19960341 Ver 1_Complete File_19960312 (2)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 401 ISSLIEc
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETi' JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 15, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
Assistant Chief W?, v
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Buncombe and Henderson Counties, Improvements,to US 25 from
SR 1361 to US 25A/NC 280, TIP No. R-2213, State-project No.
8.'084190.2, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-25(1), COE Action ID
No. 199600817.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) for the subject project on May 08, 1996. This permit expired on
January 21, 1997. The improvements to US 25 are not scheduled to be let to construction
it August 1998. Consequently, the Depart ment of Transportation (DOT) needs to
•? renew authorization r this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion (CE) in a letter dated March 08,
1996: US 25 will be widened to five lanes to improve traffic flow and improve safety.
The project begins at the intersection of US 25 and SR 1361 in the township of Fletcher
in Henderson County and ends at the intersection of US 25 and US 25A/NC 280 south of
Asheville in Buncombe County.
Since completion of the CE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has updated the
Threatened and Endangered Species'list for Buncombe and Henderson Counties. The
Service now lists 12 species as Threatened or Endangered in these Counties. The project
area has been evaluated for impacts to these species by NCDOT biologists. A copy of the
biological assessments for these species is attached for reference.
2

The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this project under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of
Water Quality is also requested.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone], extension 315.
Sincerely,
r lin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning. and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, R.E. Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E,•Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins; P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. D: Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. F. D. Martin, P. E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis,NCWRC, Western Mountain Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC

T
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND •B. GARRETT* JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 9, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Hunkins, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
Permits, Mitigation, `tnd,Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species Review for proposed widening of US 25
from SR 1361 to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe and
Henderson Counties. T.I.P. R-2213; State Project
No. 8.1841902; Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-25(1).
ATTENTION: ,Charles Cox, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
• Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: Categorical Exclusion prepared by NCDOT. December
1995.
The following memorandum provides a Protected Species Review for the
proposed project. It addresses rare and protected species potentially impacted by the
project and .serves to update the referenced Categorical Exclusion (CE) with respect to
this issue.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section' 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.

As of November 4 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists twelve
federally protected species for Buncombe County and six for Henderson County (Table
1). Four species, spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), and Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) have been
added to the list of federally protected species for Buncombe and Henderson Counties
since the completion of the referenced CE. Descriptions and biological conclusions for
each of these species are given below.
Descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect" for Eastern cougar (Felis
conco/or couguar), small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeo/oides), bunched arrowhead
(Sagittaria fascicu/ata), mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesil), white irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum), rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare), Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana), swamp pink (Helonias bullata), Carolina northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus), Appalachian elktoe (A/asmidonta ravelneliana), and
spreading avens (Geum radiatum) were given in the referenced CE. These biological
conclusions of "No Effect" remain valid.
Table 1. Federallv Protected Species for Buncombe and Henderson Counties
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle B/H T S/A
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon B E
Felis concolor couguar Eastern cougar B E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel B E
Hybopsis monacha spotfin chub B T*
Myotis gnsescens gray bat B E***
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe B E
Geum radiatum spreading avens B E
Sagittaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead B/H E*
Sarracenia jonesii mountain sweet pitcher
plant B/H E*
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea B T
Gymnoderma /ineare rock gnome lichen B E
Helonias bullata swamp pink H T
Isotria medeo/oides small-whorled pogonia H T
Sisyronchium dichotomum white irisette H E
Note: B-Buncombe H-Henderson
* Historic record- the species was last observed in the county. more than 50 years ago.
'Incidental/migrant- the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is endangered of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened (threatened due to similarity of appearance with
other rare species that is listed for its protection but are not biologically
endangered or threatened).
The status of the following species have changed since the completion of the
referenced CE: Appalachian elktoe has changed from Proposed Endangered to
Endangered; rock gnome lichen has changed from Proposed Endangered to
Endangered; and small whorled pogonia has changed from Endangered to Threatened.
Cyprinella monacha (spotfin chub) Threatened
Formerly: Hybopsis monacha
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/9/77
The spotfin chub once ranged in the upper Tennessee River system, from
Alabama to Virginia and North Carolina. Presently it is restricted to the Little
Tennessee River drainage system in Swain and Macon Counties, where it is only found
in the lower North Fork of the Holston River in Virginia and Tennessee, the Emory
River System in western Tennessee, and the upper Little Tennessee River System in
North Carolina.
The spotfin chub is a small minnow that grows 92 mm (3.6 in) in total length. This
species is olive green above with silversides and the females are whitish below. The
males have a brilliant turquoise blue coloring on their backs, sides of the head, and
mid-lateral part of the body, fins are tipped with white during peak development. Males
and females are both characterized by a prominent black spot on the lower part of the
caudal fin.
It inhabits moderate to large streams, 15-70 meters (49- 230 ft) in width. These
streams should have a good current, clear water, cool to warm temperatures, and pools
alternating with riffles. Specimens have been taken from a variety of substrates but
rarely from significantly. silted substrates.
Little is known of the life cycle and reproductive cycle in the spotfin chub. The
spotfin chub feeds on insect larvae. It is considered to be a "sight feeder" that selects
its prey off of clean substrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of moderate to large streams, 15-70 meters in width,
was not observed during a survey conducted on 2 November 1997 by NCDOT biologist
Chris Rivenbark. The project is located in the French Broad drainage system.
Although there were two early records of the spotfin chub in the French Broad River
system in 1889, the species has not been found in this river system during subsequent
intensive surveys. In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats on 12 November 1997 did not reveal any
occurences of the spotfin chub within the project area. Therefore, this project will not
affect the spotfin chub.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon)
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/20/84
Endangered
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back and its underside is
lighter, barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark
wedge that extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet. Immature peregrine
falcons have dark-brownish backs and heavily streaked underparts. The peregrine
falcon has pointed wings in flight, a common characteristic among falcons. The
peregrine falcon is roughly the size of a crow, between 41-51 cm (16-20 in) long and
91-112 cm (36-44 in) wide. In this species the female is roughly 25% larger than the
male.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas ;
with high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high
cliff ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous
forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting, occurs f rom;cnid-March
to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including
mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The
preferred prey: is medium sized birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top
of their food chain and are therefore extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as
DDT.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form high cliffs and open land for foraging was not
observed during a survey conducted on 2 November 1997 by NCDO.T biologist Chris
Rivenbark, however broken off tree tops may be present. Project construction is not
expected to impact foraging habitat of the peregrine falcon. In addition, a review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of.rare species and unique habitats
on 12 November 1997 did not reveal any occurences of peregrine falcon within the
project area. Therefore, this project will not affect the peregrine falcon.

Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally listed: 5 12/97
Clemmys muhlenbergii is a small semiaquatic turtle, usually with a bright orange
or yellow blotch on the side of head; carapace elongated, brown to black, often with a
low median keel and concentric furrows or traces of them. The bog turtle measures 7-
10 cm (3-4 in) in length. It is found in damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the
mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when disturbed.
The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians, and seeds. In June or
July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch
in about fifty-five days. (Bernard S. Martof, et. al., 1980)
Clemmys muhlenbergii is listed as Threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species that are listed for protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to a Subject 7 consultation or any of its
provisions. Potential habitat for the bog turtle in the form of damp grassy fields, bogs,
and marshes was not observed during a survey conducted on 2 November 1997 by
NCDOT biologist Chris Rivenbark. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
..Program database°of rare species and unique habitats on 12 November 1997 did not
reveal any occurences of bog turtle within the project area.
Gymnoderma /ineare (Rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Plant Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 12/28/94
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This
lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation ? 1220 m (4000 ft) mountaintops and cliff faces
which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation < 762 m (2500 ft) deep gorges in
the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock
faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet
times.. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea
in these.vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of
Ashe, Avery, `Buncombe, Graham; Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The.lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can
be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having a
blue-gray color on the upper surface and generally a shiny-white color on the lower
surface. The color of the fungi near the base is black. The squamules are nearly
parallel to the rock surface and are generally 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) in length. The

fruiting bodies are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found at the tips of
the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July through
September. The primary means of propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies
spreading clonally.
The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. The thinning and death of these
forest occurs from exotic insect pests, trampling of hikers and associated soil erosion
and compaction from hikers. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the
habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. Drastic changes in microclimate (including
increased temperatures and decreased moisture) result from the impacts to these
forests. These alterations of the microclimate lead to the desiccation of the rock gnome
lichen.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of high elevation coniferous forest was not observed
during a survey conducted on 2 November 1997 by NCDOT biologist Chris Rivenbark.
The project elevation (686.0 m (2250 ft)) does not meet the elevational requirements for
rock gnome lichen. In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats on 12 November 1997 did not
reveal any occurences of the rock gnome lichen within the project area. Therefore, this
project will not affect the rock gnome lichen.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and.Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: R-2213
7A

-,
.. s-6,?X
4 001 ISSUED. ?.?
4®' ISSUIED
iATE OF NOIZiii L AROLINA 9 V
0341
DEPARTMENT Or TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVHU`OR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 8, 1996
Mr. Cliff Winefordner
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Nir. Winefordner:
fsji i' BAR .12
s
SUBJECT: Henderson and Buncombe Counties, Improvements to US 25 from SR 1361 to
US,'-"5A-NC 280, TIP No. R-2213, State Project No. 8. i841902, Federal Aid
Project `o.'?STP',NHF-25(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the' subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330
Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
t i , th
.
Sec'..:? 330 and appendix A (C) of+ these regulations will ? ?e follox ? ed ,. in ,?..o constn:.. rt; on ;.ffile
project.
We anticipate that a 401 General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review. A copy of this
information has also, been provided to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for
their review-

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin
(0 i Q) 73 ; 7844. Extension ;1
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC:"plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC, Asheville
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. D. Smart, PE, Division 13 Engineer
Mr. F. D. Martin, PE, Division 14 Engineer
e- f
US 25
From SR 1361 to US 25A-NC 280
Henderson and Buncombe Counties
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-25(1)
State Project 8.1841902
TIP Project R-2213
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
r 2 -z1-9s ????- G1!
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch
Date ichol L. Graf, P.E.
?ivision Administrator, FHWA
? -7
US 25
From SR 1361 to US 25A-NC 280
Henderson and Buncombe Counties
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-25(1)
State Project 8.1841902
TIP Project R-2213
0 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
December, 1995
Documentati n Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch bY ?;'''FESs;'' °%9?•%
: ? ?? ear
_ r
SEAL
l°328
2 ?- : n . F
; -?-
41
Ch es R. Cox, P. E. ?
Project Planning Engineer ••'a??FS C? ?..``??
Wil on Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Summary
Categorical Exclusion
and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
Type of Action
This is a Federal Administration Action, Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Transportation Building
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Actions Required by Other Agencies
It is anticipated that a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit #23 (for
approved Categorical Exclusions) is applicable to the project. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) for activities resulting in a
discharge into any of the streams involved with this project.
Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
is required since the project is located in a designated "trout" county.
n
The project lies within the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Watershed.
Planning and construction of the widening project will need to comply with the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) "Stream Modification Policy" regarding channelization,
modification, and renovation of waters subject to TVA actions.
4. Description of Action,
+ The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen existing
US 25 to five lanes to improve traffic flow and to enhance safety. The project begins at
the intersection of US 25 with SR 1361 in the township of Fletcher in Henderson County,
' and ends at the intersection of US 25 with US 25A and NC 280 south of Asheville in
Buncombe County.
5. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicular operation and
reduced travel time, resulting in road user cost savings. Traffic safety will be enhanced.
Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities in the area will be improved. The
project will also provide part of an improved link between I-40 and I-26 south of
Asheville.
Approximately 3.9 hectares (9.6 acres) of additional right of way will be required.
No prime farmland or state and locally important farmland will be taken. No wetlands will
be impacted. It is anticipated that ten residences and six businesses will be relocated as a
result of this project. One Section 4(f) property will be impacted.
Eleven federally-protected species were listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for Buncombe and Henderson Counties as of March 28, 1995 (see Section
IV.C.I.d of this Categorical Exclusion for listing). All of these species were surveyed for,
as discussed in Section IV.C. L d in this report. This project will not impact any of the
species listed for these counties.
6. Alternatives Considered
Two widening alternatives were considered:
t,
(1) Symmetrical widening
(2), Combination of west side and symmetrical widening
Both alternatives involve widening the existing roadway to five lanes with curb and
gutter, with some improvements to select intersections.
In addition to the widening alternatives, postponement of the proposed action, a
"do nothing" alternative, and alternate modes of transportation were considered.
iii
7. Federal State and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of this Study
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County Board of Commissioners
Henderson County Board of Commissioners
City of Asheville
Town of Fletcher
8. Special Project Commitments
To accommodate bicycle traffic, the lanes along US 25 will be striped differentially
as follows: 4.2-m (14-foot) outside through lanes, 3.3-m (11-foot) inside through lanes,
and a 3.6 in (12-foot) center turn lane. Bicycle-safe drainage grates will be specified as a
safety feature to be included in the design, as well as "Share the Road" signs.
Seven geodetic survey markers will be impacted by the project. The North
Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding the relocation
of survey markers along the project.
A more detailed Geotechnical evaluation of UST involvement will be required
before right of way acquisition can begin.
Measures to minimize harm to the Calvary Episcopal Church, a 4(f) property, will
include the following:
(1) The amount of right of way to be acquired from the church will be
minimized.
(2) A 1.4-m (4-foot) raised concrete island, originally a part of the proposed
US 25/SR 1547 intersection design to restrict left turns into the rectory,
_ will not be constructed between SR 1361 and SR 1547 on US 25.
(3) The existing hedge rows adjacent to US 25 and SR 1547 at the church
entrance will not be disturbed during construction.
(4) Existing shrubs within the construction limits in front of the church along
US 25 will be removed and offered to the church for replanting. These
shrubs are not a part of the hedge row mentioned above in (3).
(5) A memorial stone marker facing US 25 will not be disturbed.
If any changes in the design plans occur, impacts to the Calvary Episcopal Church will be
reevaluated.
iv
9. Basis for Categorical Exclusion
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated this project
will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The
proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and
is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were
voiced at the Citizens Informational Workshop held on June 22, 1994. For these reasons,
it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to the project.
61

R
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project 1
B. Project Status and Historical Resume 1
C. Existing Conditions 1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied 1
2. Route Classification 1
3. Existing Cross-Section 1
4. Existing Right of Way 1
5. Access Control 2
6. Speed Limits 2
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures 2
8. Traffic Data 2
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature 2
10. Intersecting Roadways 2
11. Degree of Roadside Interference 2
12. Railroad Crossings 2
13. School Bus Data 3
14. Airports 3
15. Sidewalks and Greenways 3
D. Capacity Analysis 3
1. Mainline Analysis 3
2. Intersection Analysis 4
E. Accident Analysis 5
F. Project Terminals 5
G. Asheville Thoroughfare Plan 6
H. Asheville Corridor Preservation Pilot Study 6
1. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community 6
: II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description 6
" B. Length of Project 7
C. Typical Section Description 7
D. Design Speed 7
E. Right of Way 7
F. Access Control 7
G. Construction Limits 7
ii
M

t

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
H. Intersection Treatment 8
1. Bridges and Drainage Structures 8
J. Special Permits Required 8
K. Changes in the State Highway System 9
L. Bikeways 9
M. Sidewalks 9
N. Greenways 9
0. Landscaping 9
P. Noise Barriers 9
Q. Degree of Utility Conflicts 9
R. Cost Estimate 9
S. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area 10
T. Anticipated Design Exceptions 10
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements 10
B. Other Design Alternatives 11
C. Postponement of Project I 1
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative I 1
E. Alternative Modes of Transportation 12
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects 12
1. Land Use 12
a. Existing Land Use 12
b. Future Land Use 12
2. Neighborhood Characteristics 13
3. Relocatees 13
4. Public Facilities 14
5. Social Impacts 14
6. Historic and Cultural Resources 14
a. Architectural/Historical Resources 14
b. Archaeological Resources 16
7. Section 4(f) Properties 16
B. Economic Effects 18
111

R
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
C. Environmental Effects 18
1. Biological Resources 18
a. Terrestrial Communities 18
b. Aquatic Communities 20
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 20
d. Federally-Protected Species 21
e. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species 29
2. Geological Resources 31
a. Soils 31
b. Mineral Resources 32
C. Erosion Control 32
3. Wetlands 32
a. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters 32
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 32
4. Permits 33
a. Nationwide 23 Permit 33
b. 401 Water Quality Certification 33
C. Coordination with Other Agencies 33
d. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts 34
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation 34
6. Water Resources 34
a. Characteristics 34
b. Best Usage Classification 34
C. Water Quality 35
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 35
7. Farmland 35
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis 36
9. Air Quality Analysis 36
10. Stream Modification 37
11. Hazardous Materials 37
12. Geodetic Survey Markers 37
13. Construction Impacts 37
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
PAGE
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies 39
B. Citizens Informational Workshop 40
C. Public Hearing 40
k
h
•
TABLES
Table IA Mainline Capacity Analysis
Table 113 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table IC Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 2 Accident Rates
Table 3 Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2
Table 4 Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts
Table 5 Federally Listed Species for Buncombe and Henderson
Counties
Table 6 Federal Candidate and N.C. Protected Species
for Buncombe and Henderson Counties
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic of Project
Figure 3 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Asheville Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 Corridor Preservation Study, Fletcher Area
Figure 6 Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 7 Proposed Typical Section
Figures 8A, 8B Intersection Improvements/ Proposed Lane Configurations
Figure 9 Calvary Episcopal Church Historic Property Boundary
Figure 10 Oak Park Historic District Boundary
Figure 11 Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
APPENDICES
3
4
4
5
11
20
22
30
Appendix A Relocation Reports
Appendix B Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation Programs
Appendix C Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix D Citizens Informational Workshop
Appendix E Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Appendix F Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
US 25, from SR 1361 in Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County.
The project area is shown in Figure 1. The proposed improvements are shown in
Figure 2.
For the purpose of this document, US 25 will be described as a north/south
^ highway.
B. Project Status and Historical Resume
The 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for the
widening of the existing two-lane roadway to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. Right-
of-way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997,
respectively. The TIP includes a total funding of $5,600,000 for the project, including
$3,800,000 for right of way and $1,800,000 for construction. The total cost of
improvements recommended in this report is $6,850,000. The estimated cost exceeds the
TIP funding by $1,250,000. The cost increase is partially due to the extension of the
project south of the original southern terminal, the Buncombe/Henderson County line.
C. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of US 25 is approximately 2.2 kilometers
(1.4 miles). Photographs of existing conditions along the project are shown in
Figure 6.
2. Route Classification
US 25 is classified as an Other Principal Arterial Route within the project

limits.
3. Existing Cross-Section
The pavement width of US 25 is approximately 7.3 meters (24 feet), with
0.6 to 1.8-meter (2 to 6-foot) grassed shoulders.
4. Existing Right of Way
The right of way along US 25 is approximately 12.2 meters (40 feet).
2
5. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
6. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 73 kph (45 mph) within the project limits.
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures

There are no existing bridges or reinforced concrete box culverts along the 1%
project.
8. Traffic Data
The existing traffic along US 25 ranges from 11,400 (south of SR 1547) to
15,300 vehicles per day (vpd) (south of NC 280). US 25 is expected to generate
from 20,000 to 26,800 vpd at the above locations by the year 2020. Truck traffic
will comprise approximately five percent of these volumes (three percent DUALS
and two percent TTST). Projected traffic volumes, major turning movements,
truck data, and design hour data are shown in Figure 3.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The existing horizontal and vertical curvature is fair along the project.
10. Intersecting Roadways
All highway intersections along the project are at-grade. Three
intersections with US 25 are signalized: SR 1547; SR 3530; and US 25A/NC 280.
All other intersections are stop sign controlled.
1 ] . Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is high along the project.
12. Railroad Crossings
•
There are no railroad crossings along the project.
13. School Bus Data
Approximately three school buses traveling to and from three schools
utilize this section of US 25 twice each day in Buncombe County; two buses
utilize US 25 from the southern terminal to the county line in Henderson County
two times daily.
14. Airports
The Asheville Airport, located approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) west of the
project, is outside the critical air space regulated by the FAA.
15. Sidewalks and Greenwavs
There are no sidewalks or greenways within the project limits.
D. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how these conditions are
perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition generally describes
these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels are defined for each type
of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations
from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F
representing the worst.
Mainline Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for the existing two-lane
highway and the proposed five-lane undivided highway. The results of these
studies are shown below in Table IA.
TABLE 1A: MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1994 / 2020 LOS 1994 / 2020 LOS
EXISTING 2-LANE FACILIT PROPOSED 5-LANE FACILIT
E/F A/B
The results show that the widening of US 25 to five lanes will significantly
improve the level of service.
4
2. Intersection Analysis
Capacity analyses were also performed for the three major unsignalized and
the two signalized intersections. See Tables 1B and 1 C for the results of these
analyses.
TABLE 111: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION 1994 (NO 2020 (NO 1994 (WITH 2020 (WITH
WITH US 25 IMPROM IMPRO IMPROMI) IMPPROVAM
SR 1361 E/B/A F/D/C E/A/A F/B/D
SR 3195 E/B/A E/D/C E/A/A E/A/D
SR 3190 E/A/A F/C/C E/A/A F/A/C
NOTE: All level of service results are divided into three parts:
left turns (minor street) / right turns (minor street) / left turns (US 25)
The unsignalized intersection capacity analysis shows that the level of service for
right turns from minor streets onto US 25 will benefit from the proposed widening. These
intersections will be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Branch as traffic increases and
signals will be considered when warranted.
TABLE 1C: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION 199412020 199412020
WITH US 25 2-LANE FACILIT 5-LANE FACILI
SR 3530 9/* A / B
SR 1547 C/* B/C **
NOTES: * LOS is lower than F
** Based upon two southbound left-turn lanes on US 25

A
The signalized intersection capacity analysis shows that the signalized intersections
within the project limits will greatly benefit by the proposed widening, as shown by the
improved level of service in the design year 2020.
E. Accident Analysis
P
4
A comparison of accident rates along US 25 with average statewide rates for
urban and rural two-lane "US" routes is shown below in Table 2. The accident rates for
US 25 are based on the period from July, 1991 to June, 1994. The statewide averages
were generated from data for the years 1992-1994.
TABLE 2: ACCIDENT RATES (PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE KILOMETERS)
ACCIDENT TYPE RATES ALONG AVERAGE AVERAGE
US 25 STATEWIDE STATEWIDE
RATES FOR ALL RATES FOR ALL
URBAN RURAL
"US ROUTES" "US ROUTES"
All Accidents 329.45 165.82 107.77
Fatal 0.0 0.68 1.55
Non-fatal 173.05 68.55 51.09
Nighttime 86.52 27.91 30.45
Wet Conditions 69.89 34.99 25.79
The comparison shows that the overall accident rate along the subject segment of
US 25 is two times the statewide rate for urban US routes and three times the statewide
rate for rural US routes.
Ninety-nine accidents were reported within the studied period; approximately 48
percent of these accidents were rear-end, slow, or stop accidents and 18 percent were
left-turn accidents along the same road. A significant number of the accidents (24
accidents) were located at the intersection of US 25 with US 25A/NC 280. It is
anticipated that the proposed widening of the existing roadway will reduce the likelihood
of these types of accidents by adding through lanes and a center left-turn lane.
F. Project Terminals
" The northern terminal of Project R-2213 is the intersection of US 25 with US 25A
and NC 280. NC 280 will be widened under another TIP Project (U- 2402); the above-
mentioned intersection will also be improved under U-2402. Under Project U-2402, the
northbound approach of US 25 will be widened to seven lanes at this intersection and
taper back to two lanes approximately 600 m (2000 ft) south of the intersection.
The southern terminal is located at the intersection of US 25 and SR 1361. US 25
is currently two lanes at this location.
6
G. Asheville Thoroughfare Plan
The Asheville Thoroughfare Plan was updated in 1994 and now includes the
Fletcher area (see Figure 4). US 25 is identified as a major thoroughfare in this plan.
H. Asheville Corridor Preservation Pilot Study
In conjunction with the 1994 revisions to the Asheville Thoroughfare Plan, the
Statewide Planning Branch of NCDOT worked with the NCDOT Planning and
Environmental Branch, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM), N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) to develop the "Asheville Urban Area Corridor Preservation Pilot Project". The
goal of this pilot study was to allow early corridor protection of thoroughfare plan
alignments and eliminate the need for an alternative analysis later on during the project
planning stage.
The need to improve US 25 around the Fletcher area (TIP Projects R-2213 and
R-2214) was identified as "Problem Area 5" in the pilot study. In this pilot study,
widening of US 25 was evaluated (see Figure 5, Alternative U), as well as both eastern
and western bypasses of Fletcher (see Figure 5, Alternatives V, W, X, and Y). The study
recommended that US 25 be widened to five lanes rather than constructing a bypass; the
recommendation to widen US 25 was determined to have less environmental and social
impact than constructing a facility on new location. The participating environmental
review agencies have concurred on this recommendation, with the exception of the EPA.
The pilot study eliminated the need to further evaluate bypass options. Therefore, this
Categorical Exclusion will only address widening alternatives of US 25.
1. Benefits to the State, Region. and Community

x
The primary benefits of the project will be economic in nature. Upgrading the
existing horizontal and vertical alignments will allow more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times, resulting in reduced road user costs. The proposed upgrading of
US 25 will improve access to homes, businesses, and public services in the area, resulting
in indirect economic benefits. The project will provide a safer highway for motorists.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
Proposed improvements to US 25 include widening the existing roadway to five
lanes with curb and gutter from SR 1361 to US 25A/NC 280. The proposed
improvements are shown in Figure 2.
7
B. Length of Project
The length of roadway to be improved is approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi).
C. Typical Section Description
It is recommended that US 25 be widened to a five-lane, 19.8-m (65-foot)
pavement (face to face) section with curb and gutter. This width includes 3.9 m (12.8-
foot) outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic and a 3.6-m (12-foot) center turn lane.
The recommended typical section is shown in Figure 7.
w
The proposed widening of US 25 will shift from symmetrical to west side widening
at several locations (see Section III.A.1 and Figure 2). The widening shift is
recommended to minimize impacts to the Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory and to
avoid impacts to the Oak Park Historic District, two properties eligible for the National
Register (see Section IV.A.6.a); in addition, this alternative is less costly than other
options.
D. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 80 kph (50 mph) for the entire length of the
project.
E. Right of Way
The proposed right-of-way width will be 30 m (100 ft) along the entire length of
the project. Approximately 3.9 hectares (9.6 ac) of additional right of way and easements
will be required.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
G. Construction Limits
The official limits of the proposed widening of US 25 are from SR 1361 in
Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County. The southern construction
limits will actually begin at SR 1546, approximately 381 m (1250 ft) south of the US 25/
SR 1361 intersection.
As mentioned in Section I.F, the intersection of US 25 with US 25A and NC 280
will be improved under another TIP Project, U-2402. Therefore, the northern
construction limits for Project R-2213 will end approximately 600 m (2000 ft) south of the
US 25/US 25A/NC 280 intersection.
H. Intersection Treatment
Three intersections with US 25 are currently signalized: US 25A/NC 280;
SR 3530; and SR 1547. These.will be upgraded as needed. No other intersections will be
signalized as a part of this project.
All improvements to the US 25/US 25A/NC 280 intersection will fall under TIP
Project U-2402 (see Section II-S). The proposed intersection configuration is shown in
Figure 8B.
The intersection of US 25 and SR 1547 will receive the following improvements:
the southbound approach of US 25 will be widened to include dual left-turn lanes onto
SR 1547; and SR 1547 will be widened to include separate left-turn and right-turn lanes
(see Figure 8A).
The intersection of US 25 and SR 3530 will be improved to include exclusive left-
turn and right-turn lanes on SR 3530 (see Figure 8A).
SR 3190 will be realigned south to tie into US 25 at 90 degrees to improve the
visibility of the intersection (see Figure 2, sheet 3 of 4).
I. Bridges and Drainage Structures
No bridges or box culverts are proposed along US 25 within the project limits.
Existing pipe culverts will be extended as needed to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
J. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit #23 (for
approved Categorical Exclusions) is applicable to the project. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the North Carolina Department of
Enviroinment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) for activities resulting in a
discharge into any of the streams involved with this project. Coordination with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is required since the project is
located in a designated "trout" county. «
The project lies within the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Watershed.
Planning and construction of the widening project will need to comply with the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) "Stream Modification Policy" regarding channelization,
modification and renovation of waters subject to TVA actions (see Appendix C, pages
C-11 and C-12).
9
K. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
L. Bikeways
The incidental bicycle improvements for US 25 as listed in the 1996-2002 TIP are
w proposed as part of this project. The improvements include: wider outside lanes, bicycle-
safe drainage grates, and "Share the Road" signs. To accommodate bicycle traffic, the
lanes along US 25 will be striped differentially as follows: 4.2-m (14-foot ) outside
through lanes, 3.3-m (11-foot) inside through lanes, and a 3.6 m (12-foot ) center turn
lane.
M. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are recommended for this segment of US 25.
N. Greenways
No greenways are planned in conjunction with this project.
0. Landscaping
No unique landscaping is proposed for this project.
P. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed for this project.
Q. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts is high along this segment of US 25.
R. Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for the proposed improvements are as follows:
Construction: $ 2,050,000
f° Right of Way: $ 4,800,000
Total Cost $ 6,850,000
10
S. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
There are several TIP projects in the project area. These projects are shown in
Figure 11 and are described below:
1. TIP Project U-2402: Widening of NC 280 (Airport Road) to five lanes
from east of I-26 to US 25. This project is scheduled for construction in
Fiscal Year 1996.
2. TIP Project U-2801: Widening of US 25A from US 25 to north of
Roberts Road in Asheville. This project is scheduled for right of way and
construction in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1998, respectively.
3. TIP Project R-2214: Widening of US 25 from SR 1528 to SR 1361.
This project is scheduled for right-of-way and construction in Fiscal Years
1997 and 1998, respectively.
T. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions currently associated with this project.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
1. Widen US 25 to five lanes:
West-side widening from SR 1546 to SR 1360
Symmetrical widening from SR 1360 to SR 3530
West-side widening from SR 3530 to SR 3531
Symmetrical widening from SR 3531 to 381 m (1250 ft) south of
NC 280
2. Improve the following intersections with US 25:
SR 1547: provide dual south-bound left-turn lanes on US 25 and
exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes on SR 1547
SR 3530: provide exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes on t
SR 3530
SR 3190: realign SR 3190 to tie into US. 25 at 90 degrees
11
B. Other Desiizn Alternatives
Two widening alternatives were studied. Both involve widening to five lanes.
They are:
1. Symmetrical widening
2. Combination of west-side and symmetrical widening (Recommended)
The cost and estimated number of relocatees for each alternative are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
ALTERNATIVE TOTAL COST RELOCATEES
(RESIDENTIAL /
BUSINESS=TOTAL
Alternative 1 $ 7,231,000 6 / 8 = 14
Alternative 2(Recommended) $ 6,850,000 10 / 6 = 16
Alternative 1 provides symmetrical widening of US 25 the entire length of the
project. Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1 only where the widening is primarily on
the west side, from SR 1546 to SR 1360 and from SR 3530 to SR 3531.
Although Alternative 2 has two additional relocatees over Alternative 1 (see Table
3), it is recommended because it provides a better horizontal design over Alternative 1,
avoids impacts to one 4(f) property, the Oak Park Historic District, and is more cost
effective than Alternative 1. Both Alternatives 1 and 2 minimize impacts to the Calvary
Episcopal Church by widening to the west.
C. Postponement of Project
Postponement of the project would result in a continuing deterioration of traffic
and safety conditions in the future as traffic demands increase. Therefore, this alternative
is not recommended.
w
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts
that are anticipated as a result of the project, there would be no positive effect on the
traffic capacity and safety of the highway. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
12
E. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area, and the
project involves widening an existing highway. Staggering work hours, car-pooling, and
van-pooling are possible ways to reduce highway congestion; however, NCDOT has no
control over such methods of congestion management and cannot incorporate these
methods into this project.
IV. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
The proposed improvements are located within the planning jurisdiction of
Buncombe County and, at the south project terminal, the Town of Fletcher, in
Henderson County. The recently incorporated Town of Fletcher has not adopted a
land use plan, but is currently in the process of developing its first zoning
ordinance.
a. Existing Land Use
The project area can be generally characterized as a strip
commercial district, although residential and other land uses are
interspersed with the predominantly commercial development. The Arden
community is located at the project's northern terminus. A post office,
medical center, condominium complex, hotel, and a church's conference
center and campground are located along the north section of the project.
Residential uses occupy most of the land immediately west of US 25.
b. Future Land Use
The current zoning ordinance for Buncombe County's Limestone
Township permits commercial development on the frontage property along w
most of US 25. One area on the west side of US 25 south of NC 280
(Airport Road) is currently zoned for residential development, but
application has been made to rezone that area for commercial use, as well.
13
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Buncombe County is bounded by Haywood, Henderson, Madison,
McDowell, and Yancey Counties. Henderson County is bounded by the state of
South Carolina, Buncombe, Haywood, McDowell, Polk, Rutherford, and
Transylvania Counties.
Buncombe County is the most populated of the two counties. Bureau of
the Census Department of Commerce, NC 1990 population totals indicate that
Buncombe County has a population total of 174,821 and Henderson County's
population is 69,285.
On both sides of existing US 25, the development is primarily commercial,
with some public facilities and residential development located at various intervals.
Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory and Alliance Truck Training Center are
located between SR 1361 in Henderson County and the county line. A small
group of residential homes are clustered at the county line. The Bi-Lo Shopping
Center is one of the major commercial traffic generators along US 25. On the
northern end of the project, the development consists of a mix of residential and
commercial buildings. Some of the public facilities in this area are Crestview
Retirement Community, the Lutheran Conference Center, and a U.S. Post Office.
3. Relocatees
It is anticipated that 10 residences and 6 businesses will be relocated as a
result of the project (see Section III-B of the report for a comparison of the
relocation impacts of the two studied alternatives and Appendix A, pages A-3 and
A4, for the relocation report for the recommended alternative. The relocation
reports in Appendix A are being updated to reflect the current comparison of
relocatees shown in Table 3). It is the policy ofNCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally assisted projects. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has
the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
w (1) Relocation Assistance
(2) Relocation Moving Payments
(3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
See Appendix B for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs (pages B-1 and B-2).
According to the relocation report, there are adequate housing options for
those families and businesses who will be displaced by this project. It is not
anticipated that last resort housing will be needed by any displacees.
14
The proposed action does not require a disproportionate amount of right of
way or easements from minorities or lower income households.
4. Public Facilities.
Several public; facilities lie adjacent to the existing highway. A U.S. Post
Office is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 25, US 25A,
and NC 280. Farther south, the Lutheran Conference Center, Crestview
Retirement Community, Arden Medical Center, and Arden Missionary Baptist
Church border the existing roadway. At the south terminal, the Calvary Episcopal
Church is located on the east side of the roadway and the church's rectory lies on r
the west side.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed roadway improvements will help to alleviate some of the
highway congestion along existing US 25. Motorists will be able to reach their
destinations with greater efficiency. The proposed widened facility will provide
increased comfort, convenience, and safety in travel.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 35 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of
the subject project was surveyed by the Historic Architectural Resources
Section of NCDOT (see memo from SHPO, pages C-28 through C-30 in
Appendix Q. A Phase II survey of the APE identified two properties that
meet the criteria to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
They are:
i
1. Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory
2. Oak Park Historic District
The church and rectory were previously included on the North Carolina
Study List of resources believed to be potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register. A property identified by SHPO in their initial memo
15
(see page C-28 in Appendix C), Shufordsville Spring, was determined to be
outside the APE.
The Calvary Episcopal Church property is located at the
intersection of US 25 and SR 1547 on both sides of US 25 (see Figure 2,
sheet 2 of 4 and Figure 9). The existing church, located on the east side of
US 25, was reconstructed in 1938 after the original church (constructed in
1859) burned. The rectory, located on the west side of US 25 across from
the church, was constructed in 1886. Other contributing elements of the
property include a cemetery, with graves dating back to 1859, and a
hedgerow with a stone gate entrance constructed in 1935; both elements
are located on the east side of US 25.
The Oak Park Historic District is located on the east side of US 25,
north of SR 3530 (see Figure 2, sheet 3 of 4, and Figure 10). This
community began existence in 1927. A park and eighteen homes built
within the core of the community in the late 1920's are contributing
elements to the eligibility of the property.
NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the Calvary Episcopal
Church and Rectory property is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion C, architectural importance; the Oak
Park Historic District is eligible for the National Register under Criterion
A, significance to local history, and under Criterion C, architectural
importance. NCDOT and FHWA have determined that no other properties
within the APE are eligible, either individually or as an addendum to the
properties mentioned above. In addition, NCDOT and FHWA have
determined that the proposed project will have No Effect on the Calvary
Episcopal Church and Rectory and the Oak Park Historic District.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with
the above eligibility and effects determinations (see pages C-32 through
C-34 in Appendix Q.
NCDOT has committed to the following efforts to minimize harm
to the Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory:
(1) The amount of right of way to be acquired from the Calvary
Episcopal Church will be minimized.
(2) A 1.4-m (4 foot) raised concrete island, originally a part of
the proposed US 25/SR 1547 intersection design to restrict
left turns into the rectory, will not be constructed on US 25
between SR 1361 and SR 1547.
16
(3) The existing hedge rows adjacent to US 25 and SR 1547 at
the church entrance will not be disturbed during
construction.
(4) Existing shrubs within the construction limits in front of the
church adjacent to US 25 will be removed and offered to
the church for replanting. These shrubs are not a part of the
hedge row mentioned above in (3).
(5) A memorial stone marker facing US 25 will not be
disturbed.
This completes compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966.
b. Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 35 CFR Part 800, regarding any archaeological resources within
the APE.
The recommendation from the SHPO was that an archaeological
survey be conducted for this project (see memo on pages C-28 through
C-30 in Appendix Q. A reconnaissance survey was conducted by NCDOT
archaeologists. According to the survey, a significant portion of the study,
area is developed. Two undeveloped wooded areas along US 25 were
identified as potential archaeological sites: one is associated with the
Calvary Church Rectory and the other belongs to the Lutheran Conference
Center. In consultation with the SHPO office in Asheville, both sections
were determined to have little archaeological potential. No further work is
proposed for this project. This completes compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (see Appendix C, page
C-31 for the concurrence letter from SHPO).
7. Section 4(f) Properties
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, historic site,
or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance may be
used for a federal aid project only if
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land,
and
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm of 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
17
The proposed widening of US 25 avoids the use of land from the Oak Park
Historic District. However, the project will require the purchase of approximately
0.6 ha (1.5 ac) of the Calvary Episcopal Church property predominantly on the
west side of US 25. Because the church is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, Section 4(f) applies to this property. Since the project necessitates
the use of a minor amount of land.from a historic site which is adjacent to the
existing roadway and since the project meets the criteria set forth in the Federal
Register (December 23, 1986), a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation satisfies
the requirements of Section 4(f). A Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
addressing impacts to the Calvary Church property is included as Appendix F of
this document.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of Calvary Episcopal Church,
have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without using
the adjacent historic site; and (3) build a replacement roadway on new location
without using the historic site.
The do nothing alternative would avoid use of the church property, but
would not meet the intent of the project, which is to improve traffic flow and
enhance safety along US 25. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
Improving US 25 without using property of the adjacent historic site is not
feasible, since the church property falls on both sides of the existing highway; the
church lies on the east side of US 25, while the rectory lies on the west side of the
highway (see Figure 2, sheet 2 of 4, and Figure 9).
Building a replacement roadway on new location to avoid the historic site
is also feasible. However, this alternative would result in greater adverse
environmental impacts and project costs and, therefore, is not prudent. New
location alternatives were considered in the Asheville Corridor Preservation Pilot
Study (see Section I.H). That study concluded that widening US 25 would be less
environmentally damaging than building a new location facility and recommended
that existing US 25 be widened.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the Calvary Episcopal Church
.. will be performed as an integral part of this project. Measures to minimize harm
will include the following:
(1) The amount of right of way to be acquired from the church
will be minimized.
(2) A 1.4-m (4-foot) raised concrete island, originally a part of the
proposed US 25/SR 1547 intersection to restrict left turns into the
rectory, will not be constructed on US 25 between SR 1361 and
SR 1547.
18
(3) The existing hedge rows adjacent to US 25 and SR 1547 at
the church entrance will not be disturbed during construction.
(4) Existing shrubs within the construction limits in front of the
church adjacent to US 25 will be removed and offered to the
church for replanting. These shrubs are not a part of the hedge row
mentioned above in (3).
(5) A memorial stone marker facing US 25 will not be disturbed.
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), whose correspondence is included in Appendix C (see pages C- 32
through C-34). The SHPO has concurred that this project, as proposed, will have
No Effect on the Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory.
B. Economic Effects
During the month of November 1994, Buncombe County had a labor force of
99,400, and the Henderson County labor force for the same period was 33,210. Out of
the labor force for Buncombe County, 96,000 persons were gainfully employed, with 3.4
percent of the work force unemployed. Henderson County had 32,170 persons gainfully
employed out of its total labor force, with 3.1 percent unemployed.
A variety of industries, businesses, and institutions are scattered throughout the
length of this project. The existing highway facility is narrow and often crowded during
business hours. The proposed widening will enhance the business community by
providing a wider and safer facility for movement of commercial traffic. In addition,
businesses along the proposed project site will have improved visibility and accessibility.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: (1) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest and (2) Urbanized/Roadside
Community. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the +
entire range of the two terrestrial communities discussed.
(1) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is found sporadically
throughout the project area. Before urbanization, this was probably
the dominant forest type. White pine (Pinus strobus), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tuli ifera), and white oak ( uercus alba) dominate the
canopy. Dogwood (Corpus florida), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
19
post oak ( uercus stellata) are found throughout the understory.
Shrub and vine species include blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Chinese
privet (Li g trum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
'a?ponica); and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The herbaceous
layer is composed of grapefern (Botrychium spp.) and various
saplings' of the canopy and understory.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of
fauna. Reptilian species include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and ground skink
(Scincella lateralis). The black racer (Coluber constrictor) forages on
numerous small reptiles, mammals, and amphibians.
The presence of stratification provides habitat for avian
species such as the pine warbler (Dendroica Rings), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus), and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens).
(2) Urbanized/Roadside Community

The urbanized/roadside community is dominated by both
woody and herbaceous weeds that are regularly controlled by
mowing. In addition, a few remnant canopy trees and ornamental
tree species exist at the fringes of this community. Species such as
tulip poplar, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), eastern hemlock (Tsuea canadensis), and eastern
white pine are found in this.community. Other dominant species
include fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Pamcum spp.), barnyard
grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.), which
are found commonly in areas receiving direct sunlight.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of
many faunal species related to urban settings. Species such as the
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis*), mourning dove
(Zenaidura macroura*), Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis*),
and house sparrow (Passer domesticus) are found throughout this
community. The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Norway rat
(Rattus norve ig; cus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and
eastern box turtle also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this
community. Major predators include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis*), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and black racer.
20
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, the small mountain intermittent
urbanized stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and
chemical characteristics of the water body dictate faunal composition of the
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource
also greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
The two unnamed intermittent tributaries probably support a low
diversity of fish species. No water flow was noted at either crossing.
However, these streams may support amphibian reproduction in areas of
standing water. Common insects that may occur in isolated pockets of
water are the small whirligig beetle ( rinus spp.) and common water
strider (Gerris remieis).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction-related activities in or near
these resources will impact biological functions. This section quantifies
and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 30.5 in (100.0
ft). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 4: ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Urbanized/Roadside Community 1.5 ha (3.7 ac)
5.2 ha 12.9 ac
Total Impact: 6.7 ha 16.6 ac
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
21
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little
impact will occur to species that live along the edges and open areas.
However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. The mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation will occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities which may occur are increased
sedimentation, increased light penetration, and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms, inhibiting them to feed and obtain
N oxygen. Increased light penetration from removal of stream side
vegetation increases biological oxygen demand (BOD) and possibilities for
algae blooms in areas with standing water.
d. Federally-Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline, either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely
impact a species classified as federally-protected be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the
USFWS lists eleven federally-protected species for Buncombe and
Henderson Counties (see Table 5). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows the table.
22
TABLE 5: FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE AND
HENDERSON COUNTIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CLASS. COUNTY
Alasmidonta rm?eneliana Appalachian elktoe PE* B
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E* B
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern E B
flying squirrel
Geum radiatum spreading avens E B
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE B
Helonias bullata swamp pink T H
Isotria medeoloides small whorled E H
pogonia
Sagittaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E B,H
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii mountain sweet E B,H
pitcher-plant
Sisyrinchium dichotomum white irisette E H
S iraea vir 'niana Virginia s iraea T* B
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout.all or a. significant portion
of its range).
"PE denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is proposed to be listed as
endangered and which is protected under law while its status is under
review).
No specimen from Buncombe nor Henderson County found in the past
twenty years.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) PE*
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Macon,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey
Counties

23
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length
reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin, although the shell is not fragile nor
subovate (kidney-shaped). The periostracum (outer shell) of the adult
Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juveniles have a
yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North
Carolina: the Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of the Cane River
and the North Toe River) and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries.
The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravely substrates often
y mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock, and in relatively
silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. No perennial
streams exist within the project location. Therefore, the Appalachian elktoe
will not be impacted as a result of project construction.
Felis concolor couguar (eastern cougar) E*
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret, Haywood,
Montgomery, Onslow, Swain, and Yancey
Counties
Cougars are tawny colored, except for the muzzle, the backs of the
ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina the cougar
is thought to occur in only a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal
swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern cougar is
found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of their
primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a
range of 25 miles and they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. No habitat in
the form of wilderness exists along the project boundaries for the eastern
cougar. Therefore, no impacts to the eastern cougar are anticipated.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/1/85
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, McDowell,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga, and Yancey Counties
24
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of
skin along either side of its body. This furred flap of skin is connected at
the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its
broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to
tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel
in the western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This
squirrel is found above 1517.0 meters (5000.0 ft) in the vegetation
transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest
types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. The project
elevation (686.0 m (2250.0 ft)) does not meet the elevational requirements
for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. Therefore, no impacts are
expected as a result of project construction.
Geum ra&atum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,: Burke, Caldwell,
Mitchell, Stokes, Transylvania, Watauga,
and Yancey Counties
Spreading avens is:a`perennial herb having stems with an indefinite
cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading
avens are present from June to early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves
which are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and
much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee
sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs
on scarps, bluffs,' cliffs, and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges.
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1535.0-1541.0 m (5060.0-5080.0 ft), 1723.0-1747.0 m (5680.0-5760.0 ft)
and 1759.0 m (5800.0 ft): Other habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
composition of sand, pebbles, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.

M
25
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. The project
elevation (686.0 m (2250 ft)) does not meet the elevational requirements
for spreading avens. Therefore, no impacts are expected as a result of
project construction.
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) PE
Plant Family:
. Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey Counties
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss
family. The lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies which are born
singly or in clusters,. are black in color, and are found at the tips of the
squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of
high humidity. These high humidity environments occur on high elevation
(> 1220.0 m/ 4000.0 ft) mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently
bathed in fog or deep lower elevation (< 762.0 m/ 2500.0 ft) gorges in the
southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical
rock.faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only
at) very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing
with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major
threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests
usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The
high elevation habitat occurs in, the counties of. Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania,
and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be
found in the., counties of Jackson, Rutherford, and Transylvania.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. The project
elevation (686.0 m (2250 ft)) does not meet the elevational requirements
for the rock gnome lichen. Therefore, no impacts are expected as a result
of project construction.
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) T
Plant Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1988
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania
Counties
26
Swamp pink is a perennial plant that grows from tuberous
rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth, evergreen leaves that grow in basal
rosette. Swamp pink has a hollow stem that is topped with a short, dense,
spike-like raceme of pink or purplish flowers.
The North Carolina populations of swamp pink are limited to bogs
in the southern Appalachians in Transylvania, Jackson, and Henderson
counties. Swamp pink is found in freshwater wetland areas, including
spring seepage, swamps, bogs, meadows, and along the margins of
meandering streams. It occurs in soils that are described as being slightly
acidic (pH:4.24.9), having a thin layer of decomposed organic matter,
underlain by a black to dark gray silt loam that is slightly sticky, with many
small roots and fine mica chips. Populations are found in areas with
varying amounts of shade, but populations in open areas are less vigorous
due to increased competition from other species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. The project
area provides only small areas of marginally suitable habitat for swamp
pink. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists in
areas along the intermittent stream margins. No plants were observed.
Therefore, no impacts are expected from project construction.
Isofria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June'
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson,
Macon, and Surry Counties
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent
roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light
green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed. One or two light green
flowers are produced at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-whorled
pogonia have short sepals.

The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or •
deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and
sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas
where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. Suitable
habitat for small-whorled pagonia was found in the vicinity of the project.
Small whorled pogonia was not found after a plant-by-plant survey of the
entire project area. Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the
proposed construction.
27
Sagittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: July 25, 1979
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe and Henderson Counties
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has
spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant. The erect flowering
stalk has both male and female flowers on it, the male being above the
female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are present from April to June.

W
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs with a
slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water, underlain by a clay layer. In
these bogs water temperatures are variable, soil and water pHs are between
4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant. These plants occur naturally in
shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas. These
populations have smaller, less vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as
sandy loams below a muck layer ranging in depth from 25-60 cm.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. No suitable
habitat for bunched arrowhead exists along the proposed project.
Therefore, no impacts are expected as a result of project construction.
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher-plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania
Counties
Mountain sweet pitcher-plant is an insectivorous, rhizomatous,
perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect and in clusters. Each leaf is
shaped like a hollow, trumpet shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a
cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately veined
with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely haired and '
usually partially filled with liquid and decaying insect parts. The maroon
colored flowers are borne singly on erect scapes and have recurving sepals.
Flowers are present during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher-plant is found in bogs and streams in
.southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina. This
habitat is characterized by deep, poorly drained wetlands with soils that are
combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic content and
28
medium to highly acidic pH. Sites are intermittently exposed to flooding.
This plant is an early successional plant that relies on drought, water
fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. Marginally
suitable habitat for mountain sweet pitcher-plant exists only in small areas
of the intermittent streams along the project. A plant-by-plant survey was
conducted in these areas and no plants were observed. Therefore, no .,
impacts are expected as a result of project construction.
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) E
Plant Family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: October 28, 1991
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously branching
stems. The basal leaves are bluish green in color and are 1/3 to 1/2 the
overall height of the plant. White flowers are borne at the ends of winged
stems and the fruit is a round, pale to medium brown capsule containing
three to six round or elliptical black seeds.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North Carolina.
This herb is limited to an area bounded by White Oak Mountain, Sugar
Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock. White irisette is found in sunny
clearings and along the edges of upland woods where a thin canopy is
present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed.the deep
litter layer that is usually present. This herb occurs on rich, basic soils that
are probably weathered from amphibolite. White irisette depends on a form
of disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. Suitable
habitat for this species was found along the road shoulder, in ditches, and
in runoff areas in the vicinity of the project. White irisette was not found
after a plant-by-plant survey of the entire project area. Therefore, no
effects to this species will result from the proposed construction.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) T*
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Buncombe, Clay, Graham,
Macon, Mitchell, and Yancey Counties
29
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to
three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grow in dense clumps, having
alternate leaves which vary greatly in size, shape, and degree of serration.
They are green above and usually somewhat glaucous below. The cream
colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in branched,
flattopped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late
fall while herbaceous growth is minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the
mountains of North Carolina. Habitats for the plants consist of scoured
N banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls, point bars, natural
levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient
to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely remove
small, woody species. This species occurs in the maximum floodplain,
usually at the water's edge with various other disturbance-dependent
species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can survive in
shaded areas until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT. No suitable
habitat for Virginia spiraea exists along the proposed project. Therefore,
no impacts are expected as a result of project construction.
e. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 31 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Buncombe
and Henderson Counties. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed.
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the Natural
Heritage Program List of Rare Plant and Animal Species of North
Carolina, 1993, are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979.
Table 6 lists Federal Candidate Species, the species' state status (if
afforded state protection), and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
30
TABLE 6: FEDERAL CANDIDATE / N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE AND HENDERSON COUNTIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON
NAME NC STAT. SUIT.
HABITAT COUNTY
Aneides aeneus Green salamander E N H
Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E N B
Calamagrostis cainii Cain's reedgrass E N B
Cambarus reburrus French Broad - N B,H
stream crayfish
Carex schweinitzh Schweinitz's sedge E N B,H
Clemmys muhlernbergh Bog turtle T N B,H
Cryptobranchus Hellbender SC N B,H
alleganiensis
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler - N B
Euphorbia purpurea Wolf's milk spurge - N B
Hexastylis contracta Mountain heartleaf E N B,H
Hexastylis rhombiformis French Broad - N B,H
heartleaf
Juglans cinerea Butternut - N B,H
Juncus ceasaiensis New Jersey rush - N H
Juncus trifidus One flowered rush E N B
carolinianus
Lasmigona holstonia Tennessee E N H
heelsplitter
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC N B,H
Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's E Y B
loosestrife*
Marshallia gran flora Large-flowered - N H
Barbara's buttons*
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap - N B,H
Myotis subulatus leibii Eastern small- - N B,H
footed bat
Narthecium Bog asphodel* E N H
americatnim
Neotoma floridana Eastern woodrat - Y H
magister
Percina macrocephala Longhead darter* - N B
Phyciodes batesi Tawny cresent - N B
butterfly

w
(Table 6 is continued on the next page)
31
A
TABLE 6 (CONT.): FEDERAL CANDIDATE / N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE AND HENDERSON COUNTIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON
NAME NC STAT. SUIT.
HABITAT COUNTY
Plananthera integrilabia White fringeless E N H
orchid*
Rudbeckia triloba var. Pinnately-lobed - N B
pitniatiloba brown-eyed
sunflower
Saxifraga carohniana Gray's saxifrage - N B,H
Senecio millefolium Divided-leaf T N B,H
ragwort
Silene oi?ata Mountain catchfly - N B,H
Sorex palustris Southern water - N B
punctulatus shrew
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary - N B,H
butterfly
NOTES: "-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal Candidate.
Species not observed in Buncombe/Henderson Counties in at least 20
years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed. A review of the database of the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
2. Geological Resources
a. Soils
The project corridor is located within the Blue Ridge Belt of the
Mountainous Region. The Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls
• Formation are the mappable units along the project corridor. These
formations are a large group of metasedimentary and mafic metavolcanic
rocks that lie unconformably on granitic basement. Muscovite-biotite
gneiss and metagraywacke are two subunits of the Ashe Metamorphic
Suite along with amplibolite. The muscovite-biotite gneiss unit is a very
heterogeneous unit dominated by a thick sequence of marine clastic
metasedimentary rock. The muscovite-biotite gneiss is typically medium
light gray to medium dark gray, fine-to-medium grained, thin to thick
layered, and sulfidic. It is interlayered and intergraded with mica schist and
metagraywacke.
32
The dominant soil association within the project site is the
Fannin-Talladega. This consists of sloping to steep, well-drained soils that
have a loamy subsoil. The Fannin-Talladega association is found primarily
on ridgetops and side slopes. It consists of well-drained, moderately
permeable, sloping to steep soils that formed in residuum weather mainly
from mica shist and mica gneiss, and to a lesser extent from chlorite schist,
phyllites and other rocks that have a high content of mica. Slopes range
from 7 to 15 percent.
v
b. Mineral Resources
There are no mineral resources of economic significance known to
be within the project corridor.
C. Erosion Control
of
Surface drainage is well established along the project corridor due
to the relief and friable nature of the soils and subsoil. Rainfall is freely
absorbed preventing surface wash. The erosion and sedimentation control
plan will be prepared by the NCDOT under the erosion control program
delegation to the Division of Highways from the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission.
3. Wetlands
a. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 3,3 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3, 1987 Guidelines.` Wetlands, defined in
33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). No wetlands occur within the study area.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands.
Pipe extension is planned for the two intermittent streams
intersecting the project. This extension will affect the quality of this
33
intermittent stream system. In addition to decreasing the total area, it also
constitutes a potential impact to wildlife resources in the vicinity.
Potential impacts resulting from the modification of US 25 include:
(1) sedimentation from fill material and surrounding bare
soils during construction
(2) possible chemical and toxic infiltration from construction
activity
(3) channel relocation
(4) changes in hydraulic regimes
(5) losses of biodiversity
4. Permits
a. Nationwide 23 Permit
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under jurisdiction
of the COE. A Nationwide Permit #23 (for approved Categorical
Exclusions) is applicable to the project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed by another
federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category
of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment.
b. 401 Water Quality Certification
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for
any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit
is required.
C. Coordination with Other A eg ncies
The project lies within Buncombe and Henderson Counties,
designated "trout" counties. Therefore, the project will be coordinated
with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The project lies within the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Watershed. Planning and construction of the widening project will need to
comply with. the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) "Stream
Modification Policy" regarding channelization, modification and renovation
of waters subject to TVA actions (see Appendix C, pages C-11 and C-12).
34
d. Minimization and Mitigation of Impacts
Nationwide permits do not require mitigation according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOE) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army Corps of Engineer (COE).
However, final permit/mitigation decisions will be made by the COE.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Buncombe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Henderson County is not currently participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program and has been suspended from the program since 1982. There
are no flood hazard areas in Buncombe or Henderson County which would be
impacted by the project.
6. Water Resources
a. Characteristics
Buncombe and Henderson Counties lie in the Mountain
Physiographic Province. The topography of Buncombe and Henderson
Counties is characterized by steep hills dissected mainly by streams that
form a dendritic drainage pattern. Since the study area is mostly urbanized,
evidence of floodplains and other natural features have. been obscured by
development.
Project R-2213 is located within the French Broad River Basin.
The French Broad River flows southward through Asheville and lies within
3.2 km (2:O mi) of the project study area. Two intermittent streams
intersect the project and ultimately converge with the French Broad River.
Evidence of erosion and channelization are present in these tributarie8.
b. Best Usage Classification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The French Broad is
designated as Class "C". Class "C" waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. '
Project R-2213 is located within a water supply watershed. Trout
streams (Tr) are located within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) to the west of the project
site. Neither Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), High Quality Waters,
(HQW), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1 mile) of the project study area.
35
Water Ouality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality.
The program'assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN
information is available for the intermittent tributaries that flow into the
French Broad River.
Point source discharges located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
The NPDES does not list any discharges into the intermittent tributaries
intersecting the project.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major
anticipated impacts to water quality. Scouring of the stream bed, soil
compaction, and loss of shading due to vegetation removal are also
potential impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows along with
erosion is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in
the study area. NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control" guidelines will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Also, planning and
construction of the widening project will need to comply with the
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) "Stream Modification Policy"
regarding channelization, modification and renovation of waters subject to
TVA actions (see Appendix C, pages C-11 and C-12).
7. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. Land which has been developed or is committed to
urban development, by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements
of the Act. The area of the proposed. improvement has become urbanized, with
commercial development occupying much of the roadway frontage. In addition,
36
the zoning ordinance within Buncombe County permits commercial and residential
development through much of the area. Therefore, no further consideration of
farmland impacts is required.
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis
The proposed project is only 2.3 kilometers long; however, there are 45
receptors in the project area. Traffic noise impacts of the proposed project
includes 15 residential receptors and 10 commercial receptors with projected noise
levels in the design year above the FHWA noise abatement criteria; exterior noise
level increases will be in the range of 4 to 7 dBA. When real life noises are heard,
it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is
more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling
or a halving of the loudness of the sound. The 67 dBA noise level contour is
located 37 m (121 ft) from the centerline of the proposed roadway. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proposed information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted
noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Noise mitigation was considered for the impacted receptors. The
horizontal and vertical alignments have been selected to provide a balance, between.
cost, travel needs, and other engineering and environmental parameters. Traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate due to their effect on
roadway capacity and desired level-of-service of the proposed facility. Also, the
project does not have the control of access feature for the application of noise
wall. Hence, no noise mitigation is considered practical for this project and none is
recommended.
Noise levels could increase during construction, but.this increase will be
temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway
traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772), and no additional reports are required.
9. Air Quality Analysis
s
The project is located in Buncombe and Henderson Counties, which have
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 40 CFR, Part 51, is not applicable, because the proposed project is
located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this attainment area. Also, based on air quality studies
performed for a similar project in the area (TIP # R-2214,, see Figure 11 for a
project location map), this proposed project will not exceed the carbon. monoxide
standards of the NAAQS.
N

37
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
10. Stream Modification
The project will involve no stream modification.
11. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey conducted by the Geotechnical Unit along
the project corridor identified four potential sites for underground storage tanks
(UST's). Of these sites, three are still operational facilities (see pages E-7 through
E-9 in Appendix E for more information on the USTs in question). The proposed
project will minimize impacts to these properties as much as possible. Any
impacted sites will be reevaluated prior to right-of-way acquisition for the project.
12. Geodetic Survey Markers
This project will impact seven geodetic survey markers. The North
Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding the
relocation of survey markers along the project.
13. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the
proposed project, the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will
be enforced during the construction phase:
a. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health
and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials
to and from construction sites along the project and that any
inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
b. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering
the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the
a value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.
' c. The contractor shall be required to observe and' comply with all
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees, including those of the
N.C. State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid
waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard Specifications of
the Division of Highways. These specifications have been reviewed and
approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of
Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
38
d. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted
by the Engineer.. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or
disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer.
Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it
will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
e. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of Highways will be
held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of
precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will
minimize interruption of service.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
disposed of by the contractor. The contractor will be encouraged to sell
timber rather than burning to minimize the need for piling and burning
during construction. If any burning is needed, this activity will be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the
need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this work will be made at that time.
h. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes.
V
i. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
j. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches. '
a:
k. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor
before work is started. The schedule will show the time relationship
between phases of the work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion
and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the
39
erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those
provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms,
dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
1. Trees should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
- skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
- soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy
equipment.
- Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
- Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
M. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the state
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
n. All borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum
extent practicable. Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland,
the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
o. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to .
brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both
during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal. St and Local Agencies
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies. Comments were received from the agencies listed below. These comments are
included in Appendix C.
U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
40
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
Office of Policy Development
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Buncombe County Public Schools
Henderson County Planning Department
Town of Fletcher
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A meeting with local and county officials was held on June 22, 1994 at the
Fletcher Town Hall for Projects R-2213 and R-2214. A Citizens Informational Workshop
was held the same day from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the Valley Springs Middle School (see
pages D-1 and D-2 in Appendix D for news releases concerning the meetings). Both
meetings were held in conjunction with the Asheville Thoroughfare Plan hearings.
Seventeen people attended the officials' meeting, including NCDOT representatives;
approximately 60 people attended the workshop, including NCDOT representatives.
Each attendee was given the opportunity to review maps showing the project limits
and the proposed typical sections for each project and ask questions and make comments.
In addition, handouts were made available to all meeting attendees (see pages D-3 through
D-10 in Appendix D). Each handout contained a comment sheet which could be
completed and submitted to the Division of Highways.
Comments received on the proposed roadway improvements were generally
favorable. Those who attended the workshop felt that the widening of US 25 was needed
(see page D-1 l for news article published following the workshop).
2
C. Public Hearing
A Public Hearing will be held following the completion of this report to provide
additional information on the proposed project to local citizens and to gather further input.
CRC/plr
10
r
7
w
of
R-2213
FIGURES

1"

y

C.

4.

T;

W
O
U
W
O
U
1°I
W

I,
0
1
LL
0
a
U)
C) LU o

a)

U
i-
c N I-

U ?
N
E
o
0
- Z0
Ile
_
c c? M
Q L)
-
E c
0 _
N Lu CV
N ,
co
C D
?
a>
o LO :
N O
t
o ._
U)000
cDLU T
«!

O Z)

^
M
N-
?`II T
L?L LO
o
c
U c
-
C: cU) ?
LU
o.? Oz
z®ft- ®CLU
U- z
?; >`Krliir
a
z.
o, o
1

.............::.,..,:iu..nunn..n..nun....i ............. .............................z-
?OGJO aauuid
V
00
r??row
Soo* -rsr?rrw.!??
L
M
®:
\14
N
Cl)
r
0
co
LO
M
7
?
r Soo.*
NS
M
M
O
U
z
D
ED

Iz. i 0
? ,?
v o
?
00
> rj)
<

CA c
to !A r
N
D
N

3

N

? N N ? N N
'? -O pp OA pp ' Op OO O O
O
I
07 N W w/ t1i ?pA -1(0p1
O p ????J?? ? ( p p Io ?N p 1?
V w
O C)
M Z
-0i
m
W
F
n1
31
O
v
o? I
o°

l

m I n
O
z l m
O 01 0
zI z

33
w
co
N
V7
p? A A
0111111??? OOOp
wi
0
O
531
O
??
D
? (0
m
O
v
14
A
D
33
O Z
? N
O
0
? v
ao
0
O
Cal I OK"
oO
0 p ? C
O O p hhhOOO Illy
O

m
O m
0 v
N
OD t0
O
O O
°o
m
m
zc
n
MN
M ?
D
0
D
v

m
O ?
C-
N
M v
,

m
y
C
--I
U)
m
m O -
o

-i G) O
oo
rn

N ?

p D rn

? ? v
z
O
? ?
W

"n N
N -
Z
O N

O W
C O
O C
r Z

m
Cl)
x ? ? ?.
u _ -
?:. -
-

_,. _ :.
-?:

3?

_}

?
:
..
=?»
?
?? ...
.fit ?
?.? ? ? . ?
?
:? ? -,

x.:

¦ ¦ N I W Q.
N? O, UP
w
v / CC ,
N N w
= 3-
W y r 3 a>

c
c N p O
p
LU t Z E
e u 'b e u `
d
u
j z AN
?yX
{? W N
V LU '?
o .9 r W
of ?
y
c; F. a ... a.

®®
°'
Z
e m
m 10 a
t ..
®
w i X
W
- 30
®
a Wh
U Z m m
° 3 o c
ff
o a
? a E z ?' W
? ?}
0 ?T
0

Il.W
W d
e
3 a
o
..?• .
cam'"
0
J
?' .
Q
o .
a

w w °°
0 3 m t 8 : o n
'm a LJ1

J
r?,i

e
0, x
y >

-,
I. i
3L-3
x °

'•
>

a E . .
pp??
J
Z v o. .
N ra F
a F
a F
o
ILA, (Y
.-- Q
E m d°
E> a?i °°°
H+

o Lb.

g'
`
cc

W

OZC f

•
:QZ N N C > C C C ?
? J J
j?
rnE 61k
i o?„ ("'
. a s a
,CC
J
WJ
W
J
.
e x
c m Y
?
J
'

?.
?'
-j
Qa
H iV

ul ii
F O
O
R. p
O

0 !G:
O;

f
$ z Z o
W
t
I
Q
u
s
®•c_
• M
e--I
Z N
w0?
Q
CIS
? ?-
O

a.), CIN
w ' COD (=YN

O O

W
VVV"' yW? Y
lJ ?n
F r 33
- oI? t
u u
ai I LU
:'I B
C
_ n
?.. ® }fR? mw
If)
00
1CD 0 C
tr ® N - O O o. °n
O ae. y>"
'V 3 4 k Q 3? N %? W '??•iqp L? .
y• J :? L O 6 0 S >i
7H 3 I W { - O O O I °.
?OO N N N
00 C Q°
OODcO Z 1-4 rM-1 "NZ ..,
N o h
< C'4 ilcc
Lir
'§. ?;? T OE LJ
?pP

I
?, Od
lz

Q? CC
J ?\
?s
3
F
jaf
¦
i
i
?.
t
u
L'S 2 5, A
1' ?i\..T V C\1:.
46
f
Z
O
r U
N Z V1
? -J
Z
W
W ?U
0 ?H
a NO
Cl) W
a ?O
an
O
an
/WN%
z
O
'w'^^
V?
D
0
z
a
m
M
?V
z
a
L6
t0
N
q'
4--
M
M
o
m f?
E
6
M
V
ca
E
0
co E
N
4
ti
W
w
D
t'
LL
T.I.P. PROJECT R-2213
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS/
PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATIONS

US 25 / SR 1547 INTERSECTION
US 25
?- -SR 1547

0

FIGURE 8A
T.I.P. PROJECT R-2213 .
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS/
PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
US 25 / US 25A / NC 280 INTERSECTION
ft

NC 280
i
US 25

i
1 ?I
US 25A
Note: This intersection will be improved as part of
TIP PROJECT U-2402, not R-2213. This configuration
is included only as a reference, since the official northern
terminal of R-2213 is this intersection.
FIGURE 8B
M
rt

x

1

. row
,?.

e

® Vl
? cu
N ?
el I?
m
? w
ro ??
t?
N
N
h ?
oQq
11 ".
?. cu
0
(nil
N
iy.
CU
GO

14,

P
i
0 4 I
M
c
fi
t?'
ro
b
0
b
w
H
x
rn
c+
O
n
d
[n
N
n
iV
8541 - ' -
' ?rt L q n
25 , o
?° h 5 Tr . I 11, • ?¦ ¦ q R i°° ioo ' 9439 0JJOAK
74
14 53 g\ 1 I??+rl?j?. • o , 225.63
I 65 65
3 ¦ 24.37
¦? -\ ? G-)
_/ -v ?r?¦
00
12` ` ,.- p a ?? 19 11389
' - _ T . ?! 1 3 1? 70.50
100 58
?V t3
U t , J - 1 j 77
15? 3 o
• `hl 4" 17 ?? O N o ¦.n
? / Oj NOR ® " ,- '?- O IQ
t? P FR 7`B ? -' ta:
`t ®? ¦ ??
01 } « O ¦?
:? O _ ,_ ¦
r n /
0988
?r
9-9
241.8 • v
c ' -- -- -- --- --- -- - - -U oNO
2 O ?,
3846
FTI
Z9z) "1 00
» - N I ? ?Z? 8Z1
1
40) - \ I 15 • ?9
0/7/ 21.45 1750 6 /l
190 e, o 4y U J
3723 3 ?? O M 62' ° I 0762
4 0 l? ? ? 'sq ??,
5 f ` ?, ! h?
? 3647 ? 26
- It C)
all
V
i
F, W
uo
r 1l 5)V
I 2 ? Z i4. _ i/ N O ¦ 0466
,166 *, V \ s
1470 ° 4410- -10 I ¦ I ROAD
Ln 60 60
' 18 -? 1 I ¦
1 ? I I ¦ . 1d .
?!¦?¦ _¦ I I ¦ 1219
N 422- 1"la 10j ?r 7 18 Oft" ¦ I
o
9 7
1 !!Tomas I 1 5 6
¦ ?¦
F, I I Il 1,9 1 3 ?? 3 4 60
ro 424r 2
0
110 5272 0 I rl) I I I 13 f 15 I J(
3 I 7210 I I I I I 16 1 li
- Ir??o) I I a I r I I I
0 1 1601 52.36 I 8186 I ° I I
J , 65 6g 3.96 1 i I I G
??-? \ 1 I I I 11143
_ , -- 1SO ? I I I
i 100.0
g I
SHER WOOD 50'04
41.19 48,92 1 TBT FOREST
a n l}} §6.56 7
s 0"
- - - - - - --- - w - - -- - --- ----- - --..... -- - -- - - m - -
9.-"8A
- - - o -' 12
091-6 1 - J
¦ O "
in in
0

A U bd '4 td 0 w
o ?

z td td
z

v 4
{ [

..
.. .::. .._:....

i

i
03

i z

,

>71
-w
<. r

0
10
c
r
00
®
?Im? .
f
:
_. M
U .......
O O Z.
..... I J to
IJ 1.1 .?
Go -P tJ IJ
O O ~ (1•
to 4? (1)
d

Pinner Creek

Y. n

zm
0 z
m

C )
00

t

Cal
e CD
® -21

v? m
w m

-n I
Q cn o

m
z
0
z
z
m
0
0
c
z
m
Z
w

R-2213
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
X? E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR F7 DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1841902 COUNTY Henderson
I.D. NO.: R-2213 F.A. PROJECT STP-35 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: From St. John's Road SR
............................................
Buncombe County
.ft
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
1361) Henderson County to US 25A/NC
...................................................................
..................,.............................................................. ...................................................................................... .
::.S.I1VIpiTT? D:DISF) :E4EEES : i :::::::. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: INCOME
........................ ........... ........... ....
........................................................
Type of
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X i 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATIONS 12 Months
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M I 25-35M I 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 2 4 0 2 2 0 0 0
Businesses 1 3 41 0 VALUE OFDVVELLING::: DSS:DT ETJ YG:AiVARABLE:
:
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 1 $0-150 0 0-20m 3 $ 0-150 ' ' 0

A14tutkALL tu;srtoNS : 20-40M
0 150-250
1 20 4or
6 150-250
2
Yes No E xplain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 i 1 40-"011 4 250-400 1 4
X 1. Will special relocation senaces be necessary? 701ooM 0 4oo-soo 0 701ooM 9 goo 600 6
X 2. Z?'ill schools or churches ea ct eby 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 11 600 uP 2
displacement? TOTAL 2 2 33
X 3. Will business services still be available after ::.:: ' : ....::::: : iiEViAxi?s fResuond Ur irumberl :... :::::
See attached sheet.
I"
Relocation Agent Date
rc=15.4 Reused $NO
by Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-1
Project: 8.1841902
County: Henderson
I. D. No.: R-2213
Aitemate 1 of 2
3. Business services will not be disrupted due to the project.
K
4. (a) H & M Greenhouses (plant retail store and greenhouses), 800 SF, 3 employees, no minorities.
(b) Sign Shop (sale of small advertising signs) 700, SF,1 employee, no minorities.
(c) Dixie Auto Repair, 700 SF, 2 employees, no minorities.
(d) Enmark Gas Station (canopy and gas pumps only in right of way), 1,200 SF, 6 employees,
one minority.
6. Local Realtors Guide, local newspapers, Century 21 Real Estate.
8. As necessary in accordance with State Law.
11. Hendersonville Housing Authority, P. O. Box 1106, Hendersonville, NC 28793, Telephone Number
[phone].
12. Beverly-Hanks Realty, Century 21, lease by individuals in local papers and Manna confirmed this.
14. Confirmed by Morosani. Company, Beverly-Hanks Commercial, Bob Lewis Real Estate, on site "For
Lease" and "For Sale" signs.
s
a
R$L:)CATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
M
r
w
r
E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1841902 COUNTY Henderson Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2213 F.A. PROJECT STP-35 1 Recommended
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: From St. John's Road SR 1361 Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280.
.................
Buncombe County
...............
............... ....
....
. ................................................................
................................................................

. .. ......................
.... .
.

. ........................................................................................
.......................................................................................

.............................
INCOME
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
Businesses 4 1 5 0 :VALUE60bi'PEl'id.:...... bSS:I)VPFLLIi.TG:AVAUASLE:.::
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 1 $0-150 0 F2O 3 $ also 0
.::: .............. ......:...........
::::::: ANSWER ALL uESIIONS ::::::::::: ::.......::::: 20-40M 0 150-250 1 2"OM 6 150-2_50 2
Yes No E lain aU "YES" anwers. 40-70M 1 250400 1 40-70M 4 250-400 4
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1ooM 0 400-600 0 70-ZOOM 9 400-600 6
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP p coo up 0 100 VP 1coo UP 2
4
displacement? TOTAL 2..... .... 2 3
::i: 14
X 3. Will business services still be available after : :::::::::::::::::: RKNU.RES: rte' and b* Nuniber :::::::::::::::: :
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, See attached sheet.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large,. disabled, elderly, etc.'
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list f „ :1F
source): B=7.ANCH
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12 Months a2: t :ri'}

i
r"T
1...r. y` hiw
'
A
le??
s
-
'S
%- I
- 3 -
Relocation Agent Date Avproved by Date
Fa= 15.1 Itemed 5190 / Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Arent
2Copy. Area Relocation Office
A-3
Project: 8.1841902
County: Henderson
I. D. No.: R-2213
Altemate 2 of 2
... _ . ..
3. Business services will not be disrupted due to the project.
4. (a) Midway Lumber Company (retail store and lumber yard), 4,500 SF, 15 employees, 2 minorities.
(b) Hardees Restaurant (fast food), 1,500 SF, 20 employees, 5 minorities.
(c) Calabash West (fish restaurant), 2,000 SF, 10 employees* ,-2 minorities.
(d) Pizza Hut Restaurant (Italian food), 1,500 SF, 15 employees, 3 minorities.
(e) Jesse's of Arden (clothing store), 2,000 SF, 8 employees, no minorities.
6. Local Realtors Guide, local newspapers, Century 21 Real Estate.
8. As necessary in accordance with State Law.
11. Hendersonville Housing Authority, P. O. Box 1106, Hendersonville, NC 28793, Telephone Number
[phone].
12. Beverly-Hanks Realty, Century 21, lease by individuals in local papers and I-Wanna confirmed this.
14. Confirmed by Morosani Company, Beverly-Hanks Commercial, Bob Lewis Real Estate, on site "For
Lease" and "For Sale" signs.
0
4

M
Ap
R-2213
APPENDIX B

DISCUSSION OF DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Wheredisplacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide` assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
w

The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without -regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably, accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
B-1
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
r
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced.by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless-and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is.a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
w
s
M

R-2213
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
AGENCIES

??ENT OF Th
ivP ya
O p
41
? a
?1q CN 3 19p9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
July 7, 1994
T J1A t t !'994
M
z2 otVIStcN OF
Ht3HWAV?
y Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager WR(ow
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping for proposed widening of US 25 from SR 1361 in
Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County, North
Carolina. T.I.P. No. R-2213
In your letter of June 20, 1994 (received June 24, 1994), you requested
information regarding potential environmental impacts that could.result
from the subject project for your use in the preparation of an
environmental assessment. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 153.1-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the widening of existing US 25 from two-lanes to.five-lanes south
of Asheville. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is
particularly concerned about the potential impacts the proposed actions
may have on federally listed endangered and threatened species and on
stream and wetland.ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference
s1hould be given to ul i.ernaCi ve; alignment's, streams crossing sti'iictu es,
and construction techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and
impacts to these resources.
The enclosed pages identify federally protected endangered and threatened
species known from Buncombe and Henderson Counties that may occur within
the area of influence -of this proposed action. The legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal
representative under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Rpderal
Highway Administration. The enclosed pages also contain a list of
candidate species that are currently under status review by the Service
which may occur in the project impact area. Candidate species are not
legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in
C-1
¦
our response in order to give you advance notification. The presence 'or
absence of these species in the project impact area should be addressed
in any environmental document prepared for this project.
The Service's review of the environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available ,
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be
-filled as a consequence of the proposed.road
improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed
project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4856), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated.as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) A discussion on the extent to which the project will.
result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat from direct construction impacts and from
secondary development impacts.
•
(9) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project. s
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
C-2
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-090.
Si erely,
i
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
A
M

Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752

C-3
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-090
JULY 7, 1994
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
MAMMALS
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cou4uar) - Endangered*
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) -
Endangered
Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis subulatus leibii) - Candidate
Southern water shrew (Sorex aalustris punctulatus) - Candidate
BIRDS
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) - Candidate
REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) - Candidate
AMPHIBIANS -
Hellbender (Crvatobranchus alleganiensis) - Candidate
CLAMS
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Proposed endangered*
FISHES
Longhead darter (Percina macroceohala) - Candidate*
CRUSTACEANS
French Broad stream crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Candidate
INSECTS
Tawny crescent butterfly (Phvciodes batesi) - Candidate
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speveria diana) - Candidate
PLANTS
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra var. 'oi nesii)
Endangered*
Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) - Endangered*
Virginia spiraea (S iraea virGiniana) - Threatened*
Rock gnome lichen (Gvmnoderma lineare) - Proposed endangered
Piratebush (Buckleva disticho h lla) - Candidate
Cain's reedgrass (Calamagrostis cainii) - Candidate
Wolf's milk spurge (Euphorbia aurpurea) - Candidate
Mountain heartleaf (Hexastvlis contracta) - Candidate
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) Candidate
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Candidate
One flowered rush (Juncus trifidus carolinianus) - Candidate
Gray's lily (Lilium grayi) - Candidate
Fraser's loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri),- Candidate*
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata)- Candidate
Pinnately-lobed brown-eyed sunflower (Rudbeckia triloba var.;pj nnatiloba)
- Candidate
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifra4a caroliniana) - Candidate
1.
r

s
C-4
Mountain catchfly (Silene caroliniana) - Candidate 4_
Divided-leaf ragwort (Senecio millefolium) - Candidate
* Indicates no specimen from Buncombe County in at least 20 years.
HENDERSON COUNTY
MAMMALS
Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis subulatus leibii) - Candidate
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana ma4ister) - Candidate
r
REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemm s muhlenbergii) - Candidate
w
•
AMPHIBIANS
Green salamander (Aneides aeneus)-- Candidate
Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alle4aniensis)'- Candidate
CLAMS
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia) - Candidate
CRUSTACEANS
French Broad stream crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Candidate
INSECTS
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speveria diana) - Candidate
PLANTS
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher-plant (Sar.racenia rubra var. aonesii) -
Endangered
Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) Endangered
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) - Threatened
Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) - Endangered
Bog asphodel (Narthecium americanum) - Candidate*
Mountain heartleaf (Hexastvlis contracta) - Candidate
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) - Candidate
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Candidate
Gray's lily (Lilium ra i) - Candidate
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons (Marshallia arandiflora) - Candidate*
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata)- Candidate
White fringeless orchid (Saxifraga caroliniana) - Candidate*
Gray's' saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana) - Candidate
Mountain catchfly (Silene caroliniana) - Candidate
Divided-leaf ragwort (Senecio millefolium) - Candidate
Schwei.-nitz's sedge (Carex schweinitzii) - Candidate
New Jersey rush.(Juncus ceasaiensis) - Candidate
* Indicates no specimen from Henderson County in at least 20 years.
C-5
sl ?? I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
August 3, 1994
W REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division

Si r y,
Lawren e W Saunders
Chief, nning Division
C-6
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1994, requesting
comments on the proposed project "US 25, From SR 1361 in Henderson
County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project
STP-35(1), State Project 8.1841902, TIP Project R-2213" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199403549).
For flood plain management concerns, the proposed project
is located in the jurisdictional area of the Tennessee Valley
Authority. We understand that you have also sent them a letter
requesting their comments on the project. Therefore, we will defer
comments on flood plains to them. Wetland permits in this area are
handled by the Asheville Field Office of our (Wilmington District)
Regulatory Branch. Their comments are as follows.
The proposed improvements to US 25 involve the widening of
the existing two-lane roadway to five lanes. The roadway align-
ment was inspected on July 19, 1994. The project will not impact
any waters of the United States; therefore, no Department of the
Army (DA) authorization will be required. Questions or comments
related to DA permits may be directed to Mr. Dave Baker, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].

a
a
-2-
Copy Furnished
(with copy of inc correspondence):
w
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499

C-7

1
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
August 18, 1994
40G 2 2 1394
'L H1GHV'F` .
L0?

r
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
U.S. 25, FROM SR 1361 IN HENDERSON COUNTY TO U.S. 25A/NC 280 IN BUNCOMBE
COUNTY, FEDERAL AID PROJECT STP-35(1), STATE PROJECT 8.1841902, TIP
PROJECT R-2213
U.S. 25, FROM SR 1528 to SR 1361, HENDERSON COUNTY, FEDERAL AID PROJECT
M-5000(10), STATE PROJECT 8.1950801, TIP PROJECT R-2214
This is in response to your letters of June 20, requesting information and
comments on the subject projects.
A review of our Heritage Program data and a discussion with Stephanie Goudreau
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicates that: there are
no identified trout streams affected by the proposed work and no records of
protected species in the immediate project area. Two vertebrates (i.e. a
fish, Percina macrocephala, and an amphibian, Cryptobranchus alleQhaniensis)
which are Federal candidates for listing and are of "Special Concern" to the
State of North Carolina, occur in nearby streams and may occur in the project
area.
Planning and construction of the widening project would need to comply with
TVA's "Stream Modification Policy" regarding channelization, modification and
renovation of waters subject to TVA actions. A copy of the policy is
enclosed. Additionally, where appropriate, best management and engineering
practices for designing and constructing stream crossings will be applied as
conditions for Section 26a permitting. They include, but are not limited to,
the following commitments:
1. Coffer dams are to be installed between construction areas and the stream
prior to any soil disturbing demolition, construction'activities, and all
water that accumulates behind the dams is clarified before being returned
to the stream.

0
C-8
H. Franklin Vick
Page 2
August 18, 1994
2. Box bridge culverts are to be constructed without a bottom (slab), if
practicable. If bedrock conditions will not so allow, the bottom of the
r box bridge is to be buried 1 foot below mean stream grade level, and the
removed natural substrate is replaced over the slab (after the slab
is set).
« 3. Culverts are to be constructed in phases and adequate streambank
protection measures employed, such that the diverted streamflow is
handled without creating streambank or streambed erosion/sedimentation
and without preventing fish passage.
4. Demolition products and construction by-products are removed from the
site for recycling, if practicable, or proper disposal.
5. Removal of vegetation is to be minimized.
6. Equipment is to be kept out of the stream to the fullest extent
practicable.
7. Equipment is to kept off the streambanks to the fullest extent
practicable.
8. Material stockpile areas are to be contained in erosion control
structures.
9. All sediments which accumulate behind coffer dams are to be removed,
redistributed, and stabilized (with vegetation).
10. Vegetation is to be used to stabilize streambanks where practicable and
sustainable. These areas will be stabilized as soon as practicable,
using an appropriate seed mixture that includes an annual (quick cover)
as well as 1 or 2 perennial legumes and l or 2 perennial grasses. In
certain periods of the year, this will require initial planting of a
quick cover annual only, to be followed by subsequent establishment of
the perennials. Seed and soil will be protected as appropriate with
erosion control netting and/or mulch. Shoreline areas will also be
permanently stabilized with native woody plants, to include trees, where
practicable and sustainable.
11. Clean/shaken riprap (as needed at water/bank interface and up to normal
high water elevation) will be applied over a fabric or geotextile and in
such a manner as to avoid stream sedimentation or disturbance.
12. Spillage of concrete or other substances and materials into the stream is
to be avoided.
13. Bank stabilization is to be permanently maintained to prevent erosion.
Additionally, to preserve or enhance stream recreational opportunities, we
request that, at all stream crossings, bridge piers have a minimum 60-feet
spacing and that no bridge piers be located in the deepest part of the
riverbed.
H. Franklin Vick
Page 3
August 18, 1994
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Greg Askew
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Manager
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
Enclosure
M

C-10
a
TVA CODE IX STREAM MODIFICATION
Office of the General Manager
CHANNELIZATION, STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION, AND RENOVATION OF
WATERS SUBJECT TO TVA ACTIONS
The Board of Directors approved the following policy and reservations on October 18, 1983.
Polity
M TVA's unified development of the Tennessee River Basin through a multiple-purpose water
control system has undergone a transition from building and developing the physical system of dams
and reservoirs to a role of maintaining and improving the system and managing the associated water
resources for maximum benefit of the Valley. The remaining reaches of free-flowing streams of the
Valley are integral to the realization of these benefits.
TVA recognizes that channelization and some actions involving structural modification or
renovation of these remaining stream reaches may, individually or cumulatively, unacceptably damage
naturally functioning aquatic ecosystems in the affected reaches.' The preservation of these
ecosystems and a halt to the continued diminishment of total natural stream values in the Valley and
the Nation are important to ensuring a healthful and productive human environment. Therefore, it
is TVA policy to avoid further channelization or environmentally degrading structural modificaiton
or renovation of applicable water2 within the Valley or other regions subject to TVA actions except
where both significant public benefits are clearly established and environmental damage can be avoided
or substantially mitigated. Stream renovation necessary because of poor land management practices
will be undertaken only when it is satisfactorily demonstrated that adequate soil erosion controls are
being implemented within the pertinent hydrological unit. All actions listed below to which this policy
is applicable are reviewed under established procedures as set forth in TVA Instruction IX EN-
VIRONMENTAL REVIEW. However, actions identified below to which the policy is not applicable
are not exempted from appropriate review under these procedures.
This policy is applicable to the following activities:
• Construction or modification of TVA facilities, including power plants, transmission lines,
disposal and storage areas, buildings, mines, and associated facilities.
• Management of lands under TVA control, including dam and power plant reservations, reser-
voir lands, lands held for mineral rights, Land Between The Lakes and other wildlife/natural
area lands, reservoir margins, and agricultural lands.
• Actions, other than for flood control, undertaken by other agencies; institutions, corporations,
or individuals which receive TVA funding, permits, or assistance.
• Water management activities for purposes other than those exempted below.
1. Channelization: The alteration of the natural morphology of a stream to increase volume or
the rate of flow through increasing the depth or width or by straightening or relocating the channel.
Structural Modification: Construction or placement of dams, weirs, dikes, earthfills, substrate
linings in streams and extensive riprapping in or adjacent to streams.
Renovation: The clearing of stream blockage which is caused by vegetation, beaver dams, debris,
or erosion-caused sedimentation, such that the natural flows and stream configuration are restored.
2. Applicable Waters: All perennial streams having sustained aquatic life or with flow regimes
sufficient to potentially sustain aquatic life.
C-11 Page 1-October 18, 1983
IXSTREAM MODIFICATION
This policy does not apply to:
• Stream modification and renovation actions designed to protect or enhance natural stream
values or inherent environmental attributes (for example, Clinch River reregulation weir).
• Actions which are taken to control flood or streamflow damage to essential structures or land
uses. See TVA Code XII FLOOD CONTROL.

• Additions, modifications, or routine maintenance of existing dams and impoundments (for
example, development or maintenance of navigation channels; installation of electric generating
facilities in existing dams).
• Temporary stream modification to permit construction activity.
• Installation of intake and discharge structures requiring limited streambank modification or
riprapping.
• Construction of bridge piers or abutments.
• Channel maintenance on previously modified watercourses on construction and power plant
sites and renovation actions currently conducted on a routine basis necessary for public safety
and vector control or to protect existing facilities (for example, frequent removal of storm debris
from streams near power faciltiies).
TVA strongly encourages State and local governments to consider and utilize action alter-
natives which do not involve stream modification. TVA assists State and local governments in identi-
fying these alternatives and may provide further technical and financial assistance in implementing
actions conforming to this policy.
Reservations
The Board of Directors approves proposed actions which involve significant policy or program
considerations.
The General Manager approves guidelines for general application within TVA issued under the
policy.
Delegations
See delegations related to the National Environmental Policy Act under TVA Code IX ENVI-
RONMENTAL QUALITY.
wa
Page 2-October 18, 1983
w
a
C-12
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
=M208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603- E , j
08-05-94 4.?' %
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS AVG 0 9 1994

MAILED TO:
FROM:
2 s
DIVISION OF
N.C. DEPT* OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGE -HIGHWAXS O?
P?
??y
FRANKLIN VICK DIRECTOR RONIVIE
., PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARING HO
HIGHWAY BLDG•/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO-US 251 fROM SR 1361 IN
HENDERSON COUNTY TO US 25A/NC 280 IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY
(TIP #R-2213)
SAI NO 94E42200991 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED:' ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
{ X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY OUESTIONSs PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
C.C. REGION B

C-13
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Office of Policy Development 10
James Hunt, Governor ? FE t?I N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary i-7
John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0991 Scoping Widening US 25 from SR 1361 in Henderson
County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County
DATE: August 1, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments

C-14
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
..

0
a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
.. Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
July 7, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester i;?K
*'A
4 ?EHIVR
516.
SUBJECT: DOT EA/Scoping for Widening US 25 from SR 1361 in Henderson County to US
25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County
PROJECT: #94-0991 and TIP # R-2213
DUE DATE: 7-20-94
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the possible right-of-way
purchases and for the project:.
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
C-15
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equot Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50`%, recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #94-0991 and TIP # R-2213
Page 2
Y
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent -
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and
construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and related resources
in that area.
DBR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
w
^7
d
C-16
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 92
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee., Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJECT:- Request from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for widening of US 25 from SR 1361 in
Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe
County, TIP Project No. R-2213, Policy Development
Project No. 94-0991.
This memorandum responds to a request from H. Franklin
Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed
the proposed project. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The proposed work involves widening of an existing two-
lane facility in an area of urban, residential, and light
industrial land use. The NCWRC has participated in an
extensive pilot study of thoroughfare corridors in the
project area and supports the proposed alignment for this
project. Given the extent of present development along the
US 25 corridor and the proposed improvement of existing
C-17
94-0991 Memo Page 2 July 22, 1994
facilities, it is unlikely that significant impacts to fish
and wildlife resources will result from the subject highway
improvements.
Previous NCDOT environmental documents for projects of
this scope have generally been adequate in addressing our
concerns. For purposes of reference in preparing the
present document, the NCWRC offers the following list of
general recommendations and informational needs: "
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. When
practicable, potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in.the
inventories. A listing of.designated plant species
can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Section maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional informationmay be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager "
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project.
C-18

94-0991 Memo Page 3 July 22, 1994
3. Project map identifying wetland areas.
Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
• 4. Description of project activities that will occur
within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreages of wetlands impacted by
alternative project designs should be listed.
5. Description of project site and non-wetland
vegetative communities.
6. The extent to which the project will.result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands and uplands).
7. Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of
the project or to mitigate unavoidable habitat
losses.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved utilities.
9. A list of document preparers which shows each
individual's professional background and
qualifications.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
be avoided. Non-wetland and non-riparian alternatives
should be examined during project design. Where wetland
losses are unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation
of the losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mgr.
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Sectiorr.
Janice Nicholls, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C-19
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
C. Dewey Botts, Director
M
MEMORANDUM
AIT'
C) EHNR
July 13, 1994
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of US 25 from SR 1361 (Henderson) to
US 25A/NC 280 (Buncombe County). Project No. 94-0991
The proposed widening will be from a two-lane roadway to 'a
five-lane facility. The Environmental Assessment should. include
an estimate of the amount of prime, unique, and statewide
important farmland that will be impacted.
DH/tl
a
4

It
-20
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 276117687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A14?EHNR
July 21, 1994

TO: Melba McGee, O????f????f??ice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihar4l)41water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0991; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 25 in Buncombe County,
TIP No. R-2213
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have we+tlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
C-21
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
July 21, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval.,of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM. _
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10666er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

r
C-22
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Heal;h, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office: ?O
Project Number: Due Date:
9sl (;q W/ '7/.Ze
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. 1
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Raninnal Office_ Time

SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (stamtory ?m?
limit)
PERMITS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
(90 days)
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 0.0.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
? to stale surface waters
i
i construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES. Reply (NIA)
.
ng
n
discharg time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES i
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
( j Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary ;
(NIA) j
7 days j
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
? may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
rr? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
06
15A NCAC 21H
e
NIA 60 days i
(90 days)
LJ .
s as per
facilities and/or Emission Sourc .
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
bestos material must be in compliance with 15A
ALI' NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group I
919.733.0620. (90 days)
C Complex source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedlmentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Quality Sect.i at least 30 20 days
davs before beotnntnd activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or Part must accomoan the Plan 130 davsi
r 1
L- The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
C Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
60 d
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond ays)
(
must be received before the permit can be issued..
r 1 North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
L: exceeds a days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required °if more 1 day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
•• (NIA)
. should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is ptanned.
wi
90.120 days
? Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA) ?
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed Plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a e04 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary tc verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
Percentage or the total project cost will be required upon Completion.
A
Continued on eeve!se
C-23
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., secretary r// L
Project Number: q -a ff / County: 1?7Z= n?17L ?'O
RECEIVED
DEHNR'
R ources
?• f 199
dner
Director
ND QUALITY SEC
TION
Project Name :
Geodetic Survey
!/' This project will impact __;;;, geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior*to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on-geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
7-
Date This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required-to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as-part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation control commission. «.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
C-24
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Teiephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

T
4
A BAs
NORTH CAROLINA
•??:?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BO
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Q

July 27, 1994
JUL 2 9 1994
y
22 aHIGHWAYS
NJ OF ME
MORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways ,
FROM:
RE:
Charles H. We?Wv
Assistant
Auxiliary US 25, FroS1,Lces
m SR 1361 in Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project , STP-35(1), State Project
8.1841902, TIP Project R-2213
Please find attached communication from James McCanless, Director of
Transportation for Buncombe County Public Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
•
Enclosure
C-25
r
uncombe County Public Schools
Transportation Department
74 Washington Avcnuc
Mhaffic, North Carolina 28804
Phonc: [phone] -Far. [phone]
July 22, 1994

Mr. Charles H. Weaver - ----
Assistant State Superintendent
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
RE: US 25, From SR 1361 in Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-35(1), State Project
8.1841902, TIP Project R-2213
Dear Mr. Weaver:
These improvements are badly needed within Buncombe County and we will
be very happy upon completion of the project. We see no detrimental
effect to the Buncombe County Schools.
Sincerely,
James R. McCanless
Director of Transportation
JRM:pb

C-26
l
EWERSON COUNTY
XA?hnp[ANNiNq dEPARTMENT
101 East Alen Street • Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone [phone] • 97-4533
E 1 P4*
August 1, 1994 J
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager t AUG 0 4 1"4
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of N.C. Dept. of Transportation DIVISION C
P.O. Box 25201 HIGHWAY
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201 VIRCddME?..
Re: US 25 North Widening, NCDOT Project R-2214 and R-2213
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is regarding your letters of June 20, 1994 requesting
information regarding possible environmental impacts or permits
required by Henderson County for the above referenced projects.
Based on the information received to date and on information
present at the meeting held by NCDOT officials on these projects in
Fletcher on June 22, 1994, there appears to be no significant
environmental impacts for either project for work proposed within
Henderson County.
Henderson County may, however, require zoning permits and/or
building permits for certain work incidental to the project in the
area of US 25 South between the southern terminus of Project R-2214
and the Mountain Home Industrial Park.
For further information contact the Henderson County Zoning
Department, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, N.C. 28792.
Very truly yours,
Matt Matteson,
Planning Director
MM/krs
C-27
s.
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation 4
?? J iU?`1
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State.YHisoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen US 25 from SR 1361 in Henderson County to
US 25A/NC 280 in Buncombe County, R-2213,
8.1841902, STP-35(1), 94-E-4220-0991
VX* 0 9 * 1994
t.
c OF
Now", 13
Division of ry
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Shufordsville Spring (BN 656). See attached map for the location.
Since the historic architectural surveys for Buncombe and Henderson Counties
were conducted fifteen years ago, additional properties which may be eligible for
the National Register may be located in the area of potential effect. We
recommend that an architectural historian survey and evaluate any properties over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect which were not recorded during
the 1979 surveys, as well as evaluate the National Register eligibility of the
previously recorded property. Survey site files for Buncombe and Henderson
Counties are available for use and located in our Western Office in. Asheville.
Given the staffing situation in that office, we suggest that you schedule an
appointment to view the files (telephone [phone]).
We have previously recommended that an archaeological survey be conducted in
association with this project. Our recommendation remains the same at this time.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
C-28
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. Forth Carolina 27601-2507
H. F. Vick
August 5, 1994, Page 2

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: N. Graf
State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
C-2y
7.5 WINUT= SERIES (TO OGRAPHIG) Icrrr
Y ?60t 32'30 3 R o50 MEVfLLE n ?:. ` 1
61 000 f•_ 362 RSHEVIUE e.0 AV. • 363 3
V. bu
O y r P ` Cr
•?• .. , ? 0 ta•?: 't it d ? ¦lJI
GI J
? ? ? , ?' ,v= y In • \?ya?? r '
¦ ? Ir ? J7iI
rm. s
/r°?g
i^?`,J?-? /? ? `! ?' - ?• \ •? ?'y,??.`;?1.;???\??,.ir "'F_r- ,! .,,`'?,-TTY `; (.
J
`;?_ Gnimne la Asnevi a lan 1 • `? .? i ' ?.,?.,?, (???
65
43
rytr 11
204? ' - _ ?.?,? ???? ' • ? - -° a ?
-ol
1 ( V ?Ra ?v? naae w rs ? e i i r
:/Iwa7EalYlRpwp
C-30

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 5, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening of US 25 from SR 1361 to US 25A/NC
280, Henderson and Buncombe Counties, Federal
Aid No. STP-35, State Project 8.1841902, TIP R-
2213, ER 95-7949
Dear Mr. Graf:
E?
JAN 0 9 1995
Thank you for your letter of November 23, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Ms.
Joy has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
C
' avi rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
• DB:slw
cc: K F. Vick
T. Padgett
C-31
109 East Jones Street • Raleigb. North Carolina 27601-2807
1?-,
1C.
is
3 sE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 20, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening
US 25 from SR 1361 to US 25A/NC 200,
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, R-2213,
Federal Aid Project STP-350 ), State Project
8.1841902, ER 96-7320
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Q`
2 61995
F 1
FNVIRON?
Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Marvin Brown of Greiner, Inc., concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory. This property is eligible under
Criterion C for architecture for its 1938 Gothic-Revival church and nineteenth
century rectory.
Oak Park Historic District. This district is eligible under Criterion C for
architecture because of its eighteen residences representing the Craftsman
and Colonial Revival styles located on planned, curved, tree-lined streets and
oriented towards a park. The neighborhood is also eligible under Criterion A
for community planning and development because it reflects the real estate
boom of the 1920s and the advent of planned suburban development.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
House #3. This house represents a building type common in the county and
better and more intact examples of the type can be found throughout the
county.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.

C-32 17J
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 _ (?3p
Nicholas L. Graf
September 20, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic-
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
f
Sincerely,
w
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Marvin Brown

C-33
Feder'l rsd' 5t'? • 3? (i 1 TIP - 1? • 2a-4v County
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
Uh V:? $:VaNt 4i?Iylo1 to 1-?F.aDE?,-wl coubj r7 rv Llh 2SA??Jy X30 ?r1 1'7u?ca?tF_L
On representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and erect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Sivned:
!i(
Reoresent3 ve, `C • OT, Historic Architectural Resources Section ate

K

Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
.1i "
Representative, SHPO
r
bate

1412.1 l?1Vli?. t lbi?.! TYlaVaa Vaaav?a
(over)
C-34

Federal Aid's TIP County - EnAtj r.?eG/ Ftgn1C
V.
w
i

Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Re-gister-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
OI?1L PAT- F•?1?roR?L ?tSrR-??T CAE) _ ?o ESE:-r Utz- vJ?sr sipG. -
WtoEactJw At,rE?.?,r?vt?
G?.t-?AF?? F??1?pAV ?tut??•4 = P-;??? C?E? "' f?° Er??..=? W?tx tEt>: F?u.o?3,?1F .
?JJtP-??wtE?tAL GdwtwltrwtE+JfGi+ Flo V?,"t P 6EthlF-54 4f-' 15'4-7 kn1D Sp-l3(,
F•FmoYFi 17'HRLt617 kr t',EE czce'rr--y E+4rp-?'V1CE- AAP oFF-E; . ro ruE c,?uacs-r
Properties within area of potential effect for which there'is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
. y1???1trsCr At,rtrR.?.10.T1Ji? .
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA k r5 SHPO
C-35
R-2213
APPENDIX D
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIO]
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 25 FROM
HENDERSONVILLE IN HENDERSON COUNTY TO US 25A
Project 8.1841902 R-2213
Project 8.1950801 R-2214
J WORKSHOP
SR 1528 NORTH OF
IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Buncombe County
Henderson County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
citizens information workshop on June 22, 1994 between the hours of
4:00 pm and 7:00 pm at the Valley Springs Middle School, Long
Shoals Road, Arden. Interested individuals may attend this
informal drop in workshop at their convenience between the above
stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be available to
provide information, answer questions, and take comments regarding
this project. -
Under this project, it is proposed to widen the existing two lane
roadway to a multi-lane facility.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Charles Cox
at P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
this workshop. To request the above you may call Mr. Cox at the
above number no later than seven days prior to the workshop.

I"
D-1
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATION
WORKSHOP
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 25
FROM SR 1528 NORTH OF HENDERSONVILLE
IN HENDERSON COUNTY TO US 25A IN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Project 8.1841902
Project 8.1950801
The North Carolina De
hold the above citizens,
22, 1994 between the
at the Valley Springs
Road, Arden. Intereste
informal drop in we
between the above star
personnel will be avc
answer questions, and
project.
R-2213 Buncombe County
R-2214 Henderson County
-nt of Transportation will
nation workshop on June
of 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm
Ile School, Long Shoals
ividuals may attend this
D at their convenience
irs. Division of Highways
to provide information,
comments regarding this
Under this project, it is proposed to Nviden the existing
two lane roadway to a multilane facility.
Anyone desiring additional informaon may contact
Mr. Charles Cox at P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC
27611 or phone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations,
auxiliary aids and services for any qualified disabled
person interested in attending this workshop. To
request the above you may call Mr. Cox at the above
number no later than seven days prior to the
workshop. 034&1
ASHEVILLE CITIZEN-TITWES
SUNDAY, JUNE 19, 1994

D-2
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
so
t
US 25
FROM SR 1528
TO US 25A / NC 280
HENDERSON AND BUNCOMBE COUNTIES
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 2214, R - 2213

s
JUNE 22, 1994

Citizens Informational Worksho,
D-3
CITIZEN'S INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
US 25
FROM SR 1528 TO US 25A/NC 280
HENDERSON AND BUNCOMBE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECTS R-2214/R-2213
CITIZEN'S INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to discuss plans to widen US 25 to a
multi-lane highway from SR 1528 in Henderson County to US 25A/NC 280 in
Buncombe County. Comments and suggestions concerning the proposed highway
construction are appreciated and will be considered during the project
study.
The Division of Highways realizes individuals living close to a
proposed project want to be informed of the possible effects of the
project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not
available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work
is necessary before the actual right-of-way limits can be established.
More detailed information will be available at a later date.
A comment sheet is provided for you to write down questions or
concerns so that the Division of Highways can fully consider your ideas,
comments, or suggestions. Please complete this comment sheet and leave it
with an NCDOT representative. If you desire additional information or if
you wish to comment further on this project, please contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for
widening US 25 to a five-lane curb and gutter highway from the
Buncombe/Henderson County Line to NC 280 in Buncombe County (TIP Project
R-2213) and to a multi-lane road from SR 1528 to the Buncombe/Henderson
County Line in Henderson County (TIP Project R-2214).
CURRENT SCHEDULE
For TIP Project R-2213, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to
begin in Fiscal Year 1995 and construction is scheduled to begirin Fiscal
Year 1997. For TIP Project R-2214, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled
to begin in Fiscal Year 1997, and construction is scheduled to begin in
Fiscal Year 1998. These schedules are subject to the availability of
sufficient highway funds.
D-4
f.

6
2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
R-2213 Right-of-way
Construction
Total Cost:
R-2214 Right-of-way
Construction
Total Cost:
RAJ/sdj
D-5
$ 1,970,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 3,770,000
$ 9,600,000
$ 10,300,000
$ 19,900,000

me. 3
Drter LisfQsrdsvil
1 3
l 19 Stockavillt min
23 1
•??I?Can o A'°a Wesv? III c,
?B U s N ' E
Ujoestor w in3? 1f montrest
lack 9 1
/t`~?sheville*,? Mou! ain e
i 7 ,1 a 1 wsnnands ?.
81 3 in 7A ' It ,
'!?? "' ,fir'' 191 25A Fairview
?-` , m 16 Skyland Gorton "?.
? IS S
?• •{dsl v 4 Arden _t 1
j '
1
t s'
i
Arden
n? yo 3241 339
3
0

i

.63
2?
?` 3
3
log '1
]ls c
.06
02
?p 141 .
.30 .• ]IL 3107
.33
i
s R Luther .,. '4'?+r?rG4e ]tl .23
R1dye
v_ 3271 1 ?J / !+1?3dL b'
Oak Pa 'o'
Ia6 ' r ]176
300
m 7117 a0
?
©
"? OSIIw -
CO.
)ERSON ; rs.. 2s o
7G r
11 J_?f 1621
41
?'• e t 4 16. ?. b 13
'6
'? .! 119 ? l
r
Z
4• lui e
0
'414 1341 .25 :?• 1545
2S
?.? 1. pb I ASS ??
,tip/i' '?• ? O FAS l 1Sas /
r
D-6
0

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION M HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 25
FROM HENDERSON COUNTY LINE
TO US25A
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 2213

•
i
I
p

0
eat cave
fi' a Fletc er 64
` 2 Mountat 'Fruition 1 w
mills f 191 3 , Home Edney"I
510 N
« m
rA toraTl? • t East Fla ?
./ ndernvtl*3 3 mm
,
to
r. ;eroso . Ftat Rad 7
`. / 4--E44 Sr. Firmnr2 aluc
1 r ?• ?tle Ri r Tuxedo 1
101*
COMMENT SHEET
US 25
FROM SR 1528 TO US 25A/NC 280
HENDERSON AND BUNCOMBE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECTS R-2214/R-2213
JUNE 22, 1994
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these sheets, but please
take the time to give us your comments and concerns regarding this project.
Please continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECTS R-2214/R-2213:
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDING OUR
CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP PROCESS:
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE NCDOT
REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR EXPLANATIONS?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
10
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
s
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
D-8
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS CITIZEN'S
CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
r
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED? PLEASE EXPLAIN:
r
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS:
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION IN YOUR AREA AND NORTH
CAROLINA IN GENERAL.
WHAT IS YOUR AREA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
WHAT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
•
WHAT ROAD IN NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
D-9
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN NORTH CAROLINA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY TRANSPORTATION RELATED
SUBJECT?
10
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager of
the Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.

a
•
D-10
•

r

4)
O
LF)
cm
NN
V
-? m a
w
m m
c ?
0
d
y d C v O ^ d O ?"" i. '?
G? Emaoc?"c°=bo W -?, a cc o?=ca
12.4
O O 0 . O ?? +a O o
U Cys.10. . r?'.i? O X10 v i0. Ox+A .Q-0- Z o
$ 'm ? ? r.a 'O ? m O ? ..C •y ? U ? .g ie y .a w c ? .e
E all
.0.4 'o 0 T
^„I 0 s. m a> w ., a> w v? o a> o
G? ;aQ >,?o'?oo?,c am?ic O ai }d}r.y ? .0
C '13 M v v m V ? .L C N OQ•"m' V w ...
50.9A E ca =' Z, Q w cc C>,? -5
A
3 ° ?U ?O•?v aoi a3 o ° Sx d?
0 ,cc p= ° >> o o O R Ci O R
00
Ov 12 E 5.
S) 201 -S CD r- a) A
= 3R
r-E Cc,
I cc C; w CIS
c d=,m,m3'3 C ?.0o E
V? at.? •y d .°? ?? 00 C pp cmC N w s
he ca
O C 60 ° a? w U
_?
jr cc ° =32 24 d 3 0?+'a>^d A =o.?
00 w +.a
03
V y C6 =O •_ C? = O UZ y ?a y N =
a,Z dy ° y ? ='C .. o s0., = C 3 G? cv a...Z•o
m S O O o00 C m V .C .a ?' C d to d m 'ca
Y?y?cz?m
LL=?czEcF3pcco
ci°vw C.c ae '.? 3 4.2 o ?:...G.
h? 0 ° ° i2 ,0 0
a
?r ~
F N
zN
Nz
1? !1 .
F 'C7
U
? A
? W
>z
W
Q3
I- N" c. •v
y °..oo
ca '? s. = cs .,. m
s ai
?, O R •? ? Vic' OQ
° E O "C .= y M
o Ecm?°-^'3 aio
.C _ •y?j L ?, •? s .G ? •?u ? v
O S. C* L V Q y U O
O .!: d
67
d o 3 y S S

?m-
Li? - °
N ` X23=
Z
yO?=:3cc

_..c y U.
D-11
R-2213

APPENDIX E
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
EVALUATION
6
O
000 GEl
4
MAY2a"94
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Z
DEPARTMENT OF TPtANSPORTATION DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DMSION OF HIGHWAYS R.P
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201

OF
May 2, 1994
State Projects: 8.1950801 (R-2214) & 8.1841902 (R-2213)
County: Henderson - Buncombe
Description: R-2214: US 25 Improvements from SR 1528
(Brookside Camp Road) to the Buncombe Co.
Line
R-2213: US 25 Improvements from the Henderson Co.
Line to NC 280 (Airport Road)
MEMORANDUM TO: H. F. Fick, P.E., Manager
P ronmental Branch
anning an Envi
FROM : D? 4ti?% n F c s
z Geotechnical Unit
SUBJECT: Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
GEOLOGY
Purpose
The purpose of these projects is to widen US 25 to a five-lane
undivided facility with curb and gutter. The total length of these
projects is S.l miles.
Methodology
Afield reconnaissance survey was conducted along the existing US 25
corridor traveling south to north from SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road)
to NC 280 (Airport Road - the intersection of US 25A and US 25). In
addition to the field survey, a- records search of appropriate
environmental agencies was conducted to identify potential problem
sites.
Phvsiographv. Relief, and Drainage

The study corridor in the Asheville area lies in the Blue Ridge
Physiographic Province of the Appalachian Highlands. It is
characterized by a central plateau of moderate relief, the Asheville
Plateau, surrounded by mountains. The plateau attains its maximum
width near Asheville. Its elevation is about 2,200 feet above mean sea
level. The area is drained by the Swannanoa River which empties into
the French Broad River. Drainage in the area is well established due
to the relief and friable nature of the soils.
F_-1
R-2213/R-2214
page 2
Geologv and Soils
The project corridor is located within the Blue Ridge Belt of the
Mountainous Region. The Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls
Formation are the mappable units along the project corridor. These
formations are a large group of metasedimentary and mafic metavolcanic
rocks that lie unconformably on granitic basement. Muscovite-biotite
gneiss and metagraywacke are two subunits of the Ashe Metamorphic
Suite along with amphibolite. The muscovite-biotite gneiss unit is a
very heterogeneous unit dominated by a thick sequence of marine
clastic metasedimentary rock. The muscovite-biotite gneiss is
typically medium light gray to medium dark gray, fine-to-medium
grained, thin to thick layered and sulfidic. It is interlayered and
intergraded with mica schist and metagraywacke.
The soils along the project corridor are of the Congaree-Warne,
Fletcher, and Halewood-Hayesville Associations. The Congaree-Warne
soils have grayish-brown or gray surface soils and yellowish-brown
friable silty clay subsoils. These soils are found as first bottom
soils and on low stream terraces. Soils of the Fletcher Association
are found on rolling to hilly slopes along the corridor and consist of
pale yellow, friable surface soils and yellowish-brown, friable silty
clay subsoils. The soils of the Halewood-Hayesville Association can be
found on undulating to steep slopes and have yellowish-gray to
yellowish-brown friable surface soils and brownish-red compact clay
subsoils.
According to the AASHTO Soil Classification System, the soils along
the project corridor range from A-4 to A-6.
Mineral Resources
There are no mineral resources of economic significance known to be
within the project corridor.
Erosion Control
•.

Surface drainage is well established along the project corridor due to •
the relief and friable nature of the soils and subsoil. Rainfall is
freely absorbed preventing surface wash. Standard erosion control
devices should be considered for this project.
E-2
R-2213/R-2214
page 3
Groundwater
Groundwater depth ranges from 10 to 18 feet below the ground surface
in most of the project area. High groundwater will be encountered at
shallower depths throughout the floodplain of the nearby creeks. The
area for the most part is well drained, and therefore flooding is not
frequent.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EVALUATION
A field reconnaissance survev conducted by the Geotechnical Unit along
the project corridor identified twenty-four (24) potential sites for
underground storage tanks (USTs). Of these, seven (7) are still
operational facilities. A description of each operational and
non-operational facility located on the project is as follows:
1. Baldwin 76 Service & Grocery
3280 Asheville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC 28739
UST Owner: Mike Hodges
6085 Brevard Rd.
Etowah, NC 28729
Facility I.D. #: 0-024871
This site is located just south of the beginning of the project but
may still be impacted. There are three (3) gasoline USTs (6000,6000,
& 3000 gallon) located on-site registered with DEM. They are all of
steel construction with interior and exterior cathodic protection.
They were installed on 11-30-86 and are located approximately 50 feet
from the centerline of US 25 (Asheville Hwy.). The site is located in
the southeast quadrant of US 25 and SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Rd.).
2. Capital Monuments
3404 Hendersonville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC
Per an employee, this site was on
+ be in place. There was a fill cap
the fill cap was 58 feet from the
located in the southeast quadrant
UST Owner: unknown
ce a gas station, and USTs may still
and vent pipe found on the site, and
centerline of US 25. This site is
of US 25 and SR 1529 (Hillgirt Rd.)
3. General Auto Repair/American Tool & ;fold
3500 Asheville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC
These sites are located at the intersection of US 25 and SR 2054 (Old
Roper Rd.). Both sites will probably present no problem in the
widening of US 25. E-3
R-2213/R-2214
page 4
4. Handy Hardware/Worley's Furniture
3509 Asheville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC

These sites are located at the intersection of US 25 and SR 2054 (Old
Roper Rd.). Adjacent to these sites is a junkyard site with old autos
and buses.
5. Auto Service Center
3515 Asheville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC _
This site contains a body shop and an aut
approximately 60 feet from the centerline
across the street from PrintPack. Inc. in
the intersection of US 25, Heritage Lane,
Rd.). PrintPack, Inc. once contained USTs
propyl, but were removed on 12-8-92.
o junk yard that-is
of US 25. It is located
the southwest quadrant of
and SR 1633 (Industrial Park
that contained ethyl and
6. Midway Used Cars
(previously Mtn. Home Grocery)
3800 Asheville Hwy.
Mtn. Home, NC 28758
Facility I.D.: 0-017838
Per the current property owner and confirmed with DEM, the USTs were
removed from the site on 11-1-88. This site is located in the
southeast quadrant of US 25 and SR 1371 (Pinellas Rd.) next to the
Mtn. Home Fire Station.
7. abandoned station/abandoned restaurant lot
These sites are located at the intersection of SR 1370 (Old White/
Old Park Roads) and US 25. There is an existing pump island that is 43
feet from the centerline of US 25 and a fill cap that is 33 feet away.
Adjacent to the abandoned station is an empty lot that was once a
restaurant. There was possible evidence of UST removal found here.
8. Dan's Auto Body
Asheville Hwy
Mtn. Home, NC
This site is mentioned because of the possiblity of soil
contamination. It is located at the intersection of US 25 and SR 1438
(Holly Place).
E-4
R-2213/R-2214
page 5
9. Vaughn's Auto Service. UST Owner: same
Rte. 8, Box 124B
Hendersonville, NC 28739
Facility I.D.# 0-017778
This site once contained four (4) USTs and a pump island that is 72
feet from the centerline of US 25. Per the property owner and DEM, the
tanks were removed,in 11-89.
10. Mitchell's RV Enterprises
1 N. Main St.-
Naples, NC
This site is located in.the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of US 25 and SR 1534 (Naples Rd.). It appears that at one time this
was a service station. Depressions in the concrete pavement may have
indicated the position of a previous pump island and UST removal.
11. Mike's Truck Stop
Asheville Hwy.
Naples, NC
Per the son of the property owner, the station has not been in
operation for nearly 25 years, and the USTs are probably still in
place. There were four vent pipes and fill caps found that are 43 feet
from the centerline of US 25. This site is approximately 530 feet
north of SR 1534 (Naples Rd.) on the right traveling north towards I-26.
12. Skyway (Shell Oil) UST Owner: Skyland Petroleum
P.O. Box 309
Naples, NC 28760
Facility I.D. #: 0-009810
Per Mr. Cecil Cantrell, a representative of Skyland Petroleum Co.,
Inc., there are ten (10) USTs on the site which consists of a store
and a diesel repair shop. Skyland Petroleum is preparing to have all
the USTs removed within 90 days of this report and switch over to six
(6) large above ground tanks with a pipeline system. According to
+ Mr. Cantrell, they are changing to the above ground tanks per the new
EPA Guidelines. At the present time, the USTs closest to .the existing
road are approximately 80 feet from the centerline of US 25. This site
is just south of the I-26/US 25 intersection in Naples.
13. abandoned site
This site could possibly have been a service station at one time,
although there was no evidence of a UST system. It is located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 25 and Kennerly Drive
(next to Brickton Village Crafts).
E-5
R-2213/R-2214
page 6
14. D. Y.'s Quick Stop
6750 Hendersonville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC 28732
UST Owner: Dennis Youngblood
121 S. Brook Rd.
Fletcher, NC 28792
.
Facility I.D. #: 0-021629
This is an existing Eblen/Citgo station (also called Eblen Short Stop).
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (6000,6000,8000 gallon), one (1)
kerosene UST (2000 gallon), and two (2) diesel USTs (2000,1000 gallon)
located on-site registered with DEM. The closest USTs are located
approximately 90 feetfrom the centerline of.US 25. The USTs are all.
of steel construction with exterior cathodic protection and FRP piping.
The tanks were installed on 2-22-88 and the site is located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 25 and SR 1364 (Darity
Rd.).
15. Lucky's Auto Sales
6790 Hendersonville Hwy.
Hendersonville, NC 23732
This site was previously a service station and according to the
employees, the tanks were removed several years ago, but no tank
closure records could be found. This site is located in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of US 25 and SR 1364 (Darity Rd.).
16. Savings Station/Dodge Store
6388 Hendersonville Hwy.
Fletcher, NC 28732
Facility I.D. n: 0-009803
UST Owner: Perfection Oil Co.
447 East Main St.
Tupelo, Miss 38301
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (8000 gallon) and one (1) kerosene
UST (5200 gallon) located on-site registered with DEM. All tanks were
installed on 4-28-85 and are of steel construction with both interior
and exterior cathodic protection and with FRP piping. The tanks lie
behind the pump island which is approximately 45 feet from the
centerline of US 25. This site is located across from a "dye" storage
house. Adjacent to the Dodge Store is Eddie's Auto Service which
appears to be only a tire sales store.
q"
E-6

•
R-2213/R-2214
page 7
17. Mr. Pete's Market UST Owner: Youngblood Oil Co.
Hwy 25 4th Ave. East & Pine St.
Fletcher, NC 28732 Hendersonville, NC 28793
Facility I.D. #: 0-013170
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (10000,10000,4000 gallon), one (1)
diesel UST (4000 gallon) and one (1) kerosene UST (1000 gallon)
located on-site registered with DEM. The tanks were installed on
9-22-84 and are all of steel construction with FRP piping and interior
cathodic rotection. The tanks are approximately 43 feet from the
centerlin of US 25. This site is.located approximately 500 feet from
the inters ction of Howard Gap Rd. and US 25.
18. Easy Mh els Service Center
(previously Fletcher Texaco)
LS 25 & Howard Gap Rd.
Fletcher, NC 28732
Per the employees of this business, this site was previously a service
station and the USTs were removed several years ago. According to the
DEM. three tanks were removed on 3-10-88 and there is evidence of UST
system removal. This site is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of US 25 and Howard Gap Rd.
19. Bill Walker's Tire Center
US 25
Fletcher, NC
Per the employees of this business, this site was also previously a
service station and the year the USTs were removed is unknown. There
is a pump island approximately 30 feet from the centerline of US 25.
This site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
US 25 and SR 1358 (Fanning Bridge Rd.).
0. Judies' Kountry Korner UST Owner: JKP Enterprises
•pi-2213 2628 Hendersonville Rd. same address
Arden, NC 28704
Facility I.D. #: 0-032506
There are three (3) gasoline USTs (10000,6000, & 6000 gallon), and one
(1) diesel UST (4000 gallon) located on-site registered with DEM.
The tanks were installed on 10-7-91 and are located approximately
67 feet from the centerline of US 25 (Hendersonville Hwy.). The
existing pump island lies approximately 54 feet from the centerline.
They are all of FRP construction (including exterior) and have FRP
piping. This site is located in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of US 25 and SR 3550 (Watson Rd.) just north of Edgewood Rd.
E-7
R-2213/R-2214
page 8
21. Oak Park Convenience Store
2592 Hendersonville Rd.
Arden, NC 28704
Facility I.D. *: 0-004357
UST Owner: John E. Satta, Jr.
9 Royal Oak Rd.
Arden, NC 28704
There-are four (4) gasoline USTs (7500,5000,1000, &1000) located
on-site registered with DEM. According to an employee, the tanks are
scheduled to be removed in the near future. They were installed on
4-22-59 and are all of steel construction. The tanks are located
approximately 68 feet from the centerline of US 25 with the pump
island approximately 46 feet from the centerline. This site is located
in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of US 25 and SR 3190
(Royal Oak Rd.).
22. Enmark =815
Hwy. 25 & Royal Oak Rd.
Arden, NC 28704
UST Owner: Enmark Stations, Inc.
P.O. Box 728
Savannah, Ga. 31402
Facility I.D. #: 0-007365
There are two (2) diesel USTs (6000 gallon), one (1) kerosene UST
(3000 gallon), and three (3) gasoline USTs (12000 gallon) located
on-site registered with DEM. They were installed on 5-5-.85 and are all
of steel construction with FRP piping. The tanks are located
approximately 76 feet from the centerline of US 25, and 70 feet from
the centerline of SR 3190 (Royal Oak Rd.). The pump island closest to
the road is approximately 78 feet from the centerline of US 25. This
site lies in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of US 25 and
SR 3190, just south of SR 3531 (Crescent Hill Dr.).
23. John's Auto & Truck
(former Hill's Union 76)
2506 Hendersonville Rd.
Arden, NC 28704
Facility -I.D. *: 0-007536
UST Owner: C. Parker Oil Co.
290 Depot St.
Asheville, NC 28801
According to DEM, five (5) USTs were removed from the site on 2-28-90,
and there is evidence of UST removal. The remaining pump island is
approximately 38 feet from the centerline of US 25. This Site is
located at the intersection of US 25 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek Rd.) in
the southeast quadrant. There were a few old drums with unknown
contents also found on-site.

w
s
E-8
R-2213/R-2214
page 9
Additional right-of-way acquisition should not be allowed to encroach
upon the USTs within the project corridor. Should the acquisition of
additional right-of-way be unavoidable, a more detailed site
assessment of the potentially contaminated sites will be required.

Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project-corridor-in both Henderson and Buncombe counties. The study
did reveal.*_hat there are two (2) Groundwater Incidents in the
vicinity of the project corridor, and a Superfund site with an
associated Landfill.
Groundwater Incident (GWI) # 6791 is the Printpack, Inc. industry
(Facility I.D. #: 0-032431). The site is located at the intersection
of US 25 and SR 1633 (Industrial Park Rd.) in Hendersonville. The site
contained four (4) 7500 gallon tanks that were removed on 12-8-92
which once contained ethyl and propyl components. There is also record
of groundwater contamination at the site. GWI # 5561 is the Naples '66
gas station (current Exxon) (Facility I.D. #: 0-017841) located at the
intersection of I-26 and US 25. The source of contamination was from
leaking USTs. Six (6) tanks were removed from the site on 5-31-90 and
there is no record of groundwater contamination.
Cranston Printworks Co. (SF #79-NCD003150539) is a Superfund site and
Landfill. This site is located on the east side of the railroad tracks
in the vicinity of the project corridor in Fletcher. Proposed widening
will probably not affect this site.
There are several junkyards present along US 25. The largest one is
located on the east side of the project across from the cemetary in
Mtn. Home. Car parts, tires, and appliances dominant the "junk" stored
here.
Based on the field reconnaissance and the records search, there are no
further potential environmental problem sites known of that should
affect this project other than those mentioned in this report.
4
GC_1
E-9
R-2213
APPENDIX F
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F)
EVALUATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH HISTORIC SITES
4-

F. A. PROJECT: STP-35 1)
STATE PROJECT : 8.1841902
T. I. P. PROJECT: R-2213
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: US 25, from SR 1361 to US 25A-NC 280
Henderson/Buncombe Counties
4(F) RESOURCE: CalvM hpiscopal Church/Rectory
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the operational
characteristics, safety, and/or physical condition of the ?
existing highway facility on essentially the same alignment? X
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway? X ?
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration of
historic buildings, structures, or objects? ? X
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place
rather than to recover for archaeological research? ? X
6. (a) Is the impac Section 4(f) site considered
minor (i.e. no effect no adverse effect)? X ?
(b) If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"? ? X
F-1
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the assessment
of impacts and the proposed mitigation? (see attached
X ?
correspondence)

8. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS? ? X

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT

The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and prudent:
YES NO
1. Do nothing X ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:

(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create a cost or impact of extraordinary
measure? ? X
2. Improve the highway without using the adjacent

historic site.
X ?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in ;
standards, use of retaining walls, etc., or

traffic management measures been evaluated?
X ?
(b) The items in 2 (a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
F-2
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
YES NO
3. Build an improved facility on new location without

using the historic site. ?
X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project
cost or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties
of truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
YES NO
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize
?
harm necessary to preserve the historic integrity X
of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FHWA, the ?
SHPO, and as appropriate, the ACHP. X
F-3

3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described as follows:
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
- The amount of right of way to be acquired from the church will be minimized.
- A raised median, originally part of the US 25/SR 1547 intersection to restrict left turns
on US 25, will not be constructed between the church property and the rectory
property on US 25.
- The existing hedge row at the church entrance on US 25 and SR 1547 will not be
disturbed during construction.
- Existing shrubs within the construction limits in front of the church will be removed and
offered to the church for replanting. These shrubs are not considered a part of the
existing hedge row.
- A memorial stone marker facing US 25 will not be disturbed.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer _2L-
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
C. Property owner
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies
e. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
- The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
- All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this
project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
- The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
- All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
X1,22-STS p?"y
Date M-11, Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date Fp ' ion Administrator, FHWA
F-4

Du.SUA?
IM
J?
•V1r..wr ??•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
} September 20, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf I V
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation 1995
310 New Bern Avenue 2 6
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening D?V0WAYS ?:-
US 25 from SR 1361 to US 25A/NC 200, N?GN
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, R-2213,E ?'lv?RpN?'??
Federal Aid Project STP-35(1), State Project
8.1841902, ER 96-7320
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Marvin Brown of Greiner, Inc., concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Calvary Episcopal Church and Rectory. This property is eligible under
Criterion C for architecture for its 1938 Gothic-Revival church and nineteenth
century rectory.
Oak Park Historic District. This district is eligible under Criterion C for
architecture because of its eighteen residences representing the Craftsman
and Colonial Revival styles located on planned, curved, tree-lined streets and
oriented towards a park. The neighborhood is also eligible under Criterion A
for community planning and development because it reflects the real estate
boom of the 1920s and the advent of planned suburban development.
The following property was determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
House #3. This house represents a building type common in the county and
better and more intact examples of the type can be found throughout the
county.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
F-5 aJ
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
Nicholas L. Graf
September 20, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic-
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Marvin Brown
n
4
F-6
Federal Aid ST•p • 35 ?i TIP - F- 2'14 9 County
.. ??
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
61,;, ?.%? nowt ?i?l'?Sol to NEaD %?-•a c°u,?r7 To U? 2=iA/?ly 2go iN 17uaco?n?? .
taAa
• On Gismo!- V? "? lm,14 representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The propeny/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Siuned:
Represent C
ze,/17
, Historic Architectural Resources section
the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency uate

Representative, SHPO

Dla.aw •Ytaws& w4--
JtGte Historic
(over)
F-7
Feral Aid's- TIP T County
6u?wMt3G/?c??c
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
DA1L PAl?-4= l?l?toR?L ??srR-?cr ?DE) - VJo sr-re-r r ,f hlrhf S(cE-• -
?1lpF.?•lt1.J(r ?•l.rE??iV?i
G14I.JA.R-y F.?l pAl. GEtuj?Li{ ? lzz:.?o( ??E, - 1?1a EFFa.-=? rJtrx Tt1? F?u.o4Jirl?r
W9j4MEh1rAL Gdnrt trwlE+Jf?i ? go Vy,W ?r D 6Ei hIEFaJ sir- 15141 An1D sp. t3v 1 ? :.?.1D
g?mo,r>? •rtt?? d7'KRUePs Ar riE Aav oFee - ro 'Mr- "ugc.S4L
for ?e??a.,Jn??F.
Properties within area of potential effect for which therels an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
E
•
?t
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA _ SHPO
F-8
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
r12 Q?
J
TO: ///!!?////`' //?? ?? ??/J'?
guG MVh.?iS/ //R??0??OM, B?LDG.
??'R'/JEFF... NO..MrkgOR
Y V
FRO WX REF. NO. OR ? M. BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ogeF-R YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE . ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

V
[MAR 0 1994

WETLANDS C

s.w SGVfo
s
JAMES B. HUNT, JR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 23, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9603.1
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 25 Improvements,
Henderson County Line to NC 280 (Airport Road),
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-35(1), State
Project 8.1841902, TIP Project R-2213
and
US 25 Improvements, from SR 1528 to Buncombe County
Line, Henderson County, Federal Aid Project M-5000(10),
State Project 8.1950801, TIP Project R-2214
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject projects (See attached maps for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for these
projects is scheduled for April 27, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please
reference page 4 of the scoping sheets). This is a federally funded
project and an Environmental Assessment will be proposed.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Charles Cox, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
1
CRC/plr
Attachment

I

l .1?'

R ,
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 03-22-94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1994 R/W
Design 1995 Constr. 1 7
TIP # R-2213
Project # 8.1841902
F.A. Project # STP-35(1)
Division 13
County Buncombe
Route US 25 from NC (Airport Road) 280 to Henderson Co.Line
Functional Classification Rural Maior Collector
Length 1.1 miles (1.8 km)
Purpose of Project:
Widen US 25 to a multi-lane facility.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
The proposed project involves widening US 25 to a
five-lane undivided facility with curb and gutter
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
Environmental Assessment (EA) to be followed by.a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Environmental study schedule: y
EA - In Pro . Tom'--9a-c _
FONSI - Sep 94 - „7a? 95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)_
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1
, or ($)
f
t
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Existing Facility: 2-lane shoulder section (24-foot
pavement section)
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section of Proposed Roadway: 5-lane curb & gutter (64-
foot face-to-face)
Traffic: Current 16,600 Design Year 32,000
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,800,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,970,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,770,000
Page 2
l
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 625 , 300
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 156 , 000
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 144,600
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 165,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter. 21-6" . . . . . . $ 92,800
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20 , 000
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 20,000
Markers X
Page 3
t
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . $
X Other . Clearing & Grubbing & MSC. & MOB. $ 322,300
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 1,570,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 230,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way:
Subtotal: $ 1,800,000
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No _
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost"$.
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By.: Doug Lane Date: 03-07-94
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
¦ rr. ¦ rr. ¦ rrlrar. • fir. ¦, a? ¦ ? / • ? ? I3 i4'
Imp ter ISI 1 Bornardsvn
/ 8 3 aDdhnah.
1 r,l'9 Stocksvdle
i J
?. Weavervdle . 0
Alexander a vo„<.. f?44r
B ;.
", uan 5 N` I z B,.rhMxe -d-
` Leicester Woodflnl lh 6 ,7`t lr Montreal
it+ 63 zs ; s Moukain9 7
.Ashevillex teen
1 1 ? s Swannanos
• uth 23 1a It aElr, , LIO 74 18 9
n
• 9 1 andler 191 Z$A Fairview _?+
• ? ! IS? I4 SkYland Gerton /?`
• 'Qdale ver 1 ..Arden t ?¢
" C? 'S '`'-3 - • 512,
•
000

- r A
wqw
352H i .3 s Arden
i •
2 000
o 3 2 4 3 '3306 •J 3C
III"""
r
? ?,
i
.,\
• _
3
.43
Sl
h
J
.C
V
G ?,
7 8
71
3283 ,b.
7704
G
1

?b Q
33at
ip ?
7517 ;5?
..0 3188 3147

3577 .33

J326 ?

's ?

'

30 LWfier

Ridge 331

3278
?
S
.. _
28 .?A 3I8
?
F \
Oak Par{ o\ s
o
1330 1.16 , I \ 3136
•-
]197 ap
3329 -I i \e-,
. ? > ?J I ? 113 . \y 718 T .?.?-
DERSON t349 \. • CO.
? 1344 '1628
X1330
6 1-1,15
1519 i ? l7,
it J
9p r ? 1361
) '\? 1 z
s? <1 \ 2
1499 1359 1346 1547 ` m I G \+
O -1418 1 '
25 15!5 j
' 23
133! bb If13 1331
Rb/? 02068 c, pAS• 1345 /
V
l
i

ICI
`I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 25
FROM HENDERSON COUNTY LINE
TO US 25 A
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 2213
FIG.I
0 f
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 03-22-94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1994 R/W 1997
Design 1995 Constr. 1998
TIP # R-2214
Project # 8.1950801
F.A. Project # M-5000(10)
Division 14
County Henderson
Route US 25 from SR 1528 to Buncombe County Line
Functional Classification Rural Maior Collector
Length 7.0 miles (11.3 km)...
Purpose of Project:
Widen US 25 to a multi-lane facility.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
The proposed project involves widening US 25 to a
five-lane undivided facility with curb and gutter.
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
Environmental Assessment (EA) to be followed by a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Environmental study schedule:
EA - In Pro - Jul 94
FONSI - Sep 94 - Jan 95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Existing Facility: 2-lane shoulder section (24-foot
pavement section)
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Interchanges 1 Grade;,Separations 0 Stream Crossings 5
Typical Section of Proposed`,Roadway; .5-lane curb & gutter (64-
".'foot face-to-face)
Traffic: Current 16,600 Design Year 32,OD0'
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R-
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including.engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . $
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . $`
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . .

10,300,000
9. ;600,000
19,900,000
Page 2

'` " :?"
s`
, ,.
<
? ,.
D ...
.
,',
.i.
-: ' t.?.
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
..List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
.could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS.REQUIRED ( } COMMENTS COST which
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,789 ,290
Base. . . $
Milling & Recycling". $
Turnouts. $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . ... .
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ :640 ,800
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 394; 200
X Drainage (List any special items) . . $ 960 ,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
X New Bridge 4 ea. x $ 1,412, 000
.1
Widen Bridge" dd
x $ '_
X Remove Bridge 4 @ .460'`,x 28' $ 64, 400,
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension
• $
Retaining Walls: Type,
Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls $
Any Other Misc. Structures. ;;
X Concrete Curb & ,Gutter. 2'-6" . . $ 473, 200
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . $
X Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 140 , 665
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . $ `94, 200
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $
Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . $ 140, 000
Signing: New. . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . .
. $
X Revised 3 ea. $ 36, 000
X RR Signals: X New . . . . . . . . . $ 80, 000
Revised $'
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
-Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 220; 200
-,Markers X
Page 3
r
..

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . .. . $
X` Other Clearing & Grubbing & MSC. & MOB. . $ 1,614,945
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 8,959,900
Contingencies &.gngineering . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
1,340,100
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subtotal: $ 10,300,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain with in Exist Right of Way:..-:Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotals. $
Total Estimated Cost c $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Doug. Lane Date: 03-07-94
The above scoping has been reviewed, and approved* by:
IN IT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Mgr. Program;_& Policy -
Structure Chief Engineer,,,.Precons
Design Services Chief Engineer':=0per
Geotechnical Secondary.Roads Off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environmental.,
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Planning & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator"
Traffic Engineering Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality Dept. of EH & NR .;
Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will.`be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or's'coping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
1
1

?=
_. - ;.`
.?
. t
t
,, ?.

i

. ?
;,
a ?
`p

<.

' ,
'>
,.:
;' `-
"` ,`,
i,
t
x,4.

.,
?.f
..
.. t ...
?,?t.
• 8 at Cave
T
• latch 64
r 2 MouMai F,rwtland
Mills Riy A 9 ? 3 Home 6
y 191 Edneyvfl
S ' O N
? " Hors nee 0
Etow1 a? - s a East Flat -
?? Y?YHMerrvllle 3 Rock
Y'
' 3
• • a ose ? Flat Rock. ©
m?, Co Y f?: e, 2 SWU,
- • ftft. ?? '?tleRr r Tuxedo
•
.0-0 A, Ar
.:?: '.
t.

?+:
??r?
? ? v
IMPACTS SUMMARY FOR FLECHTER BYPASS
1
7
?E
;
I
l ALTERNATIVE II
I '); ALTERNATIVES
'
.
l
CATEGORY ALTERNATIVES V & W I (WIDEN US 254 X & Y
Length (mi) 7.2 - 7.6 8.1 9.6
Corridor/Right-of-?Wa,y Widths (feet) 400/200 400/90 400/200
SOCIAL IMPACTS
Estimated Relocations:
Residential (single family/ 6bile homes) 8/11 2/2 21/36
Businesses 1. 8 - 10 4
Farms -,yes yes yes
Division of Neighborhoods/Subdiv.ision no no yes
Proposed Developments 0 v• 0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Critical Watershed Area (acres) 0- 0 0
Hydrologic Crossings:
Normal (linear feet) (V/W) 5300/4030 4920
Trout Waters (linear feet) (V/W) 3330/2010 0, 0
Number of Crossings 1 0 1
Landfills 0 0 0
Groundwater Incidents' 0 0` 0
Undisturbed Habitat (Acres) 0 0 19
Wetlands (impacted acres) ?t --32 ,- 0 0
.(approximate from soil maps=hydrio)
NPDES Location (#) 0 0 3
HISTORIC/ARCEMOLOGICAL/CIJLTURAL IMPACTS
Cultural Resources: 0
Existing Schools 0 0 0
'
Parks 0 0 _ p
v
Churches 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0
Community Facilities 0 01 . 0
National Register Properties The Meadows 0 0`
Eligible for Register Pine Needle Farm- Calvary Church, 0
Cemetary, Parsonage
-no direct imnacts
Potential for Eligibility .5 4,16 18
Known Archaeological:Sites 0 0 4.4
COST

Construction and Right-of-Way Cost
$32 million }

zh
; i -0 -0 z m z z 0
,.3
M m. m. O y
m? N m p O
m O
m 3
?
>e.A m > z
m z >
z >
z
a
9 :*E , A a z a N
C
7- < m
p 3
s
c w tn' 3
_ RFD -
>;
?
"
CO
m
i 0
`
r

r??
CO 4-1
i r
m
-
D
?-

e
m
a
? ? ? Q ? ?
?._.
a m 'n`
m z p fA A m 9 v A o
?m
3

.. i 0
O • 0
A A
0
c
O
O
P
w __. O z• `9
S 9 m Z
<
A-
a A
Z r
_ir is m.. m.

z
0 r r

z
A
d
ro
y
z
y
0
y
Y
z
0
y
y
Q
z

-FT
f
?y? ,wSTA?o
?? V*an
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TliANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 3, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Fl9or
FROM: Charle's R. ..Cox, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: US 25, from Henderson County Line to''NC 280, Buncombe
County, Federal AidProject STP-35(1), State Project
8.1841902, TIP Project R-2213
US 25, from SR 1528E"to Buncombe County Line; Henderson
is"tnty;-'F Tra1^Ai Project M-5000(10), State Project'
8.1950801; TIP Project R-2214
A scoping meeting was held on Apri1;27, 1994 at 10 A.M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch conference room. Those in attendance were:
Eric Galamb. DEHNR-DEM
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Betsy Cox Structure Design
Don Wilson Location and Surveys
Nabil Hasan Traffic Control
Eileen Fuchs Geotechnical
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Dave Cochran Roadway Design
Tony Houser Roadway Design
Phil Williamson Photogrammetry
Danny Rogers Program Development
Kimberly Hinton Statewide Planning
Wilson Stroud Planning and Environmental
Kenney McDowell Planning and Environmental
Brian Burch Planning and Environmental
Charles Cox Planning and Environmental

i1'
E
...[. ..
..
S +l
'.
y"? -
• June 3, 1994
Page 2
The scoping meeting was held for both R-2213 and R-2214, since it was
originally anticipated that one document (an Environmental Assessment) could
be written for both projects. Because of the short time frame available for
preparing a planning document for R-2213 (right of way is scheduled to begin
in September, 1995), the projects will be separated. A Categorical Exclusion
will be written for R-2213, while an Environmental Assessment will be written
for R-2214. FHWA has indicated that if substantial environmental impacts
arise during R-2213 studies, an Environmental Assessment will have to be
prepared. R-2214,is divided into two sections: Section A begins at the
southern terminal and ends at SR 1345; Section B begins at SR 1345 and ends
at the Buncombe/Henderson County line. R-2214A is scheduled for right of way
and construction in fiscal.yea.rs 1998 and 2000, respectively; R-2214B is
scheduled for right of way and'Iconstruction in fiscal years 1996 and 1998,
respectively. The revised planning.,schedoles for R-2213 and R-2214 are as
follows: -
R-2213 R-2214
CE completion 2/95 NA.
EA completion NA 2/95
Public Hearing 4/95 4/95
FONSI completion NA 11/95
Because R-2213 and R-2214 will be independent of each other for
preliminary planning and environmental studies, FHWA has made the
recommendation to establish a logical.terminal point other than the county
line. --A significant amount of traffic on US 25 drops off at SR1361 in
Henderson County.. Therefore,,for the purpose of the environmental
documentation, it is recommended that R-2213 begin at SR 1361 rather than the
county line. R-2214 will terminate at SR 1361. This is subject to approval
by Program Development.
US 25 is currently two lanes; the two projects call for widening the
,roadway to multi-lanes. R-2213 will tie into a seven-lane curb/gutter
section at the north terminal (NC 280), and R-2214 willAie to a proposed
five-lane curb/gutter section at the south terminal (SR-1528 in Balfour).
Four bridges will be replaced' along the project due to old age and narrow
width (Bridge Numbers 169, 213, 2,16 and 220); the I-26/US 25 interchange
bridge has an adequate width and will require only rehabilitation.
The Statewide Planning Branch has been conducting a Pilot Corridor
Preservation Study for the Asheville area. R-2213 and R-2214 were among the'
TIP projects involved in the study. Four US 25 bypass corridors and widening
existing US 25 were evaluated in the Fletcher area; the widening of existing
US 25 is being recommended in the study. The Corps of Engineers, Division of
Environmental Management; and Fish and Wildlife Service have concurred with
the recommendations in'Statewide Planning's draft environmental analysis
report; SHPO is reviewing the draft analysis but has not yet concurred. A
hearing will be scheduled in June, 1994 to give the general public in the
Fletcher area the opportunity to comment on the entire study. In addition,
prior to the hearing,.an citizen's informational workshop will be held
specifically for the proposed US 25 improvements (R-2213'and R-2214). Based
upon the Asheville Pi'l`ot Study recommendation, widening existing US 25 will
June 3, 1994
Page 3
be the only alternative that the Planning and Environmental Branch will
study, unless major unforeseen environmental impacts arise during the
planning process.
Three typical sections were discussed: five-lane curb/gutter section,
five-lane undivided shoulder section, and four-lane divided shoulder section.
Since the majority of the two projects is heavily developed, the five-lane
curb/gutter alternative is recommended because it would minimize both
environmental impacts and right of way needs. East, west, and symmetrical
widening will be evaluated. The projects will be segmented to allow a
combination of symmetrical, east side, and west side widening in order to
minimize impacts.
The Traffic Control Unit commented on bridge replacement procedures. To
maintain traffic, bridge construction will need to be staged. No on-site
detours should be utilized due to the close proximity of development in the
area.
The Hydraulics Unit mentioned that two of the bridges (#220, #213) may
be replaced with culverts. The existing culverts along US 25 will be
retained and extended. The projects cross streams that are tributaries to
trout waters. There is a potential for being in a high quality water zone,
but neither project is near.a water supply intake.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) expressed concern with
runoff from the bridges and gutters. DEM noted that the bridges should not
be designed with weep holes in the bridge decks that would drain directly
into the streams. Permanent Type A sediment basins are recommended by DEM to
control the runoff; Hydraulics recommended that the Type A basins be used
during construction only..
The,teotechnical Unit identified 25 underground storage tank sites along
the projects; eight of these sites are active service stations. There is one
recorded groundwater contamination incident south of the I-26 interchange.
The Geotechnical Unit will evaluate each of the`US 25 sites. One junk yard.
across from SR 1417 and a cemetery are additional concerns.
According to SHPO, there are no National,Register properties in the
project area; however, two properties are on the study list (Calvary
Church/Rectory/cemetery and Merrimon-Russell House). In addition, another
significant site, Shufordsville Spring, may be in the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) and will warrant further study. No historic district exists An
the project area. A preliminary survey was completed for the Asheville
corridor preservation-study. The preliminary survey,only covers the Fletcher
area. SHPO recommends a detailed survey for both architecture and
archaeology.
The Bicycle/Pedestrian Unit noted in later conversation that the current
NCDOT TIP includes incidental bicycle projects along US 25 in Buncombe County
(identified as wide curb lanes). In addition, the local TIP for the
urbanized area of Asheville includes the need for wide,curb''lanes. Because
of the TIP commitment to pedestrian needs'in this area,'the 68-foot face to
face curb/gutter section should be studied as an alternative.
July 21, 1994
TO: Melba McGee,:-O,ffn?ice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart,?`/?*Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0991; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US-25 in Buncombe County,
TIP No. R-2213
The Water Quality Section of the Division. of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channel ized/ relocated: stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch.basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying'_and
delineating jurisdictional-wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as.-much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts.'by plant communities affected,
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
Melba McGee
July 21, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible?. Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2 On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In' kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation..
3. Mitigation should be. in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401, Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
0666er.mem
cc: Erie Galamb
July 21, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development

FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0990; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 25, from SR 1528 to SR 1361, TIP No. R-2214
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current..
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
. relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that:`sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
r
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss' wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
.6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) 'List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
Melba McGee '
July 21, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible?;.Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
Z. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
.restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.