|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
• • • • 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
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | 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 |
Other Title | Administration action, environmental assessment; Administrative action, environmental assessment |
Contributor |
North Carolina. Department of Transportation. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch. United States. Federal Highway Administration. Parsons Transportation Group. |
Date | 2012-10 |
Subjects |
Highway planning--North Carolina--Watauga County Highway planning--North Carolina--Ashe County Roads--Environmental aspects--North Carolina--Watauga County Roads--Environmental aspects--North Carolina--Ashe County Environmental impact statements--North Carolina--Watauga County Environmental impact statements--North Carolina--Ashe County United States Highway 221--Environmental conditions |
Place |
Ashe County, North Carolina, United States Watauga County, North Carolina, United States |
Description | "October 2012."; "U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)"--Cover. |
Publisher | Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT |
Agency-Current | North Carolina Department of Transportation |
Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
Physical Characteristics | 1 v. (various pagings) : col. ill., maps (some col. and folded), plans (some col. and folded) ; 28 cm. |
Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
Type | Text |
Language | English |
Format |
Reports Environmental impact statements |
Digital Characteristics-A | 20.7 MB; 248 p. |
Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Related Items | http://worldcat.org/oclc/820022226/viewonline |
Audience | All |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_us221widening201210.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | • • • • 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 |
OCLC number | 820022226 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
A |
|
B |
|
C |
|
D |
|
F |
|
G |
|
L |
|
M |
|
N |
|
O |
|
R |
|
S |
|
T |
|
V |
|
W |
|
|
|