed that the
two areas that are pending,Areas 7 and 11, will be re-evaluated and the designs will be
sent to the Merge Team for comments once they are completed.
The Merger Team agreed that Alternative 2, as discussed in the Merger meeting,was
the preferred alternative due to its minimization of overall impacts to both the natural and
human environment. However, it was agreed that both Alternative 2 and Alternative 1
will be carried forward to the Public Hearing Map stage and presented to the public for
their review and comments.
Project Status
Staff biologists have concluded their wetland and stream delineations. These
delineations have been verified by the Corps of Engineers representative and have been
incorporated into the preliminary designs presented at the upcoming concurrence
meeting. No Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered species have been found along
the subject project.
A Phase I inventory of the project's Area of Potential Effect(APE)was
conducted in March 1999. It was determined that of the 47 historic architectural
resources within the Area of Potential Effect(APE),two (the New River Outfitters store
and Bridge No. 39)had previously been determined (and continue to remain) eligible for
listing on the National Register; 38 resources were not eligible for National Register
listing and required no further evaluation; and seven resources were worthy of further
evaluation to determine their potential National register eligibility.
In November 1999,the Phase II survey of the APE was completed and
recommendations for eligibility for the National Register were made for the seven
resources in question. It was determined that the seven resources were not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
A private firm has been contracted to conduct archaeological surveys, and has
submitted its archaeological survey and evaluation draft report, dated February 28, 2002.
Sixteen unidentified archaeological sites and five previously recorded archaeological
sites were identified in the project's area of potential effect. The consultant firm
recommended that three of these sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D.

Concurrence Point 2a
Because the Merger Team has already reviewed the alignment for this project during
Concurrence Point 2, only the hydraulic structure recommendations will need to be
discussed at the Concurrence Point 2a meeting. Attached are copies of the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit's hydraulic recommendations for the project. An initial hydraulic review
was completed in September 1998. Since then, an updated review was done based on the
curve realignment information developed as part of the Concurrence Point 2 meeting. In
addition, a"Hydraulic Table"is included and will be the primary focus of the
Concurrence Point 2a meeting.
CMY/
Attachments:

�dd SLgF a
o�
�w,..vim'•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
November 1, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director; PDEA
ATTN: Craig Young
FROM: ; D. R. Henderson, P.E. � , , _. ---
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Additional Hydraulic Information for the Proposed
Widening of US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to just east of
the Ashe/Allegany County Line, Ashe County, State Project
No. 8.1711001, TIP No. R-2310
Information contained in the Hydraulic Aspects Memorandum date September 1, 1998 for
the subject project is still valid. The following information is in response to a request for
additional hydraulic structure input at new location areas for alternate 1 and a new
western termini (alternate 2)between SR 1571 (East Shatley Road) and SR 1512 (Tom
Fowler Road) at NC 16,north of Jefferson. Hydraulics Unit staff recently conducted a
second preliminary evaluation for the subject project and the hydraulic recommendations
follow:
Site Alternate Stream Location Existing Structure Recommendation Flood
Zone
Status
1* 1 Trib.To 1.9 km. (1.2 mi.) 2 @ 2.4 m.x 2.4 m. (2 Remove None
Dog Creek east of NC 16 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC
1A** 1 Trib. To 1.8 km. (1.1 mi.) N/A, New Location 1 @ 2.1 m. x 1.8 m. (1 None
Dog Creek east of NC16 @ 7 ft. x 6 ft.) RCBC
1 B** 1 Dog Creek 2.2 km. (1.35 mi.) N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.1 m. (2 None
east of NC 16 @ 8 ft.x 7 ft.) RCBC
2 1 Trib.To 3.4 km. (2.1 mi.) L=9.7 m. (32 ft.) 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 None
Dog Creek east of NC 16 Reinforced Concrete @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC
Bridge (Bridge No. 29)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
HYDRAULICS UNIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590

Site Alternate Stream Location Existing Structure Recommendation Flood
Zone
Status
3 1 Trib.To 6.5 km. (4.0 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m. x 1.2 m. (1 Retain, and extend None
Nathan's east of NC 16 @ 8 ft.x 4 ft.) existing culvert
Creek Bottomless RCBC
4* 1 Nathan's 76 m. (250 ft.) east 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.1 m. (2 Remove Flood
Creek of SR 1571 @ 8 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
4A** 1 Trib.To Just east of SR N/A, New Location 1 @ 2.1 m. x 2.1 m. (1 Flood
Nathan's 1571 @ 7 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Creek Zone
4B** 1 Nathan's 183 m. (600 ft.) N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 Flood
Creek east of SR 1571 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
5* 1 &2 Long 69 m. (225 ft.) east 2 @ 2.4 m. x 2.4 m. (2 Remove Flood
Branch of SR 1602 @ 8 ft. x 8 ft.) RCBC Hazard
Zone
5A** 1 &2 Long 69 m. (225 ft.) east N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.1 m. x 2.1 m. (2 None
Branch of SR 1602 @ 7 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC
6 1 &2 South Fork 3.1 km. (1.9 mi.) L= 141 m. (462 ft.) To be replaced with Detailed
River west of county line Reinforced Concrete new bridge (see B- Flood
Bridge (Bridge No. 39) 1037) Study
7 1 &2 Trib.To 1.1 km. (0.7 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m.x 1.8 m. (1 Retain, and extend None
Beaver west of county line @ 8 ft. x 6 ft.) existing culvert
Branch Bottomless RCBC
8 2 Nathan's At SR 1571, 1.1 1 @ 2100 mm. (1 @ 84 1 @ 2.4 m. x 1.8 m. (1 None
Creek km. (0.7 mi.) in.) CSP @ 8 ft.x 6 ft.) RCBC
northwest of US
221
9 2 Nathan's Just east of SR N/A, New Location 2 @ 2.4 m.x 2.1 m. (2 None
Creek 1571, 0.3 km. (0.2 @ 8 ft. x 7 ft.) RCBC
mi.) northwest of
US 221
RCBC:reinforced concrete box culvert-(dimensions are base width x height)
CSP: corrugated steel pipe(dimensions are diameter)
*: Improvements to horizontal ailment will eliminate existing structure.
**: Improvements to horizontal ailment will require new drainage structure.
Recommendations of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on
a more detailed analysis during the final design phase of the project. Attached are the
Hydraulic Aspects Memorandum, dated September 1, 1998,which contains pertinent
environmental information relating to the current project status, USGS Quad Maps
"Jefferson,N.C."and"Laurel Springs,N.C."with stream crossing sites identified. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact Jerome Nix,NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit, at 250-4100 ext. 212.
DRH/MSL/djn

a
STAIZ
-41
�4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR P.O.BOX2520L RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 E. Norris Tolson
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 1, 1998 r,
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch,
FROM: A. L. Hankins, Jr., P.E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Aspects of the Environmental Impact for widening
of US 22.1 from NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany County
Line, Ashe County, State Project No. 8.1711001,
TIP No. R-2310
This project involves the widening of US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson to the Alleghany
County Line, Ashe County. The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and
alignment of the facility. The existing roadway is primarily a winding two=lane facility with
numerous hazardous.curves.and narrow shoulders and lane widths: The proposed
improvements will include reducing or eliminating hazardous curves and increasing shoulder
and pavement widths to meet current design standards. These improvements will enhance
sight distance and reduce accident potential along the project.
The terrain in the vicinity of the project is mountainous and rolling with numerous draws and
streams located such that the project maybe drained without difficulty. Local Highway
Maintenance Personnel reported no flooding problems at any of the major stream crossings
in the project vicinity. There are 20 jurisdictional stream crossings.involved with this
project, of which 7 are major stream crossings (see attached quad map for location of
streams). Based on recent field review and a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the following
table summarizes the major stream crossings and recommendations for accommodation of
the proposed improvements (Note, to avoid confusion in directions, the terms "left" and
"right" are in reference to proceeding from the west'to east termini of the project:)

S
Site Stream Location Existing Structure and Recommendation . Flood
Channel Geometry Zone
Status
1 Tributary to 1.9 km(1.2 mi.) 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.4 m(8 ft. x 8 ft.) Retain, and extend None
Dog Creek east of NC 16 RCBC. to the right.
Bed to crown of 2.7 m(9 ft),. (Note: Preliminary
base width of 2.4 m(8 ft), hydraulics analysis
channel depth of lm(3 ft.) indicates structure is
oversized.)
2 Dog Creek 3.4 km(2.1 mi.) Bridge No 29 L=9.7 m(31 ft. Replace with a 2@ None
east of NC 16 11 in.)RC Brg. 2.4 in X 2.4 m (8 ft.
Bed to crown of 4 m(13 ft), X 8 ft.)RCBC
base width of 2.4 m(8 ft),
channel depth of 1 m(3 ft.)
3 Tributary to 6.5 km(4.0 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m x 1.2 m(8 ft. x 4 ft.) Retain,and extend None
Nathan's east of NC 16 Bottomless RCBC to the right.
Creek' Bed to crown of 1.8 m(6 ft),.
base width of 2.4 in(8 ft),
channel depth of I(3 t.)..
4 Nathan's Creek 76 m(250 ft.)east 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.1 m(8 ft x 7 ft.) Retain;no extension Flood
of SR 1571 RCBC needed:Structure Hazard
Bed to crown of 4.3 m(14 ft), and approaches Zone
base width of 3 m(10 ft), built in 1995 to
channel depth of 1.5 m(5 ft.) current standards.
5 Long Branch 69 in(225 ft.)east 2 @ 2.4m x 2.4 m(8 ft. x 8 ft.) Retain,and extend Flood
of SR 1602 RCBC symmetrically Hazard
Bed to crown of 3 m(10 ft),'. Zone
base width of 1.2 m (4 ft),
channel depth of 0.6m (4 ft.)
6 South Fork 3.1 km(1.9 mi.) Bridge-39 'L= 141 m (461' 6") To be replaced with Detailed
New River. west of county line RC Bridge new bridge(see B-
Bed to crown of 13.7 m(45 ft), 1037, Proposed
base width of 67 m(220 ft), letting in FY 99)
channel depth of 12 in (40 ft.)
7 Tributary to 1.1 km (0.7 mi.) 1 @ 2.4 m x 1.9,m(8 ft. x 6 ft.) Retain, and extend None.,
Beaver Branch west of county line . RCBC to the right
Bed to crown of 2.4 m (8 ft),
base width of 1.5 m(5 ft),
channel depth of 0.6m (2 ft.)
From recent field review.and a preliminary hydraulics analysis, all of the existing
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBCs) were deterrrrined.to be hydraulically adequate,
and appeared to be in good condition. Therefore, it is recommended that these structures
be retained and extended as indicated in the above table and that a detailed assessment of
structural integrity be obtained from the Bridge Maintenance and Structure Design Units.
The existing structure over tributary to Dog Creek(Bridge no. 29) was built in 1922 and.
has a sufficiency rating of 73.2%with an estimated remaining life of 10 years. This.

bridge consists of a reinforced concrete deck girders deck with reinforced concrete
vertical abutments. The bridge is a single span structure measuring 9.70 m (31 ft. 10 in.)
in length. The stream has a normal flow depth of 0.2 m (0.5 ft.) and the banks are stable
with natural vegetation. Bridge scour information at the existing bridge-indicates that it is
considered to be low risk as the footings are in rock. Recent high water marks at this
bridge are 2.1 m (7.0 ft.) from the bottom of the bridge. Based on recent field review and
a preliminary hydraulics analysis, considering the age and condition of the existing
bridge, it is recommended that the bridge be replaced with a 2 @ 2.4 m x 2.4 m (8 ft. x 8
ft.) RCBC.
The existing structure over South Fork New River(Bridge no. 39)was built in 1922 and
has a sufficiency rating of 44.5%with an estimated remaining life of 10 years. This
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete deck girders deck with reinforced concrete
abutments. The bridge is 141 m (462 ft.) in length measuring the following spans 1 @ 6.8
m (22 ft. 3 in.), 1 @ 15.7 m (51 ft. 6 in.), 6 @ 16.0 m (52 ft. 6 in.), and 1 @ 6.8 m (22 ft. 3
in.). Bridge scour information at the existing bridge indicates that it is considered to be
low risk as the footings are on rock. The bridge is to be replaced with a new bridge 145 m
(475 ft.) in length under TIP Project B-1037; scheduled to be let in the FY 99.
Ashe County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.'The
crossing of South Fork New River(Site 6) is in a designated flood hazard zone and is
included in a detailed flood study with an established 100-year floodplain and floodway with
corresponding regulatory water surface elevations. As the existing bridge is proposed to be
replaced with a bridge having equivalent or improved conveyance, it is anticipated that a
floodway revision will not be required at this crossing. Attached are copies of the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, on which are delineated the established limits of the 100-year
floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of this stream crossings. For those crossings listed in
the above table which are in a designated flood hazard zone, copies of the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps are attached showing the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain in the
vicinity of those stream crossings. For the remaining stream crossings which are not in a
designated flood hazard zone, a copy of the USGS Quad Topographic Map is attached
showing an approximate delineation of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of those
stream crossings. Most-of the floodplain areas at the major stream crossings are rural and
wooded or cleared pasture and cultivated areas'. In recent field review it was noted that there.
is a residential home upstream of the crossing of the Tributary to Dog Creek (site 2) in which
the finished floor elevation is approximately 2.4 m (8.0 ft.) below the low chord of the bridge
Which happens to be approximately the same'elevation as the top of bank for the upstream
cross section, and is therefore below the 100-year flood level. No other structures with floor
elevations below that of the 100 yr. flood level were observed in the field. Existing flood
hazards to adjacent properties will be evaluated in detail in final hydraulics design—The
proposed roadway improvements and associated.drainage accommodations will have no
adverse effect on the existing floodplains nor.on the associated flood hazards. If needed,
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local
authorities in final design to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances. .

a
The following major stream crossing sites are above headwaters: Dog Creek, Tributary to
Dog Creek, Tributary to Nathan's Creek,Nathan's Creek, Long.Branch, and Tributary to
Beaver Branch. The remaining sites are below headwaters. No major wetlands will be
affected the project; however, most of the stream crossings in the are designated trout
streams or tributaries to trout streams. Based on the length of the project and the
involvement with numerous trout stream crossings, it is anticipated that an individual
environmental permit will be required for this project. Hydraulics Unit, in conjunction with
Planning & Environmental Branch, will coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to facilitate the permitting process and to
ensure that all environmental concerns are appropriately addressed. Regarding the use of
culverts on trout streams, it should be noted that a recent field review of several culvert sites
on mountain streams has confirmed that a properly located and designed culvert can
adequately provide for the fish habitat, and could in some instances be viewed as an
enhancement to the habitat. Fish passage and restriction of the low flow channel are two
primary concerns which will be addressed in the final hydraulics design stage. The bottom
of any new culverts will be placed sufficiently below the bed elevation so as to not restrict
the low flow, and consideration will be given to utilization of bottomless structures, if
necessary and if foundation conditions are satisfactory. An analysis will be made of the flow
velocities and bed material movement to determine whether additional special design
measures;such as.baffles or sills,will be required in the culvert to promote retention of bed -
material and to ensure proper fish passage. Many of the recommendations made in the above
table are based on minimizing the amount of major channel realignment or modification;
however, other constraints may dictate the selection of other alternates, in which case,
considerable channel realignment.may be.involved due to the close proximity of streams
parallel to the roadway along this project. All of the recommended culvert extensions or
replacements can be accommodated as recommended with minor channel modification or
realignment. The crossing of the South Fork New River is located within a water supply
watershed and a high quality water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled for this project through the appropriate specification, installation, and
maintenance of more stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures appropriate for
high quality waters.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and improved to the extent practicable.
Groundwater resources should be assessed in final hydraulics design to ensure.that measures
are taken, if necessary, to prevent groundwater contamination. Recommendations of this.
report are preliminary and could be subject to change based on information obtained from a
more detailed analysis during the final hydraulics design phase of the project.
ALHjr/AMR/dcd
attachment
cc: Mr. R.L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Hal Bain, Planning & Environmental Branch

.'N
D
VI 3�,-
::Cern
A�
it
J
I I I Iz
ff
v 4C
<
V
Y) /I
�_�`��\'� � .�--�J ''.- -��--�f��� \ � �. __���-=,:��`�_ hr� -\\ �� C � ;• _r��o, �� SITE 4 `"'\._`
0
Jcon
I`J
"\\Niij SITE 8
1z�I \\y
f '6
_NN2l r
IN
� " ' 1 )
IT CV /
, Aw I N)
WX
j_`��\1/%:;��/':/%_//r1/"%ri 1i/.E/3z!`_ 7`\\1(\`•/�i/1`\C\`•�``\\``\I.I_I
S1I/<J I\[1 ri"I'',..t\{I,\/1(1 t 1)`i' —_/�i,'r�I�(�\\J�l�'//'//�J1�12�4/,\5 r\,-/-r�\`aml--\--✓'\/ SITE
\n X", g
__J ltl
0),P.
N­
0 ) — ,
Cq 4
34
w:-]
W
"J,
g
X
N
v
-0.
itil C C
r
`N 7'
_J
SITE 3
'V X J
-------
i . � A 3000 at ans-
G�eek
'"'b ! I A.,
>:3038
rl
-l` \ f 1;,'C _J ;j� \ _\� ;.� Ir��-.•.T=/. / _J r� ,.� "�- r �1, �,- � Q I `'t \�' �.1 \ \ .\� : :t'•q vl/, '_ � \ `\__� r:
:.,\,�--•'�.`•\., \ 1--r\-� `f '\ \�\��,�\• � _� ` ,� /���\�= ,' `// 1' ) ``{ \ '-- \\\ / Ci Water
Tank* lit
74-.'
Jl J �1~� \- \�\�� \•_�\ /.. /��� ��/� `\ - / r+ I / Welcome homi:
nc
SITE
U,N, 1B
..�v NO SITE 1A IN, V\
00
Y
TV
N
. i A
' , Nmod-
risT t
2785
helbwn Area.,
io 7
_161
\N N,1
I it
W.I.
_ err:
30
P\ %
V.
SIT*
r
I, e rrN IT 2
, t LJ
N, 32:
C
Y4 X
k') XJ228
Denotes: Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream
1 2 Sty-N
Denotes: Major Stream Crossing and
De q, it
P
Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream 71
Cm
�v V'
V-"
00
F�, )N
Denotes: Approximate 100 year flood plain
--I-NN, fit
X\�
it
.174
�er)so ers�o
LJ C,4
A. X 0
_Ilk
�J I
J>\ 11 \�''�(\/�-��� 68 I 'a ..I. '\__- � 6M / I � �J:-. I_ mil' � '� -�.% •�'�-�-a �_. _ \ � '\ �-I � �( � / ,\ t \ ,: �,� �( / � `t. �iZ ;, �r r r
CPO)
i; I l - --\t � ��Ce -� 111�" �;�� Ihhh_^^---- r ��\�? '��\' !'•� _�� \�;�- -� .����1'� /I-.` /�-: �1 1\ \\�_ r i l.. \\�\� �L�--\�� \ \1\�.-�\ �<.�I r,l�;'!-���\���`' . X

UNITED STATES /^
C=�r`L DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ' 'c/ L)
T
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
81°22'30" 14B7000m.E. 468 469 7.
36°30=-i 470 20' :4 4757///SE
• i LSONI �3.6 M/. TO N.C. 9J 4 a
/ ,E t \ 71 -^(MOUTH O'F Wl \ 4J3 17'30" 74 1 330000 FEET I 476
c� ..�- _ '.r: ,Ala -- ,� I �� //>, : �- •/ 1 `' '`�' � _\. ,•—�• — - >�
I
i \ U
a : , t
3, \
,t
,
4 039
.,OOOm. \
1 N.
-.�� 'III ` C '�11 `' •!y- 'O - \}�'�
IN
I�: Joa7 -\`•i -"r-. 1. '.II '�' -��f_•� '� _� /\,t',>`; 1 `f ' �.ti�'/- r f .-11 � � � \. -
i r -^�• `•_.�` r �. / 1. y � �\n� '/' •F .% I �'-?- � r\ "✓ % � - \1 it '�
�- / f '� t1.,t,� ��.-�''\ J j�'- �� '�"':\O. tis �'•R 1\ :) ;'!�. I:I � � � \v
li; 7 _" ��',.__:�; ,;_ ��i ;/ 7� �>�•,\J 711
^� /�� ;- �... .�,/��— �;� •\ ,`'� i/ / cS� 1,.� r= ;7 � �"�` •..".��111 � /\�t / 1 ,�., `,
4038 i. � % I \• 1 '2 _ice � t, � � � >, 40 (" ! `2•.\ /
--ice'- \•� ( /'• �' � l ,.�1,4 i r /f/�-- V �� /� �,//� ��`� f '\:. �\ , `� //./ ��
'' '�'�'�` /�� _� �.�� �.; ,`- _ :i�; IS•1 `',' !rl ti' 1 \ \ %\ /� .'` _�� h t `rincl 7 ! if (.� / l•/
l7 -_�;`. i __= � �, r I �c - j ,j•O / \ auks Knob
l�
��Z:
_ F�._: 'fit: -_=- - ♦ / c66c,, \\\� ) - -
�,�1
\ r _
21
_ tv'
v. `i - 1 �' \� the ( f \ i.
Nk
01
I 271: END PR
__�\ �. ,00/,• /� ��. ��� , ` ' ' 0. � �—�\•v ,•,\= \\ / <I: .169a \\ _�: \\Oil C.
F;\,\- ✓�... ' \ 0'Ne 'i'O1- /�. \� ;` y - - J
IU36 j �__ f \ 1 (� \ r; l \ s'p ' SITE 7IN- "
r
zeoo-� l \ ` S. /.;=__ �l
2 '� SITE SA
,`,�. '�\ •\ `� 1 �:>\ i\ � ,, ri � '�-.\___ /UO �.'`� i,y `:i' 11 `u .�8 ,\` I .\ / _ � � ��1� �•I )�•,7 ��`C
- �( ��-� N.
\: 33 // �/ I•; 3� ` / 5
p �: ?22l <�`. \
!-\. -�-!-LyL J-= - \\ _ "�� ,.�1,.. '\ i \\ I{ I' 1 - .. _._I ,�i _ 1,�•�.\ I
.16 J 1 I ._.- _ ,\ --26) � a-+ �_\... �� �,� 1 \ C_\ l)/I � L_ -� r,, ,o• , ( `//�'� �I l)J i �,_��':
C.
— \ SITE 5 `�� is ::\ - ;,\ !,; � ��\ .� ?.' �`'' ( L \ °�
2 7'3 0' �� ) G3 c` I y•� �; _ li
Denotes: Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream �`
t.-sS\`,�/ //• �' 3V`o/f�_` �j�`
CCh \\ off'
-, _- \� �� S{ and
I\� � • B \ ` c Denotes: Major Stream Crossing
o\ _ Intermittent Jurisdictional Stream
�1' ��
'11i \ �as� \ 'i / `T �l LIL U:es-'-
\�`
I 0 year flood lain ;�I� •:
Denotes: Approximate 0 y p 1 , 1 Belview Ch
\.;\ ',\t .\./ ,i �,\:•�\,_ _'6',�. ` U. �;-�� \ v\o\'1 ` �' II\ vi--/iy ` �._ / l� .: - � I {`\�\, \ r,V/�l.i Cc'r:,
\"I\ `J �,,/J ��: \� t.,!�` �1.. `' .,,\ .../r/l „� •fin r I ���-. I `� I �1\lF' \ Zh' `\ m .\` `S `.--. I '�_�Li _ ,
1 \ r i .. l�i. - \\`( •. I - �� // 1 i``� '1`' i'�� r� r,' '� \.�.� - �. �-" rahberr.
Y\
.1. \ �- i I :O �' - t� 1.\ il• �Ch•.rc

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate'
TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-221
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/RCBC(Alt.1) $ 150,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
No D W Unit Prtce Ani oun
"
Item�
RCBC 2@8'x8',981,3TH,90Skew 98 LF 1,195.00 $ 117,110.00_
IMsc.&Mob. (10%) 1 1 LS $ 11,71 LOU
Contract Cost ............................................. $ 128,821.00
E.&C. (15%) ............................................. $ 21,179.00
Construction Cost .............................................
Note This cost does not include other roadway items.

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
•TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-221
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/Cored Slab Bridge(Alt.2) $ 275,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
Lme
Des Sec No Description Quantity Unrt Pace
Amount
Item
Prop.Cored Slab Bridge(40'W x 52'L) 2,080 SF $ 100.00 $ 208,000.00
Msc.&Mob. (101/6) i 1 I LS $ 20,800.00
Contract Cost ............................................. $ 228,800.00
E.&C. (15%) ............................................. $ 46,200.00
Construction Cost .............................................
Note This cost does not include other roadway items.

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. R-2310(Bridge No.29) County: ASHE
Route US-22'1
From NC-16 to the Alleghany Co.Line Construction Cost
Typical Section Replace Br.No.29 w/Con Span(Alt.3) $ 425,000.00
Prepared By: Nidal Albadawi,PE 02/11/04
Requested By: Craig Young,PE (PDEA) 02/10/04
lne t ec D c
Des cri Quantity Umt Price z Amount
es pt on
r
Con Span(Alum.Bottomless Culv.on Conc.Footings 98 LF $ 3,250.00 $ 318,500.00
1@36'x 9',981,2TH,90 Skew
Nlsc.&Mob. (10%) 1 LS $ 31,850.00
Contract Cost .............................................. $ 350,350.00
E.&C. (15%) ........._........ $ 74,650.00
........................
Construction Cost ............................................ $a 425,000 00"
Note This cost does not include other roadway items.

WETLANDS/401 GROUP
APR 1 9 2004
WATER QUAILITI (SECTION'
• n
i
SITCP
E l
%
EXISTING US�221
/ s 1 L
L
SITE /A
PROPOSED t/-5*2
SITE

i=
°A•
To
If �
SITE 2 l /
r
l rr
, t

,
f
i
I
US 2
f
, / 41
jz
!
rr. era ;T SITE 3
,

PROl\OSED US 22!
,
z
i
\'+ \ :SITE `5
SITE ;5A
US 221
,
- 47

Av
Cl
SITE 7
PROPOSED U$ 221
•
DQ
yRM-
-
-7-1) ""N11,
U.S 221
14,
et
:
l /

1
/4-7
913.3
912-9
EA��:� SHATLEY- SPROG D ', ��� z`�. TERNATIVE. 2
869.5
X
•
i
\1 f
SITE 8
561.8
Lf
T_.-d` FOWLER RD „
901.5 \\
5.7
870B 869.7
869.8 �\
� � \• \ `� 841.E
896.9 ' YG� l N' •

\ .\ 8362 -
1
\ 5
834.5 s /
ALTER`NATIVE.i 2
\
SITE
EA S SHATLEY .SP'1RM0S AD
.. `i �� , \ \ \ �! • `tip..\�
I `

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETr
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
d,a.HATE o-
" snL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Craig Young, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development &Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Meeting minutes from NEPA Merger Team concurrence point 2a meeting
for T.I.P. Project R-2310, upgrade existing US 221 from NC 16 in
Jefferson to just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line and replace
Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River, Ashe County, State
Project No. 8.1711001,Federal Aid No. STP-221(8).
A meeting was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 in the Board Room of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh to discuss concurrence point 2a for the subject
project. The following people were in attendance:
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resource Commission
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Karen Croysdale FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT—Roadway Design
Jason Moore NCDOT—Roadway Design
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]• TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Keith Eason NCDOT—Roadway Design
Trent Beaver NCDOT—Division 11
Jerome Nix NCDOT—Hydraulics Unit
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT—PD&EA
Eric Midkiff NCDOT—PD&EA
Craig Young NCDOT—PD&EA
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the hydraulic recommendations for the
nine major stream crossing located along the proposed project corridor. Although the
purpose of Concurrence Point 2a is to review Bridging and Alignment Alternatives, the
Merger Team had already concurred with the alignment alternatives in the Concurrence
Point 2 meeting held in December 2002. Therefore, only the bridging alternatives for the
nine major stream crossings were discussed at this meeting. Each stream crossing was
reviewed and the following topics were discussed:
• Site 1: NCDOT's recommendation is to remove the existing double
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) since the
realignment of the curve on US 221 in this area will shift the
roadway away from this existing culvert into new location.
The USACE representative commented that the USACE
prefers removal of the existing culvert. There was some
discussion about leaving the existing structure in so that access
to a church in the immediate vicinity can be retained; however,
it was determined that the church has sufficient access and
should not be affected by the removal of the culvert. If
comments from the Public Hearing support retaining the
existing culvert, the Merger Team will revisit their
recommendation to remove the culvert. The Merger Team
concurred with NCDOT's recommendation to remove the
existing RCBC at Site 1.
• Site 1A: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to construct a new RCBC (1 @ 7 ft. X 6 ft.) at Site lA
resulting in approximately 94 linear feet of stream impacts.
The WRC representative recommended including baffles in the
culvert to allow for aquatic species passage. NCDOT stated
that all newly constructed RCBCs on this project will be
countersunk so as to not restrict the passage of aquatic species.
• Site 1B: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to construct a new RCBC (2 @8 ft. X 7 ft.) at Site 1B resulting
in approximately 240 linear feet of stream impacts.
• Site 2: NCDOT recommended replacing Bridge No. 29, a single span
concrete bridge constructed in 1922 having a sufficiency rating
of 73.2% and an estimated remaining life of 10 years, with a
RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 8 ft.). In addition, NCDOT obtained costs
estimates for replacing Bridge No. 29 with a cored slab bridge

as well as a con span (aluminum bottomless culvert on concrete
footings). The cored slab bridge is estimated to cost$275,000
whereas the con span is estimated to cost$425,000. The
RCBC is estimated to cost$150,000. The Merger Team
concurred that the cored slab bridge alternative will be used to
replace existing Bridge No. 29. FHWA reminded NCDOT that
because of the sufficiency rating on the existing bridge, bridge
replacement funds will not be available for use in replacing this
structure.
• Site 3: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to retain and extend the existing bottomless RCBC at Site 3,
resulting in approximately 37 linear feet of additional stream
impacts.
• Site 4: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to remove the existing RCBC (2 @ 8 ft.,X 7 ft.). The proposed
curve realignment in the vicinity of Site 4 will shift US 221 on
to new location, thereby bypassing this existing drainage
structure.
• Site 4A: NCDOT recommended constructing a new RCBC (1 @ 7 ft. X
7 ft.) at Site 4A. The Site 4A crossing of a tributary to
Nathan's Creek is a result of the curve realignment in the
vicinity of Site 4. The recommended RCBC would result in
233 linear feet of stream impacts and no wetland impacts. The
WRC representative, along with the USACE, USEPA, and the
DWQ representatives, requested that special consideration be
given for this crossing due to the trout stream classification of
this stream. The Merger team requested that NCDOT study a
bridge alternative for this crossing. A construction cost
estimate will be obtained for both a cored-slab bridge with
some channel change alternative, as well as for a longer bridge
alternative that will not require a channel change. These
estimates will be presented at the Concurrence Point 3
(LEDPA) meeting after the Design Public Hearing and a
decision will be made by the Merger Team as to the
appropriate structure for this crossing.
• Site 4B: NCDOT recommended constructing a new RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X
8 ft.) at Site 4B. The Site 4B crossing of Nathan's Creek is a
result of the curve realignment in the vicinity of Site 4. The
recommended RCBC would result in 69 linear feet of stream
impacts and no wetland impacts. The WRC representative,
along with the USACE, USEPA, and the DWQ representatives,
requested that special consideration be given for this crossing
due to the trout stream classification of this stream. The
Merger team requested that NCDOT study a bridge alternative
for this crossing. A construction cost estimate will be obtained

effects of blasting required for the project.
NCDOT shall consult with the North
Carolina SHPO and store owners regarding
the method of stabilization to be used.
B. Blasting: NCDOT shall control and monitor
blasting operations to minimize damage to
the New River General Store.
C. Existing Road and Access: NCDOT shall
provide the North Carolina SBPO with an
opportunity to review and comment upon
plans for the removal of the existing road
and access to the store.
These stipulations will be incorporated into the "greensheets"
for this project. The Merger team concurred with NCDOT's
recommendation to replace Bridge No. 39 with a new bridge
immediately south of the existing location. The NCDWQ
representative stated that hazardous spill catch basins will be
required in the vicinity of the bridge and that storm water flow
on the bridge must be addressed. The potential environmental
impacts due to the removal of Bridge No. 39 and its
replacement will be detailed in the Environmental Assessment
for T.I.P. Project R-2310.
• Site 7: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to retain and extend the existing RCBC (1 @ 8 ft. X 6 ft.) at
Site 7, resulting in approximately 132 linear feet of additional
stream impacts. The USACE representative requested that
NCDOT investigate reducing the slope/fill impacts in this area.
• Site 8: NCDOT recommended replacing the existing 84" in diameter
corrugated steel pipe (CSP) with a RCBC (1 @ 8 ft. X 6 ft.)
resulting in an estimated 125 linear feet of stream impacts and
0.26 acres of wetland impacts. Because Nathan's Creek is a
stocked trout stream, the WRC representative requested that
NCDOT investigate a bridging alternative,in addition to the
proposed RCBC alternative. The FHWA representative stated
that FHWA reserves the right to comment on this request for a
replacing a CSP with a bridge.
• Site 9: NCDOT recommended constructing new RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 7
ft.) at Site 9, resulting in an estimated 499 linear feet of stream
impacts due to the skew angle of the crossing. Because
Nathan's Creek is a stocked trout stream, the WRC
representative requested that NCDOT investigate a bridging
alternative, in addition to the proposed RCBC alternative. The
FHWA representative stated that FHWA reserves the right to
comment on this request as well.

• It was decided that NCDOT would obtain construction cost estimates for
bridging alternatives at Sites 4A, 4B, 8, and 9. These estimates will be
presented at the Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) meeting and the Merger
Team will try and reach concurrence on both Points 2A and 3 at that time.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Any comments,
additions, or revisions to the minutes should be sent to Craig Young at 733-7844
extension 231 or by email to [e-mail].
CMY/
cc: Merger Team Memebers
Concurrence Meeting Participants

f
d„a STA7F o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
,wL STATFo-
wm�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Craig Young, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development &Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Meeting minutes from NEPA Merger Team concurrence point 2a meeting
for T.I.P. Project R-2310, upgrade existing US 221 from NC 16 in
Jefferson to just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line and replace
Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River, Ashe County, State
Project No. 8.1711001,Federal Aid No. STP-221(8).
A meeting was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 in the Board Room of the
Transportation Building in Raleigh to discuss concurrence point 2a for the subject
project. The following people were in attendance:
John Thomas US Army Corps of Engineers
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resource Commission
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Karen Croysdale FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT—Roadway Design
Jason Moore NCDOT—Roadway Design
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Keith Eason NCDOT Roadway Design
Trent Beaver NCDOT—Division 11
Jerome Nix NCDOT—Hydraulics Unit
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT—PD&EA
Eric Midkiff NCDOT—PD&EA
Craig Young NCDOT—PD&EA
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the hydraulic recommendations for the
nine major stream crossing located along the proposed project corridor. Although the
purpose of Concurrence Point 2a is to review Bridging and Alignment Alternatives,the
Merger Team had already concurred with the alignment alternatives in the Concurrence
Point 2 meeting held in December 2002. Therefore, only the bridging alternatives for the
nine major stream crossings were discussed at this meeting. Each stream crossing was
reviewed and the following topics were discussed:
• Site 1: NCDOT's recommendation is to remove the existing double
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) since the
realignment of the curve on US 221 in this area will shift the
roadway away from this existing culvert into new location.
The USACE representative commented that the USACE
prefers removal of the existing culvert. There was some
discussion about leaving the existing structure in so that access
to a church in the immediate vicinity can be retained; however,
it was determined that the church has sufficient access and
should not be affected by the removal of the culvert. If
comments from the Public Hearing support retaining the
existing culvert, the Merger Team will revisit their
recommendation to remove the culvert. The Merger Team
concurred with NCDOT's recommendation to remove the
existing RCBC at Site 1.
• Site 1A: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to construct a new RCBC (1 @ 7 ft. X 6 ft.) at Site lA
resulting in approximately 94 linear feet of stream impacts..
The WRC representative recommended including baffles in the
culvert to allow for aquatic species passage. NCDOT stated
that all newly constructed RCBCs on this project will be
countersunk so as to not restrict the passage of aquatic species.
• Site 1B: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to construct a new RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 7 ft.) at Site 1B resulting
in approximately 240 linear feet of stream impacts.
• Site 2: NCDOT recommended replacing Bridge No. 29, a single span
concrete bridge constructed in 1922 having a sufficiency rating
of 73.2% and an estimated remaining life of 10 years, with a
RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 8 ft.). In addition,NCDOT obtained costs
estimates for replacing Bridge No. 29 with a cored slab bridge

as well as a con span (aluminum bottomless culvert on concrete
footings). The cored slab bridge is estimated to cost$275,000
whereas the con span is estimated to cost$425,000. The
RCBC is estimated to cost$150,000. The Merger Team
concurred that the cored slab bridge alternative will be used to
replace existing Bridge No. 29. FHWA reminded NCDOT that
because of the sufficiency rating on the existing bridge, bridge
replacement funds will not be available for use in replacing this
structure.
• Site 3: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to retain and extend the existing bottomless RCBC at Site 3,
resulting in approximately 37 linear feet of additional stream
impacts.
• Site 4: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to remove the existing RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 7 ft.). The proposed
curve realignment in the vicinity of Site 4 will shift US 221 on
to new location, thereby bypassing this existing drainage
structure.
• Site 4A: NCDOT recommended constructing a new RCBC (1 @ 7 ft. X
7 ft.) at Site 4A. The Site 4A crossing of a tributary to
Nathan's Creek is a result of the curve realignment in the
vicinity of Site 4. The recommended RCBC would result in
233 linear feet of stream impacts and no wetland impacts. The
WRC representative, along with the USAGE, USEPA, and the
DWQ representatives, requested that special consideration be
given for this crossing due to the trout stream classification of
this stream. The Merger team requested that NCDOT study a
bridge alternative for this crossing. A construction cost
estimate will be obtained for both a cored-slab bridge with
some channel change alternative, as well as for a longer bridge
alternative that will not require a channel change. These
estimates will be presented at the Concurrence Point 3
(LEDPA)meeting after the Design Public Hearing and a
decision will be made by the Merger Team as to the
appropriate structure for this crossing.
• Site 4B: NCDOT recommended constructing a new RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X
8 ft.) at Site 4B. The Site 4B crossing of Nathan's Creek is a
result of the curve realignment in the vicinity of Site 4. The
recommended RCBC would result in 69 linear feet of stream
impacts and no wetland impacts. The WRC representative,
along with the USACE, USEPA, and the DWQ representatives,
requested that special consideration be given for this crossing
due to the trout stream classification of this stream. The
Merger team requested that NCDOT study a bridge alternative
for this crossing. A construction cost estimate will be obtained

for both a cored-slab bridge alternative with some channel
change, as well as for a longer bridge alternative that will not
require a channel change. These estimates will be presented at
the Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) meeting and a decision will
be made by the Merger Team as to the appropriate structure for
this crossing.
• Site 5: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to remove the existing RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 8 ft.). The proposed
curve realignment in the vicinity of Site 5 will shift US 221 on
to new location, thereby bypassing this existing drainage
structure.
• Site 5A: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to construct a new RCBC (2 @ 7 ft. X 7ft.) at Site 5A resulting
in an estimated 151 linear feet of stream impacts and no
wetland impacts.
• Site 6: NCDOT recommended replacing Bridge No. 39 over the South
Fork of the New River with a new bridge. The new bridge will
be 475 feet in length and will be constructed immediately south
of the existing bridge. The New River General Store is located
in close proximity to the existing bridge and both the store and
the bridge are eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. NCDOT prepared a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the replacement of Bridge No. 39 in 1996. This CE
recommended replacing Bridge No. 39 with a new structure
immediately south of the existing bridge. In addition, the CE
contained a signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
the following stipulations:
Bridge No. 39
A. Recordation: Prior to the demolition of Bridge
No. 39, NCDOT shall record the bridge in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures
Recordation Plan. The recordation plan shall be
carried out and copies of the record shall be sent
to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of
construction.
B. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall
provide the North Carolina SHPO the
opportunity to review and comment upon
designs for the replacement bridge.
New River General Store
A. Structural Stabilization: NCDOT shall
stabilize the structure to withstand the

t
effects of blasting required for the project.
NCDOT shall consult with the North
Carolina SHPO and store owners regarding
the method of stabilization to be used.
B. Blasting: NCDOT shall control and monitor
blasting operations to minimize damage to
the New River General Store.
C. Existing Road and Access: NCDOT shall
provide the North Carolina SHPO with an
opportunity to review and comment upon
plans for the removal of the existing road
and access to the store.
These stipulations will be incorporated into the "greensheets"
for this project. The Merger team concurred with NCDOT's
recommendation to replace Bridge No. 39 with a new bridge
immediately south of the existing location. The NCDWQ
representative stated that hazardous spill catch basins will be
required in the vicinity of the bridge and that storm water flow
on the bridge must be addressed. The potential environmental
impacts due to the removal of Bridge No. 39 and its
replacement will be detailed in the Environmental Assessment
for T.I.P. Project R-2310.
• Site 7: The Merger Team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation
to retain and extend the existing RCBC (1 @ 8 ft. X 6 ft.) at
Site 7, resulting in approximately 132 linear feet of additional
stream impacts. The USACE representative requested that
NCDOT investigate reducing the slope/fill impacts in this area.
• Site 8: NCDOT recommended replacing the existing 84" in diameter
corrugated steel pipe (CSP) with a RCBC (1 @ 8 ft. X 6 ft.)
resulting in an estimated 125 linear feet of stream impacts and
0.26 acres of wetland impacts. Because Nathan's Creek is a
stocked trout stream, the WRC representative requested that
NCDOT investigate a bridging alternative, in addition to the
proposed RCBC alternative. The FHWA representative stated
that FHWA reserves the right to comment on this request for a
replacing a CSP with a bridge.
• Site 9: NCDOT recommended constructing new RCBC (2 @ 8 ft. X 7
ft.) at Site 9, resulting in an estimated 499 linear feet of stream
impacts due to the skew angle of the crossing. Because
Nathan's Creek is a stocked trout stream, the WRC
representative requested that NCDOT investigate a bridging
alternative, in addition to the proposed RCBC alternative. The
FHWA representative stated that FHWA reserves the right to
comment on this request as well.

1
• It was decided that NCDOT would obtain construction cost estimates for
bridging alternatives at Sites 4A, 413, 8, and 9. These estimates will be
presented at the Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) meeting and the Merger
Team will try and reach concurrence on both Points 2A and 3 at that time.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Any comments,
additions, or revisions to the minutes should be sent to Craig Young at 733-7844
extension 231 or by email to [e-mail].
CMY/
cc: Merger Team Memebers
Concurrence Meeting Participants
.s

rTnon�,A� W
DEC Q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
�- WE UP
EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 11, 2002
Concurrence Point 2
Alternatives to be Studied
for TIP R-2310
Upgrade Existing US 221 From NC 16 near Jefferson to
just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line,Ashe County,
Federal Aid No. STP-221(8), State Project No. 8.1711001
Purpose and Need of the Project
At the Merger Team meeting for Concurrence Point 1 held on February 5,2002,
the Merger Team concurred that the purpose and need for the subject project is:
"to improve safety on US 221 and to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork
of the New River in Alleghany County as part of Transportation Improvement Project
(T.I.P.) R-2310. The need for safety improvements along US 221 is based on correcting
a restricted cross section that includes a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has
contributed to an accident rate that is 140% greater than the statewide average for similar
roadways. The need for replacing Bridge No. 39 is based on the most recent bridge
report, completed on January 9, 2001, which determined that Bridge No. 39 has a
sufficiency rating of 44.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted
weight restrictions and has recurring scour problems as well as spalling and corrosion.
The project is 9.8 miles (15.7 km) in length. The project location is shown on the
attached map.
Preliminary Discussion for Concurrence Point 2
Once concurrence was reached on Concurrence Point 1,the Merger team
discussed Concurrence Point 2, specifically the alignment alternatives and the bridge
replacement alternatives that would be carried forward. The following three alignment
alternatives were discussed and the team tentatively agreed that they would be carried
forward:
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOKOOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NO
RALEIGH NC 27 6 99-1 54 8

Alignment Alternatives:
1. No-build/routine maintenance continues
2. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with&oot shouldersZ foot
paved and 6foot grass, from NC 16 in Jefferson to approximately
0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line. Realign
substandard horizontal and vertical curves where possible.
3. Widen SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to two 12 foot lanes
with&foot shoulders, 2 foot paved and6 foot grass, from NC 16
in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with
4 foot shoulders from SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road)to
approximately 0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Alleghany County
Line. Resign SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) as US 221.
Realign substandard horizontal and vertical curves where
possible.
Plan sheets for the project were displayed and the merger team went through the
above listed alignment alternatives and looked at each individual curve that did not meet
the design speed of the proposed project. Based on the existing location of wetlands and
streams,the team was able to identify on the plan sheets which curves would be studied
for realignment and which curves realignment would not be considered for. Roadway
Design used the "marked"plan sheets to develop the preliminary design for these
alignment alternatives and also generated a"no curve realignment" alternative. The
impacts associated with these three alignment alternatives is detailed in the attached
table.
Wild,& .SWx .� The merger team also discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River.
R;VeA, The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its substandard sufficiency
rating. One alternative for replacement was presented by NCDOT; replacing Bridge No.
39 over the South Fork of the New River just south of its existing location and
maintaining traffic along US 221 during construction phase of new bridge. The merger
team requested that NCDOT also study replacing the bridge in its current location, which
would require an off-site detour. It was also requested of NCDOT to study the use of a
temporary detour bridge, both on the north and south side of the existing bridge, while
Bridge No 39 is replaced in place. Impacts to an Historic property would result from any
work on the north side of the existing bridge; however, this alternative will be studied as
a possible bridge replacement alternative.
Preliminary Designs
In the weeks following the February meeting, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
representative notified NCDOT that there was no need to study the north side detour
bridge alternative since it would adversely effect the New River General Store and the
approach curvature of US 221 to the bridge would be worse than it is now. NCDOT
studied the off-site detour alternative during the planning phase for T.I.P. Project 13-1037,
which proposed to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River. T.I.P.
Project B-1037 had a signed Categorical Exclusion (CE), dated September 18, 1996, and

was incorporated into T.I.P. Project R-2310 in 1997. In the CE, it was determined that
there were "no reasonable detour routes" so an off-site detour preliminary design was not
pursued. .
NCDOT generated three alignment alternatives, as stated above, that reflected the
alternatives discussed at the February 5, 2002 meeting. The bridge alternatives were
narrowed to replacing Bridge No. 39 immediately south of its existing location, as
recommended in the CE for T.I.P. Project B-1037. These three alignment alternatives are
attached, along with a table detailing the various impacts associated with each.
Plan of Action
The purpose of the December 11, 2002 meeting is for the Team to reach
concurrence on Concurrence Point 2. Specifically,NCDOT will present its preliminary
designs and associated impacts to the Merger Team for review in hopes that a
determination can be made as to which curves should be realigned and which curves the
team would like to leave in place.

Project Status
Staff biologists have been concluded their wetland and stream delineations.
These delineations have been verified by the Corps of Engineers representative and are
shown on the preliminary designs presented at the upcoming concurrence meeting. No
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered species have been found along the subject
project, although a field meeting will be scheduled with the appropriate environmental
agency in order to perform a survey for the bog turtle.
A Phase I inventory of the project's Area-of Potential Effect (APE) was
conducted in March 1999. It was determined that of the 47 historic architectural
resources within the Area of Potential Effect(APE),two (the New River Outfitters store
and Bridge No. 39)had previously been determined (and continue to remain) eligible for
listing on the National Register; 38 resources were not eligible for National Register
listing and required no further evaluation; and seven resources were worthy of further
evaluation to determine their potential National register eligibility.
In November 1999,the Phase II survey of the APE was completed and
recommendations for eligibility for the National Register were made for the seven
resources in question. It was determined that the seven resources were not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
A private firm has been contracted to conduct archaeological surveys, and has
submitted its archaeological survey and evaluation draft report, dated February 28, 2002.
Sixteen unidentified archaeological sites and five previously recorded archeaological
sites were identified in the project's area of potential effect. The consultant firm
recommended that three of these sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D.
CMY/
Attachments:

ALTERNATIVE 1 — Curve Realignment from NC 16 to
just east of the Ashe/Alleghany
County line.
ALTERNATIVE 2—Curve Realignment from NC 16,
along East Shatley Springs Road, to
US 221 and then along US 221 to the
Ashe/Alleghany County line.
ALTERNATIVE 3 —No Curve Realignment,widen
existing US 221 to two 12-foot lanes
with 4-foot shoulders from NC 16 to
the Ashe/Alleghany County line.
NOTE: Reference station numbers for
the tables below are beginning stations
for the subject area and pertain to
Alternative 1 ONLY, i.e., area 1 would
be from Station 28+96.to Station 36+00
in Alternative 1.

AREA 1 (Sta. 28+96) AREA 4 (Sta. 59+60)
nd Wetland Stream d U
Impacts
Impacts Impacts
(ae (line0.03 354 1 0 0 3
0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A
0 79 3 0 0 2
AREA 2 (Sta. 36+00) AREA 5 (Sta. 70+42)
Impacts .. Impacts
(acres) (linear feet),,
,,
Rg
— — — cr . 0 0
Alt I 66 0
AIt 2 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A
Al „ 0.0, 4>2 5 0.05 0 0 0
AREA 3 (Sta. 45+77) AREA 6 (Sta. 74+61)
Imps •ts, � �, . ,
,,..;(acres) ,��il►g,rrigg $ Reloea''
0 1 _ 0 79 3
0 1 0 N/A 0 1 0 N/A
0 1 0 2 01 79 3
raw VVM4W

AREA 7 (Sta. 81+86) AREA 10 (Sta. 94+84)
a 0 765 0 0 69 0 3
�� t�� . 0 0 N/A tz 0 69 0
0 1 295 0 ti `' � 0 45 0
AREA 8 (Sta. 85+37,Alt 1&2 are the same from here) AREA 11 (Sta. 100+00)
0.02 89 0 0.09 607 1,
AID1 � 0.02 89 0 t 0.09 607 1
>"FbLaU# ArS
0 88 0 0.07 557 1 2
AREA 9 (Sta.- 90+17) AREA 12 (Sta. 112+93)
Y N ISBN`h Y
x .
0.27 69 0 w 0 508 3
0.27 69 0 0 508 3
f 0 89 0 0.09 682 1

AREA 13 (Sta. 126�+� 00) AREA 16 (Sta. 143+00)
k 3
'�`
� ������ h� 'H✓��� b�� 7 � "`k_ .✓ �{ .'r}�{-� }� �� � � ��,.4 � � loss
....w. as,.r..n ., Mr,. ,. .fie�_ti: n..,x....f..,..�s•3 Y r n,,, ,n .' N /5 ...HO. 9.Y'..Yc 4....,.. 5a' s .,-.,,d.,.. ,Y.
0.001 203 3 0 187 1
fr„„g" 0.001 203 3 M 0 187 1
tf 3 0.001 337 2 ;, 0 501 1
AREA 14 (Sta. 135+61)
En V4
re £f 2:
�A`l't�,1��;� 0 69 0
#0 0 69 0
Q .„ 0 1 124 0
AREA 15 (Sta. 138+62)
0 75 0
1 0 75 0
0 108 1

- 5
Alt. 2 (East Shatley Springs Rd. Section, NC 16 "
to US 221)
t �.WrUai
' r -kt -
0.30 492 1 0
TOTALS
0.461 3140 16
0.381 2368 8
' 0.241 3436 22

■5 •N 1525 15366 `'i ^ � Ford 13032G 152- U s� - u
1 3 •'
! 1554 5 9 p�C` 1 w �. R •••
1.3 . 1520 3
0rarfd0rl s ' 1528 1573 1553 - S ' '•� •3 1316 ••••
p ,65fi 1552 - ( L316 1323_99 ••• ■
3 I JGG 1524 ,•6 w
{' 3 1521 Cr- is •6 - I N u 1309 113C8 1 •
13fi6 1539 0 � 6 /•q 1321
14 Tudcerdab 1516 9 O 1523 t N,t 538 W 1549 T 1303 y 2 . 1 ■ \`
`0 3 tit'Liberty a -1537 O •w 0 1556 p 1555 1559 1.2_ � �� 13C8 / t
}; 11 Ch. O � i
•1353 � w 1522 /'O N 1540 •Y•.' � '.', S 1558 E Vv I � _8 . •
_ 1203 3
0 PRU•JECT ■
y c� 194 `' 1519 1.2 _ 560 y 1.3 13p7
° 1523 .4 1
- 6 1518 1541 i1151 h 1553 1557 h c . •
o ' N S j tO 8 �� / 1558 1552 �/ 1549 1306 L1 Topia 1320It - ••�•• _
9G `r 15W v 1539 � y 0 � 1560 \ 2 1'3 � � 11 � 1 �• �+elton rass Fr
1324 J \ 1516 1522 1 2 1523 157 p 1563\ 1561 / Yl-k11)
1305 1304 Mt.Zion ••SturgIll Cre 3
1 \. a 1516 ' b 1544 Z 'k � - w Ch. I ( A •.� +' H E •
1 1. _ 1513 z Crumpler p 1562 2 - _ •
Is .rS m r-n N ,7 r : ` Lans 8 Shattev $colter
der Chapel F ,517 \ n 500 1.0 I = Alin 15�52 * `. 1303 ;) ' 1327'.k: 41 :/I Warrensr to t Sorin¢sb
° LANSING'- a 1517 667 1563 -' 1565 7 (q - Ashland.
POP.rn S 1 1543 1542 Q1 1573 b 2 1566 \, v .8 Cldt n x.lef eisan�r ?p
639 1 0 \ 1328 r �Creston • '°•'
l 1514 ii1 2 �•6 't 1567 6 1567 1567' 1=•� West 11et1 0rt M Laurel Spines
1545 302 Pwd�n 2 1 n v- �/ 37
1347 BIno 0 1523 -8 .6 2. ,!dt.n Carme I ta` 13 Baldwl0 Glendale
17
5 t �•2 6 1642 1658 0, , 1647 1673 \; _ Ch. Sly s '� :
Ashley S 2 O 1573 !S 1573 ° 3=^0 i Obr s
1.6 1568 ' 6 -
Chapel 1349 7 ry 8 1513 8 O I Ail. �P Flee1.00d IEtewi •�
as 1351 1642 o t 1�0^� w h O
1644 .9 16 ! •� �•
1501 i 11 1513 11574 1570 O 1645 I „A 6
2 Oak Hill v 6 1575 4.0 l :
BEGIN Ch.i:t'1678 1575\1't S 1571 .1570
1347 PROJECT -- hatl 221�FPs °
PHOENIX ey S Fq: 1j ° 1558
p ' 0 1577 Springs^. 6 ,� tip In „_ -, 1.1�
1.5 MTN, s • I `� COUNTY
FAS 88 o- 1573 M� 15764 1572 \t 1.2 FAS y� ' 3 1636 158 , ASHE
�
` 2 Warrensville 1649, e' /: *,% ' _rs _ tfi1 �� � s7 13
ChroveH \� 221 .0 1595 .S Liberty n :•
�� , 1 GG8 T Hill Ch. '602 i
6 194 / QUO 1 fi51 `��l� 5 Coo c Gy ° c ••
•c� 1508
3 ��' 1578 '8 6 ` 6 Nafhons - \ ° 1594 ° .
1130 � � 1509 1512 \ � Pleasant _ \•� � .7 �
`� A 1578 � 1579 1660 Creek
1185 1198 O w 16 co 7 v �� . 1 n��J'�1593 1593 O Valley Ch. 1603 16C6 ;};160 i' S ••
�- 2
666
JEFFERSON •�� :. lug•. `� >t�i66' a _- \ 1�95 60 3 0 J T ••:
93 POP.1,333 1 Sea 1 1591 ,boa
,
6 At1f0 County ` 1592 i__ 1608 •••
5 1670 Airport
2 .91190 SmefhParf ti. ', FBL '__ p ! N 1596 O I 9
Mt.Paddy �•p l fi'r 1586 1595 p
v Ch. \ 6 1 �tl_F 582 1586 3•\ 1589 4 1599 1609 J 1603 •-
1 S 1591,:_I33 1 133 O _ , S 1587 R 4.0
r 194 221 -1 -------rtr \•0 S
rn \' 1599
221 16 nV 7- 1 58� R 1591 THE PEAK 1612 •4 1 88 :'
WEST l �, 1588 1609 9 JEFFERS®N/
II J FFERSON i `n _A2 i w• MT. JEFFERSON .7 1590
9t611 o�°F�
38 N P.1,017 I 2 O Wagoner 1597 1595 n �r :•LA UREL SPRINGS
N l ,26,' 03
1612 2'
i > 40
QUAD
1`il ►J1,33 ' _ 1 1155 �� �! SFAS �' 15945 1 1613� - � , 70 - LOW GaP .2 1686 � - 1614 �
1 154 2 v 1627 ! Ch. 1598 1665 4 Transou-
rr '� \.2 6 w 1528 v �%.\ 'S 1595 v 1662 :
Seaver•1 m Orion I i NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
reek;.r.N fl 2 9 Fq 4 $ : TRANSPORTATION
r , 1 197 Index ! 1626 $ 1• 1616
1156 S� 1627 9 _ 7 ,% \ 1640 1613 �• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
n N N 16 N
• +� § PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1.6 1225 i 1155 m 9 Big Ridge $- �� •� O,. 1623 1638 1653 ti rn 00 �"'or BRANCH
:O �� _ FAS ,8 12t9 1 j�: Ch• t622 Ebenezer I ;•
__ Ch. 1617. ; US 22I
N.
1239 s '� a - I628 162s / -:9 .6 • 1615 �• UPGRADE EXISTING FACILITY
1248 \__ N N 1230 >, 1622 1618 ,4 1616 ;j�% •
_1 7 1144. 221 1 145 !S 3-9\ g �,'- 1631, 1628 n '1616
125 p 16�3 0) FROM NC 16 TO THE
S 1258 I \ 1 159 9 ,) � •e ^ 1619 • _ ALLEGIIANY COUNTY LINE
2 EP 1 143 194 2 1 1 a7 n 1 156 \ o- ,82a w i• 'w 2,5 ASHE COUNTY
r 1245 2 2 ;X. m 1 199 \ t 222 i vN 1629 p /' " /��w 6 1620 :
1 143 -I •6` - I_6\ i Othello.., t' .2 5 - a 28 1 122 'Ti�'1•-,,,..\ p - :
■IY ` • 0 MILE 1.5
I-_\ag7- 1145 1146 �•\ •� s t 158 16' $ ��' -• - . �' 0 KILOMETER s.s FIGURE 1
,\ I 6

R-2310 e US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 5000:1 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 2500°1 FULL SIZEWi
TRI I OF 8
i
ELA2
PRELIMINARY PLANS
g �W(�(\`'p INCOMPUTE PLANS
WETLANDS T W 6'O LE Ol R/t ntlVK 9°N
WATEit QUALITY SECTION
05 � w � � •
�xY o 99 � •
• � lV ry
s 8 d• v ° ��iJl 4��x �/ n my / e
Q /
•
1 y © e O M1! x 9916
99
� S 055 $9v
f} e05 �
a q
� psyxu II r C £ 7 e. .� • s s °"s � '�f aq�p ' \ ms\ ��\ s`y
�°.. -y¢i \' �C G� s®.oC b � C•C�° 'san � °� /� • / U/ � x.x 'sro � 3� ® l ,
o• ° ei5s
Iwa• C f/ .e C�Q f C C C C co °o
C
s(ry ewe Asa. C s !`
^P / F.�j v • • f f _ i. F /�
�� � rzf s°° 8. •wis m / � e • ewa7 • � • � . C C f fj s�°''S�� su / � t •' • �sz '
�'\ t.x m `j � b•� / • • � � /// v . �..� s°xo ° as os � � c �� � w E �` °s b
9B5
0 � s a sc \ •s Z'/ � • evs n" c[.[iurXL
t "Y� mas °d"o mss may° S}
96
9n 00
• / V C/ w5 � l4YEtEnr Bw� I •CY

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 250001 FULL SIZE 1'R� 2 OF
:�::�:::DR`:AGU•F:V36::➢G��rrY[:�c�NS.T{{RyyQttSTJAiT:�;:�i:
Y.:•:DD'{OT yyg<ppg.'N/W..:;iiCawsTFfox;:; \ 0 g�\
bl�' f g1
h 41
0
or Q I I \
11 \ ay
\ I , �'1 ✓'�'' r \ • gal y
KN'1 .i• O�. i �t\ p�-- ell
mI tii ��\� a•f NO , g � @ + 9•
5
/ 4pS eyyY—ems �/(As 00 G
is e 875
ti g 5 2 , HS F S6
0
tis ` s 0 875
cP 6�. oQ yg` S B85
s D 1
.:.,f �t .•.�'}. � 868 G// _ C �1 G�a < <i �' �� F C .KD B e �\ ..�'' \\ l
,j •�� 9 '�� • F 0 P P F F g F F F� \ C z �� � F ��==s cREE.r9aK5 � \�s4�
0 y _ �' - 9y� --- ey�0. f F 1�'-`- �✓ F F a •i
C J'• P-�` NPi Npy.S L�� .�___ ° __. � �.i P a / F g�E S 5 �\��
W
865 �..� ; y 1 ag• \ 6 \^G X
870 ay o J 0. g50 g55 • � R 7 s
50
y i
C P1 opdo q ass—� % t S�5 •
go
900
P \
/ O

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 ' TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
. 250001 FULL SIZE TRI
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 3 OF
]W 895 s
Ndf-.4{ Y;eq.abde't3g6GT'ttlt3„:: / /
iI I £fl 1f P E'1'£' [?UM: p :ins
<s:Dik::�i:use;r4x:<a�W<;A�aRisisiarr::: ems.
664.
B65J 869
875
G
1j �GB� o
co
o L
r9 �`o L
G (d\ w
Ito
. �9 •665 9 `B `� L
/9111 L
a Tg`2Sr' O 895 �x f L
r c B6o \6s �/• 1�� � �P� Pam) `/ � �° • � L
O / G f\
J
875 � O. � I • � • � �S&o
$ S� B7O3 6763 • • / �s 3D F s
56a '\\ / J A • • / $sY G
/!
a �✓
S A �`B9Z6 t [�SFp,
!/ 1 °RCypp° I 'SJ/DSO
MAiMAYs CR A - - C '� - •
BN
G�( F F F C F C • e�is 66s
C
C C F F C @b
8'F
a
650
195
/590
_ �r� I ••8r�, � % `gas g� 6 `\ � '/ .\z
v Cam°
P ILA \�c84P 1 ' 90
r�16\1
\ '
.910.1
B95s �,' 'RO 25F
I �o
�l

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 5000-.-1 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 250001 FULL SIZE . 4 OF
/ on xar;yss rat eoNgrravcirnct '�: `/G qqB III 1�I �c \ _��i j:,'. r /
/ I DO M!7`-;.VS%talk sVo<a[v7N67'PIDi?:. 1 oq �\ -�
ull
—
/�,
��• �p k� q� �` � t' Al
� ti ..,♦ s> •Ass \ � E / l/ll 'lI ' , Js I :>
B75 A /tJ G 7✓ B55 b Jll l , J`
Ai
5 EEK
- r
P •�Yy2j � ..ti .;•r:� ... »D o �' `• �1� lll' �J /` �A�s �s I �1
/ �/ 00 - vyJ �• 85D C \ �I / , / // i Mls 1
m/ �8ID G � t�A'Ts•�•�`�,� �O 5 ♦ � JJ _ .. \ (� oq I I� 2 �
.. �a rt �•• � 6r ` Ar A� C p
�' a ` x B6� \� o \\ _ -`T. •, k oaf F �� (' I(`gyp A �� \
F - 4/" �"T• 1 .i � '�` Arm V` t�S 1 - F ZsL.1 e,
.'.' •,�. A r-;F.�" -_�^ ,_ ':..•� •.�_� s p 8�`' �' �`•E'f� Ass
�J • BSS � � e r • C �� � Aid .P a
• r ya � ��;_ �
o
L \�865
68o-
90
—915
s s b
A9 • 1n
\ `n As°
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET NOa 5)

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE
T 1) 250001 FULL SIZE TRI 5 OF
;;::no:_uor:vax:ron:eoNszavcrmx;;::>;
IN+Ct31�tPTE`�E>��1].�TS
• - �:;::�PR�:WV.I'::.VSB::F.4R�:�Sf,.a:::A1:0ais1TOD.N:::
` $ �45 Q
g5y
855
8✓•0
5
845 � � _ � 604} ��\ ' I
Mb / LL
Bga2 `q 840 15F0 5 8' BB4b /// 855 0
B50 }3 T
q` LL
850
\ G
e60 �0 s•�a 4 aA
x ess s a" eL' e2s �9<< B3LL
ers C C �\ LL
p• 845 ZSBV.D 815 15
LL
p� O \° p 0� r ' p -Bp15 F gp22 •i � Bar '' C '�1�
y
u. B3°_ h0 / f Jfy' glt5 °oo -- 52 5 ;: 8034• Zj�g �I�B�• a@b�9 5 925 g264
``f 1
17� 0 ..
/. } \ / eti0 6 G G :%'c •' 615 z° 8 �� 1 W
. 4 ♦ G / • eu 830 so / em
6p 8/5 F--
a G� • y4��� L. ' B°° e,s oy •szo
ers
"J
630
05
9�o BOR m a131 \ :� ..pp I 845 • 1�R0 840 :Y..:.
a623
� r
8,4b
V •' 516b / BO !� RUINS
3 .. / pa0oa / I 1 1\ •� yySS\
' � • W 8R 1 - NAT/1AN'S CREEK 815 9�
2° /0}0 ` •\ .� I III p�`g0�•/// / /0� Il \ /(1� \� \ j � �5 J"
\ (I y •; �� 8 BR l aoa —• � mss \ 6
aeon
645 1 �40 \ Y 1 865
860

R-2310 US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRH SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 2500a1 FULL SIZE 6 OF
PRO!IMI*T R.T.,..'AITS
INCUfPLELa�NB
t� � m tear rse vain.?t,a �covesmobr.;
O
os
s \
W
41 u efs s G� w
�l u�
x
y e�
W
1
Ld
`
0
l� B�2 ezoJ �'"0 3�N��(� 4 0 85 y M, �)\ G ]`I / C• / 1 //Q sap 815 C
a .• �OCATIDN J`.. / .ISB . ` B39 // B ' p�� __]11///
( J^1
J s� \m / V�
j ° C G C G C 1 I ) �� Bay eso `•,.� �3p f/ --B/$ / U
�i � • e s G l /''� By
t s c B B25 i
n, sm azo
Q / C CK F 83� a e35! 5 O C o / + /✓ f BJ
845 ('
la
•B2i3 "-825 RFD•
I / gyp 2F03 ,�/` ❑
G .j939 \ f�``\ B20 •k� .BS 8 6 ND \ � J���'
•.T93,q WOp la /i a,B.� � � 5 S 'B54T II : � � /
8p
4-1 / B� • / / • :
y\\ ',:. \, ;f•.L� . PS „/J BLS � _ �..� ��' /., , . 825 �Bp2
/l
s .�sta — �. eie2 i�eie.T I �s - °b t / s ± ' 0 V B 2, • \
' B?� \\ ® �3 /�/ �1\ ^ .. � r�/' ��\\4RBOR B - 8 B4S '�� � OyV — $g0 • / /.
4RBOR� � \ � •/�74 .�2J8 :� _ _ �/ ARBOR \\ B/S B2p 82S B,�$�\ �,�� * 8}5 }. .
B195
ReD
9 / 2
y`
lReO
N
0
B�qb'AR
8.515$ 8$69• (/ / /835 I
I1 I PBOR
ARBOR
TBBi/ /\\ \ Oa d5
A
�{ .ya � ram,
/ \ /J///

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRH SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 1) 250001 FULL SIZE 8 OF
j ...
ar ,
fINQ 'IEPLA
Ntri`:VBEoPVR:RiYrt:;xMV19tY'[Cf4:;
I S
�✓J\\ BBO ba,
I\ 845
/ BJO 5 s S / [� B75 4BANp
p
s
69S Sp8qo l O
/P 8
55
NOSSE Q ��y Pf 850
///
w
eb
P / • s \ \ / Beo G <0 9\� � Bsrs� "'� B��\ \ drs x
_ 4
r • B°2S 30\ �\ 1 I $�BT., I 2 � • �' 875 BS° ,B,
C \ •
B
/\ 947
95
• \
eap C C�� - 690
-or
I \\ \\I l 9 f S B �Ga BAP S7E .�E' ERY. BLS
aReoR � c \ r � � F 1. � ._ •
1 \4R R \/� 8�. ARB°R^!/!� OS ` B35 \asr rF K ,• _ !Q �9'�"' .
840
/ J
845s
! 4 897 7
j \
840 SS-
895
/-855

R - 2310 e SR 1572 AST SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) AND US 221 FROM NC 16 TO SCALE 5000;I HALF SIZE SHEET
0O .VF ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE 2500:1 FULL SIZE TRI
. DI ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2) IOF 6
�\ .. y T
PRx LI nug PLANT
INCOMPLETE PLANS
A if
\ _ a
4� • ,� �I n� Q �'+o N
1
,ys � a /, • \/ � z
Y \
I I—
P�� u,J
� R+`N-�==� 9f� .w° Q\`}• P9' �•y.F III n � �•�I ._ry.-� \ P�• (/')
. y
i � ♦ �` R T� l dl y Id _ � u��' Q
LS ,
1 \ $
I 41 /II

• R-2'310 o SR 1572 (EAST SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) AND US 221 FROM. NC. 16 TO SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE 250001 FULL SIZE 2 OF F
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2)
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET NO. 1)
ass \—\�a, � ��{ ,�;: • F
B T
.s \�� � P'?s ems I so/ � / •11 � � 1 B �l l /�r n �
t
/ H80// •. \3 s �SFD 880 1 / U � y �Y 5
e 975 ass s J p!lll I l \n !J• ro
LIPS
HAMS LR£EK�� • �' ° SS 2SBK 8 / / l
9 �l
� o � s� .•: v �� 855 __� C( .._ .. ' / / / �// \n
BTD a a��•"::, .,•%.-� 86s � S _ _ � / .. I@
\ • 85516
\ ✓ \
\�865870.
p
n
890
915
� / � / � •eds •e9s �� n �� 5 3 N
w
o .
• n
\ \ } LINE (SEE SHEET NO. 3)
l MATCH L

R-21310 o SR 1572 (EAST 'SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) AND US 221 FROM NC . 16 TO SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE 250001 FULL SIZE
3 OF
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2) F
..:.:....:...:........:.. ...........:.......
1T+1 034 PLETE.'.PL S
P
86o
g55 Q \ \_g� 0pB yd 870
8 \ �—
� 845 0043 a�
ma _
gga2 11 9q0 855\ \ W 5
O�\
�N ^�.5 ZO%Z vaa ✓ B•JS ° 840
860 /6so so ,Bis n aP 43 35 Z C \�
Pi Sta 5' T 8J0 / W
x ess � C � �� ii/GGG C;- L.L�
\` r azo �✓- o —
�4s\\ eso /' 1 >aB°a^ �` Z— C —� i � �
Bro zs P F F F \ gz B LL.
7
\ BJ\eao / `F - t F �F �15 F g •i _/�a j,•1r-.—...,�:! • C �zC L
O• \B3s �tlg • 5r'� p ti"BO 80}a ' Byli 7 �
� B3 �✓ �/••• � 4 .. �' • piB 8p5 ��� _ 0 a 5 �p �5 Zfia
-;, 0 0,p �' G ge••���R 4� � ., 000 _- 52 ;_ B}' ' / 2 j%�1 �e .— `' a9'1 azS 'B
B75
LJ
G�/ • 830 �--
\ 35
- �•s %l� '�G\ / • ! p'•.�\ g� 86 920 Bos Q
-50
_ 1
es 1 \ 0a — _ _ � e • "'l N - B35 �� 1912
• / r+
/ I B� �� g191 \ � `` I 845 • nge _-_—.840 � r L'.�
7952 1955
0a5 /
g151
\ 6i818 ___�\ 0168 � T 5 � \ /// � • 1 P BDR J � RUINS
NATNawS CR£ER 8153
eco
g5055
/845
650
\ 860

R-2310 a SR 1572 (EAST SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) US 221 FROM NC 16 TO SCALE 5000:1 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE 250001 FULL SIZE 4 OF F
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2)
Is P3 ELIASINARY `PLAM
no::Hvr::use: c:>cosrsxe�vwx>::::>:::
N .
S
. 8638\ wo L���\
os _ � � ll �•8678�\.
A� LL.J
w
Al '
BBs \\ \\ � �Bss w� 1/
I x W
I 1 W
(„ • 5
g n
w'
n •
ir
��/ / - l\\ P OX l0 \ \ 5 � I� \ i �/.l .I� � "1 \• / fAP
\\ 1
�+ .B
\?I Bzs zs/
C ` 793a S C 1 Bap \ G B
'9 Q
,\ •, O ,,�7, \
3 G oil e
t�' �G// I�� C �� �/ � •w �\ 5 G/l s e c � aas � \w�� /� � J, .
8� B3
• �nD • 3 S
4
C BZ/3 B25 \ 0 gq5 B4/,a ISFD / ePo �\ 0 Bt0• (y�/
r9 B B� iSFp • ❑ Jam"
I 39 20 BSB6•
P040 D e\ /
\ J O5
B'B
1 2 R 5' Ci
\\ / T % / Bnsy�,j gE • \ 825 7Bo2
SB .791a� .I '�'--� // BiB�� BiBJI€' B2S B� I j r s !4/ O V B •
TQ \ t.f'•. � `ARBOR � \ 2• • .
/ I.•• -. - � �/,Bi7g 1 Bab By /
4RBOR \ .i'A78 BJS B52 •
\\ - \t ❑ / \
m.7906 B.rO 3 2SF0 / \ /
855
4RBpR 1\
4RB
I 4RB R \ / \ • RBOR �\\ 14RBOR I I/ NfR N Ep BS / 1 W
7Bg 1, r // 1\
.• 1 I 4R8pR \ 1\ / �^_—� BSy � Ba99 _\ 1 2
r�6 // \\ 4RB �� •B3fjr Nf'N RNER /(// f( �\
�
\RBOR\ 787 r / F /\ \\ aR eza Bs�a
855
mo

R-2310 e SR 1572 (EAST SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) AND US 221 FROM NC 16 TO SHEET
ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRI
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2) 250001 FULL SIZE 5 OF 4
a � �
3
w 0�
835J
'6 V70 1 ':fiD.t�b't VS�k.i!6R.1tI6,nCGI'11$fft9N:�: (EF 870
B6o ^\655J 1-845 82B .
� �y
B I B35 g30 � _1s n
////l b I gZ9 //• 'bS' Qo
es f fl �S B,3B l / / o
7 ao A ` Q/,./
/
�pN 7854 II Bz - B /�� ,4 / 6371
o
V ` C BJ5
O
830
825 8z42 * II _ /'`^S� w
s �
n9,a new, � \ s/� (\�1 _ $ •� � ���—`B C
LLJ
n92 >� ��„ R B C C f f \ C C as �B soB7 s 7 B pm w
'7n.9 �` II 1•t f f�B� \ \ � `� 5 •Z ny?0R4 4 4
f
/ / p
1 S 7807 7 • R NS l
" 7807 •780 7813�•••81J'.-
d
$ n99 i ti .✓ \\ 1 c s C C C7 i nae 825
^ . pep 781J• • _
7812 7-1. I \ • 7907 g00
1e1.4 79s gap.9 V J 9s ) F F F •` EP
v 792 CReJ+BER LRE��9.9 B35
n9A 7808 7 eE V
' �802 .r • 7868 � 805 . U
•n97 781.3 • •$ 7811 7 2� / Sip f •
O 8 Q
• f`JJ�a 7817 ng 40
� �/ ! ^ 1 V
• 7786 •80$ . . 'T780B �y4` • • l \ B40-9 5
7813 1 L
' .. n97 7B 780-5 9 7821 • •
m Bal.4
760.4 - •754J 785.7803
\ h 1
n92 780.4 • _ __ J \ 8�4 \
8/2 \\\
• • 781B 3D m 783.4 \ � 9JOB \ nPB
• 7B13 •781.4 < `
L
780A -
78ZJ 76,2. l 815
- p rr82 •782b 7827 / gP /,Z \ � 8083• �
/ C ISap /29 /7❑ ���f 7864 .A � •n
7823
• •7813 ,\ 7 s `� I 787,5 / Bhp 615
---- 76?2 I vo
•761.7 8 1 / l� •80E8 11 \

-R-2'310 SR 1572 (EAST SHATLEY SPRINGS RD.) AND US 221 FROM NC 16 TO SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE 250Oo1 FULL SIZE 6 OF F
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 2)
/ ss:;:pn.:p�<:vsa::anit:rcoxsrxyw{rox:><.:»>
:b;Q::YpQt;V9P':;FtiR::AI:iK::;w',GhU19tY1UK:i:
O S \�87 \
a B.94J\\ BUJ 66,
8918
v/ 855 _ 1 a
u 6� l
O alb s0wo ees__ ' f1970
[ BJO 635 i S /\I .. 2SF0
5 \ / o), B9$ BS7 /ecp ems`' 0`V
/ 3
B50
645
L/ /
� \ �/ / 1 / �\\ Z-9 S
0S� w
60, F / 6 \ 4R90R \ S v\1 I Say \ d
... • JS \ \ .. / .8g0 G G 5 i 6578\ m B56� 3•s• x
F R T C • BQ° / G S3+S I BBo \ s ess8
s,5 °ps � Reoa � • �
_m Sat I
60u 30J I 84B.T 1 - V • - 0 T/ B75 850
/r� �\ \ \CFME IERYI C C �' C C �� \_, f�F 'F F l `. jG • �� ��fijy/ 645 .B4)g
o q�
/r` � R/// 6 � s,5 W \ — // 54 � R4 • \\ ee°l C\�-r- ` \R B�
cl\
O M
4ReOR \��/ ( \ I � SG � Q B3 F,;:.F . � ) ` �, �•"—._ •
i/�1 J J/\4RBOR\ _- ---gym Bi'O S S O �aT 'SGs 6� V - / SFD SQ � •�
4R �835 ., 2e !�T/ F
e
U
\ V�
I .III BOR F \ \
\ \
\ 835

1

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 5000:1 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 2500e1 FULL SIZE TRI I OF 8
PRELIMINARY PLAN
nC0.Y9TNCt°x
I1Fr 4 �wr- INCOMPLETE PANS
0o aar cee roe ars ..miurtmv
I�FT LION
W �
Oee� Y 4 V
/ 5
` 9 6156
\ � , .xwi 1` � s �O ���� O � � •ems
� �8 /// ..ii ��� �� C` ® � • nro = z ° r O nsa eese ewr � evz �
/ X' e. \1Y/ Q •� sB*e • • ��'�.m�rrJ sp •ear `�\ � e5sti
°` //�c� 'II �/ Ky ° �. �p V ..fir °ss aq' • �a�O � � r,�.,
/� a E LI fI a ar e n • ,yri set rsro e ❑ sere \ �\ o-
zN
� �y� .ax a/ • • ' eau �isa, r ' R '�� � C C o �� s � Nf• f
e a x�e � sz+F C � �. ... ae m\./ m sosv � e • sae • � eesz C t t I P ,segl I� .. �
Y_ i e ai den ° ` ao - -1u// I� \`/ • I� q+M 3II ee 6e • xs e\
e� N f e � (C\\`�\/ � • s4s r 'so ¢xeiGr L+ea�e ;Rc,4xs / pr ' ms\`\
,Q as
`�4\ f
V � 9m my
ym �/ •9519 / \� �\1O e
835
sue � � —v.usapr

R-2310 a US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE ur-face existin 250001 FULL SIZE TRH 2 OF
OUN ERNATE 3) res g
:::�:Sil9 1V9F U565➢OiL d9NSTRV47YQt� \� _ �/p \
fJIHT?Tk ..k?I,ANS
.... e`�
::::aa>trgr:::usx::ron:;e �o::;wegmazstax:;
4
e
m °r
f i r
f
r
- 5 ,\
s
IT
� a�e • � �, a� �� Bay � I.
ay° \ Y \� b .a� �• 6 - �"aV� Ne \ � B75
875 BBO 5 8hh \N 50K0 F Y - • y I-'
(O•Y'% ees
a°
�s
� hQ 4L• a _ P p G C F � � ���Y :�}—� F Q anZA._—�vaT, .� \� s \\�\ /
= l ��C• ` .—. F h \ C S'y � �'� F 2 � avS CREST 4\5 � S\
LpE
C
665
8i0 Y�80 ate. 2 6 /�aab r\\G f'�0:.��' g50 �' y • � `
B75 B . .e" e \)� 855. •
c tt€€
w B85 , . Z 6 ISMS •
/ 670 \
590
(�) B95 1 \
w — y .
905
L.d � p yP � �•

R- 2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
250001 FULL SIZE. TRI
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 3 OF
.>:�-.{7Y�b�„1a`/tl�tS=Fps„k*�Y,-0gryC}A�N6Yfl4YGYi6i3�r.�;+; / 895
B
ilo SiUI::::1iSC P9K AI�:'!•A9.0.V737TiFN::: 9�'766924
gas \� A85zl
a
.. 9� \\ \ i i •BBq,
/ \
?3Q, + � L
9
o � 5 BA7 1
q �1 2SFD U 595 I L
m c - R'C Bess /��"/• ns / 1 CJ ( • J G
ul _
90 • J B J
Y B75 670.j - 1J 570
I y 'SBrD
64
8A
1 B8T,4• Y SBKD
5)4
/`*� 1 C C C
ASFQ• /• Br;72 1 DRCM4Rp,O �r/.� R BS44 S /a.J �S• /R I '�. G N S q17
A\ U3
\v p � r � G G C S
C C C C C • Bns y3 S KD �S B r G / %/ G s �ro�zs a zSB o B'S f
BB / G C, es�
p F F F C _
670
• 900
890 875
t
`P Dlt 0/0
\\ D64P
I/
Q 1s \
•
` s /

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE SHEET
-TRI
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 250001 FULL SIZE 4 OF
00
^ \�\�\9� i/ ' , •` 1� ..ice/
_ / \� III � /� � '•\ ... 5 /% I/� :/ I
Ak
1
// PREI.TD4T�F, ?l' ��ANS , i�V ��I sus __", � /ir ',' � • t'
-J
p/ $9 /
/ Y
\ m /
.9)9 \ \�� \•\ 9 I`\\ ll�, { ill /
0
/
�
9 e-5 `/- �s \n e55
Rio y c 15,
+:.'• -- F �s.�' zser° raj go l l l � e /
/ •�e2 j I .�: :•� - F F �� a �/ �, � was •`yw f '
�-
C e. s�L •"s g65 s° C 926 e �r.----cf /-
gr
a
� o
C.• C. A-... 'fir 8sj f '1x l "' �
/� yr$� �''.e v C �•�Z � �''• `P.'^ K / s 8g5 11 \ ate`, BJ� \R �2ss � �
• .. . ._ I ess � � � • C.
m
$ r • € 1 o
865 s
\
esa_
z ---� � Js
NS S9S \
1
s n
MATCH LINE (SEE SHEET N0. 5)

R- 2310 o US- 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 5000.-1 HALF SIZE SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing250001 FULL SIZE TRH
5 OF
cl
ell v
IS::A9.�:p?S!'R�R41SkiF.fld�:�3G�:oi::d4'.oP�?�7W.Ni; .
d6p /
/g55
$55 \ 1 81p
♦ ea5 �l g5�
\eY \• 845 �'o € gp43 �o\
ni !
1 m 840 a18 - .
L
g6a2 �� __ _❑isvD o 8. Wg5ab\ 855 5 o\� W
95p ll h _ BSp •--�
0 0
V 1
-60 $ 835 a➢ 83p \\ W
/ 855 6 82s �-7
605 C ws. on \ rW^
R\ kb
D 845 2 \ !� — •2 9.
LL
P O d\840
JC, EII
• Eptg 8� 5
? 8 y6a
S a3p��.50 6� ` ! TC• "/ ..- •. ooD 52 Bp34 5 m G$ L B!Al
i - � 81f • e15 .. 5 _i 2/8 B `Ll� Z�
(�/ �, b 620 .. .. 80 •"./. /� 3 w 8p5 `_'�.. , C' 9� �J
\ G� • 805 a3p 810 Blp 9
�.
f
1k ��, gas oy azs alp � �;• � �� G G Q
�• L
a 1 ` / \ / aEp !J �. j957 X`•iFL$p_. 'F•�F
�C F � � B131 P 1� 845 • pR0 1 840
p0.gDa g6y3/ •—•—•
_ 6D
E F elan paeD
o F F F F F F$Igb
• p� gltl NATN S CREEK
g30
835
p �5�
65
e e •; �� gapR oa ms [�
640 \\ 9 r\\ 860 00P /
gas Fo \ \ 865
655
860 \ �'V O \\ ppeo$ \\ V5

R- 2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 500001 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 250001 FULL SIZE 6 OF
�'ftE�il!2I:I*TRYPLAF�TS
CON,S......
INGgfPLaET FE, IS.
' IfC ND!Y::VS&Ptf0.AT.:A' kCOt?t9M�SJ:: m�
W N,,
1-6
�BBo/
aR
BOR \
LLJ
s, LLJ
B65
� •B° B7p `� �
N
?0 B75 \ I 655 W
/
B20 B W
/ s /
•B22J S j 1 , By0 R
w
/ o
• w
8a
��/ 1� ,{ LC LION S /, 6 �•'•' B3 \ /l 9 � 4�_ m OR`�
9 . O" m 1 � r�� �1 � / �e serp •� � .\ \ s \/ ao ` 0 =
795q �Os ♦ I� \ 406IL
V v \B3ig 830 '� x 8Z0 �✓r � �/ 925
✓/� � �7� 0 • g35 �x)' s / P �• ,� �� 45 ..�\�C 3o C.
C C 'co �/ //p n �o p� S f 4 840 • GII �� � O s q� � .� �B3s
840
Gr• 7•�9 �i � Br�3 �SFO d56b.• �iC �/
.79J9W00 C \ \ B,S � S' •BSJ� � • � � /
n $ • / R.79J,2 I gjz '79�4R oR\ \ \Bro
N \ ,� c c / i• '\ w . soy � 9/Bo.t � n � .i,
79!j// A P � eia��sss l ens ( y� n ` S •� e •V _ 1 .
?� a�3 � �1�l �' /%\\aaaoa r' BQS I C' \ +os � Cr 93D I • f+ '
4RB0 � .i�7 � \\ RB I l a35 '�1'`-. F \ � �r / ` \ •
6/5 mo 830 ��_ 3\\ C F 2BFD Q ZY 5 `• \
Byp I ..
aab
646 / c
! \� 1 //e 14Reoa Il l j �I /� — — — — — — \\ 1\\ / r� ����z - esz. b eas B°°s\•. \ �j �
\ /
• �\ ////
l \
0
\79I3`lARe0R/I N 95a6�B55J 55 B.%5a. /835—� \
1 � F _fB20 8579 /
7 7BB/3/ \ aR
/\\B /
/ m
_
AROR \\4R 4 855
/B0 BOR / / m
84
' f\\ Sao

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SHEET
SCALE 5000oI HALF SIZE TRI
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 250001 FULL SIZE 7 OF
3 � I
sal �
0
ati
O B'S� AN.CUMFLETE .ANS: B35J .
830
8165
860
855 840
850 S !'
835 s
830
O vo 1
8371
e O
\ 4 II
_ Ri— B3o e39 T
rrrR / m
�2
Bi0 (( O
Z I 825 _ L
•A AIA1 1r
f N6 � I ��
4s 4ErAE Y
JC�• s C s Sao 7964 /$ — W
\� T792 C _ + C i oo s✓ �7 G F f F F•p saf
S F F • _ e :.f' -Bt.�y�-.,�, �\. \ 195
779.4
7807 A'- G ll�� _
-` 7807 .7812 ; 7 B 807 7813``..78✓"iN . O \� 7c06 (Y/ T / Z
-99 I 4 3 • R A• NT\� 5 C ('. G cl -i \ PRB // 825
A•
778b
81 •--- \ 7907 F aA W T
781.4 8 J y�( • 7°'S g;0
12 1
_ 7813 7792 [RuIBERR/LREEX P9� IfR6 C �, F/ (•• c C �• � P
T79.4 780E - ��--- 0 VC h 0�' B35
T'97 7802 / 786E 805 0
7816 \
• 4
09
7803 7.80 .7806 PB R
��// / • • - \ 81.4
7797 \ 760.4 _ • R \ �J /\ rt2 \ A
78l3 761.4 /. \:�.
760.4 V \
• • • 7809• 780 ,7&7l 785 784 � \ O,Ly
T792 780.4 • • 8, 4 \\ \
812 Jam ` \
• .781E 783A1 � FRB (/
7601
- 78l3 780 � I
. .10.4 782J 7822, - 111 - 8 6
782b 7827 82 /�q m 1 N 8083 .. a
��766.4
"O I25f�
.7813 7 6 S 78715 / 8�° 815
1 _--�—�-_- 78Z: I B20
Q� 8071
\
.7617 .8069 'r \
'

R-2310 o US 221 FROM NC 16 TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE SCALE 5000.1 HALF SIZE TRI SHEET
ASHE COUNTY (ALTERNATE 3) resurface existing 2500o1 FULL SIZE 8 OF
/ ua xox vse rn�i:coxsrxacrwr�;;:;><:
INGOMPL�T�.::PI,A�IS.
;:;:;flti::1tM:::VSB;ibR;;itl tK,:;;xG6t?L§tp[UK:;:;
Q
B m
Bg4J\ BBs BO � S
' gas17,
FF
O B4p L �
B�
B35 e�0 S U /\I � BTS 2SFD ��j
B6S
&60
655
ass j' s
850 645
B3pr
R R � � soR 7/��\ •B� s0 \ (� �0 � ��
3 \`
- F / // 8 • $ \ Q\\ \ ggo p �u. B BS, '.9 • \ �'s��
- '/. , • 8vo e BBB i B BSSB -
es ems h ARBOR • n -\
— - —
865
../ •_ � ..p 3p� I 8482 '. � � B75
V T
4R80 ` I / • G� � ,B47S
T
C 1 OR
/ RBOR I
F •
. � / 6 F•\� � \ �r'4 \\ / �s Bop
/ 71� F •yip f � ��� �/ sf \ ,\.
\ P 9 B a\
u5
(4R80qd2 ��s ° `' BJ \ d R `v1' /'� C� •
J/\ \ o
AR 0 R \ / / S ARBOR / 835
r
\1
\ -835 —�-
\\\ i �85V

1
B a SfATg y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 25, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Craig Young, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development &Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Meeting minutes from NEPA Merger Team concurrence meeting for
T.I.P. Project R-2310, upgrade existing US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson
to just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line and replace Bridge No. 39
over the South Fork of the New River, Ashe County, State Project No.
8.1711001, Federal Aid No. STP-221(8).
A meeting was held on Tuesday, February 5, 2002 at the New River State Park in
Ashe County to discuss concurrence points 1 and 2 for the subject project. The following
people were in attendance:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers
Maryellen Haggard NC Wildlife Resource Commission—Elkin
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Becky Fox USEPA
Paul Bailey NC Division of Parks and Recreation
Brian Strong NC Division of Parks and Recreation
Jimmy Goodnight NCDOT—Roadway Design
Jason Moore NCDOT—Roadway Design
Steve Kendall NCDOT—Roadway Design
Trent Beaver NCDOT—Division 11
Neil Trivette NCDOT—Division 11
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT—PD&EA
Eric Midkiff NCDOT—PD&EA
Craig Young NCDOT—PD&EA
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

This meeting was a continuation of the concurrence meeting from October of
2001. At the previous concurrence meeting, the merger team had requested more
detailed accident crash data along US 221 before concurring with the purpose and need of
the project. A brief description of the existing accident crash rates along the project was
given along with information pertaining to current and future year traffic volumes for US
221. In addition, the accident crash rates for three other projects in the vicinity was
presented and discussed. After the overview of the project, the meeting was opened for
discussion of Concurrence Point 1,Purpose and Need. The following topics were
discussed:
• At the request of the agencies, NCDOT studied three similar widening
projects in the area and compared the "before and after"crash rates for the
facilities to see if safety was improved by the widening of the facility. In two
out the three study projects, the overall crash rate increased; however, in all
three study projects the "run off the road" accident type significantly
decreased after the completion of the project. After further discussions, the
merger team concurred that the purpose and need for TIP R-2310 would be as
follows:
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project:
The purpose of this project is to improve safety on US 221
and to replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River
in Alleghany County. The need for safety improvements along US
221 is based on correcting a restricted cross section that includes
a poor horizontal and vertical alignment that has contributed to an
accident rate that is 140% greater than the statewide average for
similar roadways. The need for replacing Bridge No. 39 is based
on the most recent bridge report, completed on January 9, 2001,
which determined that Bridge No. 39 has a sufficiency rating of
44.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted
weight restrictions and has recurring scour problems as well as
spalling and corrosion.
• The merger team discussed Concurrence Point 2, specifically the alignment
alternatives and the bridge replacement alternatives that would be carried
forward. The following three alignment alternatives were discussed and the
team tentatively agreed that they would be carried forward:
Alignment Alternatives:
1. No-build/routine maintenance continues

2. Widen US 221 to two 12 foot lanes with 4 foot
shoulders, 2 foot paved and 2 foot grass, from NC 16 in
Jefferson to approximately 0.25 miles east of the
Ashe/Allegheny County Line. Realign substandard
horizontal and vertical curves where possible.
3. Widen SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) to two 12
foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders, 2 foot paved and 2 foot
grass, from NC 16 in Jefferson to US 221. Widen US
221 to two 12 foot lanes with 4 foot shoulders from SR
1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) to approximately
0.25 miles east of the Ashe/Allegheny County Line.
Resign SR 1572 (East Shatley Springs Road) as US
221. Realign substandard horizontal and vertical curves
where possible.
• Plan sheets for the project were displayed and the merger team went through
the above listed alignment alternatives and looked at each individual curve
that did not meet the design speed of the proposed project. Based on the
existing location of wetlands and streams, the team was able to identify on the
plan sheets which curves would be studied for realignment and which curves
realignment would not be considered for. Roadway Design will use the
"marked" plan sheets to develop the preliminary design for each of the
alignment alternatives.
• The merger team discussed Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River. The current project proposes to replace the bridge due to its
substandard sufficiency rating. One alternative for replacement was presented
by NCDOT; replacing Bridge.No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River
just south of its existing location and maintaining traffic along US 221 during
construction phase of new bridge. The merger team requested that NCDOT
also study replacing the bridge in its current location, which would require an
off-site detour. It was also requested of NCDOT to study the use of a
temporary detour bridge, both on the north and south side of the existing
bridge, while Bridge No 39 is replaced in place. Impacts to an Historic
property would result from any work on the north side of the existing bridge;
however, this alternative will be studied as a possible bridge replacement
alternative.
• The agencies requested that a detailed construction methodology for replacing
Bridge No. 39 be included in the Environmental Assessment (EA). All
measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the New River, a designated
National Wild and Scenic River and an Outstanding Resource Waters will be
studied during the preliminary design phase of the project. In addition, the
PD&EA Branch will coordinate with the Construction Branch and will
provide a detailed construction methodology section for replacing the bridge
and removing the existing bents located in the New River in the EA.

• The Division of Parks and Recreation inquired about canoe access to the New
River in the case that the existing bridge be replaced in a new location.
NCDOT will investigate this possibility during the preliminary design phase
of the project.
• It was decided that PD&EA would revise the Concurrence Point 2 signature
sheet that was presented at this meeting and would send it to the team
members for their review and comments. Once the team has commented on
the revisions,the signature sheet would then be sent out for the team's
signature.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Any comments,
additions, or revisions to the minutes should be sent to Craig Young at 733-7844
extension 231 or by e-mail at [e-mail].
CMY/
cc: Concurrence Meeting Participants
Chris Militscher- USEPA
Dean Ledbetter,P.E. —Division I I Traffic Engineer

R-2310
Traffic Volumes and Crash Rates
Existing US 221 does not meet current AASHTO minimum design standards for lane
widths, shoulder widths, and design speed. The traffic volumes and crash rates, while
usually an indicator of a facility's "safeness", do not accurately reflect the sub-standard
design nature of the existing facility because the traffic volumes are low.
The current traffic volumes (shown on attached figure) for US 221 are low, compared to
other "US" designated routes, with volumes ranging from 2100 vehicles per day near US
221's intersection with NC 16 to 400 vehicles per day near the Ashe/Allegheny County
line in 1997. Volumes in 2025 are predicted to range from 4200 vehicles per day near
US 221's intersection with NC 16 to 1000 vehicles per day near the Ashe/Alleghany
County line.
The 1996-1998 (most recent crash rates available) Statewide Average for a 2 lane
undivided Rural US Route is 193.93 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
The accident data(from Jan. 199 to December 00) shows a total of 43 crashes along US
221 from NC 16 to the Ashe/Alleghany County line, none of which were fatal. This
resulted in a crash rate of 272.19 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles, which is
approximately 140% greater than the statewide average. The majority of the crashes, 25
of a total 43, were single car accidents were the vehicle either ran off the road or struck
an� animal.
C an.
('U�uJ rrts�v� vur/12 .� 3 mw't- 0-6 q5
d✓Ut�vtk � J

i
SR 1572 Tom Fowler Rd
6 R-2310
500 vpd-2000 ADT
SR 1571 E. Sha"Spnings ' South Fork o100 vpd-2000
"VC]6 .
025
2000 vpd-2000 ADT END
3500 vpd-2025 ADT
E.shadey Springs Rd PROJECT
Tom Fowler Rd U S 22 I
BEGIN
PROJECT
1
US 221 east o Ikew River
vp� r • • 564 vpd-2000
1100 vpd-2025 ADT
rp
ii est of the New River
d-2000 ADT
vpd-2025 ADT
Us 221/NC16 /
N

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETr
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 19, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: File 9 2002
FROM: Craig Young, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development& Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Meeting minutes from NEPA Merger Team concurrence meeting for
T.I.P. Project R-2310, upgrade existing US 221 from NC 16 in Jefferson
to just east of the Ashe/Alleghany County Line and replace Bridge No. 39
over the South Fork of the New River,Ashe County, State Project No.
8.1711001, Federal Aid No. STP-221(8).
A meeting was held on Thursday, October 11, 2001 in the Photogrammetry
Conference Room to discuss concurrence points 1 and 2 for the subject project. The
following people were in attendance:
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers
Maryellen Haggard NC Wildlife Resource Commission—Elkin
Cynthia Van Der Wiele NC Division of Water Quality
Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO
Brian Strong NC Division of Parks and Recreation
Jimmy Goodnight NCDOT—Roadway Design
Jason Moore NCDOT—Roadway Design
Steve Kendall NCDOT—Roadway Design
Eric Black NCDOT—PD&EA
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT—PD&EA
Lubin Prevatt NCDOT—PD&EA
Eric Midkiff NCDOT-PD&EA
Craig Young NCDOT—PD&EA
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE. [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

A brief description of the existing conditions along the project was given along
with information pertaining to current and future year traffic volumes for US 22 L. In
addition, accident crash rates were provided to the meeting participants since they were
not included in the Merger Meeting Information package that was sent to the Merger
team 2 weeks prior to the meeting (a copy is attached for those team members not present
at the meeting). After the overview of the project, the meeting was opened'for discussion
of Concurrence Point 1, Purpose and Need. The following topics were-discussed:
• The initial "Purpose"presented at the meeting by NCDOT stated that US 221
should be "upgraded to comply with the AASHTO minimum design speed for
rural collectors in rolling terrain and replace Bridge No. 39 over the South
Fork of the New River." Upgrading US 221 would require a minimum design
speed of 40 mph for horizontal curves.
F • The"Need" for the project was discussed and NCDOT felt that upgrading to
AASHTO minimum design standards was necessary due to the substandard
curves, shoulders, and lane widths present along existing US 221. In addition,
NCDOT stated that there is potential for driver misperception along existing
US 221 due to the fact that the route is signed as a US route, yet it does not
meet the AASHTO minimum design standards. In addition, Bridge No. 39
over the South Fork of the New River, has a sufficiency rating of 44.1 out of
100. This is below the minimum sufficiency rating and thereby qualifies the
structure for replacement. A separate Categorical:Exclusion(CE) for
replacing Bridge No. 39 was completed in September 1996 and is.'attached.
• The resource agencies present expressed concern with the "Purpose and
Need" as it was presented by NCDOT. The agencies felt that the AASHTO
standards could potentially be too strict and would thereby require major
improvements along the project corridor in order to upgrade the facility to
meet the minimum design standards. They also stated that replacing Bridge
No. 39 should be included in the Purpose and Need statement for the project.
• NCDOT staff proposed to change the Purpose and Need to "improve safety of
existing US 221 and replace Bridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New
River."
• The agencies commented that a Nationwide 6 Permit would be applicable to
this project if a temporary work bridge was used in the construction of the
proposed bridge over the New River. NCDOT will coordinate with Brian
Strong, of the Division of Parks and Recreation, if this permit if applicable.
• The eastern project terminal at the Ashe/Alleghany County line was
questioned. The agencies wanted to know why NCDOT proposed this as the
eastern terminal since US 221 continues east for several more miles to Sparta
and is in the same condition as US 221 in the project area. NCDOT will
investigate the origin of the project limits and future plans in the area and will
notify the agencies of its findings. The agencies were also interested in the
"larger picture" for the area, specifically if there were any future projects
planned along the US 221 corridor in Ashe or

J
• The agencies were interested in the traffic volumes and crash rates along the
proposed project corridor. A diagram showing a simplified version of the
traffic volumes was presented at the meeting and is attached. This diagram
showed volumes along major stretches of US 221, East Shatley Springs Road,
Tom Fowler Road, and NC 16. It did not detail the traffic distribution
between major intersections, which lead to some questions pertaining to
traffic flow. A more detailed depiction of the traffic volumes along the
project area is attached.
• The crash rates for US 221 along the proposed project limits showed a 140%
higher crash rate index than the Statewide average for a rural 2 lane arterial
facility. The majority of the accidents occurring in a three-year time frame
involved vehicles running off the road. Most of the accidents occurred in
} tangent sections and not in the curves along US 221. The agencies were
concerned that if NCDOT widened the travel lanes and straightened the
curves that the number of accidents along US 221 would increase due to
people driving faster because the wider roadway and flattened curves. The
agencies requested that a comparison between a similar roadway that has had
improvements such as those proposed by this project be done so that the
accident crash rates before the improvements could be compared to the rates
after the improvements. NCDOT has begun this study and will present the
findings at the upcoming on-site concurrence meeting.
• It was determined that an on-site meeting would be held once information
pertaining to the outstanding items from this meeting was obtained. A
suggested location for the meeting was the New River State Park, located on
the project. NCDOT has obtained all the requested information and is in the
process of scheduling this on-site meeting for February 2002. The purpose of
the on-site meeting will be to drive the project with the Division traffic
Engineer and look at areas of US 221 that present safety concerns for the
traveling public. Concurrence Point 1 will be discussed and if agreed upon,
discussions on Concurrence Point 2 will also be held.
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned. Any comments,
additions, or revisions to the minutes should be sent to Craig Young at 733-7844
extension 231 or by e-mail at [e-mail].
CMY/
cc: Concurrence Meeting Participants
Dean Ledbetter, P.E. —Division 11 Traffic Engineer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT.JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JP-
GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201,RALEIGH,N.C.-27611-5201. SECRETARY-
February 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Michael L. Paylor
Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
Planning & Environmental Branch
FROM: Wayne C. Davis, Ph. S
Unit Head *j (/
Traffic Forecast Unit
Statewide Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Traffic Forecast for TIP# R-2310, Project
#8 . 1711001, US221 from NC16 to SR1158-County Line
' Road, in Ashe County
l
Attached please find the 1997/2025 traffic forecast for the above-
mentioned project . Also included are the truck, DHV, and
directional percentages .
Ashe County is located in the northwestern corner of the state, in
the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains . The terrain is generally
very rugged. The area is rural with an economy based on cattle,
timber, and tourism. In the center of the county Jefferson and
West Jefferson have a combined population of about 2500 .
R-2310 covers US221 from about a mile northeast of Jefferson east
to Alleghany County. US221 in Alleghany County leads to Sparta,
population about 1800, which is a minor industrial employment
center in this part of the state. The road has many sharp curves
and steep grades, with narrow shoulders . Some traffic, in
particular trucks, avoids this road by diverting to NC16 and US21
in Virginia in order to reach Sparta. The roadside is lightly
developed, with fenced cattle pasture predominate in the western
half of the project and woods in the eastern half . There is some
commercial business activity, most of it oriented toward
recreation. There is little new development along US221 now. New
River State Park is on the west bank of the river south of US221 .
ADT counts were found for most of the odd-numbered years from 1985
through 1995 for four stations on US221 between NC16 and SR1158,

and for one station on US221.-NC16 south of US221.. An ADT count-was
found. for each of the six .paved US2'21 Y-lines NC16. (north "of
US221) , SR1579, : SR1593 ; :SR1594, SR1571, and. SR1567 for most of
these same years. Counts were found for most of the even-numbered
years from. 1986 ao 1994 for .each of the five unpaved US221 Y-lines
SR1595,. SR1602, SR1570; SR1603 , and S,R1158 . Turning movement
counts were requested for six intersections. on US221 . A field trip,
was taken , to the site January 13714,. 1997 to observe current
traffic on and just off of,this road -and to look for indications of
new or planned development .. All .this information was used .to
develop the set of base=year 1997 traffic '.volume .estimates . The
current 1.997 volumes on this section of .U8221 .range . from 400 vpd
west of , the Alleghany County line to 2100 vpd east of NC16 .
According to,. the. N. C. State Data .Center the population . of Ashe "
- County is projected to show a slight increase over" the next twenty
years . In recent years Ashe County population has been growing
fast . The Assistant* County Planner for Ashe County. s.tated that
e land in the eastern and southern sections of the county is. now
attracting people who want to build "second" ' or "summer" homes, or
retirement homes . Ashe County already has the highest 'mean age in
the state`. Many building permits have been .issued for lots between
the South Fork" New River and Alleghany County. The South Fork New
River is a major attraction for people building "summer" or
retirement. homes . Developers have been developing land all along
its banks . " New subdivisions are just now being laid out just north.
'of US221 along SR1567 on. the .west bank of the river. Consideration
of the growth patterns' expected in this area, particularly as they
may affect US221 Y-lines,.. and the available. year 2020 projections
on US221 allowed the -forecast, of. .traffic. on this project to year
2025 . It is projected-that year 2025 volumes on US221 will. range
from 1000 vpd west .of "the Alleghany County line to 4200 east of
NC16 .
To determine future volumes for any intermediate years please use
straight -line interpolation.
If we can be of any further assistance on this or other .projects
please do not hesitate to call me at 73374705 .
WCD/jws
Attachment :
CC : Don .Morton, P. E .
Tom •Newnam, P. E .
Joe Springer
Gary Faulkner
L. C. Smith

Page 1 :.
N C16 SR15.78 SR1578 SR1570
QQ�
4700. ��; 200 c.13 150 800 `l�, A.
=1;
so zoo so- 10o4 so 1750. soo zoo 13 I..
2100 �. 1900 ' • 1800 00 5 1750 50
PM pm
21.00- ri. tI 100 60-
50 p. t
10 b3 0' I3
A,.
SR1584 SR1584, .
Legend.
X '' Yov.m.nf prohlhlf.d .... `: ..
DHV D.+Ipn Hourly Volum. (%}K30 - ..
K70 ',391h AIOhu[ hourly velum. .+ X o/ A.or Estimated 1997 ADT- Volumes
D "'D/r.cflon.t Flow .(%) ;•'
_... ` . .
. ..• . ... U3221. from: :NC16 tPH PH P.qk
o
' - SR1158-County Line. Road
:
County: Ashe Division:. 11 .
.•:. Note: DHV D. • - -
Indicates the direction D.''
TIP
'.' #R-2310 Date: February;:1997
Reverse flow dlrectlori for AM Aeak. -
Work Order # 8.1711001

page 2
R
SR1657 S 1571
A. 200 _�3 400 `13 s
150 50 100 300 .
1350 1200 110Q 650 500 700 .�- .. . .
P
fs M.�es
n n" 300 160 660 100 300 150
A'
450 a 650. "~ 450 ..�
s
SR1592 .. .... ':.: '. SR1593 . . SR.1594 .
Legend
X Yonment prohlblted ;. ... .. _
"OHV.� Dulgn Hourly Volume (9i)-K70 -
K30 90 high..t• hourly volume a• %'of AADT -
Estimated 191�97.ICADT .'Volumes
th
D DUeotlonal Flow (%1 - US221..•from NC1G 'tO
'PY S PM Puk _ ..
..
(g g) .. ng.l.,.rrsr.(xi . SR1158-County Line Road
Note: DHV:-t>•D -. ..
County: Ashe Division: 11.4
Indicates the direction D. -
TIP #R-2310 Date: February;•1997 -
•<Reverse floW.direction.for AM Peak.
Work Order# 9.1711001 '

page, .3::.
9R1570 SR1567,: ,SR1158. . . ..
= -
s ,0
.. 5 ��a 150 ��3 . 50-
I .
-'700 600- 550 1 so- Q so 550 goo so 500. 400 so= 50. 500
is P—�ed' - .. O - PM
I6 2I. 700. 50- 100 60. 700. - 50• 100': 73—�eo
e 100 ba 150 _�a 10p 44 150 13;;
SR1595. ' SR1602. SR1603
Legend
X :: Movement prohibited
:. DHV De IOn Hourly Volume;(%)-K30 .. . .
. 930' 30th hlphut hourly velum• a :%.=or AADT - -
. Volumes
Estimated;.:.1997 ADT
,. D °.'Dlnetlonel;FloW `(%) .. '.
. .. . -US221 from. NC16. to
: •.PN PM Peek
...DuFIe,TTST. (%)... -
r•D, SR1158-County .'Line.'. Road
:.`Note• DHV D ., ..
County: Ashe Division:.1 1,
"Indicates the dire_�''ction D. ,. ,. '` - February,'. 1997
Reverse,flow d/rect/on for�AM Peak. - 'TIP #R-2310 Dat2:
_ . . .. Work Order'# 8.1711001, '

page .4.
' NC16 SR1578 SR1578 SR1579
9700 �a 400 13 300 �� 1600 1� A'
200 300 100 200 100 1.100 50o
4
4200 .: : � 4000 3900 3800 3100
PM
4000 is e.a, » 200 . 100 200 f00 s I—tom a i.
13500 �d'a 300 ��� 300 Ada
Ar.
SR1584.. SR1584 -
,Legend
99e'. VPD V.hlcl.M.y - - - -
X Y.—.0 prohlblt.d - -
OHV -0 h h Hourly Volu'hourly
... - - 4 Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes
K90 � 7ath hlghut 'hourly volum.'■a % .f AADT � � - -
D Dlnetlouil;Flow (%)
US221 from NC96 to
PH 'PH P..k ... .
(e;ej Du.l.,rrsr (%) SR1158-County Line Road
Note: DHV .0 - County: Ashe Division:41 -
'/nr//eates the direction D. - TIP #.R-2310. Date:' February, 1997„
'Reverse Now direction for AM Peak. -
Work-Order# 8.4711001

".page 5
•
SR1'.657
' � SR1571
300,
700 ., e.
L
I ,
. 30 4200 '
3100 2 2600 1900 14 00
15
001 '
:. e 1 P
2900 A
P. 1, 2 , ..
2)
t 6
I .
a� 1000 '1100 900
`b3 e
`l
;SR,159.2 SR15,93.° SR1594
Legend
888 V,PD Veo,cfaMay .. .. .. - _
.. .. - '
-.-- ,....DHV Dal n Ho fly Nolan• (%)-KJG
:., . ..
.
Estimated 2025 ADT". Volum:es
K38 JBth -highest:hourly volume ■a % oI AAOi -
• -D Dlncticnal Flew -
US221 from N.C96 to.
-:PY ....PM Peak. .,
reel `peals,ii3T„ r%,. SR1158-County Line Ronal
Note:;UHv-{�_D .. .. County:"Ashe.. Division•"11
-indicates'the'direction..D. TIP #R-2310.
Date' February,
- Reverse flow direction:for AM Peak.^
- ' 1997
Work Order # 8.1711001

- page. -s
SR1.570 SR1567 SR1158
e 200 `13 700 ��3 150 `Q3' .
o II„
I o zso
13 100 100 11001500 1400. 10 � s
PM .. f PM _
(5, 7) 200 100 260 150 200 150 � 200 i 3/
e 300 �ba 40.0 300 `b; 350 `la
SR1595 SR1602 SR1603 ,
Legend
. .999 VPD VehlcleiDey -
X Monment prohlhlted _ •.
DHV Design Hourly_Volume (%)-KJO '
X70 JOth highest hourly volume a % of nADr _ Estimated 2025 ADT Volumes ;
D Dlrectlond'Plow (%)
US221 from. NC16.. to
' PY PM�Peak '
: heal.,rrsr (%) SR1158-County Line. Road
Note: DRv D, - County: Ashe Division: .11.
Indicates the direction D.
TIP #R-2310 Date: February, 1997
Reverse flow direction for AM Peak.
Work Order # 8.1711001:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. STATEWIDE PLANNING BRANCH DAVID MCCOY
GOVENOR 1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER,RALEIGH,N.C. SECRETARY
27699.1554
November 22,2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Young
Project Development Engineer
Project Development Unit
Project Development and Analysis Branch
FROM: John W. Shaw
Unit Head
Traffic Forecasting Unit A
{ Statewide Planning Branch
i SUBJECT: Traffic forecast for US221 from NC 16 to Alleghany County Line,
` Ashe County, Federal Aid No. STP-221(8), State Project No. 8.1711001,
TIP Project R-2310
Attached please find the 2000/2025 traffic forecast supplement for the above-mentioned project.
Also included are the truck, DHV, directional percentages and turning movements.
Ashe County is located in the northwestern corner of the state, in the heart of Blue Ridge
Mountains. The terrain is generally very rugged. The area is rural with an economy based on
cattle, timber and tourism. In the center of the county Jefferson and West Jefferson have a
combined population of 3000.
R-2310 covers US221 from about a mile northwest of Jefferson east to Alleghany County, leads
to Sparta, population about 1800, which is a minor industrial employment center in this part of
the state. The road has many sharp curves with narrow shoulders. There is some commercial
business activity, most of it oriented towards recreation. There is little new development along
US221 now.
PHONE[phone] FAX[phone]

ADT counts were found, for most of odd-number years" from 198.3 to 1999 for six. stations on
NC16.-A.field trip was taken to the site to observe current traffic on and just off this road and to
look.for indication`of new or planned development. The County Planner was contacted. The
County.Planner.indicates that he has no new proposal for any significant developments in this
part.of county. The County.has no proposal for.any changes in zoning or zoning regulations in.
these areas.
According to N. C.--State Data Center the population'of Ashe County is projected to show a slight,
increase over next. twenty years. In recent years Ashe. County population has been growing
slightly fast. The County Planner for Ashe County states that land in the eastern and southern
section of the county is now attracting people who want to build "second" or "summer" homes,
or retiring homes. At the same time young people are moving out for a better future. The
assumptions used in projecting the year 2000 volumes_ to year 2025 were consistent with those
used in projecting the year 2025 volumes in the original R-2310 forecast.
If you require traffic .estimates for an interim year, you may interpolate using straight-line '
analysis between 2000 and 2025 values. In addition, should you require AM Peak Hour volumes;
reverse the direction of PM peak flow and use the identical design hour percentages. It is
assumed that there is no control of access with at-grade intersections along the entire facility.
If we.can be of any further assistance on this or other projects please do not hesitate to call John
Shaw at 733-5737 extension 73 or Harshad Patel, at 733-5737, extension 79,
e-mail [e-mail]
i
JS/hsp
Attachments
cc: Laura Cove, P.E.
John Alford, P. E.
Joe Springer
Gary Faulkner
L. C. Smith

page 1 of 2
SR1576
Flat Rock Rd.'-...
2
NCI
US221 'NC 16 .:. A.
1 1-
38 �- 28 29 28 .4 23 24
1
,� 1. F=28
76
48.
No . 28 —> I 1 ► 23 24•
38 1 O.. 1 O 1 29 28 _—� 5 5 1
.55�PM 18 .• 55 Plvf 18
N
6 6
U
22. 12. .
.1 SR1579
-
US.22
Greensboro
.
2000 ESTIMATED.ADT
SECTION SIGNED :ONLY FOR NC16.TRAFFIC
LEGEND.
- LOCATION••###; VPD--#OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100-S .
### MUCH LESS THAN VPD US221 from NC16:to Alleghany County line
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED. .
ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT:
DIIV. PM ►D Improve SR1572 and SR1571;and.resign'them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%) K30 of N�i�, and NC16 as US221-NC16.
K30=307H HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD. . COUNTY: ASHE
D •: DIRECTIONAL_SPLIT(%) ° Z
►' INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV. 11 DATE: Nov. 2000
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK : Hr off
(d,t) DUALS;TT-STIs(°ioj TIP # R-2310 W. O. # 8.1711001

NC:16. 36 `
page 2 of 2 -.
18
.W
18 v
SR.T574
U
• SR1570- .
6 3. 1 1.7 1 Huckleberry Rd `US221
4 . � g
2 . 2 N 4"
60 N t 4
3
0
1
` SR1571 2
1. 3
2' 1-
.Z: '.
3 17 1 5 3
- 1
1 ,1 4
-
?p 20 5 2" J P
3M 1 5
4
- -
—>
1 cs �)60 1 1 2
4
.. SR1572'_
. 6
20
4
US221
24 ' . 24'
2000 ESTIMATED ADT NC16 ;
A - — q�
SECTION SIGNED ONLY FOR NC16•TRAFFIC.
48
LEGEND LOCATION:
###,- VPD----#OF VEHICLES PEIRDAY,IN W.S
###- MUCH LESS THAN###VPD
US221 from NC16 to Alleghany Co+gnty hne"
V- MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT:
nHv. �paM� ►D Improve SR1572 and SR1571,and resign-them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY:VOLUME'(%o) K30 of NORM and;NC16 as US221-NC16.
K30=30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PEAK PERIOD q ? COUNTY: ASHE -- .. '
D. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%)
0 '.INDICATES DIRECTION OF D- DIV. : ;11 -DATE: NOV 2000
REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK - . Nr
.(d,t) ° DUALS,TT-ST's(%) OF. `TIP # R-2310 W O: # 8.1711001

page 1 of 2
SR1576
Flat Rock Rd.
1 v NC16
US221-NC 16_
38. <— 29 30 1 29 4 24 25 I .
4 29
76 50
10
29. � ► � 24=1
38 9 9 1 30 . 29 —y 29'.. 5 5 1 . 25
55�PM IB. ._. 55�M 18- .. 55�—'18 I�
N
_ N �
10 10 6
20 12
_
SR1579
US221
. , . Greensboro -
Rd.
2000 ESTIMATED ADT
SECTION SIGNED AS .US221-NC16
LEGEND, LOCATION:
no VPD----#OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S
###.. MUCH LESS-THAN###VPD US221 from NC16 to Alleghany County line.,
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT:
DHv_ (a d ►"DImprove SR1572 and SR1571,and resign them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)=K30 of N«„„�' and NC16 as US221-NC16.
K36='30-TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: ASHE.
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT °m° o
10 ,. INDICATES DIRECTION OF D ems„ Q�� DIV. : -11 DATE: Nov. 2000
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK Nr of tad
(d,t) DUALS,TT-ST'S'(%). TIP # R-2310 W. O. # 8.17,11001

NC16 ,
- 36
- page 2 of 2
18 SR1.574 18
- 1- 17 . 1 0- US221
SR157
6 3 Huckleberry Rd.
.4 g •
3 \ . �
N
3
4
�Z�ss 1-1 ► ` 1"1- 60 nM 2 N 4
3
1 US221
I ,
2 1- 3
3. 17 1 1 ♦_ 4 _ ..
_ 1 5 6 4
1
6 .
:20 20 2 4m . 1
6o f—is �,.
1-. 5 (5,2)
20 1_ 5 .., 5 � 2' 2
US221
20
25 25 ' .
US221-NC 16.
.2000 ESTIMATED ADT .
50•- SECTION SIGNED AS US221-NC16
LEGEND . LOCATION: .
###- MUCH LOSS THAN-###VPD
OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S
US221 from NC16 to Alleghany County line
X . MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
: _+- ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT: .
'�DFiV kd-MI Improve SR1572.and SR1571,and resign them.
DiIV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%j=11(30 °F Noark and NC16 as US221-NC16.
K30=30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME, �y
PM PM PEAK PERIOD.. " ' 9 COUNTY: ASIIE
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) °� o
p INDICATES DIRECTION OF D- DIV. .- 11 DATE: Nov._ 2000.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK `'Ear OF d'
(d,t) DUALS,TT-ST'S(%) . TIP # R-2310 W. O. .#:.8.1711001

page 1 of 2
SR1576. .
Flat.Rock Rd:
6 : .
3 NC16"
T US22T-NC1.6 < - .A
gg. E=..48. 49.- 48. �— 39.'' 4.1
2 1
'1
�-47
82"
r 41
68. 20 20 1 : 7 —� g 9 2
49 4 48
55 PM IB . _ .. 55�18.. .. I
R
�-- �
(5,3) A,
21 21
42 22
US221 SR1579
_ Greensboro
Rd.
202. 2 5 ESTIMATED•APT-
SECTION SIGNED ONLY FOR NC16 TRAFFIC
LEGEND LOCATION:
### VPD--= OF VEHICLESPER DAY IN 100'S .
###_ MUCH LESS THAN###VPD .: US2 21 from NC16 to A u lleghany Conty Lne.
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
'.ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROTECT:
oxv �a—M� n Improve SR1572 and SR157. and`resign"them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)=K30 of HoaTH and NC16 as US221-NC16-
1(30-30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME `�
PM PM PEAK PERIOD „ . _ COUNTY: ASHE
D' " DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) z
--► " INDICATES DIRECTION OF D „ DIV. : 11 DATE: Nov: 2000
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM..PEAKNr OF
(a;t) DUALS,TT-ST's(%) TIP # R-2310 W. O. #. 8.1711001

NC16
64 . . page 2 of 2 .
3.3
SR1574 33 SR1570
Huc er y
12 6 .. .1 31 1 N
kleb r Rd
14
6 N Ny
6p . 5 5 w�17 7
S pM v 1
s 4 � Is
2
- SR1571 4
2 F— 2 4 1 4 4 3
4 31 1- .. 2 8 5
►� 6
i 3.
8 5
35.. 35 , . 4 �M 2.
60�--is
35 1- . 6 � U ti 6
N �
SR1:57212
.
35 6 . ' US221
41 .,41
Ncl s .2025 ESTIMATED ADT
A 82 :.-. -A SECTION-SIGNED ONLY FOR NC16 TRAFFIC
LEGEND
LOCATION:'
### VPD---#OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S.,
###- MUCH LESS TiIAN.###VPD US221 from NC16 to'Alleghany County line
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED.
' ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT:
Dxv P'- n Improve SR1572 and SR1571,and resign them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)=K30 of"ORTH and NC16 as US221-NC16. '
K30=30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: ASHE
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT
► . INDICATES DIRECTION OF D. �s„ Q�� DIV. : 11 DATE•: NOV. . 00
0'
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK `Hr aF �'
(d,t) DUALS,TT-ST'S(%) TIP # R-2310 W...O. # 8.1711001; .

page l of 2
SR`1576
Flat Rock Rd:
.. .3 3
'NC
,. 16
US221-NC 16 . : ..
iA
68_ 4 50 51 50 t— 41 : 43
�—
_ 1 2 -
• l
y
1
49 ,
136' `
2',
/� 86
50
( ► 41
,68 18 18 1 51 49 —, 50 43
9 9 2
rn4
. 55 PM 18 55:�PM I2 .. - .. .55�-12
..
_ . 5 4>
0
19. . 19 11 11
38 -22
US221 SR157.9-
Greensboro -
Rd - .
2025 ESTIMATED ADT
SECTION SIGNED AS US221-NC16
LEGEND. LOCATION:
### VPD-=--#OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S
US221 from NC16 to Alleghany County line.
###:- MUCH LESS THAN###VPD ..
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT: ,
DHV P—M(a D - •. '.• -.. Improve SR1572•and SR1571,.and resign them,
T)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%) K30 of KORTH and'NC16 as.US221-NC16. ,
1C30=30711 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: `ASHE ,
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) -.' q c
INDICATES DIRECTION"OF D �„ Q DIV. : 11 DATE: NOv: 2000
REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK *'Nr OF
(d,t) DUALS,Tr-ST s��r°j TIP.# R-2310 - W. O: # 8.17110,01,

66 .
N C 16 _ page 2 of 2*
SR1574 33
N
•
US221
1.2
s
c' 10 14,
N
T_ 6o a, US221 N
s .
4 �S/ ,
5
_ - 7
1�► 2 2
AIL
1
_ 2 4 1 4 _ 6 5
4 31 Z
1' 2 8 .1 .
y _10
10 � 5
35.. . 35 4. rNt 2. 7,
8/ • 1 8 6 —► (5,2) 2 2
- 8 4 , .`5
35 1_ . 8 �� �
4
. US221 . :. : '
8 :
•35 8.
43 43
US211 NC16
2025 ESTIMATED ADT
A:- - A' -SECTION SIGNED AS US221-NC1'6
88
LEGEND . . LOCATION:
### VPD--7#OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S
MUCH LESS THAN###VPD US221 from NC16 to Alleghany.Cou`my line".
2-4-:.ONE-WAY
MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
� — .ONE-WAY MOVEMENT PROJECT:
DHv "M Improve SR1572 and SR1571,and resign them
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)=K30 of NCH and NC16 as US221-NC16.
K30-=30711 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD . " COUNTY: ASHE
D' DIRECTIONAL SPLIT(%) °
► INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV. : 11 DATE: Nov. 2.000
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ror op T �
(d,t) . .DUALS,TT-ST'S(°i°) .; - TIP #. R-2310 . W.O. # 8.1711001

c
Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP# B-1037
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f)s
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGI-IWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-
+ Date{,,H. Franklin Vick,P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9/z4/9�
Date Nichol raf, P.
el
Val—Division Administrator,FHWA

s
Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP# B-1037
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC 4(fls
September 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Date Jo L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
`l-l7-96 W4 Ke � o IT" 0aR
H
Date Wa a lliott �, � QQ�oEESSip�"`/�y9%;
Bridge Project Planning Engineer,Unit Head fSEAL
r i
= 6976 : -
Date Lubin V. Prevatt,P. E.,Assistant Manager '�•,, VQRM.�`��
Planning and Environmental Branch

s
Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP# B-1037
Bridge No. 39 is located in Ashe County on US 221 crossing over South Fork .
New River. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program'
(TIP)-as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a"Categorical Exclusion." No.
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 39 will be-replaced with a new bridge,on new alignment
approximately 15 meters(50 feet)south of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during:construction.
The new bridge will be approximately 140 meters(460 feet)in length and 8.6
meters (28 feet)in.width including two 3.3-meter(11-foot)lanes and 1.0-meter(3-foot)
offsets.New approaches will extend approximately 122 meters(400 feet)to the west and
61 meters (200 feet)to the east. The roadway will include two 3.3-meter(I 1466t)lanes
and 2.2-meter(7-foot)grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed
shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters(4-feet)where guardrail is not required. The existing
bridge will be removed upon completion of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design
work,the design speed will be approximately 50 km/h(30 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is$2,200,000 including$2,000,000 in
construction costs and$200,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
1997-2003 TIP is$ 1,380,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices(BMP's)will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into"Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit No. 23 or General Regional Permit No. 31 will likely be applicable to
this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 23 or
General Regional Permit No. 31 a North Carolina Division of Environmental -
Management(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be obtained.

s
The piers from the existing bridge will be cut off level with the river bed instead
of being pulled out if possible. This will minimize sedimentation resulting from-the
project.
The private drive crossing under the east end of Bridge No. 39 will be kept open
during construction since this is the only access for residents living north of the bridge
along the east bank of the South Fork New River.
At an abandoned service station located-east of the existing bridge structure there are filler caps,indicating underground storage tanks. During design,efforts will be made
to avoid the underground storage tanks if possible. If it is determined that the tanks .
cannot be avoided during design,a geotechnical investigation will be required to
determine what action might be required.
Bridge No. 39 and the New River General Store have been determined to be
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.,-Coordination between
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO),FHWA, and NCDOT resulted in the
following commitments to protect or mitigate for these resources:
• Bridge No. 39 will be recorded as described in the attached Memorandum of
Agreement.
• Structure design will seek the input of the State Historic Preservation.Office in the
design of the bridge rails.
• . Blasting from the project will.pose a danger.to the store's shoring. Therefore,
blasting operations will be controlled such as to minimize damage_to the New.River,
General Store. As much as possible-,.blasting will be scheduled to minimize
disruption to traffic. Design will present their ideas(including shoring)to
preservation of the store to Mr.John Horton,Restoration Specialist of State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO),who.will offer comments on the suggested protection
measures. Mr.Horton can be reached at SHPO's Asheville Office(704)274-6789.
Because the South Fork New:River is designated as a National Wild& Scenic
River,NCDOT has coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health,and Natural Resources,Division of Parks and Recreation. As a result,the
following commitments will be implemented:.
• NCDOT will maintain access to recreational users of the South Fork New River
during construction.
• Before construction begins,the Division 11 Engineer will insure that"Bridge
Construction Ahead"signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the
bridge to alert boaters.
• NCDOT will keep the South Fork New River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts will be made in both design and construction to maintain as
wide a channel opening as possible..
• NCDOT will(where feasible)minimize the number of piers required in the channel
for the new bridge. The spans on the new bridge will either maintain or increase the
open channel width available to boaters.
2

s
• If pier footing(s)which are placed in the channel come to within one meter(three
feet) of the water's surface,NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence;of the
footings in order to protect boats and the footings.
In early coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC),NCDOT has asked NCWRC to comment on the proposed project. The
NCWRC responded that the South Fork New River is not designated as Public Mountain
Trout Water in the project area. The following are commitments resulting from
coordination with NCWRC-(see attached letter from NCWRC)and standard practice in
Mountain Trout Counties.
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water
thus lessening the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish-
kill.
• The relocation of approximately 46 meters(150 feet)of an unnamed,-:small(non-trout)
stream will be required as a result of this project. As such,the Department of
Environment,Health,and Natural Resource's(DEHNR) Stream Relocation/ -
Channelization Guidelines will be implemented in the.design and construction of this.
project.
• The NCWRC will review the environmental document during the.404 permit
application. NCDOT will provide any plans for temporary work pads to be placed in
the river along with the application.
J.
• NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations on this project. The investigation
will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
• Both DEHNR(Department of Environmental,Health, and Natural Resources)and
NCWRC have requested that NCDOT leave in place a section of either old bridge
approach to serve as parking for a small boat launch which NCWRC proposes to
construct sometime in the future. Consideration will be given during design and right
of way phases.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT anticipates a design exception will be likely because the horizontal
curvature will limit design speed to below the statutory speed limit..
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 221 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It carries 600 vehicles per day. Because there is no posted speed
limit,the road is-subject to a statutory 55 mph speed limit. US 221 serves.traffic-
traveling to and from Jefferson,N.C. and Virginia along with recreational, local,and farm
traffic.
The'existing bridge was completed in 1922. It is 140 meters(462 feet)long.
There are approximately 13.7 meters(45 feet)of vertical clearance between the bridge
3

s
deck and streambed. The deck has 6.1 meters(20 feet)of bridge roadway width. There.
are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records,the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 44.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted weight
restrictions. The bridge has recurring scour problems as well as spalling and corrosion.
The bridge is posted as crossing a State and National Wild and Scenic River. .
A vehicle approaching the bridge from the west would travel down a steep grade
on a sharp curve which terminates on the west end of the bridge. As a vehicle crosses the
bridge and travels east it would climb a gentle grade and curve. Pavement width on both
approaches is 4.8 meters (1.6 feet)and shoulders vary from 0.3 to 1.5 meters(1 to 5 feet)
in width.
The New River General Store is located at the west end of the bridge. It has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
There is a small perennial stream following along the south shoulder of US 221.
It passes through a 1.8 by 1.8-meter.(6.0 by 6.0-foot)reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC)under US 221 just to.the west of the bridge.'
There are two buildings just off the east end of the bridge. One is an old
abandoned house. The other,an abandoned gas station. The presence of filler caps
suggests the possible presence of underground storage tanks. Approximately 107 meters-
(350 feet)east of the gas station, a private drive leaving US 221 turns back along US 221
and crosses under the existing bridge. This drive continues north providing the only
access to residents living north of the bridge along South Fork New River.
Traffic volume is presently 600 vehicles per day(VPD)and projected at 900•VPD-
for the year 2018.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that one accident has taken place within
the last three years in the vicinity of the project. The accident resulted from the driver
exceeding a safe speed and running off the road into the bridge rail on the west end of the
bridge.
There are two school bus crossings daily over the studied bridge. The School Bus-
Superintendent's office stated a strong preference for traffic maintenance on the project.
There are utilities.inthe area including aerial power and telephone lines. Also in
the area are the underground storage tanks mentioned earlier. While these utilities are in
the area,they should not be severely impacted by the proposed project.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are no reasonable detour-routes. Therefore traffic will be maintained onsite
during construction. The New River General Store is a thriving business that has been -
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This qualifies the
General Store for protection under Section 4(f)of the DOT Act(80 Stat. 931,Public Law
89-670). A new alignment to the north of the existing bridge would require taking the
General Store and violate Section 4(f)since there is a prudent and-feasible avoidance
alignment to the south. Therefore,only one build alternative to the south is-considered in
this document.
4
®e

s
The existing bridge will be replaced with a new structure approximately 140 meters
(462 feet)in length just south of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical,requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT COST,
New Bridge Structure $ 1,327,000
Bridge Removal 83,000
Roadway&Approaches 330,000
EngineerinE&Contingencies 260,000
Total Construction $ 2,000,000
Right of Way $ 200,000
Total Cost $ 2,200,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced with a bridge 140 meters(460 feet) in length and
8.6 meters (28 feet)in width including two 3.3-meter(11-foot)lanes and 1.0-meter(3-
foot)offsets. It will be located just south of the existing structure at approximately the
same elevation'as the existing structure with a minimum gradient of 0.3%provided to
facilitate deck drainage. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
Approach work from the new bridge will extend approximately 122 meters
(400 feet)to the west and 61 meters (200 feet)to the east. The roadway will include two
3.3-meter(11-foot)lanes and 2.2-meter(7-foot) grassed'shoulders to accommodate
guardrail. The grassed shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters (4-feet),where guardrail is not
required. The existing bridge will be removed upon completion of the new bridge. .
Based on preliminary design work,the design speed will be approximately 50 km/h(30
mph).
Total project length,including approaches, is about 323 meters (1060 feet). The
project will require the removal (blasting)of a section of steep bluff southwest of the

1
existing bridge and realigning approximately 46 meters(150 feet) of a small perennial
stream.
The Division 11 Engineer concurs with the proposed project.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. .
This project is considered to be a"Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan,.existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There is a potential for hazardous waste impacts depending on whether the final
design can avoid two underground-storage tanks.'There is no other known potential for
hazardous waste impacts in the area.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. The abandoned
buidling closest to the east end of the bridge will be taken as a result of the project(see
attached relocation report)and the second may also be taken. Aside from the abandoned
buildings,no other private structures should be impacted by the project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social,economic,or religious.opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state,or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will'not raise the existing flood levels or
have-any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality"neutral"project,so it is not required to be include_d _
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Ashe County,which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable,because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
6
�v

s
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore,it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. FARMLAND EFFECTS
'In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act(FFPA)of 1981;the U S.
Soil Conservation Service(SCS)was asked to determine whether the project being.
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS&ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Five structures over fifty years of age were identified in the area of potential effect
(APE)during the survey of historic architectural resources. The structures include two
twentieth-century houses,a gas/station store,the New River General Store,and Bridge
No. 39. One of the houses is located outside of the APE but the property associated with
the house extends into the APE. Of the five, only the New River General Store and
Bridge No. 39 have been determined to be.eligible for the National Register.of Historic
Places.
There is no way to preserve Bridge No 39(a deteriorating reinforced concrete
bridge)and so it will be demolished as a result of this'project.,The removal of the bridge
has been determined to be an' Adverse Effect. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)in concurrence with the Depdrtment of Cultural Resources(DCR),-and the
NCDOT and have determined the removal of the bridge to be an adverse effect.
Therefore,Bridge No. 39 will be recorded as described in the Memorandum of
Agreement(see attachments).
The above mentioned agencies have concurred that there will be-a Conditional No
Adverse Effect on the New River General Store. The condition is that the shoring of the
New River General Store be improved sufficiently to withstand the blasting required by
the project. This concludes compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f)requirements
with regard to the historic resources.
In the attached letter,the Department of Cultural Resources(DCR)indicated that
an archaeological survey was required. In the investigation of Bridge No.- 39 in Ashe
County,no previously unrecorded archaeological sites were found. Although there are a
number of sites in the vicinity,the bridge project, as currently planned,will avoid all of
these sites. Therefore,no further archaeological work is recommended. This concludes
compliance with Section 106 requirements with regard to the archaeological' resources.
E. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..
The South Fork New River, from its junction with the New River in Ashe County
to its junction with Dog Creek east of Jefferson,has been designated as a Wild and - -
Scenic River. The administration of the South Fork New River has been delegated to the
North Carolina Department of Environment,Health,and:Natural Resources,Division of
Parks and Recreation.
The proposed bridge replacement will not involve an alteration to the river or
stream bed,other than the installation of piers to support the structure. The project will
not introduce a new intrusion into the setting, as it simply replaces an existing bridge.
7
0e '

.. s
Best management practices will be utilized during the construction of the bridge to
minimize temporary erosion that may result in temporary deterioration of the water
quality. Therefore,it is determined that the proposed bridge replacement project will not
have an adverse effect on,nor will it result in the foreclosure of options to further classify
the South Fork New River as a wild,.scenic,or recreational river.
F. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiograp4 and Saik
The project area lies within the Blue Ridge Belt of sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks. The project site is in a narrow zone of mica schist,but most of the rock in the .
vicinity is muscovite-biotite gneiss.
The project region in Ashe County is located in the Mountain physiographic
region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly with a few low mountains. .
The highest elevation in the project vicinity is about 914 meters(3000 feet). The
elevation at the level of the South Fork-of the New River is about 774 meters(2540 feet).
The top..of a steep bluff on the western end of the project area is about 805 meters(2640
feet). The bluff increases in height east of the project area. The elevation of the existing
bridge is 788 meters(2586-feet).
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Wide floodplains'are
well-developed in many places along the meandering South Fork and the mouths of its
larger tributaries. Small floodplains are infrequent along the tributaries and along other
sections of.the South Fork.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Clifton-Evard-Fannin association.
These are well-drained soils of gentle to steep slopes at intermediate elevations. Subsoils
are clayey or loamy.
The steep bluff area on the southwest side of the project area consists of Chandler
loam. This upland soil occurson 25-65%slopes and is somewhat excessively drained. It
is characterized by rapid surface runoff,and the erosion hazard is very severe on bare and
exposed areas. It is also subject to slides in bare areas because of the high mica content.
Colvard fine sandy loam occupies a large floodplain on the southeast side of the
project area. This is a level,well drained soil that occurs along major streams,forming
on recent alluvium. It is subject to occasional brief periods of flooding.
"Ae.well drained Tusquitee loam forms on colluvium and occurs in drainageways
and coves and on foot slopes. The slope is 8-15%. Such soils occur on the northwest
side of the project area.
8

s
.The slope on the northeastern side of the project area is Watauga loam,25-45%
slopes. This well drained upland soil borders drainageways on slopes. The hazard of
erosion on bare and exposed areas is very severe,and it is subject to slides.
There are no listed hydric soils found in the project vicinity. However,the
Tusquitee loam may have hydric soil or wet spot inclusions in seeps.
Waters Impacted
'All of Ashe County is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The New
River flows northward through Virginia,joining the Kanawha River in West Virginia,
and eventually reaching the Ohio River system. The project area is on the South Fork
New River. The South Fork joins the North Fork to make the New River approximately
16 kilometers(10 miles)-downstream of the project area.
The western approach to the bridge is aligned immediately west of, and parallel
to,a small unnamed perennial stream that crosses under US 221 and empties into the.
South Fork immediately north of the existing bridge. This small stream and the South
Fork itself will receive all potential runoff from the construction area and the new
roadway. A small floodplain ditch'at the edge of a cornfield on the east side of the river,
south of the bridge,lies adjacent to the R/W. This ditch will not likely receive runoff
from the construction project.
Stream Characteristics
The South Fork New River is a large mountain river. The river at the US 221
bridge is-over 46 meters(150 feet)wide. The floodplains under the bridge are sandy and
quite narrow,but there are large floodplains adjacent to the project area. Woody debris is
built up along the banks and caught in places on rocks in the open water. The water
depth appears to vary from 0.3-1.2 meters(1-4 feet), except for some deeper holes. There
is a small rapid on the north side,and some large outcrop on the south side. The river
substrate generally consists of sand,gravel,rubble, and small boulders. There area few
small bars of sand,muck, and cobble and which are sparsely vegetated. The riverbanks
are steep,generally between 0.6-1.8 meters(2-6 feet)in height,and generally
non-forested. The bank on the southwest side of the river below the steep bluff is from
34.6 meters(10-15 feet)wide.
The small perennial stream that parallels US 221 has a channel approximately
3 meters(10 feet) across and a stream bed about 1.5 meters (5 feet)in width. The water
depth was up to 10 centimeters(4 inch). There were some small pools approximately
30 centimeters(12 inch)in depth,and an occasional larger pool with short falls up to 1
meter(3.3 feet)in height. The stream bed was mostly rock,with some sand and gravel
areas. The canopy was open over the creek in the lower section under a power line,but
closed elsewhere. This creek parallels US 221 until it is directed under the road through a
9

s
box culvert just west of the bridge. The road bank above the creek is at least 6.1 meters
(20 feet)in height.
Best Usage Classification
1
The South Fork New-River in the project region is'classified as a Class "B ORW"
stream(NCDEHNR 1993). Beginning at a point upstream about 19 kilometers(12
miles),between Dog Creek and the Ashe-Watauga County line,the South Fork is
designated HQW(High.Quality Waters). The named tributaries near the project area
(Cranberry Creek,Prathers Creek,and Nathans Creek)are classified as "B Tr+".
Unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they are
tributary.
Class "B"waters are freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and all Class "C" uses(NCDEHNR 1994).
Class "C".waters are"protected for secondary recreation,fishing,aquatic life including
propagation and survival,and wildlife."*All freshwaters are classified to protect Class
"C"uses at a minimum. Outstanding Resource Waters("ORW")are "unique and special
waters.of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which
require special protection to maintain existing uses." Trout waters("Tr")are "freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout"..The "+" symbol in
the classification"identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy
specified in 15A NCAC 2B.0216,the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)rule;in order
to protect downstream waters designated as ORW."
WaterQuality
There is generally high water quality throughout the New River Basin,with 66%
of sampling sites receiving "Excellent" bioclassifications in 1993 (NCDEHNR 1994).
This is due to the low level of industrial development and'to the sparse population. Fish.
tissue data are all.below EPA and FDA limits(NCDEHNR 1994). Water quality is better
in Ashe County,than in the Watauga County portion of the drainage. There are chemical
and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and physical(AMS or
ambient monitoring system)and/or benthic macroinvertebrate(BMAN)samplings]
available for several stations in or near the project vicinity(NCDEHNR 1994). The
bioclassification for a station on the South Fork at the US 221 crossing in the project area
has gone from Good in 1985 to Excellent for all but one sampling event since 1987,
including 1993. A sampling site on Cranberry Creek was rated Good in 1990 and
Excellent in 1993. Stations-on Nathan and Prathers Creeks were rated Good-Fair in
1990. A stream nearer Jefferson below the waste water treatment plant(WWTP)was
rated Poor in 1986 and Fair in 1993. A stream below an abandoned copper mine was
rated Poor to Fair in 1993.
There are only five dischargers in the New River Basin with a permitted now
equal to or greater than 0.5 Million Gallons per Day(MGD)and only 30 known
10

permitted dischargers altogether. The South Fork sub-basin includes the Boone WWTP
(3.2 MGD)and the Blowing Rock•WWTP (0.8 MGD)in Watauga County. The Jefferson
WWTP (0.38 MGD)in Ashe County is the WWTP nearest to the project area.
Anticipated WaterResource Impacts
Water quality data indicates that streams in the project area are presently in good
to excellent condition,and apparently supporting their designated uses. The designated
uses are in classifications that require high water quality. Construction impacts could
degrade these waters,with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting.water quality
from a biological and chemical standpoint..
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and
inputs deriving from construction,appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures,and
appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices must be employed
consistently.
There will be two stream crossings,the major crossing of the New River and the
minor crossing of a small perennial stream. A section of stream that runs parallel to .
existing US 221 may be altered_ or'relocated by construction,or,at the least,receive direct
runoff from construction.
There will be some unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though
much of the construction zone lies in a large floodplain,most sites do not meet the
definition of jurisdictional waters(wetlands), except for surface waters. There could be
potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Construction of this project will likely modify the flow of an unnamed small
stream,possibly more so than it has already been affected or modified by past
construction. The stream can be crossed effectively with appropriately designed and
placed culverts,but careful design will be necessary to minimize.stream relocation and
prevent discharges into the stream. Flow within the New River should not be
permanently modified because of, or as a result of,construction. If instream activity
involves the construction of piers,there is the potential for serious disturbance of the
stream bed and some temporary modification of stream flow. Bridge supports from high
ground on the banks must be carefully constructed and protected from erosion and
pollution runoff. Erosion control measures(Best Management Practices)will be
necessary to protect all streams,.and all instream activities should be scheduled during
low flow periods.
There will be some minor unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels,higher stream temperatures, and changes in
species composition will modify affected stream reaches.

s
Theproject,as described,impacts waters classified ORW(Outstanding Resource
Waters). Other classifications, such as HQW(High Quality Waters), WS-I(water
supplies in natural watersheds),or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds)will not be affected,and the project does not lie within 1.6 kilometer
(1.0 mile)of such resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities of the project area are typical of
the Appalachian Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation,as noted below,though there were a few taxa that are rather
rare.
Plant Communities and Land T -es
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project right of way. The predominant natural vegetation of
the project area would likely be classified as Acidic Cove Forest,Chestnut Oak Forest,
and Montane Alluvial Forest(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
For purposes of discussion and quantification,eight communities and land types
are recognized in the right of way. These are divided into two groups:Natural
Communities and Developed Land Types. The larger portions of the land impacted under
R/W are existing roadway and steep slope forest.
'Natural Communities
Steep Bluff and Slope Forests. This forest is developed on the narrow bluff
above the New River. The mature community varies from a rich,mesic woods on the
lower slope and base of the east-facing bluff to a drier,less diverse forest at and on the
top of the bluff. The slope is extremely steep and difficult to climb in most places. This
area is an excellent example of this community type. The average size of the larger trees
is about 51 centimeters(20 inches)dbh. The canopy is dominated by sweet birch,..
chestnut oak,and northern red oak. Important associate species in the canopy are
cucumber tree,red maple,and scarlet oak. The subcanopy consists mostly of northern
red oak,sweet birch,beech,basswood,black gum,serviceberry, and white pine.
The shrub layer is generally very dense,with rosebay rhododendron especially
important and forming some impenetrable thickets in spots.Mountain laurel is important
in one area where the canopy was open and around and near the top under scarlet oak.
Other common shrubs are.pepperbush,hydrangea, and witch hazel. Yellowroot is
common at the base of the slope. There are occasional alternate-leaved.dogwood,buffalo
nut,poison ivy,and wild grape.
12

s
The herb layer is diverse at the base of the slope. Common taxa here are
Christmas fern,hay-scented fern, asters,and bluebell. Some other herbs present included
jewelweed,thimbleweed, and virgin's bower.
The forest floor under the dense rhododendron thickets on the steep slope and cliff
area is generally open and bare,but there are occasional Indian-pipe,pink lady's slipper,
and galax. Some poison ivy and Virginia.creeper are also present in some of the open
spots.
Exposed rock faces are extensive,-and there are dense mats of a variety of mosses
and crustose and foliose lichens in places.. The lichen rock tripe is common in spots.
Rock cap fern,mountain spleenwort,and a sedge are present on some of the rock.'
The steep bluff community appears to be present and well-developed for the entire
length of the ridge toward the south, a distance of approximately 488 meters(1600 feet).
A similar community is present on the lower southeast-facing steep.slope along.US 221,
on the northwest side of the project area.
Disturbed Open Bottomland and River Bank. These open sandy areas are
mostly filled with lush weedy herbaceous and shrubby vegetation,particularly under and
near the existing bridge. The commuf ity exists on both sides of the river,but there is
more of it on the east side of the river where the floodplain is wider. Dominant herbs are
cut=leaf coneflower,jewelweed,broad-tooth hedgenettle,=wingstem, and goldenrods. .
Some scattered small trees are present on the east side of the river,including
walnut, black cherry,black locust, and common apple. There are.some shrubs and vines
present on both sides,including poison ivy,Virginia creeper,and elderberry.
Disturbed Remnants of Slope Forests and Flats.:One variation of this
community lies below an old house on a moderately steep slope on-the east side of the
river. Most of this area was cleared at one time. The general vegetation is weedy and
scrubby and does not comprise a good forest. There is a lot of discarded rock rubble from-
former construction. The common trees are black locust,white pine,black cherry, and
crab-apple. Common shrubs and vines are poison ivy,Japanese honeysuckle,blackberry,
and multiflora rose. Important herbs are wingstem and goldenrods.-
Another.variation of this community occurs on the north side of the eastern
terminus of the project. A formerly cleared area,including two old sheds,associated with
the unused house mentioned below is covered with tall lush herbs and scattered trees of
white oak,black walnut,black cherry,and black locust.
Roadside Cliff and Slope. This is a small area that was cut for the existing road
on the northeast side&the bridge across from an old house,that is in the R/W. This_area
includes a small wet seepage dropping into a wet ditch at the foot of the slope on the
13

s
roadside. The rock face is covered mostly with smooth sumac. There are a few mesic
herbs,including Solomon's seal,alumroot, shield fern,hay-scented fern, and bluebell.
Powerline and Small Stream Community. A small powerline R/W is cleared
over the-small stream that parallels US 221. The dominant woody vegetation is rosebay
rhododendron and saplings and sprouts of the hardwood trees from the surrounding
forest. Sweet birch and red maple are most common where there is a canopy over the
creek. Some hydrangea,raspberry,and rose are present. Some of the herbs present,
especially in open areas,are cut-leaf coneflower,jewelweed, and groundsel.
Forget-me-not and bulrush are common in silt-and sand beds within the creek.
Moss-covered rock is common.
River. The open water of the river under apparent normal summer conditions
covers approximately 0.11 hectares(0.26 acres). No aquatic plants were noted in the
vicinity of the bridge.
Developed Land Types
Maintained Roadside. Common plants on the flat roadside within the R/W are
fescue,witchgrass,bluegrass, orchard grass,common plantain,red clover;wood sorrel,
hog peanut,common purple violet,and jewelweed. Some Japanese honeysuckle'is also
present in spots. The particular mix of plants present is dependent on the lay of the
ground. This is a community maintained in a low state of succession by regular mowing.
Yard and Buildings. There is a maintained yard area associated with an unused
house and another building on the southeast side of the bridge in the R/W. The common
plants in the yard are bluegrass,other grasses,common purple violet,white clover,
common plantain,dandelion,wood sorrel,and ground ivy. Some shrubs,that are part of
the old landscaping are lilac, spiraea,mock orange,and a Retinispora form of
Cupressaceae.
Terrestrial Fauna
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area,given the evidence
available and the human population density and development,are given_below.
The diversity.of habitat types in the project area is moderate. The primary habitat
types consist of mature steep slope forest,alluvial floodplain(primarily with herbaceous
vegetation),a small stream community,and the New River itself. There are some
associated successional and ecotonal areas. The habitat exists as narrow strips or as part
of wider zones, depending on the habitat type. There are some large contiguous forest -
tracts adjacent to the project area,and about 50%of the project vicinity is in open fields
or low successional communities. The mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas is
14

s
beneficial for many species,and the species diversity for the vicinity should be fairly
high. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for birds, and
singing birds were commonly noted though not always identifiable. There are no ponds
or marshy areas noted in the project vicinity, and the distinct array of reptiles,birds.and
mammals that frequent such.areas is not expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat in the project area,terrestrial animals are here divided
into five general groups,four mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth
being somewhat ubiquitous. These are more open areas,consisting of the open bottoms
and river banks,and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats, consisting of the
disturbed slope forests and flats,the roadside cliff area, and the,maintained powerline;
forest on slopes and rocky bluffs;and stream and riverine habitats.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians.are American toad;Fowler's toad,upland
chorus frog,and spring peeper. The two-lined salamander,the eastern newt,the slimy
salamander,and the redback salamander are expected in the moister forest habitats. Seal
salamanders and red salamanders may be present at the edges of streams and in seepages,
and some other Desmognathus species may also be present. Treefrogs should be
common in the forested areas. Ambystomid salamanders are not expected because of the
absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles,those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink,rat snake,black racer,-rough green snake,and copperhead. .The eastern
hognosed snake might be expected in some of the more open areas in the sandy loam
river bottoms. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern garter snake,
and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested,habitats are eastern box
turtle,redbelly snake,ringneck snake, and worm snake. Ribbon snake may occupy some
of the damp meadows and stream margins in the floodplains. Timber rattlesnakes may
possibly occur on the rocky hillsides and adjacent river valley.
The avifauna of open areas include turkey vulture,field sparrow,and robin. Some
birds in intermediate areas include least flycatcher,wood peewee,and brown thrasher.
Some forest species include broad-winged hawk,ruffed grouse,and barred owl.'.Some
species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk;common crow,and
cardinal. Green-backed heron and belted kingfisher probably utilize the river margins.
Woodcock may utilize the non-forested floodplains.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew,
long-tailed weasel,meadow vole, and groundhog. Examples of those ranging into forests
as well as those open and intermediate habitats present-in the project area are northern
short-tailed shrew,masked shrew,-and hairy-tailed mole. Several species usually
shunning open areas,but in the intermediate and forested areas,include opossum, and
chipmunk. Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle,and red
bat might be expected foraging over the streams and broken forests. Exclusively forest
species include smoky shrew,rock shrew,raccoons,woodrat, southern flying squirrel,red
15

- s
squirrel, and gray squirrel. Muskrat and mink should be common along the ditches and
streams in the area and in riparian areas along the New River. Most of the shrew species
mentioned above,.as well as the woodrat and the spotted skunk,like habitats such as the
cliffs and rocky slopes of the bluff in the project area. White-tailed deer-,a typically
mid-successional species,were not observed in the area and appear to be absent, as
judged by the lack of tracks and browse evidence.
Aquatic Life
There are 20 native fish and several introduced fish known in the North Carolina
portion of the New River Basin,with four endemic to the upper New River and four
others native to the state only in the New River Basin'(NCDEHNR 1994). Gamefish
known to occur in the New River include smallmouth bass and rock bass. Fish(1968)
reports that there is exceptional smallmouth bass fishing at times. Other taxa should
include creek chub,white sucker,brown bullhead,channel catfish,redbreast sunfish,and
some other sunfishes. Fish that might occur in the small streams would likely;be rosyside
dace, creek chub,mottled sculpin,rainbow trout,and darters.
No aquatic amphibians were observed,but the streams and adjacent habitat could
support-two-lined salamander,northern dusky salamander,bullfrog, green frog,and
pickerel frog. The hellbender may likely occur in the New River.
Good turtle habitat is not present,but the snapping turtle is probably present in the
area. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in Table 2.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial
photographs onto which the prospective R/W was drawn. The existing paved roadway
was included in the area measurements.
Blasting of the steep bluff will remove'a portion of this community. The
bottomland community should not be as greatly impacted because it will actually be
bridged during construction. Relocation of,or construction immediately adjacent to,the
small stream system will produce a major impact on that community. The roadside
community would be completely destroyed during construction,but would eventually _
re-establish itself after construction. The edges of the other communities will.be taken,
thus reducing in small part the total natural habitat of these types in the project area.
16

' s
Table 2 Area estimates of community and land types impacted under R/W.
hectares acres
Steep Bluff and Slope Forest 0.22(0.54)
Disturbed Open Bottomland and River Bank 0.12(0.29)
Disturbed Remnants of Slope Forests and Flats 0.05 (0.13)
Roadside Cliff and Slope 0.02 (0.05)
Power Line and Small Stream Community 0.06 (0.14)
River 0.11 (0.26)
Maintained Roadside 0.02 (0.05).
Roadway, 0.10 (0.26)
Yard and Buildings. 0.08.(0:19)
TOTAL 0.78(1.91)
There will be some net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and
scavengers that utilize open areas. There will be a reduction in the available habitat for.:.
animals that require forest and intermediate habitats. Some habitat types will return
following removal of the old bridge.'The actual impacts to biotic communities may be
less than those indicated in the Table if some of the R/W is not utilized in construction.
The data in Table 2 above suggest only the direct takings of land and community
types due to construction. There will likely be other indirect effects. Blasting of the
rocky bluff will introduce indirect effects to the organisms of the adjacent sections
outside of the R/W. This bluff area is also very susceptible.to erosion and slides in bare.
areas. Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase .
because the total amount of roadway will not increase. The riparian zone of the New
River is probably an important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway
already disrupts natural corridor movement,so replacement of this.bridge will not.
introduce asignificantly new factor except during the construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such.damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury,placing of .fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
Fragmentation,of habitat is not an issue here because no new location dividing
larger tracts is involved. There will be no new impacts on the larger species and those
smaller species.that require large tracts of unbroken forested land(such as many
neotropical migrant birds). .
17 -

Aquatic Systems
Removal of the old bridge piers and construction of any new bridge piers are
potential sources of serious stream modifications, and utmost care will be taken during
these activities.
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will Increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms. The New River and one perennial small
stream will be impacted in this way..
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that.can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of
characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important
because of their habitat value for fish,wildlife and endangered species;maintenance of
biological diversity; food chain support;nutrient retention and removal; sediment
trapping; shoreline anchoring;regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology;
recreation;their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases.
Highway construction-in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1251-1376)and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE)has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of _
jurisdictional-wetlands were made pursuant-to 33 CFR 328.3 (b)based on best judgment
of required criteria(Environmental-Laboratory 1987).
``Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the most important
jurisdictional waters present in the project R/W,to which construction will be limited. It
is determined that the only jurisdictional wetlands are minor pockets associated with the
small stream which will be crossed.and probably relocated. None of the alluvial
18

s
communities associated with the New River in the project area appear to meet the criteria
for jurisdictional wetlands;a number of hydrophytic taxa are present,but the hydrology
and soils are not appropriate. Some jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream
of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from road construction. .
In the NWI system(following Cowardin et-al. 1979),all the streams in the area
would be classified R3RB 1 H(Riverine, Upper Perennial,Rock Bottom,Permanently =
Flooded)with some tendency to R3UB 1 H(Unconsolidated Bottom). The small pocket ;
wetlands [collectively less than 0.1 hectares (<O.1 acre)]along the small stream and:in-
one seepage area would be classified PEM1B (Palustrine,Emergent,Persistent, Sand)or
PUS2B (Palustrine,Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Saturated). It will be impossible to
avoid these in project design and construction.
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts,except for actual takings
under R/W,until the particular design requirements are known for the terrain in question.
Permits.
In accordance with provisions,of:Section 404.ofthe Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permits
[33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14 and 26)] authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect, such as when dealing with road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<O.1
hectares (0.33 acre),short bridge crossings [<61 in(<200 ft)],or because of their'location
above stream headwaters(1.5 meters3/second=5 fee?/second)or in isolated wetlands or
waters. Individual or General Permits are required for situations where the criteria for '
Nationwide Permits are not met.-This project will.impact the floodplain and riverine
system of the New River, a small perennial stream(crossing and probable relocation),
and small pocket and seepage wetlands.
Other permits may be necessary. Because the project area lies in a trout county,
discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek review and
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC)prior to
the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits(pursuant to 33
CFR 330.8). Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)would authorize the
project following NCWRC concurrence. This permit is specifically designed for
Categorical Exclusions.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity
in surface waters where a federal permit is required.:This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
19

s
Mitigation .
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and a
small amount of palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing
the South Fork New River. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report.
However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where.Nationwide Permits
or General Permits are authorized,pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. If an Individual Permit should be
required for the South Fork New River crossing,all sites will have to be accumulated for....
mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless,utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will-help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges.into
streams and wetlands,and soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as
possible during and after construction of banks,fills, graded areas,culverts,bridges, and
other areas where the soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and
borrow locations will not be placed in wetlands. The piers supporting the existing bridge
can be cut off to protect the river instead of removing them.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened(T),Endangered(E),Proposed Threatened(PT),
and Proposed Endangered(PE)receive federal protection_under Section 7 and Section 9.
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended. As of April 1, 1996 the U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for Ashe
County.
The Roan Mountain bluet(He o is purpurea var.montana,-Endangered), a
vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is found on high elevation rocky summits or on grassy .
balds in five mountain counties. This plant flowers in late spring and early summer and
fruits in late summer. There were no bluets found during the field study. The elevational .
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the Roan Mountain bluet are not present in
the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion:No effect.
The spreading avens ( eum radiatum. Endangered),a vascular plant in the
Rosaceae,is also found on high elevation rocky summits and balds. It has been reported from eight mountain counties. Flowering is from June to August and fruiting from July
to September. No plants of this genus were located in the study area, and the elevational
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the spreading avens do not exist in the
vicinity.
Biological Conclusion:No effect.
20

Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star(Liatris helleri.Threatened),a vascular
plant in the Asteraceae,are high elevation rocky summits,ledges,and cliffs. The plant
has been reported from six=mountain counties. The plant flowers in late summer and
fruits in early fall.,No plants of the genus were found during the study,and the
elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for this species do not exist in the
project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion:No effect.
The Virginia spiraea( i ea virginiana,Threatened),a vascular plant in the,
Rosaceae,has been found on riverbanks in six mountain counties... This plant flowers in
early summer and fruits in late summer. 'The riverbanks and floodplains in the prof ect
area were carefully surveyed to the degree possible given the lush vegetative growth in
these habitats. This easy to identify plant was not located. No wild spiraeas were found
in the area. However, suitable habitat does exist in the project area for this species.
Available information did not indicate the existence of any populations in the project
vicinity.
Biological Conclusion:No effect.
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any federally protected
animal or plant species.
During the original natural resources investigations,the March.28, 1995.edition of
the USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species listing included the rock gnome lichen.
The April 1, 1996 edition does not include this species. The following is the result of the
original investigation.
The rock gnome lichen(S'=oderma lineare)occurs in at least-ten mountain
counties on rock outcrops and cliff faces,at high elevations or in humid gorges.• This,
squamulose lichen,endemic in this mountain region;is restricted to areas of high
humidity. Such environments typically occur above 1220 m(4000 ft)or in deep gorges
below 762 m(2500 ft). Vertical-rock faces with seepage water'from higher forest soils;
that flows only at very wet times appears to be a habitat requirement. The lichen fruits in'
late summer. The taxon was not located during field study,and suitable,habitat for this. ,
species does not occur in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion:No effect.
21 .

s
IX. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(1)FOR A HISTORIC BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f)EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A.Project: BRSTP-221(6)
State Project: 8.1710602
T.I.P.No.: B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in Ashe
County. The new bridge will be on new alignment approximately 15
meters(50 feet)to the south of the existing bridge. Bridge No. 39 has
been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The replacement of the bridge will be an adverse effect.
es . N
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X F-1
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is 7
on or eligible for listing on the' X
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? F-1 X
4. - Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA,the State Historic Preservation
Officer(SHPO),and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation(ACHP)through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing X
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered F-1 X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X
22

• s
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different F
location without affecting the historic X
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle,as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or(ii) Adverse social,environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or(iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation,because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic Fridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge ❑
affecting the historic integrity X
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle,as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii)The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
23

• s
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning. X F I
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize-harm include the
following: (circle,as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated,the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety,and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected'or that
are to be removed or demolished,the
-..FHWA ensures that,in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record(HAER)standards,or other
suitable means developed through
consultation,fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use,provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
dO. For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO,ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
The bridge will be recorded as described in the attached Memorandum of Agreement
The new bridge will incorporate the"Hillsborough Street Panel"in design of the bridge
rails.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f)evaluation. Not Applicable
24
�e

r s
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies not applicable
d. US Coast Guard not applicable.
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge'. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
9 J ff-9b/
Date Manager,Planning&Environmental Branch,NCDOT
9�96
Date r-10/pivisi dministrator,.FHWA
25

_ s
X. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)FOR A HISTORIC SITE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f).EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH NUNOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC.SITES
F.A.PROJECT BRSTP-221(6)
PROJECT 8.1710602 STATE
T. I.P.NO. B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River'in Ashe
County. The new bridge will be on new alignment approximately 15
meters(50 feet)to the south of the existing bridge. As.a result of
construction,the New River General Store will be shored up to prevent
damage from blasting. The shoring will require a temporary construction
easement.; This has been determined to be a"No Adverse Effect"
conditional to the commitments listed in this document.
S NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics, a
-safety, and/or physical condition of the X
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment? f
2. Is the project on new location?
X
3. ' Is the historic site adjacent to the
existing highway? X
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, F-1 X
structures,or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are F] X
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor(i.e.no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic a X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of"no adverse effect"?
26

s
7. Has the SHPO agreed,in writing,with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? F-I X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing Yes No
Does the "do nothing" alternative: X FT
(a)correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? F-I X
J
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? X
and (d)create a cost or impact of F-I X
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
adjacent historic site
(a)Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards,use of retaining walls, X F-I
etc.,or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b)The items in 2(a)would result in:
(circle,as appropriate) X
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or(ii) substantial increased costs
or(iii)unique engineering,
transportation,maintenance, or-
safety problems
or(iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
27

s
o (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or(vi) impacts, costs,or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,'
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in.
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and(iv) such impacts,costs;or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X
Part 800,by the FHWA,the SHPO,
and as appropriate,the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
The New River General Store is also eligible for the National Register of Historic =
Places but not associated with Bridge No. 39. Blasting from the project will pose a
danger to the store's shoring. Therefore,design will include appropriate measures to
protect the store against blasting including but not limited to improved shoring. Design
will present their ideas regarding preservation of the store to Mr.John Horton,.
Restoration Specialist of State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO),who will comment
on the project. Mr.Horton can be reached at SHPO's Asheville Office(704)274-6789.
28

COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the.following,(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory.Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. .Property owner see attachment
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies see attachment
e. US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)evaluation approved on ^
December 23, 1986.
All required,alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.'
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
Date A-st Manager,Planning&Environmental Branch,NCDOT
Date �KDivisio �— ator,FHWA
r
29

M. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)FOR A RECREATIONAL AREA
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f)EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS,RECREATION LANDS,AND WILDLIFE AND.
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F.A.Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
T.I.P.No. B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in Ashe,
County. The new bridge will be on new,alignment approximately 15
meters(50 feet)to the south of the existing bridge. The bridge will cross
the South Fork New River..Crossing this recreational resource constitutes a
4(f)but with"No Adverse Effect"conditional upon the enclosed.
commitments.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety,and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? X,
3. Is the Section 4(f)land a publicly
owned public park,recreation land,or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
F-1
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f)land,in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose?. F X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f)site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
30

s
Yes No
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g.,noise,air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects,aesthetic
values)on the remaining Section 4(f) '
land impair the use of such land for its F-1 X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f)land agree,in
writing,with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on,and
the proposed mitigation for,the Section X.
4(f)lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)),the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act(Dingell-Johnson Act);
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act:
(Pittman-Robertson'Act), or similar
laws,or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest F-1 X
(e.g.,former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above,does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? El : X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT.._,
Yes-.; No
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a).correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? a X
31 -

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F-I X
and (d) create costs,unusual problems,or X
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public,park recreational X
Jan d or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards,use of
retaining walls,etc., or traffic N/A
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a)would result in
(circle,as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact There is no shift in alignment
which can avoid crossing the
or ,(ii) substantial increased costs South Fork New River,therefore,
Question.2 is not applicable.
or (iii)unique engineering,transportation,
maintenance,or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and(vi) impacts,costs,or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge,_(This would be N/A
localized "run around,")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in; (circle,as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve There is no shift in alignment
the existing problems which can avoid crossing the
South Fork New River,therefore,
or .,.(ii) substantial social, Question 3 is not applicable. -
environmental,or economic
impacts
32

or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts,costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate) '
0 Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least =
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths,benches, lights,trees,and
other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. •Incorporation of design features and
habitat features,where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f)property..
Oe Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f)site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
fO. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland,recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
33
em

f
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
• NCDOT will maintain access to recreational users of the South Fork New River
during construction.
• .Before construction begins,the Division 11 Engineer will insure that`.Bridge
Construction Ahead"signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the
bridge to alert boaters. .
• NCDOT will keep the South Fork New River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts will be made in both design and construction to maintain as
wide a channel opening as possible.
• NCDOT will(where feasible)minimize the number of piers required in the channel
for the new bridge. The spans on the new bridge will either maintain or increase the
open channel width available to boaters.
• If pier footing(s)which are placed in the channel come to within one meter(three
feet)of the water's surface,NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence of the
footings,in order to protect boats and the footings. -
• Both-DEHNR(Department of Environmental,Health,and Natural Resources)and
NCWRC have requested that NCDOT leave in place a section of either old bridge
approach to serve as parking for a small boat launch which NCWRC-proposes to
construct sometime in the future. Consideration will be given during design and right
of way phases.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f)evaluation. -
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following(attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over see attached
the Section 4(f)Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies not applicable
c. -US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI.-if Section 6(f) lands are not applicable
involved
34

' s
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f)land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
`t r
Date ArIff-Manager,Planning&Environmental Branch
NCDOT
9/2
Date �Divisi Administrator,FHWA -
35

FIGURES

N 1563 1561
_ g + _ t
1562 ,6 n� 6CD
Q Chestnut^ 1552 7D
Hill N" �O 156_ _ r
3 1563 1566 '
t
1567 .6 1567 l 1567 1549
Brill e No. 33 1671 '
1568
I Scottsville'
16a5
16 1570 1635 22! TO SfA c
1574 �-1 a rma�e+a v
4. �
T
75� S 1571 0 1570 �4
hatley s _ s
/ Springs"' v �>
to
�S 1571 1600. 1603
1576 572 B 1.2 FAS �c0G
.Q
2 2 ! 1595 Liberty 0 162 16C5
Hi1ICh. ��o, �_-v-v
1668
'6 1651
6 a
l N•a 154 1 M r Pleasant
16C5
Valley c .Nothans
1579 Creek � s k
1593 I
c '.E57 I � '•60�
1593 - �' 159� 1666
.2 a D 1601
1661 1591
584 • 1 � ram, ,\
COurtty `�1592 ' C+,. �•g
�11rpOrt `0 1 1�0 P , 1609 l - 1
41
elton ass
sturallls r!! e 4
A S 94 B J t' ,O 1599 1612 .4
III Ie,,
Lansma t ttri 11'e— '6�
Warren r Sprtfi r
Ashland,
chtton3 1 Jet n _a..,. - tD ?61 1
9 lCrestonSmethlwrt :n Drina
`West Jefferson ..rr..ra. 1 E95 �` 1 612
+ 2'
III i2; S,v. Ind }
r G Write 7
40
Baldwin SDI, s ti .599
9 cs �H -' 1614
r Jae idtewd .2 168E a TrarMu
If'�w•.
North Carolina
q � Department Of Transportation
Planning&Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.33 ON US 221
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

f
1
f
J'
�w

-j'7y"";�­'. , 11".11- -1 .11.1�l.-II.-��,-,-;�--Z-l�X�r..V .1 . .; _1­1-1 Z, -
iff' '
I � -- . .. . .�:.l 'Y" .11
'? -W
ri gg-_:Z� _­, I- %Mi�'11:�!1i_�,4:1_-_._;l­ �---­ ­ -g.,..'�1,0,.-,�`9--�";,�'j L�,.,��11'�, � , ,1
_�,z���N :�L_' ,�.­ 1. - � t�nL, 'g� " �
.35 _�, �,_17*_,#r_.T1__ U'_�_,�� - k�­ '! � , 1_`r _:�_�,'
,�", 3: ;R511z , . __ � -, , - - -, . . ­ - �,
.I - 1-�. .,
-.- - � ,.L �, . 1. , 7,
1 1;ni­k '7� - .T t a , ;F:_�'.. -
. ,� - - 2.M 1. I- - � .5�nr-,Z--_i�
I Y ­ --­ ---.'' . � ., -,Ki�.� -,4 -. ." , ,_ , R W ..,
l, �W­ . . ,
-- � ,
, ',�_­­­ ,,:��, _Z_-� �_� �; , E; ": __,2 ­­ 7. �;� . _ ;
__.._._.1_­W. I 0
� �,IIVA 11 ,�,-�.'�,�p,- `%­�­4.--.--:���,�-�' %, ,�"q,?.i­.,�,,�%�M. - ---.
I � .:�i�Z, �'- �,I,�JC"'­­ ­­-, yffi,
'j," * 'W�_Ziglo-­-,"�,�':To .- ",:"".�-,'�.-'�;��l.-,(.��.a"�.,%I
" -
�,, ,��l ��_ 1-1-L . �
,�.-A.li
'. -, -A, ; �%V,V4,_,.­._--,�X�,;�% -�i,,�`, `�, , I I zx,4��'__Z__111­1"3_­'­­
- ,-,- .. _,__ ­1 701 ,iv - - :0-
"' . �z, , - �
'A .. ,
1 .11 v , ,.; -
. �;,­­,�­-_-,_a., . - � __ -1�__, ._ � ,-tK",�, ---
,,, . ,
.__�. -,- ­ I" ,-�,� - _ - I �.- -1 .. ..I_i- , .-,-.- .
-1 Me",�7,5����g- �Ivip.m.. __ 7 = � Kjoi-, ­ - - �i -) ­4.--,". ,_. -
- 74.5 F
r1l " ,P - k ��,;,.-­5: . ,�_I .;
_­1.­­­,1­- �4­ e I— -'5�-1 11 " -'�,,i;�k,­,,�--��:.*Ia --,-�-­��e.,,­--,.)-­-­- , �,�­4i'��.
. ­ I -I.. �� I : i - �­ " _��, � - -­­- —
W ­1­1 i -","I- -
� 1�_, _% �­ , - 'i� - W _1k1_ �. V­l- . ��,./- -g-1,
r ;l-- 16.,­.5r ---.,74­,4_4,;0&,07"1.y1�1-,.L 13 _-� .:�
� . �A -- �_�,�i'-
­ , _ ,��,. �.,5�­: ­1�11
. A,1_-__.�?_R ViR
- 2M,1`1:,� __
_l I -�M_­f, .�,\�,,. _.; . 1,,-,"�,.,�_ 1, . .!e. , ­- - -.gg-�?,;-,
- : , ­�V- - '�, ,-,. ql��­14 � - _­--�,%-,t,- . ,..-,!. ,�, -.
I �l, . l�7," - , :a.4 -,jK�;
I .W­�, , _
� I �t�!­­;,-­r 1. " _ �:�
,, .�­R- ,--, �.g - i�� � . _-7 .j
.
,-;.7".
. -
"
I
�
I � .
A
­ ­_ - .­
'W1 '­ 'v-".1-�A_�Iii.N.­ '1* ,Z, ­­r,gr.21 ;�.x ­"'-, - , ,�":" --,,.-,,�, I �_.<_- ll?.'r- ,.-I'."-. ,?.."'.., .........
I ".� . ­,,-, ­.. ._�,�-.,�,R­- ­11 _­.�-�.­, ­ ­­,­ , ., - r ­47:
_1 _ . . .. - ­­ ,��_ . I... -,.;, -t;..'­­-. �­,;-,-­'�. -
.. - - - - .- _",3 - ,­"�,�,z j" �" A >,
� ­ �0.1;1_',V�."�, ��� .
" 27�� _'.
.. 11 Z�_ .­ "',-_�.-� ...'.,
.( - ?�F':,�_:�.�_,_, _ ., -v ­,-`.V�h-��i- sr�7,.-­V t ,� ,�
. -.4., ., - �, I 1, , 'j- ­�'m'_14' _i, --
P : _ ... .-�_V 11 _-, _'�;7_ - -- - ,
�, . . ,�A,��:&", , - _1141,��'--.�ir.Iff ­, _j��*f:: --��k�*.,,;��_. :7 1 , ... ,_ - --;-:­�-4
. � , i" .�
-,,��,�t � .4 -,---- . , I .., 'tL;I.,- - 4 - -
- W� ... _4 . 2.1 -
.." ­ :a. -..�� - ,.
, M -­`Z`4"_`,�O� __ _ .. . _-`q� `,_1'AF"t:;,- : -�-�* '* - 11��I ., , ,�� - - � -1
-
, - '. . .
r- - -i-,­,,-� ,"'i - .k._A. .,1.:.�, --1 - - - &­,i�.'�'-.,IF-, �
R, N- ,1­ ,
, ... .................�-, .
,
,
,
......
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
V; - . . - ;,.&_e= I _". -1. _.., - , ..;,", �I_.-�,,,:.-,--
.�Sw -t .1, - ,-,-.,,2-----g_fr,�lw.�- ..��, - - .-- . ._ . , � _­ t--,�._4c.,�2.-- ,�� . 7±.�� .��,-,, k, -
I'M : , .�f*W,z��,� "r, tv ., � ",r:p . -
,��; *.� . .� � ­ --1 ;01�� ­ � .�-�A,
* _� - -- ," _-Zw-.' ,��,..Z: `�. '.,��l I. - ­1 � -�, ,­' "I"-I-
`, `��­_ 4�,�-_­­-� , *.
, *...,, ,5 - %�.-�,��. - -,,­.;,,"--�'. z . y . ...;,..,',',! ­ ._�_��-;,`� ,
_.:�'114_.:��U�w ".�zs� ,��.-. ;,-- , �? _-41-,- :"Z� ­;�­".V, ,�
iL _� .&S, - ,­ -
� . ,_ -� � , I _-_ , N ., -I _.�*_. ­ -;_ 'SAVI­-1 _�, 5�__li , --,I"I, ",_1"-"'"", _,­ z�-_,,;­,e:.::i,"4�.'�­,
- - ,-;�-,-,V."�-L�..E�S.,3 -1�4: - ­ -, ,,-, ; ,,,,,� - �-- p . .­
. -, " _. � lzfW A', . ,I
,� :
1!-:!.�;,I ­:�l�­_, g . g -
- .- - .'.II, ­1-",-_;j r-, -__' -',,".. - .-_14�7.:.'..�1, f,,�-,-,�17:�a 1;,­ "I , " .- 41 I ,;�'. y 11 ',I, -�`_.t �:­�.,��!�"Its - !� -)`.,�-
� . .- . .. P. - .��, 4A .:.. � ;--, .
,, , " .M _ : _.-­ - _?'.�;t� .t4� - -- _.. - -, - � .- .4. � . -
I 1�- .( � , ;�V;
$� l.�� _, -, _�,,,:Z , -
�­,�,_*:1. ,�"" -2�---,,�,�,� - - .",��, , ;,- , . .
, ,8 �" �`; I�V_�', ��,� If ,,� I -
,­,M-,;-��:-,z - � ; �" .,�_;�T --�_1<1-71..:, . I- r .,�­ . _. ­_:i�_�-.�e -, �;,.
­ W_ -, "Az;-.". --;,::�. :. ,�-, , ��j�,
�., . .,:= ­57� ,'��', . ­ ,�';��'-�­­­.,, �,- � , � � - .�­'�Z_�
�."� ___,__1;!&­--! � .',�-:,, -.!� _V,�,­.Z,-,�!
I ,--I I �_,:- _ . - --k' - , , .,.--$, - - , - - - ;�
, ----- ­. ,---- ,­ -'?-�-',- - ".".% -.,-'Nj.. �-;�._-,�-'.'.;',., . :,� j;.,", ­,­11 - .. � .1. i . ,��;�'! �.,
"t;A" i '.ir -I-_.
�, g . � . I. , ,.:.i
i, , _ - -.t.-��' . ...., . ­,­ , j�.­ ..i
, , �r,
., 01" , ,�. d ,� _1 ­ ."l-1. "? ­ - ;.,--�--��" -� - --,� - I­ "'." .1.
­ ':-�,-,11.- lj�;,Y��',,��-." '., "" �-., ; . , :;--' --.­,- �_.,--,-3,-, y'4.-.,� "
­­ ­ --_,�� ;.,, .�"T­._ '�i:­. ,;IV �j� "I" � -'-�.-,,." -�- "--�,,
�.�- ,,-A :- .3.­t., , R� -,';-C�w ��F­, ,4­..�,:­46_--!"__�­�' ,.­-,,� ,, ,�, '� .1. ,�­:��: ,:'­".` �,�;!t - , , "
, ., 't, . _�� ,,,��-- ----
. -4 _11111,� 1- �4 1 1-&�12-'.-X�,�, ­­.­,�_ '5�� --1 , ,,,j .�!'�,.,:�.17,- - -�"�- - _-,�,I -,� ,:.-, -: "?i .
1, , R
_�11 . �.&_ - "., V �
I - i , -jp, - .y.
_47
__ __ . - , ,_ ,,3��' .;,x0_ `, . ,--�,'A .1 .,�i,_,.. - �- �.
1 4�;�,� , -, 'i ,�, , _,
.p :�, :,,�-,,'?--' !.�, � I- .
� , .�
, � . L.'.. �t. ,.,4,'?�. .'.'�,�
4 .,-.-._u'- ,-!:�,,-A;-�, ---, -.k-.V. - _.� ,_....5�-,�f"r�;_, ,.�..,­ - J�.
). . . , -C�,p�I�Tt,-, . - -_1, -­-R­,�4s*,;,,�-I'i­ . .--..-I'-"',* I'.. *%­�j�`f:-�"' I's? , t�---..,.,�:, -L -
­ , .- -I,- 1A­­' ,)If ­. ­,"... -, , _,. �. , ­-­ ,�
I -
I_�_,` 41 . "�.e .1 ­�.b-'f, ­��-�--- 7;� :�-'Q�., .�_111��,C:�Z _-C, Z��.�� , . .I I. . - -
­ .� -�� �..',:� ,ir­-, -, - .- ,-:..'.: ,� :," ., .., --- ..";u , - . -
�- &Q, ',��:.� , - - 'i­ " ) _%. . -.,.,,, "."-,*-:�-, '..­T," ., .�
., ,__ ",Vl ;� - , ___ , - ,, 9�1.1� .,�z-,­ `I I
. 1�: ..;- __. . .,­..�,e,,�,� - -.-, ' - . ­ N .-_.� ',,� :�;�-"�.�. ,%.- _­ �.. .1,1�'r.,­r,.""',�P
-- ..­ - ­­­ �, ­ l! - . .- jy�_­ ­ . 11, ..... ", --" -. ,
, 4 1;F.1 , I , , .� � . �,-,-77� , '.,"�_ , � , : - -- - , ��' ,�,'�­.­'./­ A-q.',W., ­' 1�,
,! , ­ -, I . . ,
,
. N 11 �...z..;, . 1 .i,4 'P, . .., " ;�-
I. -` . , , - , ,,,,, 'N, ,�7, - �q�F*,".A', - , -1 . - -,- ,- .4
- . �:�.,.,K �-.., .
" .�;,_ , F." - I:_ � . "�`,;.!�� - 7�; *�'!.w7,7, w-L--� - ­ '...-A".;�"-- .. -,�" ," �.'­� ,,,­,­!� ,,*. ­­.1_7�._
11 , U- W. 1. ­ ."�. � -�;n� a.; -� ;�� ',.!'�-�, - .11 , '' � . " . -
,.2 , ; .'.. , 1. t�._­,_� ­ -,`�� , - - I
."�­­. �, -, ­-, . . . - I
�,-, .104. . - '. ,�� - � .P,,:, ^ , - . - -- - � , I Z� &� l,"Is- , !.3.
., . � , - - 'i - 'k:_-,;KV . z.. - . . , 1� �,%" . _..�
_� .­ - -. .­1 11� , 1_1;�;"` " ­ `� _­ .� V.:_ . . .
,_ jll�.­., - , , 1. .: . - -Z'�,-
��, _'4,1� �z-�_� �, I: � -.1- -I-
Z�__ ,,, j: -:'�k".-Ac- Iq T,._,u­ ­,­-_­- .�- -:��,;V� : , -,.;, ­,�," , 1 .11, "I 1,t�� 1-1
'4 . A ';' - 0451� ", ,� ­,� ­` j_":,��-`�3 , , _
. . ­Z,�,;,.",_-��­_ .. x
�, 11. _ . ` � Y,;:-`� - - ­
; �4 11 I � . � .— ,.,., , .
. , '�� , � � _M - , , � �1.1_1_ .-.- - -,g I _,�
'. .:� I -, .1 ---,- �M ,;
- 0��_ � �I ,'; ...t 3��, ,�,��:�*, .��-,�-, `�;,�:��.;*:".;�,:'...'--, �� , -,.,.�i:.e; .:,. mg .'.r-, ,
5'I', '�'f 4 �
I'Alf"', ..�, i§:�_
I .
,
11, ­ �­ .IS , .! . - - -- - - , t . -
I`.� ,1��­, -, .�.'-,,-_�,�:,I�-�, .� ��?- - -'I. - 1. .,.,�-;
�.� __� �­,_��- 1, �a �"'A, ,�,�, -­ -;-..I,- -:1. ­� 1-1-I �--s rx.f,,", ,� - --- - ­., ,,,',�- -l -j,.,-�,!- ,�-­.­�,�,,
I I ... V" . ,­�x - .��11_I _`;k,`,,:�� ,; . , ..
� ­ 117l� - .�_­W l�l ­ � `11 - - ,, .01: . �� ­�--
_�.o ..., x - I
� .
-, � " r , ­ ." ,�, - ' ' ` '- - 'I'll'' .,� - , . ':",:. ,� , l i. .
------ . 1. '- -, ;"`41-1��',"-, ,.-,:�g � .. � , - --,, " ­. ,,­��'", . - - ,.-'��;" - - '. , , " * "", -
,��__?,. � . . -\,Z',� , ,.---­. .-, .:..",_ _ - ��-­­f- - - .",�-. -,.,- ­ --
. - ,- �.Trl: �;,_'��,)� ­& ,,..,--�, 3.1-F.ft , "". , - ,� . �, ... ._ -A .X...,,� -11 %
...I . - 't"', - , ., ,�.'.il�-, 1- .­­ -- "",-- , , )_
. ... ',,�;"�._ �,�.­ I -� , _M;_,� �­ ---, , - ,n_ . _�c -__ --';', C - .)_­-,4,--* , ", -­J , . !�rj. ,I
�A. . . ,
" , , ,-_r ::"; I . ­­ , ��r�'1. _ ,� . _!3.. -, " __
.. .V,4�P�-,-. "F , - ,,��t.' .:;" .�- _� , ., , 1 � .�. p
,� ­­;�� - ­1­ 1� . . . *�,IV. .0� ,:"I'l .,��, ­_'_�� OV,., ,-;:,`
M�, - _.,, -'t-,,� _. W I.11 I'll 1�:, - , .? . qv. -!". ,.i�,'`­,z - .�1- ..,1:� .-$' -_; --,, ­',­ - '5 ,:.-,'t
- � ,� �.,.-�, .�r , " _­�,,-.- :�`, I �'.- .1. - 43.K �
..%-�.�� �' I � --;Z, I , - ."­'.`9 �­ ,.":,
- "-- . . 1. .4- 1` S';. 4, -. 11. rv..' .� . '.
,­-7 M." ".2 MA .. _ - .!��. ..`,�. ,._--V'.,,., ­_- - - ­- ,­�. ,-.
, ,
__ ,_;� � .. qf-t-&--ft,, . I ' � -!,' e`- �;-_:`t`--_��-`,`�----�7 lx,;r;)�, -- ", ,�l .
�; �- . .. jw��­_- , �' - A
,wr T-K-. : . �; - -- � - - . ��­- ­,��- ,f-­ - *6 .,:�,,�,._�-,�� - - �,,� .. ,-,��
Q 6,,�, IT 11 : . , I , , �j�­., '� � !:,. 1 - 11 ­ I �I - � . � ;1;1 1: --,--I; -;_7_:,,�.-' *,_-�-!_': I
. " - ,yr-IfTer, . , - '.. .-�A­­,�7.-�- . - _- ­ - - - --, - -­��' -I , .
-- -,,�- - ne . . �­ . : �Wt,­,1,1;: W,-�:�. . . *�" , , ."
. --;..­-z , , tz: ..�"-_-.,�Zl . ­ %,f"""', -_'­-._;­.N­�_- Z% -A
q , . � � - 1 I : _..�. :,.
, , �, �, �. -,;,�­r., .5 .. , l. _� - S , .A, t- , _gp
'r ," � .� I �N2-.1 V.,__11 ,7 �_ .� ,:��,- ,.�, "., , .:.`.-,-
K;:'.- ­� -'.',�',,_ "I,,,'�"-A.,ly -.--.' - v�,-�j­ , � ,- �, 1� � -"'.,.-�,�1:�_,I-_�,��,�_'
."n
". .- ._. "I,V__ ­ - � . - -, .'.,,-.-- .­;­
--,i ��Z, - .";.- .:_­_i,�-­f�, ­_1_-­*__­ - -.,­ , I .� ':yru�, - ,-�� '.*­�.�3­ %.,�kl "._w,,.. _'.-
, , I __ , �._-_-�_­--.px - . ­­1 ___ . - . oM r�;­`�­­r�',­1-?'­ , . . , , "­:,
-, . 11� "I _n��--1, I .�,� - , ... - 11,�; - , �_, -" ,. --
" 0 'l �, -I �_-. -;�4, f.,=-1c ", .`�s . ,I ,��14�j�-_A'�-, �-, 4�-�l kk-,`��-' ,�,,�-g,�,-_- �)
ip
t " , �,"
�ft"n_j�;�. -1 -g -- -_ -�,JPC &NewRi erOu tters _ -�?� " - I , ,*.�� ,�.,,,�.'5 .
IWP g 7�-1­4_� - . �
J_.Tv,-;W­��-_ -­1T-1,5� I .1,' ;. _-,i,: -11 V­-- ­ j,�,', ;Z-sk, ." .1) ;!� ,
,;:'1,jF,. :,�_ ;-tr�-,4f­ - �K�,'ttl­ .l.l...'. - ", � .1 ., ­11 , - ',­.­,-, �-,,%=��,
.�, �.� 1. .,�V.� - � k �el �1 I .A,,�-A ,�,'k', ­7,t ,6 ,'f;�.-,:; - - . "',--..,
— — ., .4i" 1-1 - , - ..'..;�­;:;�. . ,­,�
,:;-;��7, .4;��,��, " - ;P,inf,m 'R ��,�,_`__��_�V_- , ,-, �_­,,',i. . - . .- - - , '. , <_,:-.-,4�;­.�-`­,-`_'
­�,,,�.A­ " Pi&, _j� '.A :, -
A,� __ .% ­�.�
, _--,5` A_;C_.�b_1-11_ZK1 7 �,11 .1 � I 1-1 _�;-, - �',,,�5,1-­�­.,!,�-,*,�W ',,�;, ­ - ''�, .f .. , ,�Y,7.;I.,.,- ,_� - "' I
- . . 1;:� - _. ­r.� _�� ", -AR' ­"­ .- � - - _ �� - -'_!,'.X_ , '­­'-!_, -,l,.:��-,­,­
­=­­ - �'j�.�A�-:".�-,­, ,,
- .. � ,­� 11­-_1 - . . ,
:�� - '!�`��­--�Nv,� ­�'. , . . .
i i - , � ';,V-�, '. " -
- � - - - _ - . . �`.'. ----t­ -.,.-..,-:,--­;:�-7�-
,-up�-qt"F , , . ., . _� , -� 5'e,-t;'�..-:',, � � , �� .,t� ,;, - ­ , ­­­ -.11,11,
, �� - - . -:z . - ';',.!�`5��. A.- '�A jt� Ir ,-1 , , , ,, , �, -n, -, , � �
�
C 7,I.:-. ;si Z� , .. . �,;,'X,. � � I I � �J:'..5, " , - - ­4 � ! : - - -1,1
j,)--­;;1%',u'­r�V..­--­ 4 , - 4. .� . ". ,
�_,, 7-29.. - - M - 7 " , , :z_,�'11� .A,._,1'3__ .� ..E -�* _". . I-1. :
'i Lf . �', _x ; I � , ,,,�. ,,, - --.�
_t - ­7 ­__1_...__.-.­. ­, , �.
,,, �1.1.�. �­ � ­ ,. � - 'j, ­­ , '. --
- -T '; " I "-5-f - .1#.--.,;-D�', iT-��-4_y f 1�v.i�'�T- . -��-­ - ,wa le �-�.L�Lo,;,:47-�` --, _ -.- , ,­ -.,..,. ,,�.�­ ""... _,:.,--�­
R--, .�_ ­­1 ffl,.,.�! - - ,;�, ,,, ... A.. a I'll - ,. , -�V�-V,1,5 -, . , - . ­ - -,--I � .-� , �"'­
Il-,M­1!f. � _,:�* - - _�. ,.r ­'._,"
FLW ; . M 0 .,-,-. .. - , P 'r" .�
­­1 . � _��1_1`�;l ..,- .- , -,
'. _,."", --,--:- ---.!�., , , �S.5VO-,, ­-i-;t,­,,* , ­­ ,�­�:V­.',.",".----;e. - - -;,.. .�11_. U 1,,-�"�_ .'f'_�,'.
.� .­�..,_Vt �=l.'. ­. ­-,-,�'45r �!��,`�jp-., Az'_C!�,�.;�'-,z
. - I , , -I IV, -
-�,t - .- VQ,;,L­l­�,­_;­ -1-1-1 _. , ­-�?,,­ I - .., ., , "'. '.' 1- - _,. .1 - 1.�.",�,, ,t5 `
I 411­1­_­� &Z ,,,W§, ,q..'_­f ,_`��­V­ , C�e,- V* - .Z... " , 1_--',;� .,��--&�' _,�� Vl_'�_
,W. , '. _� __ " 1:I-,-,-. ­ "­_ ;,�, �-1­ ..".1 -
1­34��7 - x r'�­­J- -_ ,_ "X-"")�` :n,.X-4,;,;A',�- _ N � -,- _­I-�i� -, ,��.., .�­ 1.� 1.�, , , -- ­- - _.
��­ � . - - � ......i'�
;��', _j. , .j,!, -:�-_-� .--�-1,f�,`-:`�, - _ -.1,
-1, :-,-A. .�,-�*;�x 1�1 I­ - . .. 'A � , .
,�ilw",-,A*A� - '7�� -��-
- -%-�,��,-W','M*V,I- .!� � I ,..;..�,, e`. :1`.�.�- a, �, - - , - .� ;t, 7��, : " - , .
_� ,�p.' - . _1 ; ,­-, .:�::­-;e-:1.,:Z-.
�, ,,�_��,,� r.,j ,,j­�� , . Z�.. 11 -
,�6, I
��
'M -�­��, "
A -.1. _:�� ." , I -, ." I. .fj�*­ .V 'a, � ­ ? I
,, .1 - --4. . * ,.1;0. I--,_.- ­­' -­. e��,,��
, . .1- ­---;4, -,_� .�­ ­-; Is , ',�-�;,- -;,-,t,?�,� -i�;-;'!'4" "- ,V"�t,
- ____1­1­11ffN, ;��, _- -,-.,--�­�.�-�'.�'4�-'�;,�..- .- _�V4;-.---",-­-, _7 .; v�,? -,- . . ..-,.,-- ,.­, '.;;..;,.,. .�,,'.- ,;,�%�­�' -��"­� , -'1�7,_ I _117 I 1Z.. -,Zt
, "_r , �, ,. � � . I 0 , ..` .. X.. -
- '. 1 .­7­)4 :�.,4va -.---'-"-, .:IN� -%` j-, ­ 'm�4 ,
- -1, , .r .-: .�g- !,;- � ,. e --w�43?­,-.-�� - ­­�.-,� .:�,�_�".""..�� - *
--. Z, ­ "' � , ._.. -� �-�.g -,; glq,, _.I.ir,I ­ - I , . - �� ,_
, _.I . " ..,;--;,FA -, -- - - My. - !-- �,,4�-,,,,-";Z!- - - --
_--:f�,�-�*! --�,,--i Z.-­Jsf: ,,�,�, .,r -",'.. - .­- - , �, _,� '.5, . ,�,- -
- �". ,��';.!�. 1-4 _.�­­ � ,�-- --�'!�z .--- -­w z .
1:71"XIN �-, .�, ,, ; , 6��- I "t;�,,..,-," A�
-
I.1r . -IN 1�­'l-35 'W� � .. , - � .e , . -­­ - "O
. i -sxf 7�,=_-,.V -1 ,_ -1-� 1 7 kK :, -_
.
� � _�3; -7. ". 14 , �r ,
-- '. .."._:*-�__���,��:-','�, - . �Y-
I_1�ir ,qe�xm - "L,��--_ I Y, - -,� ­ . - - . . .. .��.; . � , ­ 'a -
'C"RO-a � 5401�5--M!,�;--'M - 11r-_11,-,4t�'1 __ I-fl;_ � ,
.11,� - *�
,�,g,..� ., .?-"-1 ict .X,e-_�, ,'T,�`,,­.,,.,*�'i�'' _�...�, . , _1� - " , . �-�
.� �; "t." ".-,�;.- ,­".­.. 1.":�-,.­,7.:z f.,� '. - ,­­­1 �,. -
.. ,- - �t­­511 �- - - , - jt,,-.. ,�-._",�C.4-­-q -__*­ � - :is�� 1k -
14 , . F; , . 'e, , � 1:
Rk'�t_­�MM,,��,_&.*N­- - , ­-,�,. � , -��_ -13��",.��-,� .i �,-'�,-��5z, - .- � , , ­ 1-1. I -:,
Y,2r , og_'��,.�-7, m 4 � Z W - , �11' , -�,-­-I 1,
��M - .i - ­ -
, . _M �zS;, " _� %,f.�'��i.-­� -_,_,�I 1'_) I�,���!:_L_�'._'.­-,-_,�!L ­_.. ­­ ­ , -- .:��
- - -� 'P-T�-�. _1 ­­ --,-,.. '.� -g ­ ­,r,j� z1­41 .1 f, ,
- - __._- . .-, 1�
,e, , , 4 , ­ ,�;­,1.:-%-,, , , 1_11", -"��A,R-, .-,.`:;,W - " -,!-,�!"�;'Jn­e­ �-� '�k;�,ig:-I--, _,.._�­ ,.;47 . ­
- " , & -_,, . ��­,,;� _,� ,_,��.
-,M- 1Y -- A.--l! M­1�� I - -
- i­ � . k'y� , -,
1, ­­ __ �, --�­:I - - VE�_� .. -
. .
..e- .� - _ - - .,..�,
- , - . �� ­�7_� %�-_.V�-.-V--�-,w- ­.­--.- ,.� -,, -7­,",4 _�W. - ___1- -,R-��-;�31-� , . - rl�n,
- :! i I .I '�;Lz __�i ., M..Ly -,,,,,,. --� ,i-,�, . 111,4
'"
-
.4 _ , ,.�_, ,:�_�6.. �1�.4251
1,2_­I .,V�,, , 1�p . -7;�-�­ ..., -�'." ;�,J
- � � I ! ,,��,_�,. .,-',,,Y,­��,l , ,e 1�1 .
,V -, ��� " -,%, ,;*E, -��:,!t,�,,�-!,vi; I -1 ­ -.-. 2!,­;­"1 ;1- -_�A f ­ . P, r .1� -,e - "
�-�MIK..,,,001_'�'3-- ��-,�, n - . , �. , I...--­-,�" .
.; _W MM � _M�_�-4a i�:P,W ,�41�,�` - .�--�_V.:� .." .-W., ,6,, �-,,. 7. -,
-, , � V
-
�
N
.4 ,F . .A , , I '. 1 _�� -; .:;, ".-
,�� - ,_ _� . . "I
,,,,.,] ,__- �,�. -, - 1;� 11
, X;0M'a A RNSW� . -P,
.;�1', R, '___,.-______;�- 11 V. .-, �,� ­ - ,!:��t 4 --�',;Z__ �
­ ,
" """
�-4, - , I ,�VL :��:_4 � I i , .
p� I .:, _,� �f , ,,� ,; _r , "
��.�- �- - ,� ., -
I­­_­­ 1� �I',�*�-_ 0�1z�,,�!....I.-, 4�41.. .W. . ­
..Z_ �1.IPA, " -MAR", �'`4,,V1,'!i­ _; - ! ____ - I., , -_�,­,_.._ - ,1x_ .",
-
�g-,4-v ,W t pnn�;-�, I ,Z__ , I'- -�_t�': " , -,,0,.-�.`-�-i,��, :e-�:�_.�- -- _____ =�_�1. I I_�-- l,,;�', , . ';, �,��,--
." , - -6AM " ��­"1��Z�_,�, -_ ,. �. .�!��;�r- .. . 9, I -i .- ;�
"I".. ­_ - . , ,
,#,..� '1� T-�4_,M;,��,,� gk, - llff�,, I—- ­?�, !"��- -b�*' -� - ... --I �:�
- `-` J
- I
- IN 1-1 , MR% - r ,,-- , -- ��� - ­_ 5:.'-'t
__ - �, , , _- -A ! _11K. �,_, ­ - LE-&- �r. -;�� , ,_to,F4Q,.*,'W 1�;�,;­. �I ,:,
' rk r, '.' ­,'', - - - ­� ;_e , - _ ., ­� .-1: 7� .
� *4 I' _­­­­,P_��, _­-- - ,
S, ­�--.�, -----A�Ifl, . _4 _T61 " ­ ­ , "�,-Z, ,� , �,,�,!­,-,,,;�.-:
1. i�ON F�17& , -I-,- "I'll .:r - , �-��­-_- .,�lL ';:4��., - - 1�, ! a;-': - ...
. .. ..
F �i M1,14f, ., . .W i7- .1,� I 'L . -, "�' ... 'y " ,�-r.,.�,
� _ - �il.- , � .,-
11M. ­",��, --�,,�%' � W.—,M'2"i:WT ,e ��5��.r - , -. I -1. ­ - � 3 ,.�­­
,, %V.,""; ­--virr-111 1,ul -1 ,� -I,,-
g � 0 � -Q�,A if - qll-�_L� rt , �
�, X" �,.��4-,V
- �_.����, ­. .....�­ I ,1.44,�t-lr, . ., I'-
I" ",- t I-_`111110-1 '��'^ 02",�,�----F-"- 'Oto-, , [ jj:j_l_f%K_­t_, ­­ 14, -- . �
�r - a�t, ;,,_--, -1 �_
, �0 01 I— �14. 'if 11,fff f......111,111111 M17
, , �,WN R -i,.-, - .J:
I -
'W,�­_ �,.,..b
� �11'11­1 -�­­' ,!6,.-,;& Xll 11 J'L ^- " .-.
- .44 1 ls� - _­­-- , - , I ,: ­­,�',
AWM�,V,.-,_-,<_-T.0.,i .�,-ff.�--.!-,�,�-�,;�:�_:_, ,---- �1, , . I . , ,
� jy. T_-��_:--_a
� .1. I . . _.%� - .1. .-W. _N, ., ,V -�X_ '.
,4.�Wr,-,�-,�4", 1 f M
,; - "P -A
Y-Ma'A�;. .a."dk�;��!�e_4­
A
�M
� N .0 Aw! ruff _nb ;1.1 0 " ,�.
;�.z e _­ - ,-
r-I.,-1 1- -q�y,�V .­­ -1 �. , . ,-,",
i
44; � L . .1; i ,�: ,4,;. , I- n, - -
- . I �-�Zt.� .T___:;�i­t_ -: I I­`�,�;� �­35t!,-,;�!.-4:��,­--­ -.--
.,;F'7.1 -��, ��, _,. �- . ;
� G, "L!�.-­:�,�,-�n, �,�, �_-.
, :�-� � � _:.­­� _�t, l- -
i.�'­__,­�, � ­�,'?. - - ,-I- ­­, '-.n."­- 1­_.1­­,,-, ­�,-Y-.,U-�­I- i '.
- - -".,r " I­ _- _., ., j __ ­111.1- �� -
d�.,, W �
_V_ - U , f Iffiffff ­­�� . ..
. ,- "' 14�MM'M ­-----zf.4-�- , .0�.,� 49� - -­-;-;I�,,.�7��-.,�tg i
;�-­z1. -H .� , .--. 1, :
- - I - I -- - ,� ­,i e .1- -
, �,� - ... . A-W�'l-Pl-`�W;illit -7: -':4-v�-'i
-,,
.!�.-r ��W,,7�151*c-,4�w�'i���-17q�-.1--:-:�,-�l--- !�:�, ,�,��­­ �­­ _ , r,
`­­ ­- -4j�lz� I -.1 � - -f�---;j-:;�; -,..-, '1_1�.ii�� - I I - 7�-�,.��,�,-`_,,- �t­. ,-"-"��,,� ­ i� 1­­1 .­�a'-'- j-,
--4. .�, -1 "M_*IAA�� ­�FV�1.9. ,.Z-.:aM.' _Y��z -1 :t-' ­i- , "is 4 -1, � -,
A,4 1 _� -, 1 .4 _�_. I 1 1 ft ,�_
� ,�� i�_ q'.� ."­ . ?it..--��,­ -���,--
,Vg W14 1­�ol�� ��I["t ,.f
.,;;,i! -P_,�., '" M-MR,F.M M I
, I _0
. 'cl,-�,-�-9 FF 4__�__.­ , t. . ,-. . 1I 11 _01=1 I ,
-: AI I .� Y� .� - .. . I 'p-,V ­­�,-�-".
:Z;F , , ., , —
,�", ,- �v , . - ., �
- _R .,- _,Ti,_�4. lj�:1-11�1., "� -� _�, -1.- ;ze
__ ,; .. ,�, I ;_ _� x ,
, 15415k,.417) -Tl�� -
it _q'V= ­ . , . &­ -��' I , - .��
,v,-,-----. ., _ , -, . .1 -,
__ - - `1 .. * -P 'J.,�­­­::-I--.'.I-'�t��,­-
�!.­."g5i��1`0' - ,q , �.;� ..� ). 55-1Z _0
.AE�tgzl X_� � - 1.11-111­11 -�.9.4_��-: ­ ;�-_tK.., �.,­ 41.-��­,�­_�&,�-P '4�w��,I �� - �, --s- .
, . V-:::::" _t���
,, - -
.­.*��.-�;.�e,­' ; %­`_­.,� " I I l­il�;�, Z lgiLlwg;�-.
-_,--,,.-­W --I - ", ,�%AM.': F
, _%, . -1, 'I'___W�
- 5 M � , , § ��;_,. ­'.",<.`�r9za .--,�-ei:g,t� �
un ­ . _,J�.� ,. .
l?"'.-.--- ,, , I` - . - � . .
­_�­- q ,-,- ­­­ ­r - ��­ -.�,;x,i&vsv%�K�- - -- - _-�-,� �, :�,7z.
,&V14; _--
. , �, . 1,�',*f�,g ." , , ,-:;. - `�� i '. — � -­­�' . -
, _ - ..
- .- _?.7-�, -_1 . �,;, � -,,- -ik,k-
- -�Z,-..!,�_., �;".��-4- -A .�,­
* -
� r ��`Mw­ _8�__1!l il ;�V-4�:�:,,,tr,��f,�.4"1:--I�:.-, �_. �� -. .��W, I n for New - _��
-,1.,-W- - ­,,z,,,, �)C;.` --;:1%, Bridge ,��,�,-_..2*, - :." , Pao'-:,2'�,��, _A�,� _11� ,
.,�Q�W�S�111_­�­*" , ..__ - ­`" , f,.; ,,, - ., -, -,
� A � . ,, �_�
. �, . , - .v�,_ LOCatio --�,`.- n .� ,
,�,
. �!* 111 lz-" -,-;:,., -, , .-?,Se;,, X-I
, , , M V, -, . 7 .1
- '; IM _ ..�
�,�Z- ��'_ , ­5,X - 11
,,A,,.�'­
. .., " ,�k, _,�L
9?& ?',"-,',"�,�'*'���,�v,.,..-,'�.�,�,�-��-- , -1 :&' .,e�,,,��. Z'�.,-.,;,& "
� -_ m M
�"I
. '71,1".. v A.. ,
�,;.�*, - - ,;a, . .,�:�
�RM.M.? ­�` �g-.; 2�� �,,! ��-.I- .�$S.­�,,,.i�,.� ,
M � - - __
- _­QW .71" ME ,��
. - 11 �
'. 1p .--�v,,s­­-.� Z, i� *, - �� - .. , .
-4, CO- -... ... ,wu',; ­­­­ �­__­__
. ­ ;�,:,-..._.-�.r ament I 1i
�-�,___`=:_ - . ,�,7�Q - �' . , ,4 an - .
,�,.
. ;, , _-.1 4 A New Ali, % _;%-�_-;� 1�
,
IG ��, -M(ft46M--`_;z �. '. - - ,�, Z�:3__
.. - � - _�:�-_�C' __ "A4,1
- . . .....f"F v .�p...... �
�A ;Ii� ;A
-­,Zi�­.;k- _.._.__,0 Y A . !�.,�I- ZWR�P�*.; ,�.."'. _.
­W-2,111 -..:" 1_11N10.1__1%_-11-"z . 'A' �.1.1 --;�,-g,-
. " � _'_ ,_� -, -j��,_.!;. ,_,,7:v� -4-tte;,5-7­4�,'� __.'l1'111r­V ' "���"_Z_!Al
, , �
_ _I..1� W."_,�, ,��_;, �!%
��t___M__01M_ "--- . - -­._,�,� , . 1111D_­_,m­;­z - ,h
't -0_".5'M ��-­R-��!-­��`Y.?,W n­
,- -_ -Y,�. , 1, _., il-_t. R-1111111 ;,-�Op,�
_Z" __ .,"_­f,-_­_-0?j,i, .. -.:.---:�­,:%-- 7,�C.;,.�f � .7 _9��,_ 1--l-11.
, - ;­
&�-_,�­r�-­­­_.� - - .I;k,.,-..-,. 11 1�; - -,�
- -- - Monuk—MMUMS0 �,zr,
rw ,." - - .11 _. . . . - ,� ­ -__'M - ,- - gpe
�,;_11.bl , - : . .-IT�, _-f 1. n. -!�C-,�_9`� --­J.!:-"-,��,r!Vi-- ,):...,---,t 10 .,;,i
_.q . 1. -- - , �­­,­._e��- :: � .1 ,,,,4, .. X_ _.
. , -- , _-­,,�­F,�:� - '. , ,@�f -,�-.: ­ ."'., -, I 0 ,�
... ,..��__­F---�
�. ­l.,_ ;::"
" �A t,;j�
- -�7 1,!.;�,!'k!��;;iX'.� , . -, - g, - �,,� ���-j�:,.".��-.;"��,.,.-"�.-".- !Z�tii�__7� — , �'
,,,_�� - ,- -­2 , _,� -
". -, - - �' IR __­ -Z ."t�� �
,;!;g� I-I�?_47_5_,�.t I 1. , ,.,
Q��- "r ,� .
�,?";�� .,,�k�.,' , � � .* l, -
-�.' 't, . I 1Z,
.--, �7_ - ,.�,.�,�:­­- �,�!�- - - .. I
. ,_-_W� - -I , _�, � -" .-'j-1.M1.,_ , , L�," . � - I
, _Rd�g.".- -1� .--,��,��--�,,i�,,;,.;--�,.,,.'�.�� -1 I , �
__ . - , ;* 4 .
j !�,6. , _ _ ­ -
.. __ _ , '_ ' ' . _ _ _ .;; �111 _
__ ", , _ � " .1, _, � , ­_ - .. - �n� ­�' I'll
. - ,� i W - '­�� -,
-
'4 . _ ry___ , - ','-�, ,-_;'�!�p`p -i .,; ,le-��:L.Z�e,��,z4'---_- -
-_.'.-__ ,� . �. , , - , - ­,­�',,Aj�_,-
I , - ­ "f-e7___'.1,Q,�' - �
- - -,, " '7'�: , - ��'.,.t:c,�,;-�.-:........
" , R-��,,.MF,!, w4��, '. � �. ' . 7 " ,,, .- ­1. _1_1 ,lri�I
r-_,--,'-,--�-',Z&1:f�­­ .-";,-. ,��Ij� _� �.`,'._ �!; --,-, ,W Y.- a---- � ­,_ - WrIII.C'
�, ,,- U�4'1`Kv .. ,Z. '.­:. A, ��:�ix' . ..
, 4�a, --,�'-,�--AW4�14---"- , �­','-'­ ,!�,zg i �'; � _. ., , iw �E_71��­5,!:,�,­ i,,�*%:L_ �15A "
�&� "!��J.'
,!r
,P
- t�V�­--j-4­,I­.!.P�f-44;-�,--, .---rr g,�- �� � .�
-W _,,�_e_.��Z' .,­t� '
__ w5ig"?,,PV`�,'.%�! _M . - , _ - I
-;4i'Le�, ., �, , . ,- - � _f, _,, . . , . Eon
, ,
1�;� � ., . , . ").
�1 -Z , F _�,O�
, - 0.1- I ._­W�-_m:.,�-u­ g - ..;:41 -�:K, � �.� ,.-
- ­1 '. r , .�e:,�,_ , ;�, .,.��
.��, .".. ­�, W. `��u 'M . 1, P�_21'
.­ , _1'$nkFY,."�-',!,,:"� - ..IZA�­� , -
;1" -,­,s ­,��,�; &--Z��C' ,:..,,� -'r -�t -:;'�>. --��,*?�..'.�_1";,�*,'rr�__­ �
�p 1�1­.­!�.I' I
--,.,,I - `e-", -!1:-7"-,."",VT,!�. ,1
'*1 ,�_�,,e".C,�-;A, -�"-!-r- , V';� .%­-W, *_L7. .". '�_01 ,'. - ,,I ­11 -14�1�� ­­_ ." -, .-. . 1��.
.1. .....M. A�a- Z?� 't , �
- . r _-,-I ,
_­ , .
le- ­­-�L' -1--e-.4,�.,'. ,I.- , .,l.; ,-*�,��`Z',O . ;I..-. "
� , ,7�.,-1, ;_ , . I
­ �M­W­AW­ ­­­0 - �,­, . -7�,"',e�4�jj_ �a':�, jEz "
---;.-1 -*.,M­ . .3, ,)" r, ;�K0W*4­' ­` `.� " ,�.�!­,B-1,
--�' - ­--1M­­�,�.�' - A ._'.,'x
I ", " . ,
- "
11 31,_��11. , - �� Z. ,
_ 1�_ S.1-kill-, - , � _� ,
tll_ �� , 1__,A,��,- .:�%-'U�._ - � _�i,::; �-. ­`� - -,-�Pl.,11 2j�f,..�.­_L-"----- , -, - ,-�:��_­`-,n-­.W�,7;;��-.�, �-f_.,1;1,_�_,1 -�
,,V�_11-z-­s" , � .
-�, ,� , - �,:,..". - �(.. .-,� ,;r-45t- :t -__ 1.­,��,
I ­;� , W--_­­1­I`-";�z,-,ii.q�-�,-6�!�-:"-,.,.���-.���, ­­,4_:��._ --
��,-.. --,�­ -4-,-�- -�g­..,.' ��
11N�01�lw I-. �R, .:i,,, .-"�,'�r ,,-n_-_ -
� ,Z, ��.,',;,'9�,,W,,- .A- -7, - , - " _, - .., - -­­- I _-,_ _1, *:��.-`4i.� A'k, I - -
.
, U , - !,.i,­,W1 ,1�­_,;,�,­­ - �;� ., � .
�:�I'.Ic ;�K _-.111T.. ­­ Il."., A -,;�".-.,;�,-.�l--,'�',�.,,,,'. - !" -� ;,- . ....1. - .1
� ---- -,,,..k-"sjg- - ",--�g�, - -W iw .1: �',Jk,z�`-,Wq_�k-*� IF, Lle;Rffl..�*R- _'-_'�, ," M1, � ,"
- - ­P,­"_";?,_ ".1, %"i�_� ­9 7�F,­­_­­� gg!9 " �, M = 1_'..�-�'%,_
,
,, I __ -��,,�",-.�w.,-".,."..�"'�l��l,
-
.11 .,.','�­ `­:�-,7r3z- - ­ ­ - --_%-.-.."Z-­ -,�f r.� �­,�";,��, - -11�*v_��.�­-;�­-- ��._,_- I lr_­��,_---�-1--"
...1 � 'g'x�_�,. .%N ,:,A W, _.Kc, ,5�, W ��
5-- �' -_­,;.7 ,.� _�r, .." ­ 5- '_ M - ,4��.. , ;a - __ ,R -
- , " - -- - - - -.1 , , .I,.
.
- - Z­rl k't­�16"gp�,,IT..�ve 1.­$;......�� I - -
.�W,Z�,��,-,F.<��,_ - - .? , - � ,
la �Z. - - _
, .
� -
,Z;,,.A � ­�,:.,__- ;__,��_' " 01_', , "., I
, ­!­L-_�--­j­ .� - ­��!�Qr_�., .�_, ... I -..I-_*_ _!V-'tj�'.%7�­' -_��-?,- ­�?,­­."i'­ 't�z""�,-: 1z.-.1- . AIL?Z11 10
, _., , i;�C'111
, _,;, - , , .
_;;� . .
­ -"' -1WV­1-­l�S .-�-­��--_-.,C-, - - - , . W, � ---AM2,L.­_X'D-Q-
-�Q:,. � _ �v La� � ­-%�44N,��*
- , �� - .,. - .:-
t� . .
.. 1; - _.F� M ;i�
-
L � �7� - , ,- .. , F-1 -0 e, ­ - -ORARKON,, V_11 IM-�,M � w��,-.\ �,* .
" t. ,
.7��_�i ".. nk"_ � .� I .,­ I .!.,x,,:,, I � , . ,_
1, - �`­ ,­­, ­�,�,­- . , - - _�q W _ M
, , ,
,-7--,.A,- _,�w_,kk-t :­IZ--4.:�P, - ..!iz*.:-'­-'!i�1,,r -_- .?K" ., � - _ - 4 f_; - _ , ,:e�_� . "u, ,SR��-
� 1. ­W­A -U­- ­­­ - "- - " ­­111- .1 �i
.
. , 1� , .,.A .- V., .-----..-,---� ­�',:, �,q ­'_ � _��, , NO
..-,,_ -�_ .. _ __ . 1­_��. lz'�it j _?��-;k-� � .�,< _'! ;� t;�­�-. , -
- , - , ­­­­­ Wl-
, , -, _; - ___,�,��-�'­ "'.. . _� "'-�- Z%­?- '*.,��,,,-,4&�",r,na-,�,.";:..:�:,S�__1­g� rl:� ,�,S��,x-,��SNzg. , --_-§� �5 Z-5_.'R�,�,R.�R_Y�- Z�-�4m
1�7.!�. - , -, - -',F -, --:::.�, . Ig'. .
�_: - - -
.
�.� � .- - - : � ; . _ �� � ;
� _3�
�:�,. -
� . .­,4��_- ____._..a., M -------- ,��
.I I "IN, *�. I -_ --- �-';�.4�- ' _-c',�_,'-7�F-_R Z��,ffla
I ­ -�, I &­­_ _0_1�- ­ -!,.-, ��­N-
.:1 `o��;!_ __iFY,I;.., M vx--�-_,-,---f"----- !N. - ----'­Z:f� -- __ 'Y X_�­M
�7 9 , . '�.­ 5�rc,w�'_ ,.4.�,
­- __ ---­-,-,,,-..,, 'I.- �,,:,;.__ A -, ":Z .�",�-, - -
11 � -4 -­:I.��,.­-�, t, , : , � _.�, .`.'-� �� . , : -1 _ .r";�11'� ­� ____
_,j��,i, 4.liz XV
-
" , , ,W, A _­ , .11 " , -
I . ­­ ___ , - ­��­,­,,"; ,.,, .. �� �
- __'f.!�`.-,�,���'T�,q:N-,�;�- "i -;_�,'E...--;7 ",'...". -: L4 E, , ,';�-,2 it
. ­�, ­ ',�---.­��
- -, -� , - -,-,;,V-�.,'f,4*I,.)� ON , , -
i
__ �­­;T I k �,,�, � -i ,,,, " _.�,:��
, . -� .. - A0
,r�­ _­ ...... V'Al . . .;;� . .-,,�,:,
"*"z-W,� ,�j ;::,��,T!�191.�:- �;, - ! , -- ,:e. , M, R ,
,., ,
- , ­� . ­­, ­­ ­­, � I S'.11�.Zi�l �i,,�Ar_-�,�_,z�-­� I __.
.-z 5,��� -I-.1k ­1 11­­. -��- :� ,��_�t_3 , � ­­;� ..,� ,-4��.�", ,- ?Cgg�!� ,:.`,*�-�m
?,� i � , , _., __ � -,:...t�,-,, ,_,;- - .Z.. V­11 ilzl�i. �f," , _ -
- � _ .. �.� .� �
- ws .�� - ,hW_1 1,, ­1. _A,;� �.Zi_'­ ­`_', �, - �_� ,
__��.11-,-_�Ylz,;_Zj�stl T, ­ , ,,��,-­.,­, -` . 4
- (�- , �� � T­-,­---,p' - "'7- - �, '-I' �,-:�,-� _-7g"-��z 5��a�z,-, �-—:� ��
, ,:P� I, ,%�T , , - ,11
-_��;1�--.?I� .- - - *��r, .­,�,'��'A -, 'i,,`,,:FS::�_,%1.i��tl,�Z .. ,.-., ,V - _� , ,��_ z­�-,Awl
z �_.,_.­ ".�,, -;;�� 'Y� �,,. " e, , lmi.R,I&A_A� ..:I . ? .. t�,N
--- I - -n$1 _ .�.fj�� 10-,
e_­. , , �,�A - - - ",6�
—
,-
��
Mil _ , _ ,0 .. . � ,�, I
,� - , � .
, _�L, ­_­,,,Z, N%,Zi�s­ ­ ,� , I
"t" . � , ,;__9;­­_ -s- _.11�1 I -�, -.­�_-- �e , M,zs�l �,'�7�X R­ M F, , _­
�t­!,�.­�-.-,jFl�-�­ ...��g ,- ," z " _, ff i� ­�;_�"F I ,�, ,�. '_Qp�, 'i, � 't 4.:,tZ
`�_5, -,-.-�,A i., - ,.. ,,--��.-­-�,�,,,,
, -��;,�,3q,-� ­--V�� _`�­'. _ _ � _M� "
,� k:" -',4: � ­­­­­--v.­ ­�:`,.:��--,�,I!, �'Ii_ _ -li, - - "4-­!�-.41 T: - --- ­;
- _�_ -��, i
,M�
, . ,� , -�..,,,
, ..;.- -1,��­­ �g
W�_�I.I n�l---i'-'I I I? M ., ,­,,,,,­'­,_,F_rA-AN. � _�
� � I'Mr" �- - �_ .-If N3!- ,2, , ::;�,,t�� r.,�
.1z,­ � _��i_�_,
�73:
,, .- - ',�­,��-z'-�,5�-�_.­�e4�L `��1'7;*,� ­��­Zr -
., -;,!�:�`T-_- .,,','f,, -,,,��­�,4'.9 - -�k,Lg4 �,M ���-q�,,-_­- 1,
_� ., - .16 -� _:�
n� _ _. , , A.- u��;; ,� "�,; %_�ol%lt_
-- I , ,,Mll-'��-, �_ "s�-----�,,-4,'.--41-��-�.--���"',,�%�,Al�Y.�,.,;;,4,1-;,,-,,�L� , C I -1 - - N
-7,�­f��;J�-A,Or_- ��` �.--_-,;i- --­-- 1, C --�a-.--- ­ lr,�-,__211 5 I 1_�K_--;�V;-��_ .- _,1 , __ � & i... �, ,t� --- .---- , " ---�,-_`­,�,­ , - ."15i�,3­
_;,�- .. - _% - _�_�,Q , 7,_k
-"?�­' __ _._"�y.`,-Ar.-. - I�,�
_g�i­._ -, � , �_tq-;,­.-�",T�,
-.-:. -,,, --.,a�r-­ - � - ­ ­ ,z��_,­.­­�.N� -t.zk�',Xg-z.,:�,,� a-,­
ZE,; �5,��_, ,. ---"--- -_.�g " -_WZ-�7�:�";--.�",?i:N,,�-.,-7 z-�-,;-��_:_ - M '��- --. ­l: MIL ���_�__111_1�­
W �. '. ,,,- � ..p .. .;,.;:,:" .'� 5--61'--!­��`��" - ,-,�, ---­­,M­, _.
� l�l:-��;:;Whz,5'_ .-�' t - "i�
- .&W- ­.!=�� ,J�� , -
.j�, -.A � I ." . 11�.� - - � . ..WRM�t�gv,2; _�ju"Mg:,,�: _.. '.
, ­­,=�,' _'25��,7-,_ �..,�� -�. -
... I li - ;_Z�11��.`& - ­111�;j*l_­­,,_,,1.­:,�1 �, - _.;�
'f' "--..�, iffKlt"A� -­ . 1_1�1 ­­_ ,-- �_��,
� - .'�Z
�,,-;%­-.,­A���,-�- -1 *_, K
.�. ju -jr
._,�`_r I . al�m� :., - :; -�,-.g-.-.- . _ 1A- MCA— �_W,
,!2' V � . ­",f�� , . -, ,7N� ,r-,., _.
�� .1 ,';,�-­­*t_­'-"�1'- r,�kc_ '��'§-�� g �i�.--,W_� .-.ZS2_.'=�,�:- -.­­".."','Z�,N��,�, v's, ,a,g, ,
.. , -1 ;��Z.- I 1_1 �, , .V� , . . _.� 0-K�-.--;�-�-`i' - -_- - --I-_ -_ _—,- ____--- -,-'---F�z,', '.
-.�e ! I - o �t - .g, I '. ,!,
- � .,z ,�,,; '. , -4 � -,*, _ ­1 .1, - - ­_ -
- ; , i�l 'a - -- '.... - 2 No
z��7�­ " , '4 ., ,��.,,Q,___ - I lx� .�,J_3��,g, , - __ I" ,'��
- - - - -- -,J.,�. -�. ,-, �!-'. ,,,..,--.
, - 4A. �- - �� ..� .�'tN;... `�,�_* N-
I -
­- "I -, -* '2�:-71�!'W­A ---:--�� A'V-A...-,�,.- _ .Azi�� :�, �, M��._"� rth Carolina Department Ut
g .4��[­"' ��,P___Zi� :'l ',-,,:;�..t-,.;�x,,r---'-'i�->-.,V�,K - - - � .0 -
_� I _tQ,��
.. _
_
� . , ��
__ ­.'­­,­ _�1�7 1.�-i
_ ,�� .,;,�4. ,�­_�-�_�r,,-,'­-P�, I :`��'__ ­�----�J�,-� ..,- -.4­­.�r,!E,�,-,�.'F� ; ­,,.,XE.4g,_fW -,­_­­11­1_­l I -­-Z�.ti:jg,�;
�� �_,',, - ivo �, JiM 11­1­­­ _..
-- - . � -�1.,,,, "
­ ,� ., ­­* . - - -
, A21 I !F,_1 .., , ,1� lq­�I­-l.��Zjv_- _-
V,�i.;- , �v , lia"," .& g - Transportation ! ��,--__­-�;�,­Y,��2�
.1. .� :.. � . NL' ., - , IF�t.� -.1"'t,-�,:�. - ­>,--_�;-.'E YM.� _-L .
_�­A_!., _­�, ._.N
,W..
. . , - . . =
.-,-1 1:_`-1 .. ­T -,�,-,-.--�., T - � 11�_� 4�1i, ­�,­_ ,4��' ,X,-j;1Z., 61, . � "' ..'�., ­ M -- .-
- . .- .
__ - , 11- ! . . ,7_ _;3'. .. ....C:',1r'1,­ I., .�I,�,,, ,f, -,� % .5 ."­_­-Wa-,,;_,�:-��:Z7
. F ,I
-�_R wi,l , _t��­ 1.11 _-�_,�e%f_:�Ile'-IIWV.4�":, . _ i .-mg:,�.. -R��-�, -m - � : ,
,,A-,.;.,.,�;q�­; I _ _ 1, ill.
­­-R - ,��;_ . _1� .;�._,.. __ �
, '. ­ _..... - �.X__.. 1. .- !
.:� ,_i _k KA"", - :-, -­x,:,,,j, . ­­ '__ '__ ,;l-,tft��­�,:,�S5.1. 0 �_,_�',I,rl,-1l1.*VtM­ I.N",- I 3-.1� ­',� - P " , - " *1 E�74­�g-.�,, ,v-.
. - - I �: -,
- , M, I- _ � 1'�� I ­­.­.�­�',�_,�'.;"�Ar,,.F,O�Eq, 1 ,.'��,3'�­"�
-. u _% " , �l�,�,.,fgk��f - ____ I ;sZ,Zj-- _.- -,,,,
ig_ 7 "; - I "- �� .� g
-, .i , , , - g Planning&Environmental Branch
-­ .!.-_� �',g ,,*-,"s,,�,g'
, - - _ I , 'Et'1� ,�_ !� 11,11IR
.- WN-11" A7._Af_._ Q--l"l-Ift, ,M;,�,­,­j
"��%,,'5_M&-,-�,��j__.: - -- Z. .. ��,.�. , 'i . - .e,5 , I .e . - - ,, - � - �
i
, . __,_ -,; " -, ,I - , Ulv'_4 !�� 1�7..�.,_ -4­0 J ;.i � . ',� "'I".- .,�j7,t--.'�'i.vlr6k-14�'��5�.�� -_ - F�Zt:""",­ :*-
. ­,V�,��j32�', ­ ­. "_-.,­-1,�0.i-.,-'$ , -
�%t�.�g�� � : . . .., __ , � . , i, - ____�_ ,-.
I _4_ M. ­,­�,11,1411" ­,__J:t- :: ��.�.
. ,., _i,,Z­my�,;
% � - - -,"45% � ASHE OUNTY � 'j-*­'- -.-z
K .I -
M ,
.,�� - ­-".,� `� g--�� � , - W -A— ,-,
-, '. - _-_K ...,-I� " " � "- "� �,�,,Na A- , - M ,,�,-�.-`�- &..,,gz,�-,�,,­m I ____ �.�, .,t,,--; -�-�_
. I. ,_�q�� - .1 ;l ­* I � - , '' _1,��i
� �= .1 - ,­� - . e'. r ,
;ke 1-1 .",i _;_ ­_ �.,��'!p, - :Ig�, --- .--.'%­4��­ , -, M 'I -4- �� - I _
- , Vl;zl, -;..-­­­.��.p ,� Ir f, .� . -- ,
m,z� � 1� .�, "R. _7zl­ :��_.
� -� *fx�, -_�gx,�:,-�_­ , _% -"0- . �
t " -M-01 - -,-, 7..'T`.'�J-� -,';�­, -
-n. - - .�� , _ ,i��"..-4" 1 ,�- ." -�Z;�,
.� ��_'. - - -­.- --wif, ,_1_§_.I 1-12 .4, I .. RON , .. "
k__ , .- C
M�­­"��4.V . ... , , -Z1',�,.7-.,-­,;e"_ � !_
­.:����z �, _,__ z -- --� ,--�:g �'g--;,,Y. -, � ,�� 1, _'.�r­­, _��
,
IlMwlev -, I .,,-;�.�., , -, � �. . , .
� A`1",K-411� .&5,-. ­ ,�,-� !­�, - _� - � """ - .j:t - , w '; ,: 'C'--;-_.-��Z,l� "-;�m:5�-`�'-,��
- , � . �� _� - "::.,
_z
-- .v5,, - . - Z_ t _1, .-­.-­ll­'W-M k� ;�y aw �j��g`��-','., ,i" REPLACE BRIDGE NO.39 1 ,
- , . , �M - . i?.,�� ..I%
_ ,�� :V, : -�, -T,�F ';� - -­_tl�.-,q��_z_-.,v.,47! �'.'.n9,-p,-,::f -s"R_ 17. ­�Z­-­- __,__�
__ -"W:, �, . �5-. �.&4'1 �---_ -
-.3, 1 I'l, .> .-;; - , L'-,�v;-y-l-�-:i-.T::_�
,
- . Mey �. , _�' : I
-
;'e,57'.,�-.- ���,-!,I ;.% -, z M; -
. '.1,� -W;. ,"I"­1. _­_,3�­- _ - .. ,-- 1-5. .i -q,� g,,i�,
I- - - , . r-
- ift . gpp.,--"­li� �; Y�-.:�­_ :��_ I- - W , ," M;;,"" *g­gs- :-*M!in 1 ON US 221 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER ' �,)-­ ��f�.,:,'Z'
l.� ,�:�'ffi __,� 1. _,,� , " , N. - �.-i."[-.'�T Y,'�J1,ul,N: "'n t,
� �,_` .,. - - ,
.. . .--,,,5w 5�-- -i��-!-, - -, , 1-i ,.' 7
�
_`.,;�'",` .�� . f.p-T @ --.-, - - I. _�,.�, �, I.,- 4 tl�­­I I.,IV 'j�� :
,��­_ ,.,.Z!;,; I ,.j� �;.
-, --nI'l �� , - . "' "` ­_,I 11,'Ir .��_'-`�,;,T, i;,F,�:--4ef%,­�1','-";, .-;I,- � ­ "-
.. , -� ..f­:.1-1A� I - 1-,­'.,-­ :,j�� p­-,"<' ..---.----
- ­- - , , ON ___ , _g - - ,- __ " : ?P,-"�-��-`;-`��-�. -`
1:11- , YN g
t44 _11'f.`_ -, t . ,Z, _. , f, I I I
_0 - - P�� -__ M. . , " -�5�-,,--,-,�-.�.,-,,�:��,--,.��I .���,-�-�,.;,��.t�r,.,-;-;,,-,.Y�.� 11 B-1037
- :_ -_ M "
A" I � 4 M _ ,
- - .,a, - -,IV_­7,­­! , " - �. ,, -.,4 ,.--,-..-,.-,�,,t�.,.".-..;.-��� -,.-t.­­, ,,,�­
K � .��­',l ,� ­t?�:�--M'nf: �'�_`�As 1311�R-1 -_M,'� .�,'Sl 0_'j7�;1111&=.x-1,...11__l_­­g­Z Z,��_Qj"_��,.Fl!'&�-.-*..­ 21- I -.-- - ____ ��, ­
" -- -,--; - -" ­ ,, . , ., _11,,� 7 - - ___ - ______ '� _*2:1r_, . �
,Lvil ii , -le
F�_, �, v ,W, ;�"�W,-"­�- � . , - _1 , I .
e, I, -
­,
, �_*-"
,
�--
"'
,-11
- I
­,"
`__ I��
�
-"�-
"I
�11( I
�!_�­_�-'­,
3`_� .-­-��-��
, ,
,-
1-1--21",
'Clo.,�,�,, ,�;_"mi
"R
_ , �
�._,
, ,
,�_"1,�,�
_',
,
, ,-
-
P_
�J�
.I--,'
__- �
--
,,,..�
�
,�
,_,�­ -�_,.�4p­. _­­�- 1�_e,�-,t_* I `.q.;1". I ­Il;­T�i% � ,.,� -,.-�%7r ,t"1, - :._�__,_� _._'.­�_*.,�,�
I i--M�r­-­4'�,� n-1. ­ , - .-, lx� _­ I
201�, W.l , ­'�,,.-_ ,� .4 , ,' -M .��Y_`�;t 'ur I
. �­­,jl��:__�-��,.'- .*­I;,_4j�?�ap,��'V-­:�­,­­,�� A - 1'.,im g@-i-Iql,'111RIT , 30 kilometers 60 _,�&..:
Il.2 -1. � I � . -,��%M�,�:;`�--�! , - , k u meters _,�`,:Z4!�­ -%;!',�,
_.�, � t.- t,�. . � , V%- ,.�,,��,,,.,,��Z-�.,..-,���.',,�;,,.- ,�.;_, ""'�':'A_13,1� li"MJ113�11,V'I�r-�,M� "I -lil-��ll.li,.�,,,i7i-.Ii.,.*;iN 5� L ­,��, . �� .I.,
- .. . .,�e�'.­­:�'­,5' ­ �CAI_11�i.'?��Lfli��-ui 'if: : ­­­­`�,:�`fll�;i'�
­7 -­­1W - '�;4, .'J,.��,_� -J,;?,�".q��f- .. 'LL� ---%_ ­1
,�k. .-z,��,- -.1- ��'.,.'.�-..?;- 5f'�-fr9T4:%qr "I 1-i _
, ­Ift. �, � _." .- I I,.-." '. "",-, -;�_��.,-­-­ - .��S�lt i I figure'7 "' ­­
.1 . " M � t ��i� ?� - M
­71 ir 0.1
. ,%7� , , 4V " - ,. . - � .";
" . 1�,_-� I ,", i , , Q k -
t" "Ir - -I i
, . I, ­-'�; ,,,� _4,�, p,
___ . --MN L- : , - 11 � ,;'�'ik��:�i�,,�f��r ..,t .­:?--.--_!�__--.:.,�
,I
O.. '.1 ­�Y-,-��.�'�l Z­v��-,g 2;4ii��_I
, _.� . .F4- - - __- T�_��,_­­-r­ ,- ­ �1`t .
. .1-11 I ;9,;7.:;��*.;"�-,Mz -1�,;�, n 11 � �,­,�. .._ . .
­_­­_1­ . _­ -.;� V- ) 1,
-1 _�,A­ -� , - M , ,C,Z,�f!,V,,%�.,,-,�ti�-7i�:�-:-a,f,. - I- .",- - -
11 � -�-�* - - � �'. `2 - _ZV�'4� - ."-:,., "' ,
. ."O
- t , - �.- ­-�. 4�1 ... -�r;,��,­,� -­­ ., P�. - . -
- " -_., � �
t- �. -11' - - feet E,!'�T,
I - " _MMM Zi�!;;:�.IWA�QZ, �
, 11_�171 ��"__'l -, I --Z,W�l ... � 11", _ __ 100 feet 200 1:
- III - M" .,.. ,
. - __ - .1 I-P � ..­ ___-_ - __
� Z'*­W�,,, i ­,.P-. - N . Rize-'_- 4,-A-IL�__ _____- ------.I--.---- I----- . __ .- �-,___,-2.11--.
� 1�p - k., -I __ - -,
. -�14A - . . �14 e-� , - - - I ,,�
. MOWN I I .,,, I. �; . - - - ,,_--171�I,".---
�, ,..%.;*- ,.� ,�V, if,., -, r;, - . 7� 4T W p,7 __- I I ­­­1 -
.
.. -��._;--- 1_ !�zMM-11,14--,--o';, _-5w-t ,_­ �-,.--,--,.;�-----,--,-�,-i--�', ,-_11�!-,tz �
go -EM --_-_Mf- 2;SZ
" �,,
.,�-Z'I!�F��:�-,-t57�P'���ii�:,�f'.7 ZM Q
- , "1­­"Ljr ,c - , , 5_­,"�,­­
?,q.�L-�-, 1, i4l.M;P,%&_7__-`­-,,.. IM­;�-MM4,IM-M �A_­W4_ , - --,,-, - ­_ - M1u;­A­1_M7�1M_ !14_t1M1A,_?._iiilt,MI�01�5� ,; -
V .ie! -
,M, ,
.047� � ­,­ .,�.,;,­I .
- E
"
i , 0 - .i-;­ -- - ,., . I _. - .e14 ,,�� -
� , - ag . . . - � .
I� -, - ­ - _ - � �.- I 'A -%M e- -U�­ -
I " _. " . - 0
M � R
_;�
., :�; I-- .1111ft?. ,V
- "
- .1 1. i A - � 5�F ��*,�_�tk_ lu; 'Ka&_;4 "!� Rlk�',_-
_";�
- -I I- . I .. . -, 1-
, � ,� - I - ._ I - -i ­2 li� ;
,�1:. -1 . I— . 1,11 - �tAONMP
� , � 11
��
.%__ , �

x%
T � !t � l- �•� ,�fib, 3 .N ,., N _ ��'^-ti
s.i- 1'''-�� � �..4 . yyirF y�,. �,yr.4 �'', /t � ! ,r � �i•
&m.n. �
Lit r y'd. �; - `' .'Cti 1`'O ✓�p ,. x�' ^�•..,tY ._
•'! lam �`� Id
•y � �.�s + 'Y i � .2u` s'r+' �i a�y' z�' Ip N-c]'ate,,, �` w Y -�I
t r :�J'i�`� 'T;. �,�""!i?'� L .. — �T it����.r i � �x,�a�• ( � -,ti��+�': 1�-S:r
ft, w. _ iZ r• .Art'.:G .h.. --TrS __. .J oaf a.. '{!, 'E'..,,d• _ _.___
_ kf.'q t � t• i
V.
.,mF.at.�`"�Twi'¢'�'i�F`�^`'F.�r r:.3r:GJ� '4•�;:."'�y�y��� s acu ,��c. . -a. 5, .y' ��e•+ .

KSsr cs to 7 x r r
_ �� Lj - � �^j.r ' �' jam./ il. <i.•�N �Y� �
;a+ ti i y Ir CK
•1 ��llS� �lr(. ]�..]hM 1.,� h'tom �r{-r.
-— -�_•;_ �_ ,. ;� �a�.� ��.t � ., is fa
_• f-� ] --• ••.4-, 1. •4. ..L ♦yL r krP� 5-a'L,3"m T'�ME" � t 3 4..
t TY r_ �'. �i�•c :� .a'},y,, ,;y �.4•.�. 1� �� �,�rly3 �d.i
0
�,•- 'tip c8. '�.�o �� _ r� ;�} ..� _ ::
- LYS vim.. ..d•,Ft
-
- ••cr:}- ',]:� ,era:�'' ..7.r
.'�;�="_BSc.. E,"}e.c�' .t>�`...��v�s:a�Y..'..': s�,t;_�'.2'Y�^:z3":.:�.Yr..ras.5:. 1F .rw]. V -� c _'•�

{ �.fV Afl• �`F ..*� '•• t h y }, �. r�,,, �. ry,,,,'�'r'« :�.1 q�d t4
n ti, i$ `\,Y 1� ~.'��i _ F i't,�r�" �i si y, T�g`"1�f�,;rs�. ��s�„� r.�`•
t t ,. 7.}1::kz- � Ott� ,� 'd'r.�` S;`:+ ��•� � +`"'r� i..
4s" •
-.^#7 �;4�'•,' xt. �{ '����° �"'p.. fir. .?3'•' n
r 'r p� *� rtr• �"r...},-:f; 'a:. .;,,`�;i.He ,� s:Y�,S�tC�kr=vu..ci+53u.'3c�f?�C�.e�tw•+'13c.i^�s•a^:::4:u>',..t 1...�c._•, �',._ _. _._
i
RIKE3M SO,
tqih
71
"' K�. -r �C,a wy �+ 'a. s.,d: ^� *' ",t•'�' ;� t.•Fi ty;ti�s.�,�,.
;.}� •'t <_ ,�r�f,.�.,urM .'�:c:Pxt:��
•.x ++
I - it .✓,�" •v, ssi+� ��+s' 7^'��.
1 !� t''��„ r ,t,fy. ?5 �,Y^ � L".nst< -,�S 3 � •,.*'vr..
mug
�r
is :F+.. 7 s xr ..+r ��u,....a..a2-:ii�` �L�.. ..�.c�,S+sG•.�F.`,.�t-�sz..,.-rv�"' ".3`a'•d;»jSr 7' �� _ .
i

PROJECT.SUE Rrf4 256s ZONE X
r.:.
MAP OF ;'/�, ,—;� S� '� ,• �`,
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
�'aJ„x �-
J
• ; � ()��s1, �h.Y7rt7�E`�a��i- �„v.k'�1�`K' -i. ���,� r�,�r.'s � �«'- � K,�'� ,
+�•"�7'l '% kr Y'Fg .3vxsi "v .g.,4 �£. ;sr y F}'`,;.a ; .+.-7
1 - ?:•s �sr�;�` ��� i�c��-•*� f�y �� _ 't t,�t� ���S�'t� 3sva£ �'`4s���.k.i
j
ZONE X
ZONE X
P.
�r's
��.
L--!- 2566
�\ ZONE AEA
_ ZONE AE
` y x FIGURE 6
ZONE X
ZONE X i�x ;yyam ) it 5 L

ATTACHMENTS

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt,Jr., Governor �E H N F�
Jonathan B. Howes,Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director ,
July 16, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams,Planning Engineer
NCDOT,Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Sue Regier, HeadS�n�
Resource Management Program
SUBJECT: US 221 Bridge Replacement, Ashe County(B-1037)
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the Section 4(f statement for the replacement
ofBridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River on US 221. This section of the South Fork
of the New River is a State and Federal Scenic River and is used extensively by the public for boating
and fishing. We agree with the safety commitments in section 3.
In addition to these commitments the Division would like the inclusion of public access at this bridge
crossing. With the current level of river use, public access at all bridge crossings of the South Fork
of the New River is needed. Access from the east side of the river appears to be most feasible at this
site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Let me know if you need additional
information. I can be reached at 733-7795..
/smr •
cc: Jay Wild,New River State Park
S/20
P.O.Box 27687,Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]: FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmdtive Action Employer 50%recycled/10%post-consumer paper

s
Outdoor Adventure throughout Northwestern North Carolina
o
n©c� New River Adventures, Inc.
P.O. Box 433
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
.1unc 20, 1996
Ta: A1r. John N1-illiams
Manning iX. Enviromentai Branch
-N.C. Department oi'Trallsrnrtati►+ii
P.O. Bo 2=201
Frc un- Randy RvN-k
mew River %3iii.1j1ttci3 & irenerai Staru
P.O. Boy 433
Jefferson, N.C_ 2-17640
Dear \1r. i-V iiiiams, .
Thank you for faxing me the first three pages of"the planning document which
outline the replacement (►f bridge 39. 1 agree -with the pr•o,iect 71 pr vposed .ill the
portion of the duculuelil 1ila( 1 have received, which appear:. it.) VC tie poriiun r'eiativu
to the potential elTects on my bus;ines5.
Mi i►ilfi Cllllcel7i t0 thl� U11it 11a: e_.
ii 1 lieeki the jolelitial (iisl'IIVtion ( tl'i►lcil', v�titl oil
the road, aild oil thi, river. _biter our phone conversation. in(,. your assurance that
any interuption of trafilc i,i'ould bt• oidi temporary, meailing minutes, 110t days 01'
longer. I was clad to receive this information, which certaink. added to my.support of
apl3reciate the consideration you have <;iven my l:usines�, anti the time you've
..d.e;7 i ► is :t1...
Randy V. Revi% "
1 c.• .
i;ii�'[ \aL'ifititl': iY. crciiri.i: JLEWe
New River Outfitters
U.S.221 South,Scottville,NC 28672
[phone] 0(919)982-9192

�` ,- �_ ,fig LC �'. ,►►'
LU
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R.Fullwood,Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch,NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau,Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program f
DATE: June 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge#39 over South Fork New
River along US 221, Ashe County,TIP#B-1037.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)proposes to replace the
existing bridge with a new bridge on new location to the south of the existing bridge. In
addition, approximately 100 feet of an unnamed tributary to South Fork New River will be
relocated at the western end of the project.
The South Fork of the New River does not support trout; however, it provides exceptional
smallmouth bass fishing and provides habitat for other species such as sunfish; catfish, suckers,
chubs, shiners, and darters. We have the following comments regarding this project:
1) We are interested in increasing recreational access to the river,which as you know is
designated as a national Wild and Scenic River. If feasible, our agency may want to
construct a small boat launch at the bridge,which would allow the public to easily carry a
canoe or other small boat to the river bank for launching. Would it be possible for the
NCDOT to leave in place a section of the old bridge approach for parking?
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
river water. This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and
causing a fish kill.
3)- If a 404 permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,the project
description should include any plans for temporary work pads to be placed in the river.

B-1037 Page 2 June 6, 1996
4) The NCDOT should contact the Natural Heritage Program(919/733-7701)to determine
if any federal or state listed species may be impacted by this project.
5) The new channel of the unnamed tributary should match the old in terms of average
width, depth, length, slope, and meander pattern. Natural materials (e.g., boulders, trees)
should be used to stabilize the banks rather than lining the new channel with riprap.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact me at 704/652-
4257.

RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
X E.I.S. F CORRIDOR F DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1710602 COUNTY ASHE Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-1037 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #39 ON US 221 IN ASHE CO., OVER SOUTH
FORK NEW RIVER
...
:.•i•.;::.. ESTIMATED.DISPIa�ICEES.: .. i;....;. :.'.:. .;.. ..`; . ':.:':.':;.; ..,..:.'...:INCOME LEVEL ,
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0__
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 . ..._.:VdLiIE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AV�n.anr.E..
... .... _ .. _ _.
Fauns 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit U 0 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0 0-20M WA $o-iso A
�►rrsw�R•Aia.. vEsrioivs: zo eoM 0 iso-2so 0 zo�oM A iso-2so A.
Yet No loin aU"IZ;S"ans,,pi e0-78M 0 250-4e0 0 230-4ee WA
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70100M 0 400-600 0 To-reoM A soo-soo A
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by teo UP 0 ioo up WA too uP WA
displacement? TorAL 0 0 N/A TV/A
X 3. Will business services still be available after d: .
..........................
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size,type,estimated number of NOTE-THE PROPOSED R/W CONTAINS IlYO STRUCTURES,
employees,minorities,etc. A STORAGE BUILDING AND A VACANT HOUSE.THERE
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? ARE NO OCCUPIED RESIDENCES OR BUSINESSES.
6. Source for available housing(list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? NEGATIVE STUDY
X 9. Are there large,disabled,elderly,etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
N/ A 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing GER OG
N/ :. housing available during relocation period? r�AhA F{hr�CH
.A 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
€ ` financial means?
N/... A 14. Are suitable business sites available(list MAR 2 9 1996
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCArIONY
......:......... ..:.. . . .
B.D.BOWERS 03-27-96
Relocation Agent Date .. Approved by Date
Form 15 4 Rmsed 5/99 - Original&1 Copy: state Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation office

� 6
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B.Hunt Jr.,Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain,Secretary Jeffrey J.Crow,Director
May 22, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of.Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh,.'N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 39 on US 221 over South Fork MAY 2 41996 1
New River, Ashe County, B-1037, Federal Aid 1
Project BRSTP-221(6), State Project =`
8.1710602, ER 96-8869
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1996, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are-eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Bridge #39. This bridge is eligible under Criterion A for transportation
because it represents the culmination of transportation improvements at a
major crossing along a new state highway. It is also eligible under Criterion
C as a good, representative example of a 1920s reinforced concrete bridge.
New River General Store. The store is eligible under Criterion C as a rare and
intact example of an early twentieth-century rural general store.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street•Raleigh,North Carolina 27601-2807 g��

Nicholas L. Graf
May 22, 1996, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
DB:slw
cc: -"H. F. Vick
B. Church

i
oe
1P6' ;yJ low *Oov
�
_ '�'� ?-

IIT( l) � ♦sT�Tio
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B.-Hunt, Jr.. Governor Di ' f Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain,Secretary ce, Jr.,Director
July 13,,1995 �G
4
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator 17 1995
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation A, OF. =
310 New Bern Avenue (; JtS1G .
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 'yG' ;.;tGHWAYS
Re: Bridge 39 on US 221 over Sout
h Fork New �FNVIRON��
River, Ashe County, State Project 8.1710602,
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-221 (6)1 B-1037, ER
95-7582, ER.95-9230
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 16, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas Padgett,concerning the above project.
During the course-of the survey no sites' were located within the project area. Mr.
Padgett has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory-Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
-Sincerely,
V
lvtd rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: VH. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh. North.Carolina 27601-2807 .

Federal Aid rIr �Rt✓T7 2Z-1(61 TIP -rur t•to$11 County .. AsjtE
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
V-EPL4L-c. VF_JPr G. ►,lo. 31 oN tA-�, sal ovF.Q. SeuTH ��R 1�Ev� .Q+JER-
On _� �% 1�7 , I°l°tL , representatives of the
✓ North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)
✓ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
✓ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Resister-eligible properties located within the
project's.area of potential of ect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Resister-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the efFect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Resister-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential.eriect. The property/properties and effects) are listed
on the reverse.
Sicaned:
Repre VCDOT, Historic Archiaectural Resources Section Date
IhVt/or the Division ministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative,JSHPO Date
� � •) 17 4l
-
�
, 1 1�•� ,`i
State Historic Preservation Officer. �! / at
(over)

Federal Aid A TIP lo*yi County AyKE
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is-no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible(DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
�A-tDCr� too. yj°I ( pE� _ AVVMSF_ >:FFeC
N Ehl TZ►VF,� GEaE�L STe R-c C D EI - �� ADS ER-s E EFFE-ter
Reason(s) why-effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOTCal FHtiVA SHPO l.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between
the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)
for the Replacement of Bridge#39 on US 221 over the South Fork of the New River
Ashe County,North Carolina
TIP#B-1037, State.Project#8.1710602,Federal Aid#BRSTP-221(6)
WHEREAS,the Federal Highway Administration(FHwA)has determined that the
replacement of Bridge#39 on US 221 over the South Fork'of the New River will have an effect..
upon Bridge#39 and the New River General Store,properties eligible.for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places;and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer(SHPO)pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800,regulations implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(16 USC 470f);and .
WHEREAS,the North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)and Randy and
Barbara Revis,owners of the New River General Store(store owners),have participated in the
consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW,THEREFORE,FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations.in order to take into account
the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHwA will ensure,that the following measures are carried out:
I.age#39
A. Recordation: Prior to the demolition of Bridge.#39,NCDOT shall record the bridge in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan(Appendix A). The
recordation plan shall be carried out and.copies of the record shall be sent to the North Carolina
SHPO prior to the start of construction.
B. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO the
opportunity to review and comment upon designs for the replacement bridge.
II.New River General.Store:
A. Structural Stabilization: NCDOT shall stabilize the structure to withstand the effects
of blasting required.for the project. NCDOT shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO and
store owners regarding the method'of stabilization to be used.
B. Blasting: NCDOT shall control and monitor blasting operations to minimize damage
to the New River General Store.
C. Existing Road and Access: NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO with an
opportunity to review and comment upon plans for the removal of the existing road and access to
the store.

Page 2
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty(30)days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this agreement,FHwA shall consult with
the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHwA or the North Carolina SHPO
determines that the objection can not be resolved,FHwA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty(30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation,the Council will either:
A. Provide FHwA with recommendations which FHwA.will take into account in reaching
a final decision regarding the dispute,or ,
B.Notify FHwA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(b)and proceed
to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into
account by FHwA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2)with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood.to pertain only to
the subject of the dispute;FHwA's responsibility to carry out all the actions under.this MCA that
are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged. .
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent acceptance by the Council,and implementation of its terms, evidence that FHwA
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge#39 and its .
effects on historic properties,and that FHwA has taken into account the effects of the bridge
replacement on historic properties.
Federal Highway Administration
By: Date:�9 -
North Caro ' State istoric Preservation Officer
By: I Date:
Accepted:
Advisory C cil on Historic Preservation
By:_ - Date: --t
r

Page 3
Concur:
North C or
ep of T tion
By: Date:
J

?ase 4
Concur:
New River eneral Store Owners
By: — !/ Date: 7-
r

Page 5
Appendix A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge#39.
Photographic Documentation
Photographic views of Bridge#39 including:
*Overall views(elevations and oblique views)
*Overall views of the bridge in its setting
*Details of construction or design
Format:
*35mm or larger black and white negatives(all views)
*4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
*Color slides(all views)
*All processing to be done to archival standards. Fiber-based paper is the
traditional archival standard. According to Kodak,however,their resin-coated
paper meets archival standards if it is stored in total darkness(in an envelope)
and at low humidity.
*All photographs, negatives and slides to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History Standards.
Graphic Documentation
Reproduction of the construction blueprints from microfilm
Copies and Curation
*One (1) set of all photographic and graphic documentation and the historical
background information shall be deposited with the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent
part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
w

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 8, 2002
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)Public Notice for North Charlotte
Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. TIP Nos. R-2248 BB, C, and
D, State Project Nos. 8.U672205, 8.U672212 and 8.U672214. Action ID No.
200131321 .
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the Public
Notice and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to construct the North Charlotte Outer Loop portion from its connection
with existing I-485, R-2248BA, to past I-77,just east of NC 115. The new road will be a four-
lane divided facility on new location for a distance of 8 miles.
We believe that NCDOT has adequately addressed avoidance and minimization issues for
the subject project. We concur with the proposed mitigation plan. The project will impact 11.96
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 17,252 linear feet of stream channel. NCDOT will mitigate
for a 3.28-acre depressional wetland through the purchase of the Ridge Road Mitigation site.
The remaining 8.68 acres of wetland impacts will be mitigated for by payments to the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). NCDOT will relocate 3,362 linear feet of
stream on-site and will mitigate for the remaining 13,890 linear feet of stream in cooperation
with North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). We are concerned with the high
number of stream impacts due to this project. Large sections of streams will be enclosed within
pipes or culverts, which could dramatically affect aquatic life passage and alter stream
morphology upstream and downstream of culverts. However, we will not object to the project as

TIP No. R-22481313/C/D 2 January 8, 2002
Action ID No. 200131321
proposed provided that NCDOT uphold their environmental commitments and the following
conditions are implemented:
1. The installation of culverts should insure that all waters flow without freefalling or
damming on either end during low flow conditions. The dimension,pattern, and
profile of the stream above and below the culvert should not be modified by widening
the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream.
*Culverts 48" or larger should be buried approximately 1' into the streambed.
Culverts less than 48 inches in diameter should be buried to a depth equal to or
greater than 20% their size to allow for aquatic life passage. Natural streambed
materials should be utilized. These materials can be salvaged during culvert
installation and then placed back in the culvert to mimic natural stream
dimensions through the culvert to the extent possible.
eIf culverts are long,notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete
box culverts at 15 foot intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the
culvert, to reduce flow velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and
other aquatic organisms moving through the structure.
*When more than one pipe or culvert is installed, the culvert should be sized
appropriately so that base flow can be directed through one culvert to allow
aquatic life passage during normal and low flow conditions. Water should be
diverted through a single culvert by installing a short sill on the upstream end-of
one structure to block low flows. Where disrupted,natural floodplain benching
should be restored upstream and downstream of the second, "dry", culvert.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare
soil within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control. We encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite vegetation and materials for
streambank stabilization, to minimize the use of riprap (or hard stabilization methods)
and to maximize the use of native vegetation for stabilization and shade.
3. Work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
4. Stormwater should be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and should not be
routed directly into streams or wetlands.
5. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly inspected
and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.

TIP No. R-2248 BB/C/D 3 January 8, 2002
Action ID No. 200131321
6. We encourage NCDOT to follow NCWRC guidelines for on-site stream relocation:
®The new channel design specifications should be calculated from field
measurements of an unimpacted section of stream (reference reach).
*The channel design should include a floodplain terrace at stream bankfull.
*Substrate in the relocated channel should match that of the existing stream.
Rootwads used in conjunction with-large rock provide stabilization and
increase instream habitat diversity.
®Stream banks should be properly sloped and stabilized with vegetation and tree
species. Riprap lined banks are not acceptable.
eAll work on the relocated channel should be completed and stabilized before the
water is-diverted.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Public Notice. If we can
be of any further assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele,DWQ

Type of Hydraulic Stream Wetland Impacts to Intermittent or High Quality Channel Type and size Riparian buffer
Number Alternative Name Structure Recommendation I Cost Classification Rating wetlands and streams Perennial? Resource? dimensions of existing structure impacts
Yes, drains to Bed to crown 9 ft.,
1* 1 Dog Creek RCBC Remove C Tr N/A N/A Perennial South Fork of base width of 8 ft., RCBC, 2 @ 8 ft X 8 ft N/A
New River channel depth of 3 ft.
N/A, New Construct new 94 linear feet(measured
1A** 1 Tributary to Dog Creek Location RCBC, 1 @7 ft.X 6 C Tr NIA from fill slope to fill Perennial No N/A N/A N/A
ft. slope)
N/A, New Construct new 240 linear feet Yes,drains to base width of 6 feet,
1 B** 1 Dog Creek RCBC,2@8 ft.X 7 C Tr N/A (measured fill slope to Perennial South Fork of channel depth of 2.5 N/A N/A
Location ft. fill sloe) New River feet
100 Linear feet of Bridge No.29, Length=31 ft. RC
Replace with a 2 @ stream impacts Yes,drains to Bed to crown 13 ft., Bridge. Single span, built in 1922,'
2 1 Dog Creek Bridge 8 ft.X 8ft. RCBC $150,000 C Tr N/A (measured from fill slope Perennial South Fork of base width of 8 ft., sufficiency rating of 73.2/o, N/A
to fill slope) New River channel depth of 3 ft. estimated remaining life of 10
ears 4/02 inspection report)
Bridge No. 29, Length=31 ft. RC
Replace with a Yes,drains to Bed to crown 13 ft., Bridge. Single span, built in 1922,
2a 1 Dog Creek Bridge cored slab bridge, $275,000 C Tr N/A NIA Perennial South Fork of base width of 8 ft., sufficiency rating of 73.2%, N/A
52'single span New River channel depth of 3 ft. estimated remaining life of 10
ears 4/02 inspection report)
Replace with a con Bridge No.29, Length=31 ft. RC
span (aluminum 100 Linear feet of Yes, drains to Bed to crown 13 ft., Bridge. Single span, built in 1922,
bottomless culvert stream impacts sufficient rating of 73.2%,2b 1 Dog Creek Bridge $425,000 C Tr N/A Perennial South Fork of base width of 8ft., y g N/A
on concrete (measured from fill slope New River channel depth of 3 ft. estimated remaining life of 10
footings), 1 @ 36 to fill slope)
years(4/02 inspection report)
ft.X9ft.
Tributary to Nathan's Bottomless 37 linear feet of stream Bed to crown 6 ft.,
3 1 Creek RCBC Retain and extend B Tr N/A impacts(measured from Perennial No base width of 8 ft., 1 @ 8 ft.X 4 ft. Bottomless RCBC WA
fill slope to fill slope) channel depth of 3 ft.
Bed to crown of 14
Yes, drains to
4* 1 Nathan's Creek RCBC Remove B Tr N/A N/A Perennial South Fork of ft., base width of 10 2 @ 8ft X 7 ft. RCBC N/A
New River ft., channel depth of
5 ft.
Tributary to Nathan's N/A, New Construct new 233 linear feet
4A** 1 RCBC, 1@7 ft.X 7 B Tr N/A (measured from fell slope Perennial No N/A NIA N/A
Creek Location fF 4-fill

0 0
o v
Vp^ N CID
CID
0 W
Z a o
Q w
3

Construct new 69 linear feet(measured Yes,drains to ocu 'U L01 UM u1 IIf
4B** 1 Nathan's Creek N/A, New RCBC, 2@8 ft.X 8 B Tr N/A from fill slope to fill Perennial South Fork of ft., base width of 10 N/A N/A
Location ft. slope) New River ft., channel depth of
5 ft.
Bed to crown of 10
5* 1&2 Long Branch RCBC Remove B Tr N/A N/A Perennial No ft., base width of 4 2 @ 8 ft X 8 ft. RCBC N/A
ft., channel depth of
4 ft.
N/A, New Construct new 151 linear feet
5A** 1&2 Long Branch Location RCBC, 2@7 ft. X 7 B Tr N/A (measured from fill slope Perennial No N/A N/A
ft. to fill slope)
Replace with new Bridge No. 39, Length=461'6", RC
bridge immediately B ORW, Wild and Bed to crown of 45 Bridge. 10 spans, built in 1922,
6 1&2 South Fork New River Bridge south of existing Scenic River N/A N/A Perennial Yes ft., base width of 220 sufficiency rating of 44.0, estimated N/A
location, new (federal), Natural and ft., channel depth of remaining life of 5 years(4/02
bridge length of Scenic River(state) 40 ft.
475 ft. inspection report)
132 Linear feet of Bed to crown of 8 ft.,
7 1&2 Tributary to Beaver RCBC Retain and extend B Tr N/A stream impacts Perennial No base width of 5 ft., 1 @ 8 ft.X 6 ft. RCBC N/A
Branch (measured from fill slope
to fill sloe channel depth of 2 ft.
125 linear feet of stream
Replace with impacts (measured from Yes, drains to base width of 5-7
8 2 Nathan's Creek CSP RCBC, 1 @ 8 ft.X B Tr N/A fill slope to fill slope) Perennial South Fork of feet, channel depth 1 @ 84 in. diameter N/A
6 ft. 0.26 acres of wetland New River of 5 feet
impacts
N/A, New Construct new 499 linear feet of stream Yes,drains to base width of 5-7
9 2 Nathan's Creek Location RCBC,2 @ 8 ft.X B Tr N/A impacts(measured from Perennial South Fork of feet, channel depth N/A N/A
7 ft. fill slope to fill slope) New River of 5 feet
*: Improvements to horizontal alignment will eliminate existing structure.
*": Improvements to horizontal alignment will require new drainage structure.