Proposed US 221 widening from US 421 to US 221 business/NC 88 in Jefferson, Watauga and Ashe Counties, WBS element 34518.1.1, federal aid project STP-0221(13), STIP project no. R-2915 : administration action, environmental assessment

              •
•
•
•
S-1
SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to
evaluate the potential impacts of this proposed transportation improvement
project. According to Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) toolkit on NEPA
Documentation, an EA is prepared when the significance of a transportation
project’s impacts is uncertain. The EA will disclose the project benefits and
environmental impacts to the public and to other local, state, and federal
agencies to obtain their comments on the proposed action and assist the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and FHWA in the decision-making
process. If at any point in the process of preparing an EA, it is
discovered that the project would result in significant impacts, an
Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. If after completing the EA, it
is determined that there are no significant impacts associated with the project,
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared, addressing
comments received on the EA from the public and local, state, and federal
agencies.
B. Description of Proposed Action
The NCDOT and FHWA propose to widen US 221 to a four-lane, median-divided
facility from US 421 in the Deep Gap Community of Watauga County to
the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe
County. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length and is shown in
Figures 1A and 1B.
C. Summary of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi-lane
facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic
operations, and reduce the rate of traffic crashes.
D. Alternatives Considered
A full range of alternatives was considered, including a No-Build
Alternative, a Public Transportation Alternative, a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative, and improvements to the existing facility. The
No-Build, Public Transportation, and TSM Alternatives were eliminated for the
following reasons:
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial
improvements to the US 221 study corridor. The No-Build Alternative would not
meet the purpose and need identified for the proposed project. It would not
S-2
improve the traffic flow or level of service (LOS) of US 221 through the project
study area, nor would it address the corridor’s higher-than-average crash rates.
The project study area is not well served by mass transit. Based on the
project context, improvements to public transportation would not improve
vehicle flow or safety on US 221 and would not eliminate the need for widening
the existing facilities and improving the alignment. Therefore, the Public
Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this
project and was eliminated from further study.
TSM improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the
roadway within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures
and without reconstructing or adding additional through lanes to the existing
road. TSM improvements will not increase capacity or improve levels of service
enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the 2035 design year. Therefore,
the TSM Alternative was eliminated from further study.
E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative
In consideration of the right-of-way impacts, mountainous terrain,
environmental constraints associated with stream impacts, and sound
engineering principles, the Merger Process Team agreed at the December 16,
2008 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design Options) to the “Best Fit”
Widening Alternative. This alternative will widen US 221 at locations that “best
fit” the current road location and surrounding land uses. “Best fit” locations
were evaluated and selected to improve the existing roadway alignment,
minimize impacts, and permit traffic maintenance during construction.
Three typical sections for the widening of US 221 were evaluated. These
typical sections are shown in Figures 6-8 of Appendix A. The NCDOT-recommended
alternative for the proposed US 221 widening improvements are
shown in Figure 2 (sheets 1-14).
1. Figure 6 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a 23-foot-wide raised grassed median with curb and gutter and 8-
foot-wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421
to NC 194.
2. Figure 7 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a 36-foot-wide depressed grassed median and 8-foot-wide shoulders
(four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of
Long Street.
3. Figure 8 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a variable 17.5-foot-wide raised grassed median and 8-foot-wide
shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet south of
Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson.
S-3
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
The project will result in the displacement of approximately 70 homes, 33
businesses, and two religious facilities. It crosses seven named streams and
their tributaries, with a total of 24 stream crossings, and will impact
approximately 20,804 linear feet of jurisdictional stream and 3.7 acres of
wetlands. Approximately nine (9) residences and no (0) businesses will
experience traffic noise impacts. Two historic properties in the project study
area were identified as eligible for National Register listing. The project will have
No Adverse effects on these properties. An archaeological survey will be
conducted after the Least Environmental Damaging Preferred Alternative
(LEDPA) is identified.
Eleven (11) federally protected species are listed for Ashe and Watauga
Counties. The project is anticipated to have no effect on ten (10) of those
species, including the Bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big-eared
bat, Spruce-fir moss spider, Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star,
Road mountain bluet, Spreading avens, Swamp pink, and Rock gnome lichen.
The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Virginia spiraea.
A summary of the project impacts is provided in Table 1.
G. Permits Required
An individual Section 404 permit will be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. In addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
H. Coordination
Federal, state, and local government agencies were consulted at the
outset of this study. The written comments that were received from these
agencies are presented in Appendix K. Coordination WITH us Fish and Wildlife
Services (USFWS) is currently underway.
A local official’s meeting (LOM) and citizen’s informational workshop
(CIW) were held on October 24, 2006, and a second LOM and CIW were held on
March 26, 2009 (see Appendix H for information regarding the meetings and
workshops).
Due to the anticipated impacts to stream and wetlands, a NEPA/Section
404 Merger meeting was held on January 22, 2008 for Concurrence Point 1
(Purpose and Need and Study Area). A second Merger meeting was held on
December 16, 2008 for Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives to Carry Forward for
Detailed Studies). A Merger meeting for Concurrence Point 2A (Alignment
Review and Bridging Decisions) was held on December 15, 2009, and the
Merger Team requested that a site field visit be conducted. The Merger Team
met on April 7, 2010 for the field review meeting. Concurrence was reached on
S-4
each of these points. Another CP 2A meeting was held on April 12, 2012 to
discuss changes to the interchange between US 221 and US 421. It was
determined that another field meeting would be conducted to review the design
options and associated environmental impacts. The merger team met on May
24, 2012, and concurrence was reached on all sites except Site 1, which is a
stream crossing over Gap Creek at the proposed US 221/US 421 interchange.
A meeting will be held in the following months to reach a decision on Site 1.
(See Appendix J for details.)
This document will be sent to federal, state, and local government
agencies for review and comment, including the agencies represented in the
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team. NEPA/Section 404 Merger will continue
throughout the project studies.
I. Contact Information
Additional information concerning this proposal and document can be
obtained by contacting the following individuals:
John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 856-4346
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: (919) 707-6000
S-5
Table 1
Summary of Direct Project Impacts
STIP Project R-2915
Feature Anticipated Impacts
Project length – miles 16.1
Residential relocations 70
Business relocations 33
Total relocations 103
Major utility crossings 1
Historic Properties (See Note 1) No Adverse Effects – two
properties
Archaeological Sites TBD by NCDOT after
LEDPA
Cemeteries (See Note 2) 2
Wetland Impacts – acres (See Note 3) 3.7
Stream Impacts – linear feet (See Note 3) 20,804
100-year floodplain crossings 5
Water supply/watershed protected areas 0
Hazardous spill basin areas 2
Impacted noise receptors (See Note 4) 9
Federally protected species in Watauga and Ashe
Counties (see Note 5)
11
Hazardous Material Sites 13
Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Impacts (acres) 1.5
Notes:
(1) = Baldwin Bethany Cemetery and Barnett Idol House
(2) = Gap Creek Cemetery and Baldwin Bethany Cemetery
(3) = Shown acreage includes 25-foot clearing limits outside slope stake lines
(4) = Based upon preliminary traffic noise analysis
(5) = Biological conclusions: No Effect for Bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel,
Virginia big-eared bat, Spruce-fir moss spider, Blue Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing
star, Road mountain bluet, Spreading avens, Swamp pink, or Rock gnome lichen; May
Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for Virginia spiraea.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ S-1
A. Type of Action ......................................................................................... S-1
B. Description of Proposed Action ............................................................... S-1
C. Summary of Purpose and Need ............................................................... S-1
D. Alternatives Considered......................................................... . ..............S-1
E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative ..........................................................S-2
F. Summary of Environmental Effects ........................................................ S-3
G. Permits Required .................................................................................... S-3
H. Coordination ........................................................................................... S-3
I. Contact Information ................................................................................ S-4
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................. 1
A. General Description ................................................................................... 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ........................................................ 1
C. Project Cost ............................................................................................... 1
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT...............................................................1
A. Purpose of Project ...................................................................................... 1
B. Need for Project ......................................................................................... 2
1. Description of Existing Conditions ..................................................... 2
a. Functional Classification ............................................................. 2
b. Physical Description of the Existing Facility ................................. 2
1. Roadway Cross-Section ......................................................... 2
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ......................................... 2
3. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................... 2
4. Speed Limits .......................................................................... 3
5. Intersections .......................................................................... 3
6. Railroads ............................................................................... 3
7. Structures ............................................................................. 3
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ................... 4
a. Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. 4
b. Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................... 4
c. Greenways ....................................................................... 4
9. Utilities .................................................................................. 4
c. School Bus Usage ........................................................................ 4
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity ... .........................................................5
1. Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................ 5
2. Existing Levels of Service ....................................................... 6
3. Future Levels of Service (No-Build Scenario – year 2035) ....... 9
4. Future Levels of Service (Build Scenario – year 2035 ............. 9
e. Traffic Crash Data ...................................................................... 10
f. Airports ..................................................................................... 13
g. Public Transportation ................................................................ 13
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ................................................. 13
a. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program .................. 13
b. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors.......................................... 14
c. Local Thoroughfare Plans ........................................................... 14
d. Land Use Plans .......................................................................... 15
1. Watauga County ................................................................. 15
2. Ashe County ........................................................................ 15
3. West Jefferson ..................................................................... 16
C. Benefits of Proposed Project ..................................................................... 16
III. ALTERNATIVES ........................... ...............................................................17
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ................................................................ 17
1. No-Build Alternative ........................................................................ 17
2. Public Transportation Alternative .................................................... 17
3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative .................. 18
4. Improve Existing Facility ................................................................. 18
B. Detailed Study Alternatives ..................................................................... 21
C. NCDOT Recommended Alternative ........................................................... 21
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........ ...............................................................21
A. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment .................................................... 21
B. Right of Way and Access Control ............................................................. 22
C. Design Speed and Speed Limit................................................................. 22
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions......................................................... .......22
E. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ................................................... 22
F. Service Roads .......................................................................................... 23
G. Railroad Crossings ................................................................................... 23
H. Structures ............................................................................................... 23
I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................. 23
J. Utilities .................................................................................................... 24
K. Noise Barriers .......................................................................................... 24
L. Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing ............................ 24
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION..............................25
A. Natural Resources ................................................................................... 25
1. Physical Characteristics .................................................................... 25
2. Biotic Resources ................................................................................ 25
a. Terrestrial Communities ................................................................ 25
b. Terrestrial Wildlife ......................................................................... 27
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... 27
3. Water Resources ................................................................................ 28
a. Aquatic Communities .................................................................... 29
b. Invasive Species ............................................................................ 29
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ..................................................... 29
4. Waters of the United States ............................................................... 30
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments .................................................... 30
b. Riparian Buffers ............................................................................ 30
c. Wetlands ....................................................................................... 30
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ..................................................... 30
e. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ....................................... 34
1. Avoidance ................................................................................... 34
2. Minimization .............................................................................. 34
3. Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................ 35
f. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................... 35
g. Construction Moratoria ................................................................. 35
5. Rare and Protected Species ............................................................... 36
a. Federally Protected Species............................................................ 36
b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................. 42
c. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Candidate Species .......................... 43
6. Soils .................................................................................................. 44
B. Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 44
1. Historic Architectural Resources ....................................................... 44
a. Historic Properties ......................................................................... 44
1. Baldwin Bethany Cemetery ....................................................... 45
2. Barnett Idol House .................................................................... 46
b. Potential Project Effects ................................................................. 46
2. Archaeological Resources .................................................................. 47
C. Section 4(f) Resources and 6(f) Resources ................................................ 47
1. Section 4(f) Resources ....................................................................... 47
2. Section 6(f) Resources ....................................................................... 49
D. Farmland................................................................................................. 49
1. Voluntary Agricultural Districts and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural
Districts ............................................................................................ 50
E. Social Effects ........................................................................................... 50
1. Neighborhoods/Communities ............................................................ 50
a. Community Profile and Demographics ........................................... 51
b. Population by Race ........................................................................ 52
c. Economic Status ............................................................................ 52
d. English Proficiency ........................................................................ 53
e. Housing Characteristics ................................................................. 53
f. Business and Employment ............................................................. 54
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses .......................................... 55
3. Environmental Justice....................................................................... 55
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................ 56
5 Public Facilities, Schools, and Institutions. ....................................... 56
F. Land Use ................................................................................................. 57
1. Existing Land Use ............................................................................. 57
2. Local Area Plans/Goals ..................................................................... 57
a. Watauga County ........................................................................... 57
b. Ashe County ................................................................................. 57
G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects .............................................................. 58
1. Indirect Assessment ............................................................................ 58
2. Cumulative Assessment ...................................................................... 59
H. Flood Hazard Evaluations ........................................................................ 59
I. Hazardous Spill Basins............................................................................ 60
J. Traffic Noise Analysis .............................................................................. 60
1. Characteristics of Noise ....................................................................... 60
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................... 61
3. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................................... 61
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ....................................... 62
5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ........................................... 62
6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ....................................................... 65
a. Highway Alignment Selection ........................................................... 65
b. Traffic System Management Measures ............................................. 65
c. Noise Barriers .................................................................................. 66
d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered ............................................ 66
7. No-Build Alternative ............................................................................ 67
8. Construction Noise .............................................................................. 67
9. Summary ............................................................................................ 67
K. Air Quality Analysis ................................................................................. 67
1. Attainment Status ............................................................................... 68
2. Carbon Monoxide ................................................................................ 68
3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide ................................................................ 68
4. Particulate Matter and Sulfur .............................................................. 68
5. Lead .................................................................................................... 68
6. Mobile Source Air Toxics ..................................................................... 69
a. Background ..................................................................................... 69
b. NEPA Context .................................................................................. 70
c. Analysis of MSAT in NEPA Documents............................................. 71
d. MSAT Analysis ................................................................................ 71
e. Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific
MSAT Health Impacts Analysis ......................................................... 72
f. MSAT Conclusions ........................................................................... 72
7. Construction ....................................................................................... 72
8. Summary ............................................................................................ 73
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................. ..............................74
A. Citizens Informational Workshops ........................................................... 74
1. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 1 .............................................. 74
2. Citizens Informational Workshop No. 2 .............................................. 74
B. Local Officials Meetings ........................................................................... 75
1. Local Officials Meeting No. 1 ............................................................. 75
2. Local Officials Meeting No. 2 ............................................................. 76
C. Newsletters .............................................................................................. 76
D. Public Hearing ......................................................................................... 77
E. NEPA 404 Merger Process........................................................................ 77
F. Additional Agency Coordination ............................................................... 78
VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................ ..............................78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Direct Project Impacts ............................. ..............................S-5
Table 2 – 2007 and 2035 Average Daily Traffic ............................................................ 5
Table 3 – 2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS).......................................................... 7
Table 4 – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary ......................................... 8
Table 5 – Summary Table of Crash Data for US 221 .................................................. 10
Table 6 – Crash Data, 2004-2007: US 221 ................................................................. 11
Table 7 – High-Incidence Intersections, 2004-2007: US 221 ...................................... 12
Table 8 – Crashes by Type, 2004-2007 ...................................................................... 12
Table 9 – STIP Projects Near US 221 Project Area ...................................................... 13
Table 10 – Summary of Potential Impacts at the Functional Design Level .................. 19
Table 11 – Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ....................................... 28
Table 12 – Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for
Study Area Streams .................................................................................. 28
Table 13 – Summary of Potential Impacts by Stream Designation .............................. 31
Table 14 – Permanent Impacts to Wetlands...................................................... ......... 31
Table 15 – Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe and Watauga Counties .......... 36
Table 16 – Soils in the Study Area ............................................................................. 43
Table 17 – Population Growth, 1990-2000 ................................................................. 52
Table 18 - Population by Race, 2000.......................................................................... 52
Table 19 - Economic Data for the Study Area, 2000 .................................................. 53
Table 20 – English Proficiency for the Study Area, 2000 ............................................ 53
Table 21 - Housing Characteristics, 1990-2000............................................... ......... 54
Table 22 - Predicted Number of Traffic Noise Impacts (Number of Receptors) ............. 63
Table 23 - Predicted Substantial Noise Level Impacts (Number of Receptors) ............. 64
Table 24 - Predicted Leq Noise Levels and Noise Contour Distances .......................... 65
Table 25 - VMT for US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties........................................ 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 9 – National Register Boundary Proposed for Baldwin Bethany
Cemetery..………………………………………………………………………………..46
Figure 11 – National MSAT Emission Trends 1999-2050 for Vehicles Operating on
Roadways Using EPA’s Mobile6.2 Model………………………………………….70
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures 1-A and 1-B – Project Location and Study Area
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Preferred Alternative (14 sheets)
Figures 3-A through 3-D – 2007 Base Year No-Build Daily Forecast
Volumes
Figures 4-A through 4-D – 2035 Future Year Build Daily Forecast
Volumes
Figure 5 – TIP Projects nearby US 221 Project Area
Figures 6 through 8 – Proposed Typical Sections
Figures 10-A through 10-D – Community Context Diagram
Appendix B – Scientific Names of Species Identified in the Report
Table B-1 – Project Study Area Streams
Table B-2 – Project Study Area Stream Characteristics
Table B-3 – Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetland in the Study Area
Table B-4 – Culvert and Bridging Decisions
Appendix C – SHPO Correspondence
Appendix D – NCDOT Relocation Report and Relocation Programs
Appendix E – Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type
Projects NRCS-CPA-106
Appendix F – Preliminary Traffic Noise Analysis Information
Table F-1 Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily
Table F-2 Noise Abatement Criteria
Table F-3 Ambient Noise Levels (Leq)
Traffic Noise Exposures
Appendix G – Preliminary Air Quality Information
Appendix H – USTs, Landfills, and Other Potentially Contaminated Sites
Appendix I – Citizens Information Workshop Materials
Appendix J – NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms
Appendix K – Scoping Comments Received from Federal and State Agencies
and Regional and Local Governments
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in
consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to
widen US 221 from US 421 in the Deep Gap community of Watauga County to
the US 221 Business/NC 88 intersection in the town of Jefferson in Ashe
County. The project is approximately 16.1 miles in length and is shown in
Figures 1A and 1B. The preferred widening improvements are shown in Figure
2. All figures are located in Appendix A.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The NCDOT 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
included the proposed widening of US 221 in Watauga and Ashe Counties,
North Carolina. The STIP called for right-of-way acquisition to begin in Fiscal
Year 2012 and for construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2013. The STIP included
total funding of $99,743,000 for the project, including $12,020,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and utilities and $85,723,000 for construction.
The NCDOT 2012-2016 STIP includes the proposed widening of US 221
from US 421 in Watauga County to US 221 Business/NC 68 in Jefferson, Ashe
County to a four-lane divided facility, with a total project length of 16.1 miles.
The STIP calls for right-of-way acquisition to begin in Fiscal Year 2013 and for
construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2015. The STIP includes total funding of
$135,605,000 for the project, including $12,020,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and utilities and $118,400,000 for construction.
C. Project Cost
The estimated project cost is $154,710,928, which includes $33,997,900
for right-of-way acquisition, $2,313,028 for utility relocation, and $118,400,000
for construction.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi-lane
facility to increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic
operations, and reduce the rate of traffic crashes.
B. Need for Project
1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
US 221 is classified as a major arterial on the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
b. Physical Description of the Existing Facility
The US 221 project area is nestled in the Appalachian Mountains and is
located only a short distance from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The terrain is
mostly mountainous, with some relatively flat sections near each project
terminus. The character of the surrounding area is mostly rural and
agricultural, with scattered low-density residential uses and some minor
commercial land uses.
There are two municipalities that border the project area: West Jefferson
and Jefferson. The small communities of Deep Gap, Fleetwood, Baldwin,
and Beaver Creek are also located along existing US 221. The study area
is approximately 10 miles northeast of the City of Boone and the Village
of Blowing Rock. US 221 is a vital transportation link between Boone and
Jefferson.
1. Roadway Cross-Section
US 221 is generally a two-lane, 20- to 24-foot-wide roadway with usable
shoulders that range in width from five to 12 feet. In some locations, the
shoulders are partially paved, with pavement that varies from 2 to 4 feet
in width.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The existing US 221 roadway alignment does not conform to current
NCDOT horizontal and vertical curve standards. The horizontal curvature
and grades along the highway exceed current standards in some
locations. The existing roadway alignment includes horizontal degrees of
curvature as high as seven degrees and grades as high as eight percent.
3. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way ranges from 100 to 400 feet in width. There is
partial control of access beginning in the vicinity of SR 1200 (Frank
Edwards Road), extending to the intersection of US 221 Business/NC 88
in Jefferson.
4. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit on US 221 is 55 miles per hour (mph) within the
project area, with the exception of the town of Jefferson, where the
posted limit is 35 mph.
5. Intersections
The project area contains six signalized intersections along the project.
The locations of these signalized intersections are listed below.
• Southern project terminus at the intersection of US 221 and US
421
• US 221 at the intersection of NC 194 and SR 1272 (Vernon
Rotten Road)
• US 221 at the intersection of US 221 Business/NC 194 and NC
183
• US 221 at the intersection of SR 1283 (Ashe County High School
Road)
• US 221 at the intersection of SR 1254 (Long Street)
• Northern project terminus at the intersection of US 221 and US
221 Business/NC 88 (East Main Street)
There are 22 intersections controlled by stop signs located along the
project.
6. Railroads
No railroads are located within the immediate project area.
7. Structures
There are 24 stream crossings and two bridges located along US 221
within the project area. The existing bridge over the South Fork of the
New River is 230 feet long and was constructed in 1951. Because the
existing bridge has a remaining service life of seven years, replacement of
the bridge is recommended in conjunction with the widening
improvements. The other bridge is an overflow structure for the
floodplain along the South Fork of the New River. This structure is 136
feet long and was constructed in 1994. It is recommended that this
structure be retained and that a new parallel bridge be constructed to
accommodate the new travel lanes.
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways
a. Bicycle Facilities
This section of US 221 is not listed in the STIP as having a need
for incidental bicycle accommodations, and US 221 is not included
in a state-designated bicycle route system. However, the Ashe
County Parks and Recreation Department reports that there is
significant bicycle traffic along the US 221 corridor. Ashe County
hosts an annual bicycle event called the Blue Ridge Brutal that
uses mountainous terrain to challenge bicyclists. In 2009, a
portion of US 221 within the study area to the south of West
Jefferson was used as part of the event route.
b. Pedestrian Facilities
There are no sidewalks along the US 221 project study area.
c. Greenways
The Town of West Jefferson recently completed a pedestrian plan
that includes a proposed greenway along US 221 from Long Street
to the north of the project terminus at the intersection of US 221
Business/NC 88. The proposed greenway will be located outside of
the existing and proposed US 221 right-of-way limits.
9. Utilities
Utilities in the project area include natural gas, water, sewer, electric,
telephone, fiber-optic cable, and cable television. Frontier Energy has a
six-inch high-pressure natural gas main along US 221 from Deep Gap to
south of Idlewild Road. Charter Communications has an aerial fiber-optic
TV cable along US 221 from Deep Gap to Liberty Grove Road. Ashe
County Cable has TV cables along US 221 from Baldwin to Liberty Grove
Road. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation (BREMCO) has aerial
power service lines throughout the project area, with high-tension
transmission lines crossing US 221. US Sprint has underground copper
cables along US 221 from south of West Jefferson to Jefferson. Skyline
Telephone has underground fiber-optic cables along US 221 from Deep
Gap to Jefferson. MediaCom has buried fiber-optic TV cables along US
221 from Baldwin to Jefferson.
c. School Bus Usage
Based on coordination with the Ashe County Schools, approximately 30
buses use the US 221 corridor twice each day. These buses service Ashe
County High School and Westwood Elementary School.
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity
1. Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes on US 221 in the year 2007 (see Figures 3-A through 3-
D) ranged from 7,400 vehicles per day (vpd) near the southern project
terminus (just north of Idlewild Road) to 15,200 vpd near the northern
project terminus (just north of Ashe County High School Road).
Traffic volumes in the design year (2035) (see Figures 4-A through 4-D)
are expected to range from 17,400 vpd just north of Idlewild Road (SR
1003) to 30,400 vpd just north of Ashe County High School Road (SR
1283).
Table 2 presents the 2007 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and the projected
2035 ADT for each major link along US 221. As the data in Table 2
indicate, traffic levels are predicted to increase considerably from their
present levels.
Table 2
2007 and 2035 Average Daily Traffic
Link Description
Average Daily Traffic
2007 2035 Percent
Change
SR 1206 (Luther Road) to NC 88/US 221
Business/Cherry Drive 18,600 37,200 100
NC 88/US 221 Business (East Main
Street) to SR 1254 (Long Street) 13,800 27,600 100
SR 1254 (Long Street) to SR 1149 Mount
Jefferson Road 12,000 24,000 100
SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) to SR
1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) 14,200 28,400 100
SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson St
ate Park Road) to SR 1283 (Ashe County
High School Road)
15,200 30,400 100
SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road)
to Lowe’s Drive 12,200 28,000 130
Lowe’s Drive to NC 163/NC 194/US 221
Business 12,200 28,000 130
NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business to SR
1147 (Nettle Knob Road) 10,600 25,000 136
SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) to SR 1145
(Mulatto Mountain Road) 10,200 23,200 127
SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR
1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) 9,600 21,800 127
SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) to SR
1272 (Vernon Roten Road/NC 194) 9,000 21,600 140
SR 1272 (Vernon Roten)/NC 194 Road to
SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) 8,800 20,000 127
SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) to SR
1112 (Woodstown Road) 8,400 19,400 131
Table 2
2007 and 2035 Average Daily Traffic
Link Description
Average Daily Traffic
2007 2035 Percent
Change
SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) to SR 1145
(Mulatto Mountain Road) 8,200 19,200 134
SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR
1178 (Paul Goodman Road) 8,400 19,400 131
SR 1178 (Paul Goodman Road) to SR
1177 (Water Tank Road) 8,600 19,800 130
SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) to SR 1106
(Railroad Grade Road) 8,400 20,200 140
SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) to SR
1169 (Windy Hill Road) 8,000 18,200 128
SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) to SR 1216
(Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) 7,400 17,800 141
SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) to
SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) 7,600 18,000 137
SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) to
SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) 7,400 17,400 135
SR 1003 ()Idlewild Road to SR1265 (Deep
Gap Estates) 8,800 20,200 130
SR 1265 (Deep Gap Estates) to SR 1100
(Cranberry Springs) Road 8,800 20,200 130
SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road)/SR
1171 (West Pine Swamp Road) to Moretz
Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Greene Road)
8,600 20,400 137
Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Greene
Road) to US 421 8,600 20,400 137
Source: Traffic Forecasts for NCDOT STIP Project No. R-2915, US 221 Widening Ashe
County and Watauga County, North Carolina, prepared by Martin Alexiou Bryson
2. Existing Levels of Service
Two-lane and multi-lane highway and intersection analyses were
performed for this project following the NCDOT Congestion Management
Section’s Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Project Traffic Analyses.
Traffic operations analysis for individual two-lane and multi-lane
segments were conducted using Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000).
Synchro Version 7.0 was used to determine the level of service (LOS),
number of lanes, corresponding delay, and capacity at signalized
intersections. Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) was used to
determine the LOS corresponding delay and capacity at unsignalized
intersections.
A summary of the Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum is
presented below. Tables 3 and 4 present comparisons of the LOS for the
No-Build conditions in the current year (2007) and 2035 and for the
preferred widening improvement in 2035 for the links and intersections
along US 221, respectively. A copy of the entire report is available for
review in the offices of the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
located at 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27610,
telephone 919-707-6002.
Table 3
2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS)
Link Description
No-Build LOS Build
LOS
2007 2035 2035
SR 1206 (Luther Road) to NC 88/US 221 Business
(Cherry Drive) A C C
NC 88/US 221 Business (East Main Street) to SR
1254 (Long Street) E F C
SR 1254 (Long Street) to SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson
Road) D E B
SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road) to SR 1152 (Mount
Jefferson State Park Road) D E B
SR 1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road) to SR
1283 (Ashe County High School Road) D E B
SR 1283 (Ashe County High School Road) to Lowe’s
Drive D E B
Lowe’s Drive to NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business D F C
NC 163/NC 194/US 221 Business to SR 1147 (Nettle
Knob Road) D E B
SR 1147 (Nettle Knob Road) to SR 1145 (Mulatto
Mountain Road) D E B
SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1143
(Clarence Lyall Road) D E B
SR 1143 (Clarence Lyall Road) to SR 1272 (Vernon
Roten Road)/NC 194 D E B
SR 1272 (Vernon Roten Road)/NC 194 to SR 1200
(Frank Edwards Road) D E B
SR 1200 (Frank Edwards Road) to SR 1112
(Woodstown Road) D E A
SR 1112 (Woodstown Road) to SR 1145 (Mulatto
Mountain Road) C E A
SR 1145 (Mulatto Mountain Road) to SR 1178 (Paul
Goodman Road) D E B
SR 1178 (Paul Goodman Road) to SR 1177 (Water
Tank Road) D E B
SR 1177 (Water Tank Road) to SR 1106 (Railroad
Grade Road) D E B
SR 1106 (Railroad Grade Road) to SR 1169 (Windy
Hill Road) D E A
SR 1169 (Windy Hill Road) to SR 1216 (Lemly
Road/Hemlock Lane) D E A
SR 1216 (Lemly Road/Hemlock Lane) to SR 1103
(Liberty Grove Church Road) D E A
SR 1103 (Liberty Grove Church Road) to SR 1003
(Idlewild Road) D E B
SR 1003 (Idlewild Road) to SR 1265 (Deep Gap
Estates) S D E B
Table 3
2007 and 2035 Levels of Service (LOS)
Link Description
No-Build LOS Build
LOS
2007 2035 2035
SR 1265 (Deep Gap Estates) to SR 1171(West Pine
Swamp Road)/ SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road) D E B
SR 1100 (Cranberry Springs Road)/SR 1171 (West
Pine Swamp Road) to Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360
Heg Greene Road
D E B
Moretz Farm Road/SR 1360 (Heg Greene Road) to US
421 D E B
Source: STIP Project No. R-2915, Traffic Technical Memorandum, February 2009.
Table 4
Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary1
Intersection Traffic
Control
2007
Existing
2035
No-Build
2035
Build
AM PM AM PM AM PM
US 221 at SR 1255
(Cherry Drive/E. Main
Street)
Signalized C C E D C C
US 221 at SR 1254 (Long
Street)
Signalized C C D E B C
US 221 at SR 1149
(Mount Jefferson Road)
Unsignalized2 F F F F C C
US 221 at SR 1152
(Mount Jefferson State
Park Road)
Unsignalized E F F F C F
US 221 at SR 1283 (Ashe
County High School
Road)
Unsignalized2 F F F F B C
US 221 at Lowe's Drive Unsignalized B B F F C C
US 221 at NC 194/NC
163/US 221 Business
Signalized D D F F D D
US 221 at SR 1147
(Nettle Knob Road)
Unsignalized C C F F B C
US 221 at SR 1145
(Mulatto Mountain Road)
Unsignalized B C E F C E
US 221 at SR 1143
(Clarence Lyall Road)
Unsignalized D C F F C B
US 221 at SR 1272
(Vernon Roten Road)
Signalized B A C B B B
US 221 at SR 1177
(Water Tank Road)
Unsignalized B B F F B B
US 221 at SR 1106
(Railroad Grade Road)
Unsignalized C C F F C B
US 221 at SR 1169
(Windy Hill Road)
Unsignalized B B E D B B
US 221 at SR 1003
(Idlewild Road)
Unsignalized C C F F B C
Table 4
Intersection Capacity Analysis Results Summary1
US 221 at SR 1100
(Cranberry Springs
Road)
Unsignalized C C F F C B
US 221 at SR 1171 (West
Pine Swamp Road)
Unsignalized B B F F B C
US 221 at US 421 Signalized D D F F Interchange
Source: STIP Project No. R-2915, Traffic Technical Memorandum, February 2009.
Notes:
1. LOS shown for unsignalized intersections is for the critical movement operating with
the highest delay.
2. Intersection is stop-controlled for the 2007 Existing conditions and 2035 No-Build
conditions and signal controlled for the 2035 Build conditions.
As noted in Table 3, the existing two-lane highway analysis (for the year
2007) indicates that of the 25 mainline highway segments analyzed, 23
(92%) operate at an unacceptable LOS (D or E).
As noted in Table 4, the existing intersections analysis indicates that six
(33%) of the 18 intersections evaluated currently operate at LOS D or F
during the morning or afternoon peak traffic periods.
3. Future Levels of Service (No-Build Scenario – year
2035)
A No-Build traffic analysis was performed to assess how the existing
roadway network would perform in the year 2035 if no improvements
were made to the US 221 corridor. The 2035 No-Build highway analysis
(see Table 3) indicates that of the 25 mainline highway segments
analyzed, 24 (96%) will operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F).
The year 2035 No-Build intersection analysis (see Table 4) indicates that
16 (89%) of the 18 intersections evaluated will operate at an
unacceptable LOS (E or F).
4. Future Levels of Service – (Build Scenario – year
2035)
The year 2035 Build Scenario highway analysis (see Table 3) indicates
that all 25 mainline highway segments analyzed will operate at an
acceptable LOS (A, B, or C).
The year 2035 Build Scenario intersection analysis (see Table 4)
indicates that 16 (89%) of the 18 intersections evaluated will operate at
an acceptable LOS (B or C). One unsignalized intersection, US 221 at SR
1152 (Mount Jefferson State Park Road), will operate at LOS F during the
afternoon peak traffic period. One signalized intersection, US 221 at NC
194/NC 163/US 221 Business, will operate at LOS D during the
morning and afternoon peak traffic periods.
e. Traffic Crash Data
A crash analysis was performed for US 221 from the southern project
terminus at US 421 to the northern terminus at the intersection of US
221 Business/NC 88 (East Main Street) intersection in Jefferson, a
distance of approximately 16.1 miles. Along this section of roadway, the
total number of crashes during the three-year period between June 1,
2004 and May 31, 2007 was 243, with 1 being fatal, 78 being non-fatal
injury crashes, and 164 involving property damage only (PDO). The US
221 crash data were compared to the county and NC Statewide crash
data for similar facilities to determine if the project area is particularly
vulnerable to crashes. In this case, US 221 was compared to other rural
United States highways in North Carolina.
As shown in Table 5, the US 221 total crash rate of 175.35 is lower than
the NC Statewide Accident Rate (SWAR) of 186.99. The crash rate is
defined in terms of the number of crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled. However, when the data were analyzed for specific links
(segments) within the project area along US 221, the total crash rate,
non-fatal injury rate, and severity index for the section through Watauga
County were all found to exceed the statewide rates. The crash severity
index is a weighted measure of the seriousness of traffic crashes
occurring on a roadway segment in terms of injuries and property
damage.
Table 5
Summary Table of Crash Data for US 221
Crash Rate (per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Travelled)
Watauga County Ashe County Subject
Section of
US 221
2003-2005
Statewide
Exposure Type Rate
US 221
Project
(2004-7)
County-
Wide
(2004)
US 221
Project
(2004-7)
County-
Wide
(2004)
Total Crash Rate 239.17 320.57 170.37 212.75 175.35 186.99
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 1.42 0.78 1.59 0.72 2.45
Non-Fatal Injury
Crash Rate
109.62 97.16 52.12 78.49 56.28 73.07
Severity Index * 7.24 3.36 4.55 5.90 4.81 6.28
Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to
05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts
Notes: * County-wide severity indices are based on three-year averages.
, Division of Motor Vehicles, Traffic
Records Branch; 2003-2005 Three Year Crash Rates, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Based on these results, a more detailed analysis of the crash data was
completed for specific segments and intersections to identify specific
areas that are particularly susceptible to crashes. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 6. There are eight segments with crash rates
that are higher than the SWAR; two of these have a crash rate that is at
least double the SWAR. These roadway segments represent particularly
notable crash occurrence problems. As shown in the table, there are also
Appreciably exceeds County and/or Statewide rates
several locations where the crash severity is higher than the state wide
average.
Eight intersections that are likely contributing factors to these high crash
occurrences are noted in Table 7. The data for these intersections were
also analyzed, and results of a more in-depth analysis are presented in
Table 7. All eight of these intersections have at least five crashes
attributed to them over the three-year period. Two of the intersections
have crash severity rates at or exceeding the SWAR.
Table 6
Crash Data, 2004-2007: US 221
Segments Length
(Miles) Crashes Fatal
Crashes
Total
Crash
Rates
Severity
Index Intersection*
Watauga County
US 421 to SR 1360 0.97 24 0 286.02 7.2 US 421/US 221
SR 1360 to Ashe
County line
1.16 0 0 0.00 0.0
Watauga County
Total
1.16 24 0 239.17 7.2
Ashe County
Watauga County
line to SR 1171
0.73 15 0 237.53 2.0 SR 1171
SR 1171 to SR
1003
1.15 19 0 190.99 3.3
SR 1003 to SR
1216
2.06 24 0 134.68 6.6
SR 1216 to SR
1106
1.46 19 0 150.44 7.3
SR 1106 to SR
1210
1.04 29 0 322.35 3.8 SR 1177, SR
1178
SR 1210 to SR
1200
1.00 29 0 335.24 3.8 SR 1145
SR 1200 to NC
194/SR 1272
0.24 10 0 481.67 4.0
NC 194/SR 1272
to SR 1147
3.27 23 0 81.31 2.9 SR 1147
SR 1147 to NC 163 0.32 13 0 469.63 3.3 NC 163/NC 194
NC 163 to SR 1283 0.82 10 0 140.98 10.1
SR 1283 to SR
1149
0.91 24 1 304.88 5.4 SR 1149
SR 1149 to SR
1254
1.13 4 0 40.92 1.0
SR 1254 to NC 88 0.73 0 0 0.00 0.0
Ashe County
Total
14.86 219 1 170.37 4.5
Grand TOTAL 16.02 243 1 175.35 4.8
Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to
05/31/07
Notes Rate higher than the SWAR or severity index
Rate more than double the SWAR
Table 7
High–Incidence Intersections, 2004-2007: US 221
US 221 Intersections
Number
of
Crashes
Number of
Fatal
Crashes
Percent of
Total
Crashes*
Intersection
Severity
Index
US 421 15 0 6.2 9.5
SR 1171 5 0 2.1 2.5
SR 1177 5 0 2.1 5.4
SR 1178 6 0 2.5 4.2
SR 1145 7 0 2.9 5.6
SR 1147 7 0 2.9 4.7
NC 163/NC 194 8 0 3.3 3.8
SR 1149 (Mt. Jefferson Road) 20 1 8.2 6.3
Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for 06/01/04 to
05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts
Notes: * Combined total crashes on the subject section of US 221 in Ashe and Watauga Counties,
06/01/04 to 05/31/07.
, Division of Motor Vehicles, Traffic
Records Branch; 2003-2005 Three-Year Crash Rates, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
It is helpful to investigate the types of crashes occurring on a particular
roadway facility. The rates of occurrence of particular types of crashes at
a site will often indicate some deficiency in the design or capacity of the
facility and may lend understanding to the contributing factors. Table 8
includes a summary of crashes by type, classifying the crashes into 15
categories.
Table 8
Crashes by Type, 2004-2007
Crash Type
Number of Crashes Percent of
Watauga Total Crashes
County
Ashe
County Total
Angle 0 12 12 4.9
Animal 1 37 38 15.6
Fixed Object 4 55 59 24.3
Head On 0 6 6 2.5
Left Turn, Different Roadways 1 15 16 6.6
Left Turn, Same Roadway 9 8 17 7.0
Movable Object 0 2 2 0.8
Other Collision with Vehicle 0 1 1 0.4
Overturn/Rollover 0 3 3 1.2
Parked Motor Vehicle 0 3 3 1.2
Rear End, Slow or Stop 8 59 67 27.6
Rear End, Turn 0 3 3 1.2
Right Turn, Different Roadways 0 4 4 1.6
Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 1 6 7 2.9
Sideswipe, Same Direction 0 5 5 2.1
TOTAL CRASHES 24 219 243 100
Source: NCDOT, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, Crash Data for
06/01/04 to 05/31/07; 2004 North Carolina Traffic Crash Facts
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Traffic Records Branch; 2003-2005 Three Year Crash Rates,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering and Safety
Systems Branch
Fixed object and rear-end crashes, which jointly constitute
approximately half of the crash occurrences along the subject section of
US 221, are crash types that may be decreased through widening and/or
the use of a median to separate opposing traffic flows. Animal collisions,
the next largest crash category, might be reduced with right-of-way
fencing and other improvements related to the proposed project but
would not be directly eliminated by improvements to the US 221 facility.
Many of the other recorded crashes are related to conflicts between
vehicles that would conceivably be reduced through the proposed
improvements.
f. Airports
The Ashe County Airport is located approximately three miles east of the
project area and Jefferson, is owned by Ashe County, and currently hosts
30 aircraft.
g. Public Transportation
Boone’s bus service, AppalCART, provides bus service throughout
Watauga County, including one route that serves Deep Gap at the
southern end of the project area.
The Ashe County Transportation Authority, Inc., located in West
Jefferson, provides subscription and dial-a-ride transportation services
for residents of Ashe County, including seniors, disabled residents, and
disadvantaged youth.
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program
The 2012-2016 NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program
includes four other projects in the vicinity of STIP Project R-2915. These
projects are presented in Table 9 and Figure 5.
Table 9
STIP Projects Near US 221 Project Area
STIP
Number
Project
Description
Length
(miles) Schedule Status
U-3812 Widen NC 88 to multi-lane
facility from US
221 Business to NC
194.
1.6 Construction:
*FY 12
Construction
R-2100 Upgrade NC 16 from
west of Blue Ridge
Parkway to east of US
221–NC 16 and add
guardrail.
10.0 Construction:
FY 10
Construction
b. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors
The subject portion of US 221 is identified as a segment of Strategic
Highway Corridor 13 connecting US 421 and US 221 from Boone to
Wytheville, Virginia. The type of facility for the US 221 corridor is
designated as a Boulevard.
The NCDOT created the Strategic Highway Corridors initiative in
collaboration with the N.C. Department of Commerce and the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The purpose of this
initiative was to protect and maximize the mobility and connectivity on a
core set of highway corridors throughout North Carolina while promoting
environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing
facilities to the extent possible and fostering economic prosperity through
the quick and efficient movement of people and goods. The Strategic
Highway Corridors policy was adopted by the North Carolina Board of
Transportation in September 2004.
c. Local Thoroughfare Plans
There are two Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in the project
-area: The Jefferson-West Jefferson Thoroughfare Plan, dated 2003, and
the Thoroughfare Plan for Watauga County, dated 2002.
The CTP for Watauga County proposes several improvements throughout
the county. There are two projects in the vicinity of the Deep Gap area,
near the southern terminus of the proposed project:
• US 221: Widen to four lanes from US 421 to the Ashe County
line.
• US 421: Construct four-lane facility on new location from two
miles east of US 221 to NC 194. This project is complete.
The Jefferson-West Jefferson CTP proposes several improvements to the
local transportation network. Nine projects are located in the vicinity of
the proposed project:
• US 221: Widen to four lanes from Deep Gap to US 221
Business in Jefferson.
• NC 194: Widen to six lanes from Beaver Creek School Road (SR
1248) to US 221.
• NC 163: Widen to four lanes from US 221 to Boggs Road (SR
1159).
• Mount Jefferson Road (SR 1149): Widen to four lanes from US
221 to NC 163.
• NC 194 Bypass: New two-lane major thoroughfare from NC 88
to Mount Jefferson Road (SR 1149).
• Long Street (SR 1254) Extension: New two-lane major
thoroughfare from US 221 Business to NC 88.
• NC 88: Widen to four lanes from NC 194 to US 221 Business.
• NC 88/194: Widen to four lanes from B.C. Hunter Road (SR
1130) to NC 88.
• US 221: Add turn lane to the section between US 221 Business
and NC 16.
One potential bicycle route is shown in the Jefferson – West Jefferson
Transportation Plan Report (December 2002) from West Jefferson to the
Blue Ridge Parkway. The report suggests that “routing through a culvert
at US 221 or at the signal at NC 163 is needed for safe crossing of US
221.”
d. Land Use Plans
1. Watauga County
Watauga County is currently in the process of updating their land use
and strategic plan, originally written in 1992. The 1992 version of the
land use and strategic plan did not specifically address the area around
US 221. Watauga County does not have a county-wide zoning ordinance;
instead, it relies on a High-Impact Land Use Ordinance and an
Ordinance to Govern Subdivisions and Multi-Unit Structures to regulate
development. Watauga County has also adopted the NC Mountain Ridge
Protection Act, which is intended to protect the scenic vistas and natural
beauty of the area. The Mountain Ridge Protection Act does not allow for
any construction that is higher than 500 feet from the adjacent valley
floor.
2. Ashe County
Ashe County does not have a land use plan or a zoning ordinance, and
no plans exist to develop a draft document. The County uses a
Residential Subdivision Ordinance to regulate development. The
Subdivision Ordinance directs development away from floodplains, sets
bulk standards, and sets standards for road names and road design.
Ashe County has also adopted the NC Mountain Ridge Protection Act,
preventing construction that is higher than 500 feet from the adjacent
valley floor.
Ashe County has a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance that regulates
development within floodplains defined by FEMA. The ordinance requires
that new residences and non-residential buildings built within the 100-
year floodplain be elevated at least four feet above the base flood
elevation. Likewise, any existing structures within the floodplain could
not be enlarged, replaced, or redeveloped without conforming to the
Ordinance.
3. West Jefferson
The Town of West Jefferson has a zoning ordinance that applies to the
Town and its extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The area surrounding US
221 in West Jefferson is zoned HC (Highway Commercial) and is intended
to provide land for “the retailing of durable goods, the provision of
commercial services to industrial areas, and the provision of services to
tourists”. Permitted uses in this district primarily include retail services.
Residential uses are not allowed unless included in a mixed-use
development.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
The proposed project will help motorists see an improvement in the
safety, capacity, and connectivity of US 221 between Boone and West
Jefferson.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
Preliminary study alternatives for the proposed action included the Public
Transportation, Transportation System Management (TSM), Improve Existing
Facility, and No-Build Alternatives.
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial
improvements to the US 221 study corridor. Only typical maintenance
activities would be provided along US 221, which would remain a two-lane
facility with one lane in each direction and turn lanes at a few
intersecting streets. The No-Build Alternative would incur neither right-of-
way nor construction costs. There would be no short-term disruptions
along existing roadways during construction. There would be no impacts
to streams, wetlands, or other natural and cultural resources, nor would
there be any residential or business relocations. However, the No-Build
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need identified for the
proposed project. It would not improve the traffic flow or level of service
(LOS) of US 221 through the project study area, nor would it address the
higher-than-average crash rates.
While required by National Environmental Policy Act regulations, the No-
Build Alternative was also studied in detail because it illuminates the
need for improvements and serves as a baseline for comparing the other
alternatives studied in detail.
2. Public Transportation Alternative
The project study area is not well served by mass transit. Boone’s bus
system, AppalCART, does provide in town bus service as well as several
routes throughout Watauga County, including one to Deep Gap, located
at the southern terminus of the project. The Ashe County Transportation
Authority, Inc., located in West Jefferson, provides subscription and dial-a-
ride transportation services to seniors, disabled residents, and
disadvantaged youth throughout Ashe County. Automobiles remain the
dominant form of transportation for area residents, commuters,
vacationers, and other travelers on US 221. Based on the project context,
improvements to public transportation would not improve vehicle flow or
safety on US 221, nor would they eliminate the need for widening the
existing facilities and improving the alignment. Therefore, the Public
Transportation Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this
project and was eliminated from further study.
3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve
increasing the available capacity of the roadway within the existing right
of way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing or
adding additional through lanes to the existing road. The addition of turn
lanes, stripping, signing, signalization, and minor realignments are
examples of physical TSM improvements. Examples of operational TSM
improvements include traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access
control, and signal timing changes. However, TSM improvements will not
increase the capacity or improve the LOS enough to prevent failing traffic
conditions in the 2035 design year. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was
eliminated from further study.
4. Improve Existing Facility
Of the four alternatives considered, the No-Build Alternative and various
build alternatives were retained and carried forward for further study for
comparative purposes. The following is a summary of each alternative.
The No-Build Alternative offers limited improvements to the project study
area and assumes that all other projects currently planned or
programmed in the STIP will be constructed in the area as proposed.
These improvements include continued roadway maintenance and minor
improvements on US 221. As such, they would not improve safety or
increase capacity within the study area and therefore do not meet the
purpose of or need for this project.
During the December 16, 2008 meeting for Concurrence Point 2 (Design
Options) the following four widening scenarios were presented:
1. Widening Scenario 1 – Asymmetrical Widening to the East
This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the east.
2. Widening Scenario 2 – Asymmetrical Widening to the West
This alternative would widen US 221 asymmetrically to the west.
3. Widening Scenario 3 – Symmetrical Widening
This alternative would widen US 221 symmetrically about the existing
centerline of the roadway.
4. Widening Scenario 4 – “Best Fit” Widening Alternative
This alternative will widen US 221 at locations that “best fit” the
current road location and surrounding land uses. “Best fit” locations
were evaluated and selected to improve the existing roadway
alignment, minimize impacts, and permit traffic maintenance during
construction.
The impacts of the four (4) widening scenarios at the functional design
level are presented in the following table.
Table 10 – Summary of Potential Impacts at the Functional Design Level
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
In consideration of the significant right-of-way impacts, mountainous terrain,
environmental constraints associated with stream impacts, and sound
engineering principles, the Merger Process Team agreed to three typical sections
for detailed study for the widening of US 221. The typical sections are shown in
Figures 6-8 of Appendix A.
1. Figure 6 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a 23-foot-wide raised grassed median with curb and gutter and 8-
foot-wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421
to NC 194.
2. Figure 7 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a 36-foot-wide depressed grassed median and 8-foot-wide shoulders
(four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of
Long Street.
3. Figure 8 identifies the typical section for widening US 221 to four lanes
with a variable 17.5-foot-wide raised grassed median and 8-foot-wide
shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet south of
Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson.
Of the four widening scenarios studied, the Merger Process Team agreed to
carry forward a detailed study of the Widening Scenario 4 - “Best Fit” Widening
Alternative.
C. NCDOT Recommended Alternative
The “Best Fit” widening alternative has been selected by NCDOT and
FHWA for preparation of preliminary roadway design plans and refinement of
environmental impacts and cost. The recommended alternative will be carried
forward and presented at a design public hearing. Comments received at the
public hearing will be reviewed, and coordination with other federal, state, and
local agencies will occur before a final decision is made.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment
The proposed US 221 widening improvements will consist of the following
three (3) typical sections:
1.) Typical section one consists of a four-lane, median-divided roadway
with a 23-foot-wide raised grassed median with curb and gutter and 8-
foot-wide shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from US 421
to NC 194. See Figure 6 in Appendix A.
2.) Typical section two consists of a four-lane, median-divided roadway
with a 36-foot-wide depressed grassed median and 8-foot-wide shoulders
(four feet paved and four feet grassed) from NC 194 to 2,500 feet south of
Long Street. See Figure 7 in Appendix A.
3.) Typical section three consists of a four-lane, median-divided roadway
with a variable 17.5-foot-wide raised grassed median and 8-foot-wide
shoulders (four feet paved and four feet grassed) from 2,500 feet south of
Long Street to NC 88 (Cherry Drive) in Jefferson. See Figure 8 in
Appendix A.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed right-of-way width varies along the project. The proposed
right of way for the first half mile of the project is asymmetric to
encompass the preliminary slope stakes needed for the interchange.
From this point northward to approximately 1,500 feet south of the NC
194 intersection, the proposed right of way is symmetrical, with 100 feet
on either side of the proposed new roadway centerline, for a total width of
200 feet. The mountainous topography in the project area will require
various construction easements along this section of the roadway to
construct the cut and fill slopes. Full control of access is proposed for the
interchange area, and partial control of access is proposed from the
interchange to the existing partial control just north of NC 194.
From just north of the NC 194 intersection to the US 221 Business/NC
88 intersection in Jefferson, the existing right-of-way width varies from
approximately 300 to 475 feet. The existing right of way along this
section of the project is sufficient to contain a majority of the widening
improvements. There are several areas where the addition of the new
travel lanes will require new right of way. Partial control of access exists
along this section of US 221 and will continue to be designated partial
control after the construction of additional travel lanes.
C. Design Speed and Speed Limit
The proposed design speed for this facility is 60 mph. The anticipated
posted speed limit should be 55 mph, which is typically 5 mph lower
than the design speed. The Regional Traffic Engineer will make
recommendations for the posted speed limit later in the design process.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
Because the project is located in mountainous terrain, there are several
locations where horizontal and vertical curves will require design
exceptions.
E. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
Except the intersection at US 421, all intersecting roads will remain at
grade. The intersection with US 421 will be converted to an interchange.
Traffic signals are proposed at the intersection of NC 194/NC 163, SR
1283 (Ashe County High School Drive), SR 1149 (Mount Jefferson Road),
and SR 1254 (Long Street). The existing stop sign control will be
maintained at the remaining intersections.
F. Service Roads
There are two service roads proposed.
G. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on this project.
H. Structures
There are two existing bridges located within the projects limits. A new
bridge will be constructed to grade separate the US 221 ramp/loop from
US 421. The existing bridge over the South Fork of the New River is to be
replaced with new dual structures that are approximately 230 feet long.
The other bridge is an overflow structure for the floodplain along the
South Fork of the New River. It is recommended that this structure be
retained and that a new parallel bridge be constructed to accommodate
the new travel lanes.
The proposed structures for the remaining stream crossings presented in
Table 9 of Appendix B are based on the preliminary hydraulic design
recommendations and bridging decisions agreed to by the Merger Process
Team at the Concurrence Point 2A Field Meeting on April 7, 2010 and
the follow-up 2A meeting on May 24. The proposed structure for the
stream crossing at Site 1 will be determined by the Merger Process Team
in another follow-up meeting in the upcoming months. The Merger
Process Team agreed to carry forward both a bridge and culvert design at
Site 1 at Gap Creek, Site 1B at unnamed tributary to Gap Creek, and
Site 6 at unnamed tributary to Gap Creek, as well as to a new bridge at
Site 8 over Gap Creek. For all other crossings, the Merger Process Team
agreed to extend the remaining culverts.
I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
This section of US 221 is not listed in the STIP as having a need for
incidental bicycle accommodations, and US 221 is not included in a
state-designated bicycle route system. However, the Ashe County Parks
and Recreation Department reports that there is significant bicycle traffic
along the US 221 corridor. At the pre-Hearing Map meeting, there was a
discussion regarding whether to include six-foot paved shoulders instead
of four-foot paved shoulders to better accommodate bicyclists on the
proposed facility. However, it was decided that four-foot paved shoulders
would be more appropriate for US 221, as the proposed greenway would
accommodate the existing bicycle traffic on US 221.
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
J. Utilities
Construction of the proposed project will require relocation or
modifications of existing public utilities. Any adjustments, relocations, or
modifications will require coordination with the affected utility company.
K. Noise Barriers
Traffic noise abatement measures, including buffers, berms, and walls,
were evaluated but are not proposed for this project. Refer to Section V.,
Part J., on page 60 of this report for a discussion on highway traffic and
construction noise analysis.
L. Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction Phasing
Construction phasing will be utilized to maintain traffic along US 221
and US 421 during construction. All traffic control devices used during
the construction of this project will conform to the most current FHWA
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
This section of the EA provides a summary of the potential impacts to the
natural environment. Further details and analysis related to the natural
environment are provided in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
and NRTR Addendum.
Impacts to the natural environment were analyzed for the study area. Field
investigations were conducted in April, May, and June of 2007 and February
2012. Walking surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource
conditions and document natural communities, wildlife, and the presence of
protected species or their habitats.
Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed using the three-parameter
approach prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Supplemental technical literature
describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrological indicators was also utilized. Jurisdiction features
within the project area are shown in Figure 2 (sheets 1-14).
1. Physical Characteristics
The study area is located in the Mountain physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography in the study area is generally characterized as gently
sloping in the stream valleys along the existing US 221 right of way, with
steeper areas along ridge tops. Elevations within the study area range from
approximately 2,800 to 3,440 feet (ft) above mean sea level (MSL).
2. Biotic Resources
The biotic resources located in the project study area include both terrestrial
and aquatic communities. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and
fauna in each community and the relationship of these biotic components.
Classification of plant communities is based on a system used by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Scientific
nomenclature and common names, when applicable, are used for the plant
and animal species described. Subsequent references to the species include
the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Nine (9) terrestrial communities were identified in the study area:
maintained/disturbed, successional land, pasture land, agricultural land,
tree farm, mixed hardwood/white pine forest, white pine forest, montane
oak-hickory forest, and northern hardwood forest. A brief description of each
community type follows. The scientific names of all species identified are
included in Appendix B.
Maintained/Disturbed Land
The maintained/disturbed land within the study area includes places where
vegetation is periodically mowed, such as roadside shoulders and residential
lawns. Dominant species in this community include witchgrass, goldenrod,
broom sedge, and various grasses along with planted and manicured
ornamentals. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized
by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose.
Successional Land
The successional land within the study area includes areas that have been
recently cleared where new growth has been established. This successional
land includes winged sumac, multiflora rose, blackberry, Queen Anne’s lace,
fescue, and various saplings, such as white pine, red maple, and oaks.
Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the
presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and
jewelweed.
Pasture Land
Pasture land is located mostly in the southern portion of the study area and
the western portion of the Addendum study area. Fence-restrained cows and
horses mainly inhabit these areas, feeding on grasses and early successional
species. Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the
presence of jewelweed, soft rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose.
Agricultural Land
Agricultural land is located throughout the study area. These lands are
maintained and harvested throughout the growing season and do not
include tree farms. Small wetland areas within this community are
characterized by the presence of jewelweed, soft rush, and skunk cabbage.
Tree Farms
Christmas tree farming is a staple industry throughout the study area.
These farms harvest mostly Fraser fir Christmas trees. Small wetland areas
within this community are characterized by the presence of jewelweed, soft
rush, skunk cabbage, and swamp rose.
Mixed Hardwood/White Pine Forest
Mixed hardwood/white pine forest occurs throughout the study area, mostly
at a post-successional stage with some mature growth trees. Species include
white oak, white pine, red maple, black oak, northern red oak, Fraser fir,
black cherry, and mountain chestnut oak dominating both the canopy and
midstory layers. Small wetland areas within this community are
characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag
alder, and jewelweed.
White Pine Forest
White pine forest is located on steep exposed slopes with very acidic sandy
or rocky soil. The canopy is dominated by white pine, with or without the
association of eastern hemlock or rock chestnut oak. Vegetation observed in
the herbaceous layer includes blueberry, rhododendron, and huckleberry.
Small wetland areas within this community are characterized by the
presence of soft rush, skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and
jewelweed.
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest
Montane oak hickory forest is located on dry-mesic slopes and partly
sheltered ridge tops at moderate to fairly high elevations. The canopy is
dominated by a mixture of oaks, hickories, and other hardwoods, with white
oak, northern red oak, and mountain chestnut oak being most common. The
shrub layer varies in density, with such species as rhododendron,
huckleberry, maple leaf viburnum, and American witch hazel. Small wetland
areas within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush,
skunk cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and jewelweed.
Northern Hardwood Forest
Northern hardwood forest is typically found in medium- to high-elevation
coves, flats, and slopes. This community is dominated by combinations of
mesophytic trees, including such species as American beech, yellow birch,
and yellow buckeye. Additional species in some sites include American
basswood, sugar maple, white ash, and black cherry. Small wetland areas
within this community are characterized by the presence of soft rush, skunk
cabbage, swamp rose, tag alder, and jewelweed.
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and
disturbed habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those
species actually observed are indicated with *). Mammal species that
commonly populate forested habitats and stream corridors found within the
study area include white-tailed deer*, gray squirrel*, red fox*, eastern
cottontail*, eastern chipmunk*, woodchuck*, raccoon*, Virginia opossum*,
and beaver*. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats
include blue jay*, northern cardinal*, American goldfinch*, and American
crow*. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study
area are red-winged blackbird*, mallard*, wood duck, turkey vulture, red-tailed
hawk, killdeer, belted kingfisher, and chimney swift. Reptile and
amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the
study area include the five-lined skink, eastern newt, eastern garter snake*,
black racer, American toad, Fowler’s toad, and spring peeper.
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the project study area will be impacted by project
construction as result of potential grading and paving portions of the project
study area. Table 11 presents the extent of each terrestrial community type
in the project study area and the anticipated impact to each community type
based on the preliminary roadway design plans.
Table 11
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Coverage (ac)
Maintained/Disturbed Land 152.47
Successional Land 26.08
Pasture Land 31.48
Agricultural Land 3.4
Tree Farm 10.9
Mixed Hardwood/White Pine Forest 20.3
White Pine Forest 45.24
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest 98.53
Northern Hardwood Forest 21.23
Total 409.63
3. Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the New River Basin [US
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 05050001]. Seven (7) named
streams as well as unnamed tributaries to these streams and unnamed
tributaries to two other named streams are located within the project study
area. See Table 12 below for a description of these streams, including the
stream index number (SIN) and best usage classification (BUC). The location
of each water resource is shown in Figure 2. The complete list of water
resources and physical characteristics of the study area streams are
provided in Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B.
Table 12
Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for the Study
Area Streams
Stream Name SIN BUC Description
Sub-basin 05-07-01
Gap Creek 10-1-23 C;Tr:+
From source to South Fork
New River
Little Gap Creek 20-1-23-1 C;Tr:+ From source to Gap Creek
South Fork New
River 10-1-(20.5) WS-V; HQW
From a point 0.4 miles
upstream of Couches Creek to
a point 2.8 miles upstream of
Obids Creek
Old Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.3) C;Tr:+ From source to Call Creek
Old Field Creek 10-1-22-(0.7) C;Tr, ORW
From Call Creek to South Fork
New River
Beaver Creek 10-1-25 C;Tr:+ From source to South Fork
New River
Cole Branch* 10-1-25-1 C;Tr:+ From source to Beaver Creek
South Beaver 10-1-25-2 C;Tr:+ From source to Beaver Creek
Table 12
Best Usage Classification and Stream Index Number for the Study
Area Streams
Stream Name SIN BUC Description
Creek*
Naked Creek 10-1-32 C:+ From source to South Fork
New River
Sub-basin 05-07-02
Little Buffalo Creek 10-2-20-1 C;Tr:+ From source to Buffalo Creek
* Stream does not occur within the study area, only unnamed tributaries to these streams occur
within the study area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has identified
Gap Creek (S1), Little Gap Creek (S37), Old Field Creek (S56), Beaver Creek
(S124), Call Creek, and South Beaver Creek as trout waters. There are no
designated anadromous fish waters or primary nursery areas present in the
study area. Little Buffalo Creek is listed on the 2010 Final 303(d) list as
impaired waters for Aquatic Life due to impaired ecological/biological
integrity. There are ORWs (Old Fields Creek) as well as High-Quality Waters
(HQWs, South Fork New River) within the study area. There are no Water
Supply (WS-I or WS-II) Waters within 1.0 mile upstream or downstream of
the study area.
No benthic or fish monitoring data has been collected within 1.0 mile
upstream or downstream of the study area.
a. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitats within the study area include ephemeral waters present in
depressional wetlands and semi-permanently impounded palustrine and
riverine habitats. According to previous NCDWQ Biological Assessment Unit
sampling in the watershed, perennial streams within the study area provide
a habitat that could support common fish species, including tonguetied
minnow, bluehead chub, New River shiner, rainbow trout, mountain
redbelly dace, longnose dace, western blacknose dace, central stoneroller,
white sucker, brown trout, mottled sculpin, greenside darter, and fantail
darter, as well as common reptiles and amphibians, including bullfrog,
green frog, pickerel frog, northern water snake*, snapping turtle, and bog
turtle.
b. Invasive Species
Three (3) species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North
Carolina were found to occur in the study area. The species identified were
multiflora rose (Threat), Japanese knotweed (Threat), and Chinese privet
(Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate.
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Construction of the proposed project may cause temporary impacts to
aquatic communities due to sedimentation and reduced water quality
resulting from project construction. Permanent impacts are not expected
due to the implementation of NCDOT’s Best Management Practices (BMP)
and other measures to avoid and minimize harm to natural systems in the
project area.
4. Waters of the United States
“Waters of the United States” include surface waters and wetlands
(inundated or saturated areas that support vegetation typically adapted to
wet conditions) as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. Impacts to Waters of the United
States fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE through Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and under the jurisdiction of the NCDENR
DWQ through the Section 401 Water quality Certification Process (NC
General Statues Chapter 143 Article 21, Part 1).
a. Stream, Rivers, Impoundments
One-hundred and ninety-three (193) jurisdictional streams were identified in
the study area. The locations of streams are shown in Figure 2. The water
quality designations of the water resources in the study area can be found in
Table B-1 of Appendix B. The physical characteristics of each jurisdictional
stream are detailed in Table B-2 of Appendix B. The South Fork New River is
designated a cool water stream, and all of the remaining study area streams
are designated as cold water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
b. Riparian Buffers
The proposed project is located entirely within the New River Basin. The New
River Basin does not have NCDWQ river basin buffer rules in effect at this
time. Therefore, no streams in the study area are subject to river basin
buffer rules.
c. Wetlands
One-hundred and forty-five (145) jurisdictional wetlands were identified
within the study area (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). All wetlands in the study
area are within the New River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001). The
jurisdictional characteristics of the wetlands in the study area, including
Cowardin classification (NCWAM classification for those in the Addendum),
hydrologic classification, and quality rating data, are presented in Table B-3
of Appendix B, and general descriptions are provided under appropriate
terrestrial communities in Section V.2.
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Anticipated impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands are presented in
Tables 13 and 14, respectively. Approximately 20,804 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams will be impacted as a result of the project. These
impacts include 18,139 linear feet of designated trout waters.
Approximately 3.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted. The
impacts are based on an additional 25 feet of clearing area beyond the slope
stake lines. These impacts are based upon preliminary design mapping and
could change during final project design.
Table 13
Summary of Potential Impacts by Stream Designation (Best Fit Alternative, 25 feet from
Slope Stakes)
Stream
Name
Total
Stream
Length
Total
Unnamed
Tributaries
Length
BUC
Crossings
(including
Unnamed
Tributaries)
Impacts (Linear Feet)
Streams
Unnamed
Tributaries
Total
Designated
Trout Streams
Designated
Trout Streams
– Unnamed
Tributaries
Total
Designated
Trout Streams
Sub-basin 05-07-01
Gap
Creek 23,331 22,040 C;Tr:+ 8 2,368 2,522 4,891 2,368 2,523 4,891
Little Gap
Creek 609 C;Tr:+ 0
South
Fork New
River
1,260 1,355 WS-V;
HQW 2
Old Field
Creek 20,532 23,064 C;Tr:+;
ORW 4 3,929 4,119 8,047 3,929 4,119 8,047
Beaver
Creek 3,811 1,260 C;Tr:+ 4 166 1,558 1,725 167 1,558 1,725
Cole
Branch 1,547 C;Tr:+ 0
South
Beaver
Creek
3,592 C;Tr:+ 0 361 361 361 362
Naked
Creek 5,104 7,734 C:+ 5 286 450 736
Sub-basin 05-07-02
Little
Buffalo
Creek
2,526 3,139 C;Tr:+ 1 102 371 473 102 371 473
Total 57,173 63,730 -- 24 8,719 12,086 20,804 6,922 12,721 19,643
Note: *Unnamed tributary
Table 14
Permanent Impacts to Wetlands
Site
ID
Area Within
Study Area
(Acres)
Cowardin/
NCWAM
Classificationa
Hydrologic
Classificationb
DWQ
Wetland
Quality
Rating
Score
Impacts (Acres)
Within Slope
Stake Lines
Add’l
Clearing* Total
W1 0.08 PEM Non-Riparian 12 - - -
W2A 0.21 PSS Non-Riparian 14 0.13 0.03 0.16
W2B 0.56 PEM Non-Riparian 14 0.26 0.08 0.34
W6 0.15 PEM Non-Riparian 8 0.10 0.05 0.15
W8 0.08 PEM Non-Riparian 8 0.01 0.01 0.02
W9B 0.10 PEM Non-Riparian 11 0.03 0.02 0.05
Table 14
Permanent Impacts to Wetlands
Site
ID
Area Within
Study Area
(Acres)
Cowardin/
NCWAM
Classificationa
Hydrologic
Classificationb
DWQ
Wetland
Quality
Rating
Score
Impacts (Acres)
Within Slope
Stake Lines
Add’l
Clearing* Total
W11 0.26 PSS Non-Riparian 23 0.13 0.04 0.17
W14 0.02 PSS Non-Riparian 24 - 0.01 0.01
W15 0.12 PSS Riparian 24 0.10 0.02 0.12
W16 0.04 PFO Non-Riparian 24 0.01 0.01 0.02
W17A 1.05 PEM Non-Riparian 16 - 0.04 0.04
W31 0 PSS Riparian 24 - - -
W32 0.01 PSS Riparian 24 0.01 - 0.01
W33 0.02 PSS Non-Riparian 36 - 0.02 0.02
W34 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 - 0.01 0.01
W35 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 0.01 - 0.01
W36 0.02 PFO Riparian 19 0.02 - 0.02
W37 0.01 PFO Riparian 19 - 0.01 0.01
W38 0.06 PSS Non-Riparian 21 0.03 0.03 0.06
W39 0.01 PSS Riparian 49 - 0.01 0.01
W40 0.01 PSS Riparian 49 - - -
W41 0.01 PFO Non-Riparian 14 0.01 - 0.01
W42 0.08 PFO Riparian 54 - 0.02 0.02
W45 0.11 PSS Riparian 36 - 0.02 0.02
W47 0.03 PSS Riparian 15 0.02 0.01 0.03
W48 0.01 PEM Non-Riparian 13 - 0.01 0.01
W52 0.04 PEM Non-Riparian 13 - 0.01 0.01
W53 0.02 PSS Non-Riparian 31 - 0.01 0.01
W58 0.04 PSS Non-Riparian 29 - 0.01 0.01
W56 0.03 PEM Riparian 29 - - -
W57 0.04 PSS Non-Riparian 29 - - -
W58 0.05 PSS Riparian 29 0.01 0.02 0.03
W59 0.14 PSS Riparian 21 0.05 0.09 0.14
W63 0.39 PEM Non-Riparian 18 0.26 0.10 0.36
W72 0.02 PSS Non-Riparian 14 0.01 - 0.01
W76 0.30 PFO Riparian 15 0.02 0.03 0.05
W77a 1.23 PFO Riparian 66 - 0.03 0.03
W78b 0.62 PFO Riparian 66 0.03 0.03 0.06
W79a 0.24 PSS Non-Riparian 30 0.07 0.01 0.08
W79b 0.01 PSS Non-Riparian 8 0.01 - 0.01
W80 0.06 PFO Riparian 28 - - -
W81 0.01 PFO Riparian 15 0.01 - 0.01
W82 0.06 PEM Non-Riparian 15 0.06 - 0.06
W85 0.03 PSS Riparian 17 0.01 0.01 0.02
Table 14
Permanent Impacts to Wetlands
Site
ID
Area Within
Study Area
(Acres)
Cowardin/
NCWAM
Classificationa
Hydrologic
Classificationb
DWQ
Wetland
Quality
Rating
Score
Impacts (Acres)
Within Slope
Stake Lines
Add’l
Clearing* Total
W86 0.18 PSS Non-Riparian 49 0.18 - 0.18
W88a 0.02 PFO Riparian 17 - 0.01 0.01
W89 0.09 PFO Non-Riparian 19 0.01 0.03 0.04
W91 0.23 PSS Non-Riparian 24 0.07 0.14 0.21
W93 0.54 PEM Riparian 26 0.14 0.11 0.25
W94 0.04 PEM Non-Riparian 18 0.04 - 0.04
W95a 0.24 PEM Non-Riparian 30 - 0.04 0.04
W95b 0.28 PEM Riparian 30 0.06 0.12 0.18
W96 0.30 PSS Riparian 17 0.06 0.01 0.07
W98 0.07 PSS Riparian 17 0.04 0.01 0.05
W101 0.01 PEM Non-Riparian 10 - 0.01 0.01
W104 0.17 PEM Non-Riparian 10 0.04 0.05 0.09
W109 0.09 PSS Non-Riparian 12 0.03 0.04 0.07
W110 0.62 PSS Riparian 24 - - -
W112 0.46 PSS Non-Riparian 24 0.05 0.05 0.10
W113 0.01 PEM Non-Riparian 32 0.01 - 0.01
W115 0.03 PFO Riparian 31 0.02 - 0.02
W116 0.03 PSS Non-Riparian 32 0.03 - 0.03
W119 0.05 PSS Riparian 51 0.02 0.03 0.05
W121 0.04 PEM Non-Riparian 9 0.02 0.02 0.04
W123 0.05 PEM Non-Riparian 8 - - -
WA 0.07 NTFM Riparian 40 - - -
WB 0.20 NTFM Riparian 37 - - -
WC1 0.45 NTFM Riparian 39 - - -
WC2 0.22 NTFM Riparian 39 - - -
WC3 0.07 NTFM Riparian 39 - - -
WD 0.07 HF Riparian 50 - - -
WE 0.04 HF Riparian 56 - - -
WF 0.04 HF Riparian 56 - - -
WG 0.34 HF Riparian 58 - - -
WH 0.19 HF Riparian 56 - - -
WI 0.31 HF Riparian 45 - - -
WJ 0.11 HF Riparian 45 - - -
WK 0.07 HF Riparian 52 - - -
WL 0.07 HF Riparian 57 - - -
WM 0.07 HF Riparian 45 - - -
WN 0.02 HF Riparian 51 - - -
WO 0.10 HF Riparian 43 - - -
Table 14
Permanent Impacts to Wetlands
Site
ID
Area Within
Study Area
(Acres)
Cowardin/
NCWAM
Classificationa
Hydrologic
Classificationb
DWQ
Wetland
Quality
Rating
Score
Impacts (Acres)
Within Slope
Stake Lines
Add’l
Clearing* Total
WP 0.28 HF Riparian 43 - - -
WQ 0.04 HF Riparian 43 - - -
WR 0.05 HF Riparian 34 - - -
Note: * Within 25 feet of the slope stake lines
a Wetland Type: PFO palustrine forested, PEM palustrine emergent, PSS palustrine
scrub-shrub, NTFM non-tidal freshwater marsh, HF headwater forest
b Riparian wetland are those wetlands that are within the “zone of influence” of a
stream, creek, or river. Non-riparian wetlands are those wetlands that are not
adjacent to or hydrologically influenced by a stream, creek, or river.
Total: 3.7
e. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Land development activities that may adversely impact wetlands require
consent through permit approval from the regulating agency. At the federal
level, under the CWA Section 404b(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE
regulations (33 CFR 320.4), the USACE is obligated to require mitigation for any
unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams as a condition of permit approval.
Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams include: avoiding impacts,
minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts.
1. Avoidance
Avoidance examines the appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to wetlands and streams. The primary purpose of this
project is to upgrade the existing roadway to a multi-lane facility to
increase capacity, alleviate congestion, improve traffic operations, and
reduce the rate of traffic crashes. This project consists primarily of
upgrading the existing US 221 from its intersection with US 421
northward to the town of Jefferson, and because the jurisdictional
resources are located parallel to the existing roadway, avoidance of
jurisdictional features, particularly streams, is not possible.
2. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce adverse impacts to streams and wetlands. General steps
that should be implemented during the final design stage to minimize
impacts by the proposed project include:
• Minimizing “in-stream” activities;
• Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control
recommended in NCDOT’s BMPs for the protection of streams and
wetlands;
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of right-of-way widths and the steeping of fill slopes where
possible:
• Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating
streams.
Specific minimization efforts performed thus far include:
• Elimination of alternatives that would result in higher stream and/or
wetland impacts when similar alternatives would perform the same
function with fewer impacts. The “Best Fit” alternative was designed
to minimize stream and wetland impacts.
• Various alternative hydraulic structure recommendations were
evaluated during the CP 2a field meeting, including: (1) at Site 6,
replace the existing RCP with a new box culvert, (2) at Site 8, replace
the existing box culvert with a new bridge, and (3) at Site 13,
investigate the design of a new bottomless box culvert.
3. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is meant to replace, on at least a one-to-one
basis, the lost functions and values of natural streams and wetlands
affected by development activities. NCDOT will investigate potential on-site
stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once a preferred
alternative has been chosen. If on-site mitigation is not feasible,
mitigation will be provided by the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). In accordance with the “2003 Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources” (MOA), the NCEEP will be
requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water
Act compensatory mitigation requirement for this project.
f. Anticipated Permit Requirements
The factors that may determine the applicability of a Nationwide Permit (NWP)
as authorized by 33 CFR 33 include total stream and wetland impacts, impacts
to cultural resources, impacts to federally protected species, or impacts to
HQWs. Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, the
overall cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may require
authorization under an Individual Permit (IP).
The proposed project is being processed as an Environmental Assessment (EA)
document. A Section 404 IP is anticipated for this project. There is the potential
for cumulative impacts to wetlands totaling greater than 0.5 acres and more
than 300 linear feet of cumulative loss or degradation of a single jurisdictional
stream for this project. The USACE holds the final decision as to what permit
will be required to authorize project construction.
In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the
corresponding Section 401 water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWQ.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be required prior to the
issuance of a Section 404 IP.
g. Construction Moratoria
The NCWRC has identified Cole Branch, Gap Creek, Little Gap Creek, Call
Creek, Old Field Creek, Beaver Creek, and their unnamed tributaries to be
subject to an October 15 to April 15 in-water trout moratorium, based on
correspondence from NCWRC (see Appendix K). The South Fork New River and
nearby tributaries are subject to a moratorium prohibiting in-stream work
during the fish spawning season, which runs from May 1 through July 15,
according to the letter dated May 26, 2006 (see Appendix K). Little Buffalo
Creek, South Beaver Creek, Naked Creek, and their unnamed tributaries have
no construction moratoria.
5. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
As of January 5, 2012 and September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists eleven (11)
federally protected species for Ashe and Watauga Counties, respectively (see
Table 15). A brief description of each species’ habitat requirements follows,
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the
study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best
available information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence.
Table 15
Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe and Watauga Counties
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Statusa
Countyb Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T(S/A) A/W Yes Not
Required
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Carolina northern
flying squirrel E A/W
No
No Effect
Corynorhinus
townsendii virginianus
Virginia big-eared
bat E W No No Effect
Microhexura
montivaga
Spruce-fir moss
spider E W No No Effect
Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge
goldenrod T A/W No No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller’s blazing
star T A/W No No Effect
Hedyotis purpurea
var. montana
Roan mountain
bluet E A/W No No Effect
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E A/W No No Effect
Helonias bullata Swamp pink T A Yes No Effect
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T A Yes MA-NLAAc
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome
lichen E A No No Effect
a T(S/A) –Threatened due to similarity of appearance, E – Endangered, T –Threa.tened
b County: A – Ashe, W – Watauga
c MA-NLAA – May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Bog Turtle
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: April 1 – October 1 (visual surveys); April
1- June 15 (optimal for breeding/nesting); May 1 – June 30 (trapping
surveys)
Habitat Description: Bog turtle habitat consists of open, groundwater-supplied
(springfed), graminoid-dominated wetlands along riparian corridors
or on seepage slopes. These habitats are designated as mountain bogs by
the NCNHP, but they are technically poor, moderate, or rich fens that may
be associated with wet pastures and old drainage ditches that have
saturated muddy substrates with open canopies. Plants found in bog turtle
habitat include sedges, rushes, marsh ferns, shrubs (tag alder, golden
hardhack, blueberry, etc.), and wetland tree species (red maple and silky
willow). These habitats often support sphagnum moss and may contain
carnivorous plants (sundews and pitcher plants) and rare orchids. Potential
habitats may be found in the western Piedmont and Mountain Counties
from 700 to 4,500 ft elevation in North Carolina. Soil types (poorly drained
silt loams) from which bog turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua,
Chewacla, Dellwood, Cordorus complex, Hatboror, Nikwasi, Potomac-Iotla
complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate-Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuchasegee-
Cullasaja complex, Tusquitee, Watauga, and Wehadkee.
Biological Conclusion: Consultation Not Required.
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance (T S/A) do not
require Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. A review of NCNHP records
on February 6, 2012, indicates one known bog turtle occurrence on the west
side of Gap Creek 0.35 mile south of the Watauga County line. Potentially
suitable habitat for bog turtle is present within the study area, particularly
Wetlands WA, WB, and WC. These wetlands are dominated by herbaceous
species and are located along a riparian corridor (Stream SA). Additionally,
soil mapping units known to promote bog turtle habitat (Nikwasi and
Watauga) are identified as being present in the study area. On June 3,
2008, a team of NCDOT biologists found a female bog turtle in a wetland
adjacent to Gap Creek (W5 within the original study area), constituting a
new bog turtle occurrence in Ashe County. It is recommended that all
precautions be taken to minimize disturbance to this habitat.
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May – October; coldest days in the coldest
winter months (nest box surveys).
Habitat Description: There are several isolated populations of the Carolina
northern flying squirrel in the mountains of North Carolina. This nocturnal
squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous (red spruce, Fraser fir, or
eastern hemlock) and mature northern hardwood forests (American beech,
yellow birch, sugar maple, eastern hemlock, red oak, and yellow buckeye),
typically located at elevations above 4,500 ft. In some instances, the
squirrels may be found on narrow, north-facing valleys above 4,000 ft. Both
forest types are used to search for food, and the hardwood forest is used for
nesting sites. Mature forests with a thick evergreen understory and
numerous snags are most preferable. In the winter, squirrels inhabit tree
cavities in older hardwoods, particularly yellow birch.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No potentially suitable habitats for the Carolina northern flying squirrel are
present within the study area. Elevations within the study area are below
3,500 ft and do not represent a conducive habitat for this species. Reviews
of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no
known Carolina northern flying squirrel occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
Virginia Big-eared Bat
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May 15 through August 15; January 15
through February 15 (winter).
Habitat Description: Virginia big-eared bat has been recorded in the
Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina. They occupy caves in the
summer and winter. Hibernating colonies are typically located in deep cave
passageways that have stable temperatures and air movement. The
temperatures in these hibernacula may be lower than those tolerated by
other bats. Roost sites are generally located in mines or caves in oak-hickory
forests. They will use alternate roost sites, but there is no record of long
migrations. They are nocturnal and leave their roost to forage on moths,
beetles, and other insects. This species feeds mostly over open pastures,
corn and alfalfa fields and around tree crowns.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No potentially suitable habitats for the Virginia big-eared bat are present
within the study area, with the exception of foraging habitat. The Watauga
County portion of the study area is dominated by maintained/disturbed
lands and pasture land, and no mines or caves were observed. In addition,
there are only two bridges within the project study area, both of which are
located in Ashe County. Per NCDOT communication with Troy Wilson of the
USFWS on February 5, 2009, given that the Virginia big-eared bat is not
listed for Ashe County, “inspection [of the bridges] for evidence of bat
roosting won’t be necessary.” Review of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008
and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Virginia big-eared bat
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Spruce-fir Moss Spider
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May – August.
Habitat Description: This species is known only from spruce-fir forests in
the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. The spruce-fir
moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders. These mats are found in well-shaded areas in mature,
high-elevation (>5,000 feet) Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce-fir
moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires environments of
high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss
mats, which cannot become too parched or the mats will become dry and
loose. Likewise, the moss mats cannot be too wet because large drops of
water can also pose a threat to the spider. The spider constructs its tube-shaped
webs in the interface between the moss mat and rock surface. Some
webs have been found to extend into the interior of the moss mat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No potentially suitable habitats for the spruce-fir moss spider are present
within the study area. Elevations within the study area are below 3,500 ft
and do not represent a conducive habitat for this species. Reviews of NCNHP
records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known
spruce-fir moss spider occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Blue Ridge Goldenrod
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: July – September.
Habitat Description: The Blue Ridge goldenrod, endemic to the Appalachian
Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee, occurs in the high-elevation
Rocky Summit natural community at or above elevations of 4,600 ft above
MSL along cliffs, ledges, balds, and dry rock crevices of granite outcrops of
the higher mountain peaks. This early pioneer herb grows in full sun on
generally acidic soils of shallow humus or clay loams that are intermittently
saturated. The encroachment of woody vegetation, such as ericaceous
shrubs, can eliminate the goldenrod through competition and shading. Roan
Mountain bluet, Heller’s blazing star, and spreading avens are a few of its
common associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The
communities present in the study area do not support the necessary
elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that
provide a suitable habitat for the Blue Ridge goldenrod. Reviews of NCNHP
records on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Blue
Ridge goldenrod occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Heller’s Blazing Star
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: July-September.
Habitat Description: Heller's blazing star, endemic to the Blue Ridge
Mountains of North Carolina, occurs in the high-elevation Rocky Summit
natural community on high-elevation ledges, rock outcrops, cliffs, and balds
at elevations of 3,500 to 5,999 ft above MSL. This early pioneer, perennial
herb grows in acidic and generally shallow humus or clay loams on igneous
and metasedimentary rock. Known populations are intermittently saturated
and excessively to moderately poorly drained. The plant generally occurs in
full sunlight with grasses, sedges, and other composites. Blue Ridge
goldenrod, Roan Mountain bluet, and spreading avens are a few of its
common associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The
communities present in the study area do not support the necessary
elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that
provide suitable habitat for Heller's blazing star. Reviews of NCNHP records
on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Heller's
blazing star occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Roan Mountain Bluet
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June-July.
Habitat Description: Roan Mountain bluet occurs on thin, gravelly talus
slopes of grassy balds, cliff ledges, shallow soils in crevices of rock outcrops,
and steep slopes with full sun at the summits of high-elevation peaks of the
southern Blue Ridge Mountains. The plant is found at elevations of 4,200 to
6,300 ft above MSL and often has a north, northwest, south, or southwest
aspect. Known occurrences typically grow in gravel-filled, acidic, and
metamorphic-derived soil pockets between underlying mafic rock. Fraser fir
and red spruce dominate the forests adjacent to known populations. Blue
Ridge goldenrod, Heller’s blazing star, and spreading avens are a few of its
common associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. The
communities present in the study area do not support the necessary
elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that
provide suitable habitat for Roan Mountain bluet. Reviews of NCNHP records
on October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known Roan
Mountain bluet occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Spreading Avens
USFWS optimal survey window: June-September.
Habitat Description: Spreading avens occurs in areas exposed to full sun on
high-elevation cliffs, outcrops, and bases of steep talus slopes. This
perennial herb also occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near
summit outcrops. The species prefers a northwest aspect but can be found
on west-southwest through north-northeast aspects. Forests surrounding
known occurrences are generally dominated by either red spruce-Fraser fir,
northern hardwoods with scattered spruce, or high-elevation northern red
oaks. Spreading avens typically occur in shallow, acidic soil (such as the
Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous, metamorphic, or
metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be well drained but almost continuously
wet, with soils at some known populations subject to drying out in summer
due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at
elevations ranging from 4,296 to 6,268 ft above MSL. Blue Ridge goldenrod,
Heller’s blazing star, and Roan Mountain bluet are a few of its common
associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitats for this species exist within the study area. The
communities present in the study areas do not support the necessary
elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) or soil conditions that
provide suitable habitat for spreading avens. Reviews of NCNHP records on
October 30, 2008 and February 6, 2012 indicated no known spreading
avens occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Swamp Pink
USFWS optimal survey window: April-May.
Habitat Description: Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of
groundwater-influenced wetland habitats, including southern Appalachian
bogs and swamps, Atlantic white cedar swamps, swampy forests bordering
meandering small streams, boggy meadows, headwater wetlands, and spring
seepage areas. The perennial herb requires a constantly saturated, but not
flooded, water supply. The plant often grows on hummocks formed by trees,
shrubs, and sphagnum moss, and exhibits varying degrees of shade
tolerance. Swamp pink occurs in acidic soils that contain a very thin layer of
decomposed organic matter over a dark silt loam and a subsoil of sand,
loam, and gravel. Atlantic white cedar, pitch pine, and red spruce are a few
of its associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A suitable habitat for this species exists within the study area. ESI biologists
Gavin Blossner and Daniel Macken surveyed the suitable habitat, consisting
of the wetland areas within the study area, on June 2-4, 2008 for swamp
pink. No swamp pink individuals were observed within the study area.
Reviews of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 indicated no known swamp
pink occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Virginia Spiraea
USFWS optimal survey window: May-early July.
Habitat Description: Virginia spiraea occurs in flood-scoured, high-gradient
sections of rocky river banks of second- and third-order streams. This
perennial shrub also occurs on meander scrolls and point bars, natural
levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, gorges, and
canyons. The plant grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily
over sandstone, and tends to be found in often-disturbed early successional
land. The shrub often grows in thickets, although overtopping by arboreal
species or fast-growing herbaceous vegetation eventually eliminates it.
Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition occurs after high
water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than along
areas of maximum erosion. Many populations are either established among
riparian debris piles where eroded vegetative modules or portions of a plant
were deposited during flood events or can occur between boulders and in
fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for this species exists within the study area. ESI biologists
Gail Tyner and Robert Turnbull surveyed the large streams within the study
area, including, but not limited to, Gap Creek, South Fork New River, Old
Fields Creek, and Beaver Creek for Virginia spiraea on June 2-4, 2008. No
Virginia spiraea individuals were observed within the study area. A review of
NCNHP records on June 25, 2012, indicates three known Virginia spirea
occurrences within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area on the banks of
the South Fork New River. The closest occurrence is approximately 1,400 ft
downstream of the study area. Re-surveys of relevant areas of habitat within
the study area were conducted on July 7, 2010 (of all major stream
crossings) and June 27, 2012 (of the entire D section); no Virginia spiraea
individuals were observed during either of these surveys. Informal
concurrence with the USFWS will be necessary for this species.
Rock Gnome Lichen
USFWS optimal survey window: year round.
Habitat Description: Rock gnome lichen occurs in high-elevation coniferous
forests (particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir), typically
on rocky outcrop or cliff habitats. This lichen only grows in areas with a
great deal of humidity, such as high elevations above 5,000 ft MSL, where
there is often fog, or on boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges at
lower elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The
species requires a moderate amount of sunlight, but cannot tolerate high-intensity
solar radiation. The lichen does well on moist, generally open sites
with northern exposures, but requires at least partial canopy coverage on
southern or western aspects because of its intolerance to high solar
radiation. The rock mosses Andreaea and Grimmia are common associate
species in the vertical intermittent seeps.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. The
communities present in the study areas do not support the necessary
elevation (study area elevation is below 3,500 ft) that provide suitable
habitat for rock gnome lichen. A review of NCNHP records on October 30,
2008, indicates no known rock gnome lichen occurrence within 1.0 mile of
the study area.
b. Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Effective August 9, 2007, the bald eagle was delisted from the Endangered
Species Act. A Biological Conclusion is no longer necessary for this species. The
bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Protection Act. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
restrict disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 660 ft outward
from a nest tree, which is considered critical for maintaining acceptable
conditions for bald eagles.
Habitat for the bald eagle consists primarily of mature forest in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for
nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
Bald eagle is not listed by USFWS as having ranges that extend into Ashe and
Watauga Counties. A review of NCNHP records on October 30, 2008 indicated
no known bald eagle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. The open
water of the South Fork New River may provide a potential foraging habitat for
bald eagle. However, the area adjacent to the South Fork New River within the
project study area is active pasture land, and there are no suitable nesting trees
within 660 feet of the project study area.
c. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Candidate Species
As of January 5, 2012 and June 27, 2010, the USFWS does not list any
Candidate species for Ashe or Watauga Counties, respectively.
6. Soils
The Ashe County and Watauga County Soil Surveys identify twenty-nine
(29) soil types within the study area, as shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit
Drainage Class
Hydric
Statusa
Nikwasi loam (0-3% slopes) NkA Very Poorly Drained H
Toxaway loam (0-2% slopes) To
Poorly-Very Poorly
Drained H
Colvard fine sandy loam Co Well Drained H*
Saunook-Nikwasi complex (2-15%
slopes) SwC
Well-Very Poorly
Drained H*
Tusquitee loam (8-15% slopes) TsD Well Drained H*
Braddock gravelly loam (2-8% slopes) BrB Well Drained NH
Braddock gravelly loam (8-15%
slopes) BrD Well Drained NH
Braddock–Urban Complex (2-15%
slopes) BuC Well Drained NH
Chandler loam (25-65% slopes) CaF
Somewhat
Excessively Drained NH
Chandler fine sandy loam (30-50%
slopes) CdE
Somewhat
Excessively Drained NH
Chestnut-Edneyville complex (15-30%
slopes) CkD Well Drained NH
Chestnut-Edneyville complex (30-50%
slopes) CkE Well Drained NH
Clifton loam (8-15% slopes) CfD Well Drained NH
Clifton loam (15-25% slopes) CfE Well Drained NH
Evard stony loam (25-60% slopes) EsF Well Drained NH
Table 16
Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit
Drainage Class
Hydric
Statusa
Evard loam (15-25% slopes) EvE Well Drained NH
Evard loam (25-45% slopes) EvF Well Drained NH
Fannin loam (8-15% slopes) FnD Well Drained NH
Fannin loam (15-25% slopes) FnE Well Drained NH
Saunook loam (2-8% slopes) SnB Well Drained NH
Saunook loam (8-15% slopes) SnC Well Drained NH
Saunook loam (15-30% slopes) SnD Well Drained NH
Saunook loam (15-30% slopes), very
stony SoD Well Drained NH
Tusquitee loam (15-25% slopes) TsE Well Drained NH
Tusquitee- Spiney stony soils (15-25%
slopes) TuE Well Drained NH
Watauga loam (8-15% slopes) WaC Well Drained NH
Watauga loam (15-30% slopes) WaD Well Drained NH
Watauga loam (15-25% slopes) WaE Well Drained NH
Watauga loam (25-45% slopes) WaF Well Drained NH
a Hydric Status: H – Hydric; H* - Non-hydric with Hydric Inclusions; NH – Non-Hydric
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that Federal
agencies account for the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT conducted an architectural survey in the Area of Potential Effects
(APE) for structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places or
eligible for nomination to the National Register. The findings are presented
in the Historic Architectural Resources Report (March 2009). The July 2008
survey identified thirty-nine (39) historic properties within the APE.
Photographs of these properties, along with their evaluations, were shown to
staff members of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a meeting
on August 11, 2008. At that meeting, SHPO staff concurred that thirty-five
(35) properties were not eligible for National Register listing due to a lack of
architectural integrity and that four (4) properties warranted further
investigation.
a. Historic Properties
Properties evaluated in the report and recommended eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places include: Property 31 – Baldwin
Bethany Cemetery and Property 39 – Barnett Idol House (AH 454).
By a letter dated May 21, 2009, SHPO concurred with the finding that
the above properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (see Appendix C, page C-1).
Properties evaluated in the report and recommended not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places include: Property 1 –
Walter Scott Moretz House and Property 25 – Onzo Baldwin House
(AH507).
By a letter dated May 21, 2009, SHPO concurred with the finding of not
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the Walter
Scott House. However, SHPO requested more information to make a final
determination of eligibility for the Onzo Baldwin House (see Appendix C,
page C-1). The additional information was provided in a letter dated June
24, 2009 to SHPO, and in a letter dated July 10, 2009, SHPO concurred
with finding that the Onzo Baldwin house is not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix C, pages C-3 through
C-5).
1. Baldwin Bethany Cemetery
SHPO concurred that the Baldwin Cemetery is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C
(Design/Construction). Baldwin Bethany Cemetery is a good,
representative example of a continuously used cemetery in the
mountains of northwestern North Carolina. The material used for
markers b