19980491 Ver 1_Complete File_19980522

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
0 )VA
1 ? •
0?11
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 24, 1998
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) Widening from NC 251 to Cottage Street
WQC Project # 980491, COE #199830659, T.I.P. No. U-0401
Buncombe County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3223 issued to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation dated 24 February 1998.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
980491
Sin rely,
ston Howard, Jr.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Division of Water Duality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to culvert an unnamed
tributary to Beaverdam Creek resulting in 780 linear feet of perennial stream loss in Buncombe
County pursuant to an application filed on the 14th day of May of 1998 to construct
improvements to SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) (T.I.P. No. U-0401).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of Beaverdam Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future exceed one acre,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge
and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR Regional or Central
Offices) shall be utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water
quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams and rivers not designated as trout
waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in
trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. If an environmenmtal document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI
or ROD is issued by the State Clearinghouse;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
5. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or stream, compensatory mitigation
will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) compensatory mitigation is required for
stream impacts. 780 linear feet of stream mitigation is required. We understand that
DOT has elected to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program for these impacts,
and have been notified by WRP that they will accept responsibility for this work. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, a contribution to the WRP for 780 linear feet of
stream restoration will satisfy our compensatory mitigation requirements under.
Furthermore, DOT has agreed to 1:1 stream restoration by the WRP in order to comply
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements for the 404 Permit; therefore, the
contribution to the WRP will be for 780 feet of stream restoration. Until the Wetland
Restoration Program receives and clears your check (made payable to DENR Wetland
Restoration Program), wetland or stream fill shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be
contacted at 919-733-5083 ext. 358 if you have any questions concerning the Wetland
Restoration Program. You have two months from the date of this Certification to make
this payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes fill in 780 feet of
streams in the French Broad River and Subbasin and 780 feet of stream restoration are
required.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 Permit. This Certification
shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must,
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 24th day of February 1999
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ire on How d, Jr. P.E.
WQC # 3223
NORTH CAROLINA - DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0500, NCDOT, DWQ Project #980491, is authorized to
impact the surface waters of the State of North Carolina as indicated below for the purpose of
widening and realigning SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from NC 251 to Cottage Street (T.I.P.
No. U-0401). All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted in
accordance with the conditions listed in the attached certification transmittal letter. THIS
CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STREAM RESTORATION:
LOCATION: SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from NC 251 to Cottage Stree
COUNTY: Buncombe
BASIN/SUBBASIN: French Broad
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are
required to compensate for impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or
preservation of wetlands and surface waters as outlined below prior to conducting any activities
that impact or degrade waters of the state.
Note: Linear foot requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration
Program must be rounded to the nearest foot according to 15A 2R.0503(b).
780 linear feet of perennial stream channel, to be mitigated as follows:
780 feet of stream restoration to be implemented by the WRP. This represents 1:1
restoration to meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements for the 780 feet of
impacts to be mitigated by the WRP.
DOT has opted to satisfy the compensatory stream mitigation requirements through payment,
of a fee to the Wetland Restoration Fund per 15A NCAC 2R.0503. Please sign this form and
mail it to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the
appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE,
THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION-
THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NC, 27626-0535
[phone]
J M SNIt ??
I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 22, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Buncombe County, SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road), from NC 251 to
Cottage Street; Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1); State Project
No. 8.2017601; TIP No. U-401; USACE Action ID 199830659;
DWQ # 980491.
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodtin from NC 251 to Cottage
Street. These improvements consist of widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section to
a 32-foot curb and gutter section. Several curves will also be realigned. The preferred
alternative involves widening SR 1684 along the west side of the existing facility and
impacting an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek.
Response to Comments on the Public Notice
In a letter dated April 3, 1998, the NCDOT requested that the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) authorize the proposed work under a Section 404 Individual
Permit. The USACE issued a public notice for the project on May 14, 1998. Two topics
prevailing in responses from the resource agencies involved the possibility of stormwater
retention and stream mitigation.

Stormwater Retention
In response to the public notice, Mr. Mark Davis of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) commented in a letter dated May 27, 1998 that the WRC would not
object to issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit provided that four conditions
were followed. The third condition stated that "stormwater should be directed to buffer
areas or retention basins and should not be routed directly into the streams." The
NCDOT has reviewed this comment from the WRC.
The preferred alternative involves piping the unnamed tributary of Beaverdam
Creek through a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Stormwater from the curb and
gutter section will be directed to this 42" RCP and into an existing stream channel.
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit believes that directing stormwater from the
roadway into buffer areas or retention basins is not practicable. Factors influencing this
determination include the considerable amount of development along SR 1684 and the
steep terrain. To implement this request, the NCDOT would be required to purchase
additional right of way that would adversely affect the properties along the roadway .
The Hydraulics Unit also investigated the opportunity of installing a retention
basin between the outflow of the 42" RCP and the culvert under the railroad and existing
Lower Beaverdam Creek Road. It was determined that a retention basin at this location
would be impracticable due to the steep terrain. This basin would provide little, if any,
retention before the water would overtop Lower Beaverdam Creek Road.
Stream Mitigation
The USACE has requested that the NCDOT provide stream mitigation, for stream
impacts associated with the proposed improvements to'SR 1684. The mitigation for the
project totals 780 feet at a 1:1 ratio. The NCDOT has considered several mitigation
options for this project.
Originally, the NCDOT proposed payment to mitigate for stream impacts by
paying into the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). The USACE did not consider this
option practicable due to the lack of a Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C.
Division of Water Quality or the USACE. The USACE did not consider the stream
impact to be "small" enough for the payment to the WRP.
The NCDOT had intentions of conducting stream mitigation downstream of its
existing stream mitigation site on Reed Creek in Asheville, possibly on land owned by
the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA). This concept has not been fully
developed to the extent needed for this project. The NCDOT will continue its
conversations with UNCA to implement stream mitigation on the campus.
3
The USACE suggested that the NCDOT consider adding to the existing
agreement between the WRC and the NCDOT for stream mitigation associated with TIP
No. A-10. The NCDOT believes that this option is the most viable at Lice present time.
However, the NCODT does not wish to modify the existing agreement with the WRC but
instead to contribute $ 82,100.00 toward the stream mitigation effort by the WRC in the
French Broad River Basin, Madison County. This contribution for stream mitigation
would be for TIP No. U-401 (requiring 780 feet of mitigation) and TIP No. I-100
(requiring 862 feet of stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio, USACE Action ID 199604215).
The NCDOT contacted Mr. Micky Clemmons of the WRC. Mr. Clemmons believes that
an additional 1642 feet of stream mitigation can be found in Madison County.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE. Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northside
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Ms. Kathy Matthews. EPA, Atlanta
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Tom Shearin. P. F.. Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
n ^' SUlF °
r^r A 4n
?? 01MM'b'?•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 22, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Buncombe County, SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road), from NC 251 to
Cottage Street; Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1); State Project
No. 8.2017601; TIP No. U-401: USACF. Action ID 199830659;
DWQ # 980491.
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage
Street. These improvements consist of widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section to
a 32-foot curb and gutter section. Several curves will also be realigned. The preferred
alternative involves widening SR 1684 along the west side of the existing facility and
impacting an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek.
Response to Comments on the Public Notice
In a letter dated April 3, 1998, the NCDOT requested that the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) authorize the proposed work under a Section 404 Individual
Permit. The USACE issued a public notice for the project on May 14, 1998. Two topics
prevailing in responses from the resource agencies involved the possibility of stormwater
retention and stream mitigation.
Stormwater Retention
In response to the public notice, Mr. Mark Davis of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) commented in a letter dated May 27, 1998 that the WRC would not
object to issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit provided that four conditions
were followed. The third condition stated that "stormwater should be directed to buffer
areas or retention basins and should not be routed directly into the streams." The
NCDOT has reviewed this comment from the WRC.
The preferred alternative involves piping the unnamed tributary of Beaverdam
Creek through a 42" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Stormwater from the curb and
gutter section will be directed to this 42" RCP and into an existing stream channel.
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit believes that directing stormwater from the
roadway into buffer areas or retention basins is not practicable. Factors influencing this
determination include the considerable amount of development along SR 1684 and the
steep terrain. To implement this request, the NCDOT would be required to purchase
additional right of way that would adversely affect the properties along the roadway.
The Hydraulics Unit also investigated the opportunity of installing a retention
basin between the outflow of the 42" RCP and the culvert under the railroad and existing
Lower Beaverdam Creek Road. It was determined that a retention basin at this location
would be impracticable due to the steep terrain. This basin would provide little, it' an} .
retention before the water would overtop Lower Beaverdam Creek Road.
Stream Mitigation
The USACE has requested that the NCDOT provide stream mitigation, for stream
impacts associated with the proposed improvements to SR 1684. The mitigation for the
project totals 780 feet at a 1:1 ratio. The NCDOT has considered several mitigation
options for this project. '
Originally, the NCDOT proposed payment to mitigate for stream impacts by
paying into the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). The USACE did not consider this
option practicable due to the lack of a Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C.
Division of Water Quality or the USACE. The USACE did not consider the stream
impact to be "small" enough for the payment to the WRP.
The NCDOT had intentions of conducting stream mitigation downstream of its
existing stream mitigation site on Reed Creek in Asheville, possibly on land owned by
the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA). This concept has not been fully
developed to the extent needed for this project. The NCDOT will continue its
conversations with UNCA to implement stream mitigation on the campus.
The USACE suggested that the NCDOT consider adding to the existing
agreement between the WRC and the NCDOT for stream mitigation associated with TIP
No. A-10. The NCDOT believes that this option is the most viable at the present time.
However, the NCODT does not wish to modify the existing agreement with the WRC but
instead to contribute $ 82,100.00 toward the stream mitigation effort by the WRC in the
French Broad River Basin, Madison County. This contribution for stream mitigation
would be for TIP No. U-401 (requiring 780 feet of mitigation) and TIP No. I-100
(requiring 862 feet of stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio, USACE Action ID 199604215).
The NCDOT contacted Mr. Micky Clemmons of the WRC. Mr. Clemmons believes that
an additional 1642 feet of stream mitigation can be found in Madison County.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
W. D. Gilmore, P. E.. Man4er
Planning and Filvironmental Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ. Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northsidc
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E.. Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins. P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Cyndi_B
From: Phillip Todd [PToddOmail.dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 5:34 AM
To: cyndi_bell0h2o.enr.state. nc.us
Subject: U-401
Cyndi:
Heard yesterday's meeting went until about 4 and then you had to go to Hydro. You are the
meeting womanl
This is a reminder about the project and the discussion yesterday at the permit review meeting.
You mentioned that would talk with John Dorney about the stream mitigation issue, ie doing work
in Madison County as part of A-10 stuff. Please let me know what he says and I will coordinate
information accordingly. Thanks and have a good weekend.
I`•U :11f11 i"I''l- P?Ahd?:li 1 .' i 1 i 1 i;i r I ''. 1; l 11:, 0 1-
1^(
~ is
;i l'A 11: Ill. Nr ll? 111 l \ROH M A
DPPART.M1;NT O1- •i•p A j'4S1lO1i•1 A 1O.N
.1AMr•S 13. HUNT .}]t. I'.? . I11'I.? ?; 111. P;?I I 1 I I, I.C V;61 I-5 111 1.. Nl7Ri2tS Tf)1_,SON
?I:I;ItI?'l:•11tY
('wOVtRNQR
?;,•I,l,-III I `:', I''I')tt
U.S. Arnly C:olps or]?u{tlncc•n,
ROC,nlatoTl, Field OJ1.1 ,.
I`.O. 11ox 1800
VVilrrlill{?tc>n, NC 2H4(1 ? 1900
A Itentic)tl' Mr. Stow 1,1111d
NCDO'1'1'1*oicct ('00"d in;ll,),
stll)1CCt: Buncombe (AmIlly, ;; I? lhK l (l,kk. I?'ll?llnl;lill R.(l:)111, 1ro1.n N(:' '251 to
?: `il.ltt; aject
Cottage Street: Fedl• ni Aid I'I„ircl No. M-') 1 11190
No.R"NI'160l; I11'No.Il•1111:IINA.(;I;Action 11) 1999306.19;
DWQ 110804911.
I kar Sir:
As you Iare aWil'c. 1111. 1'Jol n. I „Iil,;, { i• I,:II III,I:,tl c,r'L'rliuc;pl,rlntio,l (NC17O7'?
proposes to iIII.prOVC SR 16840-.4, NllllIlll,)irl I',,;ICI'1 in W„11i1flll frc)n1 NC 2:51 to Cott1gP
5tret`,t. These impruvcn)c."nl:, I I,MO:a Of kVi1l,•I,In{1 lh< ,,,; lslijjp 1 N.-I'Oot .boulder section ill
, , • •...
it 32-foot curb at(d Pt)ttcr . ccti,m. `'I..:,+rll cm «'il ) nl.-I b o rcalil,iior1. The 1preferred
alternative illVolvo-! bid llllltw t;IZ 1 (,8,1 .Il„t,{•', 111'' "r°" L .tiillr f,f llltl cxistlllg facility alld
inil)acting nu unnnme.d (•ihnlmr)' ,.,I It, 1," Inl,l l 'n r (•
it1--4I?III?vP 11, 1 '1u1?11?P111'. Oft 111111' PlIblic IN tot ice
In a letter dniccl April 3. ''>!11i, 1h1 f 1('11 tl ?1 rl'clnl r;trcl 111;1t t1w t r. `, /?11)ry Corps
ol'Frlltincers (ITSACT, nuthot-ir.c Ow, 111.oro-;l d 'vl,l l: nnllcl- it S'ec:lioll 404 Individual
pe1•rnit. The USAC:'}; i>: ,11111 ri I)IIII i1• Il,lli(T.. (,)I (11,• Innil"] Oli N'lay l'1. 19' 8, Two topics
Ill"C:V1hI1ng in responses 1ri)nl the tl'.';It?ll"CC <Il?ltnl ilInvf/lv,`II IIIC I)f?`I!ilI)IIJiV of St01'nltVltla"
1,01'.I)IJOT1 E111d SI1'COIII Mili1!ati111J.
ld?;l1U1:1'`l- FIRRACH I,I.:,II I ,I ,'.;1 .III I,, K, I(-I: r) I-%(7
Stormwaler Rc t io 1
In response to the public, "chic(-. Mr. Mark I );Ix,is of Ilse N. ('. Wildlife, R.esollrces
(.;ollimission (WKC.) coullllcntc(I in a Ic11rr 1hilrcl May :'7, 1998 that the WKC Would. not
Object to issuance of the Section 4014 Individual 1'crmit pioviclccl tlult four conditions
were followed. The third condilion sullOd 0111 ' '4111IllWJ1cr slcndd be directed to buffer
tlreas or roluntion basin` and should nol he ronwcl clilrcil_y into the streams.- The
NC;DU1' has rCVir,We:d this C1.11.11111'e'III frc nl Ills' \1%lit.;.
The prcfcrrcd altcritativc kivolvc.:; pipi111.; flit cm amcd tributary of I3cavcrdam
Creek through a 42" reinforced concrc is Inl,c: MCI'). !;lornlwal.cr from dic curb and
gult.er auction «611 be dircc:.ted rc, Illi!: 11_x- Nt'1` ;111.1 inlcc :u1 c:ci ;fin( stl'C'llfl Chillllle.l.
Ttlf., NCDOT Tlvclr.-mlic•q 1 Inir hrlic?, r, 11x11 dir1111604,. X1111 nwuntor ('rom rhr`
ro1(1way into bnl` er al,01c: ut' W11,111ioll h:1•:ifr 1': 1101 11 r;h`IIr;11'clc`. I';1CIr11'': 111111c'11cin'(F Illl!,
ele..terminmloll intan(10 the c.onsidernllle anu,nnl of 11eveh)[ rm'ill nlorl?y SR'. 1694 and the
SIC.C11 terrain. To 1t11T11Cf11Cl1t thi1 ; 1-rclflc's1 . 1111'. N( A 4) 1 tv1111111 ho re quircd to pllrCh.asc
nlldiliontll right of way that wmilcf 1(Ivc I :cly 1f loc t Ow I)ropoi lic:, alo ly Ole roadwvav.
"l']te Hydratillcs 1111il ako Invi-.11 ,ltncl Ilia olll, )ihi 11Y of installing a t•etelltlon
hasin between they mitflow of Ih1 l' 10.1' mid ill., (•.r11vc•rt under the railromi and existim.:
kowet BeaverdatIt Creek Road. 11 mr dc'le'1111i11od thtll' a 1.0vrrtlon llntiin at this location
would he imlll;acticabiv ulna IT) OW :;ter a, winlill. 1110 ho1,ln would providC little, it ally,
Mention befov, tile, water world over1.1111 I .owor licravri-dale Clerk Kmd,
tifrcam Mitigation
The U S A G E 11.1. wgll,-!}trd(11,o 11c, t il'I?t) I' I>rovi?,l? :clrc.nxe x11011>,nlion, 1:01 straatn
.
impacts oisociated wills 111c Ilropoac!cl in nIlro-1.1lc+nt?; lrc `,,13. 108'1. The mititrntion for the
projcot t'ot'als 7RO feet: at a 1 :1 r•;1tio?. 'I'll(, T It'L'u,) 11:, a(,nsiltrrc:(1 !"?vernl mitigation
otltionc for this project.
ilriginally, the NI'I)l) l Ilropw:t`d I111'n mi( (c, milip;dr Ior !,lro:lnl impacts by
Tlaving, into file Wet:larui Resloralioll hors-111'1 ( WT 11) I Im I SACI'', (lief not consider this
option 1iracticable due to the lack elf 11 N/Ic•owl,uldnnl of C Jndorsl,andinw, hohvvert tile, N-C,
Divir,ioll of Water Qualily 111' the 11,;A1'I' I Ill- I I,''Ai T. clid llot (."ollsi(ler the stream
irrtllnet tO be "Small" enOnp,l1 far Ibc' I,;Ivnlcilt Ic 1 Ihc` 1`?%R I'
'the NCDOThad intelltiolls 1.l "urlclurlilrp,, strc•1nn miligatiolt deo,wl.zstreanl of its
existillg stream mitigation city im 1? (!,(-(1 0-r M, io A'Aoville`., pwis-Jbly on land mvned by
tlw University of Nulls ('aroltna ;Il ;\slitivi Ilo (I !r.l( 'A ). I'll i ?, concept has not been fri lly
devalollcel to the ertcnt nec:(tecl for 1111!: Ill olc•c 1. I Ill* Nf I M I I will Co11t(rllle Its
conVerSlltiOTiC with l NC A 10 irn1111cru1 1.l `m vrrlll 11016,:11ioll oll, The canll,ur,.
lql? 111 111 ', FT F D RANCH I 1 i i : I F. Col
The USACh suggeslc(I that thr f1('1)1 ?1 c rue;iclr r m1dillp lo 1110 C-Xist-ing
agrecnllcrit between the WIZ(' and the HCI)()I• Ior Aronin n,itign1ion associntcd xvit.h TIT'
No. A-10. The NCT)t>'.t believes tltal this opti n is the mt?wt vinhic nt the present time.
However, the NCt F)T does not tvtsh to modih, Ow r'xisllll ?, :If>.rcc??ncnt will.). tile W.W." but
insmid to contribute ,$ 8'., IWA-HI townnI Ow :Iwmn it ulir lfion ellin-l. by (Ile, WR.C' ill tile
Fremb Broad River lfit.ain, N/fadison t" rnnrly I hie c•nntnl idiot) tin'stromil mitigation
wi-mid bo fur TIP No. ()-101 (rcquilinp, /?ill fi-r I of ntitil?:lticutl told 111' No. 1••101)
(requiring 862 fcatvf3trcan, n)ilipnliml ;r(n 1:I 1ill it . I)NA('I- /\(:tioll fl.) 199604215).
The NCDOT contnctcd Mr. 1t Cicl;y (_'Ir•111111 ,„ "; c'( (ho \b'Itr'.. N11. ('.1Gnnnolls believes that
:.nt;tclditional 16.1 ? firirt r,(';;Ur nm miril.:rlirnr C1111 1 611111-1 in Nts)cli?itt C'ourtl.y.
Thank, You for 3.c111, n??i?t:nll:c villy thi- pi'lJ cl. 11 `•rtct rlovd any n<kliiiot,nt
infrn'rrwtion, plerme enlihol N'll.. Phillip I i,'Id :,1 (1)4i1) / 11- 7!1,11, F'-dent.ion .114.
`;irrr rr Iv

\,V. D. (iilmcrrc , I'.1:.. Manng(w
ITi nling :md I'm-irourlic tilal 1lrnnch.
WEXT/pO
UC: Mr. D) tvitl anklin, [)SACF, \\11minrimi
Mr. Ta11rt I)ornC" 1)1>'v'O 1?;11c iF.ll
Mr. David Cnx. WRZ,C'. Notilvirlr.
Mr. Mark Pnviq. WRC. 1\'n1,,, r, ills
Ms. Kathy Mnttlir?? I.l'.\. ,/\tInn(n
Mr. Mark Cantrell, f INFV/S. Air wvill,•
Mr. Tom Shmm•in. 1' 1' • Vr,:,rl,,,11• il•r,
klr. Whit Wchh. 1). 1+,.. I'rr,I,r;rnl I ?1 ?rlr,trin? nI
` r, it r
Mr. Len. Hill. 11. F.. Ilir'ltw,n 1h.,61,11
TOr. A. L. Hankins, I'. L:.. I Ivdr:rrtlic",
Mr. William Ropers, 1'. k- ,14'imcww , Vli-ci;rn
Mr. W. D. Sm"11-I, 11. I.... 1)ivkilm I 1 1, nlw nr Cl
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
W 4 0 •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 29, 1998
Re: Proposed SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) Improvements from NC 251 to Cottage Street
WQC Project # 980491, COE #199830659, T.I.P. No. U-0401
Buncombe County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 404 Permit for the
proposed SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) Improvements from NC 251 to Cottage Street in
Buncombe County. Your application was not complete since it did not include a
mitigation plan for 780 linear feet of perennial stream impacts. We understand that you
are in the process of developing a stream mitigation plan satisfactory to the Corps of
Engineers, in lieu of the Wetland Restoration Program. Please provide information
regarding the location and plans for this work. This information is needed by DWQ in
order for us to issue the 401 Water Quality Certification.
I can be reached at 733-1786 if you have any questions. Until this information is
received, I will request (by copy of this letter) that the Corps of Engineers place this
project on hold. Also, the project will be placed on hold for our processing due to
incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(4)).
Si cerely,
Jo n R. Dorney
W ter Quality Certi i
on Program
J
cc: Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Wilmington District of Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office Corps of Engineers
John Dorney
Central Files
980491.hld
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 98031,9
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOPUATION
JAMES B. 11l1N I )R. P.O. WX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27011-5201 L. NORIi1S ToLSON
60 M NOR SFCREIARY
April 3 1998
i ? 1c?g
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers n
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Buncombe County. SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road), from NC 251 to
Cottage Street; Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1); State Project
No. 8.2017601; TIP No. U-401; COE Action ID 199702226.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage Street. The project is
scheduled to be let to construction in November 1998.
The Federal Highway Administration signed a Reevaluation of the Project
Planning Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project on August 19, 1997.
The project was previously studied in 1977 as a Project Planning Report and EA.
The NCDOT proposes to improve a 0.9 mile stretch of SR 1684. These
improvements consist of widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section to a 32-foot curb
and gutter section. Several curves will also be realigned. The preferred alternative
involves widening SR 1684 along the west side of the existing facility and impacting an
unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. The stream would be included in the storm
drain system of the widened roadway.
The NCDOT met in the field with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) on Tuesday, March 17, 1998 to review the project. During the
site visit, a jurisdictional call was made for the stream located in the project study area, an
unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek.
9
1)
The proposed roadway improvements necessitate impacts to surface waters. The
unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek will be piped a total distance of 1075 linear feet.
Of this amount, the impact to the perennial stream is 780 feet. Surface water impact for
this impact totals 0.03 acre. This unnamed tributary flows along the west side of
SR 1684.
The NCDOT has investigated opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to this
unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. A summary of this alternative investigation has
been attached to this letter.
The NCDOT understands that project impacts to the unnamed tributary of
Beaverdam Creek will necessitate mitigation. The NCDOT proposes to pay a fee into the
Wetland Restoration Program for project impacts. If the WRP is not appropriate
mitigation, the NCDOT proposes that the Section 404 Individual permit be conditioned
such that a stream mitigation plan will be completed prior to the completion of project
construction.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 Individual
Permit to widen SR 1684 in Woodfin, Buncombe County. Impacts to waters of the
United States are 0.03 acre of surface waters, including 780 feet of a perennial stream.
The NCDOT has sent a copy of this permit application to the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) and asks that the WRC give comments to the COE. Application for
401 Water Quality Certification is also requested from the DWQ.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
7lt'1.?
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P. E.
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northside
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.F,., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
OF THE ARMY PERMIT Expires October 1996
(33 CFR 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or
affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary.
If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must
be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
P O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND
TITLE Ian agent is not required)
Mr. David C. Robinson, P.E., Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manger
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE Nos. W/ AREA
CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE Isee instructions)
TIP No. U-401; Widening of SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from NC 251 to Cottage Street in Woodfin
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
(if applicable)
Unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe County North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See vicinity map associated with permit drawings
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
widen the existing roadway to a 32 foot curb and gutter facility
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project. see instructions)
Public Roadway; increase design speed; remove potential for accidents to occur and provide traffic flow improvements
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
pipe construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Roadway Fill
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Surface Water Impact: 0.03 acre
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes - No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED
WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be
entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
See listing of property owners associated with permit drawings
25 List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work
Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED/ DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I
certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
.L)L?u.. ??- 44 ? I 5 Y
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)
or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a
material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Alternative Comparison for widening/ realigning
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin
TIP No. U-401
Buncombe County
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has investigated several alternatives in
order to improve SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin. Roadway improvements
include widening and realigning the roadway to increase the design speed, reduce the
potential for accidents, and provide some traffic flow improvements. The resource
agencies have a concern about the DOT's current proposal to accommodate widening/
realigning SR 1684 by enclosing 1070 feet of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek
in a pipe. Of the 1070 feet of stream to be piped, 780 feet has been jurisidictionally
determined to be a perennial stream. The discussions for Alternatives 1 A, 2A, 2B and 2D
can be found in the Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and Environmental
Assessment, signed on August 19, 1997 by the Federal Highway Administration.
The DOT has investigated 7 alternatives to accommodate the proposed upgrading
and widening of SR 1684. Based on this investigation, it has been determined that each
alternative would require a new pipe crossing of the unnamed tributary to Beaverdam
Creek. This impact for any alternative would be greater than 200 feet; therefore, project
construction will necessitate a Section 404 Individual Permit from the Corps of
Engineers.
A brief discussion of each alternative is presented. Following the summarized
alternative discussions, a table can be found providing a comparison between Alternatives
1 B, 1 C and 2D. This table includes project costs (right of way, construction, stream
mitigation), number of relocatees, and information regarding stream impacts. Of the
seven investigated alternatives, the DOT considers these alternatives to be most
practicable and has generated greater data for these three alternatives.
Alternative IA: Widen along the east portion of SR 1684
This alternative would widen SR 1684 to the east and thereby avoiding stream
relocation. A portion of the stream would still be piped in order to intersect with NC 251.
This pipe length would be greater than two hundred feet.
This eastward shift would require the relocation of three residences, encroach
upon the Elk Mountain Community Cemetery and require a substantial amount of new
right of way. This alternative would create a less desirable alignment by adding a reverse
curve near Fourth Street and sharpening the curvature near the NC 251 intersection.
l
The resource agencies inquired about the DOT utilizing the existing pipe crossing
of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road and/or the existing sections of Lower Beaverdam Creek
Road and SR 1684. The new facility would be wider and cause the Following
consequences: I ) a greater impact upon the unnamed tributary to accommodate the wider
facility, 2) the relocation of the railroad which parallels Lower Beaverdam Creek Road;
and 3) the project would necessitate constructing the facility on new location across the
cemetery property before connecting the new location section of SR 1684 to the existing
facility, south of 4th Street. The DOT considers this alternative of using the existing pipe
crossing of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road to be impracticable.
Alternative 1B: Widen SR 1684 along the east side without a retaining wall
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along its east side. The existing pavement
would be retained and used. This alternative would involve acquiring a sizable amount of
the cemetery, as well as portions of other parcels. One residential relocation would be
required to construct this alternative.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. The new pipe will
impact 290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the
stream relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total
amount of relocation would be 320 feet. These stream relocations would be straight,
open channels. These relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain
constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A five foot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. This buffer would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, the additional right of way cost would amount
to $ 214,000. The additional construction cost would total $ 19,200. Costs associated
with stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio (310 feet x $125 per foot, based on the Wetland
Restoration Program) would be $ 38,750. Total additional project cost is $ 271,950.
Based on these figures, the DOT does not consider this alternative to be the most
practicable considering the other alternatives.
Alternative 1C: Widen SR 1684 along east side with retaining wall
This alternative involves widening the secondary road on the east side, following
the same alignment as Alternative B. To construct this alternative, the DOT would
acquire right of way from the cemetery and other parcels. This alternative would not

involve any residential relocations. Right of way acquisition would be minimized by
constructing a retaining wall along the cast side of the roadway.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. The new pipe will
impact 290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the
stream relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total
amount of relocation would be 320 feet. These stream relocations would be straight,
open channels. These relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain
constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A Five foot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. This buffer would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, additional right of way cost would be $
135,000. The additional construction cost for the retaining wall would total $ 146,000.
Costs associated with stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio (310 feet x $125 per foot, based on
the Wetland Restoration Program) would amount to $ 38,750. Total additional project
cost is $ 319,750. Based on a comparison with other alternatives, the DOT does not
consider this alternative to be the most practicable.
Alternative 2A: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a retaining wall
This alternative involves west side widening of SR 1684 and would minimize
stream impacts and pipe enclosure by the construction of a retaining wall. A 775-foot
retaining wall would allow most of the stream to remain intact. The retaining wall would
cost $ 252,000. Additional right of way would not be required in this alternative.
In this alternative, the DOT also investigated the possibility of rechanneling 180
feet of the stream in an open channel prior to pipe enclosure under the roadway for the
NC 251 intersection. This open channel would be straight because the terrain would not
allow sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing
channel. The open channel would require excavation work involving substantial
construction costs, as well as a considerable quantity of waste material. This relocated
open channel would lie at the toe of the highway fill slope and require rip rap on the
highway side of the channel for stabilization. As mentioned, this alternative would also
include piping the stream under the realigned roadway. The DOT believes this
alternative is also not practicable.
4
Alternative 213: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a relocated stream
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along the west side and would minimize
pipe enclosure by relocating the stream in an open channel. An extensive amount of
excavation through steep terrain would be required to relocate an open channel and to
establish side slopes. This excavation work would generate high construction costs, as
well as a large quantity of waste material. Additional right of way would not be acquired
in this alternative.
The open stream channel would be straight because the terrain would not allow
sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing
channel. This relocated open channel would lie at the toe of the highway till slope and
require rip rap on the highway side of the channel for stabilization. This alternative
would still necessitate that a portion of the stream be piped under the realigned roadway.
The DOT believes this alternative is also not practicable.
Alternative 2C: Widen SR 1684 along the west side and relocate an open
channel stream on the east side of roadway
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along the west side of the roadway and
would minimize pipe enclosure by relocating the unnamed tributary on the eastern side of
the roadway. The resource agencies suggested this alternative during a review of permit
drawings and plan sheets on November 6. 1997. The agencies desire that the stream have
an open channel. This alternative would initially require piping the stream under SR
1684 to the east and place the stream in an open channel. The stream would flow along
the eastern side before being piped back under SR 1684, prior to the stream's confluence
with Beaverdam Creek.
The DOT Hydraulics Unit reviewed the agencies' recommendation. This
alternative would require a substantial amount of additional right of way to excavate an
open channel. The terrain is steep on the east side of the roadway. An excavated stream
channel would cause encroachment into the cemetery and large portions of residential
property. Excavation for the open straight stream channel would induce greater
construction costs and a large amount of waste material. The channel would lack
meanders, and rip rap would likely need to be placed on the highway side of the channel
for stabilization. Based on this information, the DOT does not also consider this
alternative to be practicable.
Alternative 2D: Widen SR 1684 along the west side and include the stream in
the project's storm drain system
SR 1684 would be widened along its west side, and 1070 feet of stream would be
enclosed in a pipe. As mentioned earlier, 780 feet of the piping is a perennial stream.
The DOT recognizes that this alternative would require stream mitigation which would
cost $ 97,500 at a 1:1 ratio based on stream mitigation Figures from the Wetland

Restoration Program. In the DOT's opinion, this alternative is the most practicable and is
recommended for roadway widening and improvements to SR 1684.
Table 1. Comparison Summary of Alternatives 113, 1C, and 2D
Alternative Alternative Alternative
I B 2D
Additional Costs
Right of Way
Construction
Stream Mitigation
Total Additional Costs
Relocatees
Residential
Stream Impacts
Stream Loss from Relocation
Stream Loss from Piping
Perennial Stream enclosed in a pipe
Total Stream Loss from Project
$ 214,000 $ 135,000 $ 0
$ 19,200 $ 146,000 $ 0
38,750 $38,750 97J00
$ 271,950 $ 319,750 $ 97,500
1 0 0
20 feet 20 feet n/a
290 feet 290 feet 1075 feet
290 feet 290 feet 780 feet
310 feet 310 feet 1075 feet
• V v e r I 1 (d - Whrteroek•?"' J Held e3II , 1171 , pier-, . Is _ Is on a3`.
11 5 Nf 1I' Creek %/ IA
ll 32 is 1 t ;. _ I
Faustf Sw,ss nlle t ` \? Y.I.1 6Fa isle
o a
f l oenle
It a d°%? 19? Y Y 19E t ?twJc ,n? ["'1?Ij asx
,i MADISON t aE' 7 Arhlord«M
Cosby Walnut
tman 1 • Hill y If 1
• ter *LRO MIUO V 11 r 1 , Marl R c. '\ iaole R
W l t? loe 1 1 Li'
h( Creek ;k Iftl wrtterl
321 7• t +uarsts?ur t lu a 41 4 .•/ v I \ NP j
unt"S Wolter darnl I f w°°d n
Slarhn 1 `d... s \ta?• _ It
aRy
•r ML?kr CD EL G
`?,w c„aw ?' • `" 7 I1 ,1st r~ I/141q St«kavilla D lick
a21 ..:.. t1 t2 eD
de6n
e Alfas 41, Waaverville Tonoir ` 5 ` Blip
TE unto vt / r a e . Ilessant Garden ',wt JD /
wr ^a.•.. ` . B U 5 ` N - ar oils
Ir d i.s. BIF l0 ?s ® m
NAT PA fta Wood tin rrea
L,aw• el . VI tt• MOUOtaln ; Y t 6
cw so.ev 9
Cove reek
Crahtraa ? E Swannano .I 1
t 411 As evil,, I teen
Lemont ' rreROREEF A s I R *? lenwood
?• Q Rid(ecres G .
®I; r . , Sugar Hdl
2J ?ake 1 19 1 ® ? \ 4 Dysartsvdl /
Dellw a J4 27 d L 221
UUUU 19 r d 1 E. t• 10 74A 9 i
%' aaop NOAR1 •<• a((la .,, HI t 25A Fa wevr v• '? (
•n CherOa?e allay 3 rl I 1/ 5 thermal Clty '7x o1
5 ..•e , r . Wrow It• z' s kyland GUton o ( Union
Whl rte- t.a [••e t Y Snrn(oate v Arden 5 /TLy 1 5 Mills
R / HaEa d "« nq•r, Crf ` 1 t / ' n 1
m 4 unook IS , rNt. \ _ 1 25 Bat Cave• hlmney Rock/R Ul T H E R F R D
7r1® 7 filets r •o +? ruso o Fletc Of ;LaMt l ure 64 Gdkk
Y \r weu-
mmiter
Sylva ? "a SYODWat 276 FCh--v aw
4 lake lure 5 *A,rs olan
d Mills: Ivor Htxne ?'
'
IOillse • 1 21 ` ? 1 dneywlle ' - °o•? 't 74A Washburn
-r Green Webster IF t NAT w•pr,Rd fl 9 ? I Forest
creek t 11 c. u. I / c•• S O N/ 1 .Ruthertordto r
t Cuno.nee Fa°« ,,°r . or
t , P L -}( ` 1 omna
II, Gav Ip ast laoort de]? ?,,. is ?e A•wnt•. R 4 low&' • 71 (East Flat Lmrd Adow II •
s MrI1?11 J A C?1 S •r O t iri FOR ??endersonvtl le Rock ,Mill Spring
Tucit sfae ' t w e ose at Rock ®5 5 2 74 ? Alexander
e w ` _ ••'? J 2s1 I a Lrcoms r' I'?`?J ®r ®/ ® Carolee
_ /! _ ?K _., Hn4n•, Ee,w.il Err.., t ,e.... . , rwyR ??? 21 r I
I
BEGIN PROJECT
I 2 / J
,n yr
r fi' ??Q A 25
s 7
251 I ai ?-
J 1
WOODFIN s4 1684
of
POP. 2,916 EIK +n. Rd.
7 ° ? I
0 \
o
END PROJECT-, / m w t
IJ SR 1002 I
Cra
1?y
___ ?? I.II ?. T <?e fir.;
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2017601 (U-0401)
SR1684 (ELK MTN. RD.)
FROM NC 251 TO COTAGE ST.
SHEET -L OF
'ice I
f

On

z
Q
CL y z
z W O
H O m
O O
H ? z
o ?
U
z
R
O
0
F
U
W
0
a

F-
?o
? U
H E'
? U
W z
r -
'al
0
N
H
ca
s
W W Z
zow
o I I I
Z
waa
aow
G lL
a?
,yam / ?V Q \?5
Irb =o
Q.
e o 1 r ;r
I J
2 I I ?? '' 'b
Lij
w ?C\/l
i
i
e?
ss+?i
I I ?a w I w
o i
I 0
Ir © ,n I j I© ? _
w II T \
I 'Z (10
I `
?, ? p I I? W a
z I I 0 F=
\w © I I',?N ?, v
Lo ` O
?\C3 I; ii-:- IA?
-4 C3
I ,..I I Q u
00+51 b 133HS 01 HDiVV4
J
J
Y
a<
D
U)
m
w
V)
Z
cr

z

a
cn y
:7 z
? ? ,. r

O p U U ?

:Z) z Uz O
a 1?1 o ?

U W W
? ? L7
z

3N1l HDiVW
LL.
Of
°Q
? L
Z
UZ
C?
op
OZ
s?
I
n
F
m
U
d
z
J
..1
V)
L•1
F
O
z
(1l

eAA
z
r
00.402
9 I, ? R
Ol NO
, lbpy
LL
J Q I/ F o m C4
i I I r Gp ,4 ..?
i O IL ev
LL 8?'6[ .S.J O O OU V ? r
O
0- Z
Li-
C
W co
? II zo? I G >
S co
r O
O W fir` ~ I ,-s5 rJ „^'y Li
U / I 5 ? ? I ? L
s sr I $' ? 4 I 1 Z
d ?' ? ? c bl "? i I
W
V I S6'OZ*6L'CS -l -
c?
43
N w
bs u zap____r?--?
?J 16
(Zh 4.
I /
q
I Q I /
W I I I Z LAJ
41
/Z
L ' © U
N p I I to I •Sb o
i
w
I I
I
10
IU 1 = 1 a?
w o J,sz Q I? 1=
?-
SY I 0 ' 96'01-'L6 S'1
m
?
I I Q I I I? I 3
l © I Q II 6£ u
p- 1 Q I I pS? e
1 -L I li. C
1 © I ? li- "? Q vai
.i 1 I f' z
wQ oc f 1 C I II
? J
° b
0 r,
I I' W cnu
LO C?
+
I
000 OOO? ?
rn T
cS ?` I ?qI I! , Zb ???br, i°??° F
,o, -
Q??NI-.J???N 4:1
I ` I I 4i? L a-
C
0
Obw Its°? I
I 2? I
Q1
O
C
n
rv
Z
A. \ \ I I it
c?' I r
\ ? T 1 _II III ? I ? ?< ?L f7 ? ? ,r.? Q ? .v :.J
C'L6. LZ V ?Ir 6L`-s? y I 'lM t I ? 'C" ? ?A
N II , I 41 ? I I Q Q (? U
co z .j u
t? "?? i O G y .r
?\ 3 I o f I Q Z .) O
v , li W W Z ?Vj G?. rL?'a+
oo
? U.. I
I II _ .t w I
I \ w (Y I
I
I I ? I I
I I W ,
? W n I i ?
II ', I
?II, e l I z I , ?
l? .VL LL. I
I I to I
v 00+ 0
0
21 134 S - y ? { )d 0
? I I o ? I
,1? 1i I
V I II
Ib+ W I z II i ?.
o II 1_• I L < I M
:N 1, I LL LL S
Z
ti N 0 ° LD -N
o
y
z
w
y.
m
z 1 nI. I U
? J W 3
O I ?
?i? C
< s u_
C Q ? P I -m I l t I? I I ? '?
`V[ I
Qc I I, ? I I
a
I
G
u II ' o N I
( III?
co
cv l l ' I 1I± I.
,y1 aN Ion II
Qom s ' I r W
LLl ? \c?.v I I o F
I I ,Ic I I w d
O Z \ A I ?? l i I `n
Z Lj a l l I .? II LL1
Z ?^ Q I W 'i 1 fJ
d
w u• I ? I 4r.
I 1 W
I I a
„ 1 I W , a ,
Yl
/ II Z O = ? W ??! I Q I !A
a z
IL'iLLy - u I co I 11
III ? ? i
XM ? ?_ I ..1
W ??r m - Ctl
W C DZ1' ? W
1 z l d l I' f ?. ? ?.` L I i Q
JIII n Irl. I z
z I •? I q Q
?• n l I U.1
? ? I ? l? ?I, ?1 1 ^ ? ?( I IU 1 0
.? r nl ? ?? 1l n ?, LL
00+OZ `133HS Ol HOldW
II ?
S
SUIIM.-kRY SHEET
SITE STATION FILL IN LENGTH OF LENGTH OF CULVERT
SURFACE
WATERS EXIST. STREAM OR ENCLOSED PIPE
(ACRES) LOST
1 13 + 00 0.03 1025' 1000'
TO
22 + 90
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2017601 (U-0401)
SR1684 (ELK MTN. RD.)
FROM NC 251 TO COTAGE ST.
SHEET OF (o
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date: rlyo
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC DOT SR 1684
Project Number 98 0319
Recvd From DOT
Received Date 4/13/98
Project Type road improvement
Certificates
Permit Wetland
Type Type
Ind
Mitigation
MitigationType
Wetland
Type Acres Feet
?-
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y 0 N
Did you request more info? 0 Y 0 N
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Recommendation: 46 Issue 0Issue/fond 0 Deny
Stream
CI
County Buncombe
County2
Region Asheville
5 Mny
Wetland Wetland Stream ass Acres Feat NE
Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Reci
Y O N ? 5-K ?F- (140305 F-
IY ON F_ F_ F_F_ F_ F_?
cc: Regional Office
Central Office

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers ;
Post Office Box 1890"?
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199830659 MAY 2 2 1998 May 14, 1998
PUBLIC NOTICE WETLANDS GROUP
l WATER QUALITY SECTION _,_„.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Post Office
Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) permit TO PLACE 1075 LINEAR FEET OF AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OF
BEAVERDAM CREEK INTO A 42-INCH DIAMETER CONCRETE PIPE TO
FACILITATE THE WIDENING AND STRAIGHTENING OF A 0.9-MILE LONG
SEGMENT OF ELK MOUNTAIN ROAD (SR 1684) BETWEEN NC HIGHWAY 251
AND COTTAGE STREET AT WOODFIN, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLI'IA (TIP NO. U-401).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and
from observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers.
Plans submitted with the application show the proposed widening and realignment of a 0.9-mile
long segment of Elk Mountain Road between NC Highway 251 on the west and Cottage Street
on the east. The existing 18-foot wide shoulder section would be widened to a 32-foot wide curb
and gutter section. Several curves would also be straightened. Widening would occur generally
to the west of the existing road resulting in the piping of 1075 linear feet of a small (2 feet wide,
less than 6 inches deep), unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek, a tributary to the French Broad
River. This stream is in an urban residential setting and receives stormwater runoff from
surrounding streets and yards. Site inspections have determined that the lower 780 linear feet of
the channel has perennial flow and the upper 295 feet is intermittent. Impacts to surface waters
resulting from the proposed work would total .03 acres. No wetlands would be affected by the
proposed work. The applicant completed a Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and
Environmental Assessment for the proposed work on August 19, 1997. The applicant evaluated
7 combinations of alternative designs and alignments to avoid or minimize impacts to surface
waters and found them to be not practicable. The primary reasons were terrain constraints, cost,
curve geometry and residential relocations. The applicant has committed to provide
compensatory mitigation for stream channel losses at a 1:1 ratio and is currently searching the
area for a suitable mitigation site. The purpose of the proposed work is to increase the safety,
design speed and traffic flow of a public roadway. Plans showing the proposed work are
included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has determined the applicability of a Water
Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will review this public notice to determine the
need for the applicant to obtain any required authorization. Should the permit be issued, the
TVA will require the permittee to employ best management practices to control erosion and
sedimentation, as necessary, to prevent adverse aquatic impacts.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the
public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the
public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are
therefore determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
2
I
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in
waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's
404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and an), other applicable guidelines or
criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not
be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607. Copies of such materials
will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, on or before
June 1, 1998, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Mr. Steven Lund, until 4:15 p.m., June 12, 1998, or telephone
[phone].
3
v o?" --.. '' k WMlerock-' `lam-eam l)?f1 li ?Otfr-, ?I>< I onas'1
11 21 31 rof io wl - _ Faustl Swr °reea d
wlle k
oI \ ?^n•) 6luns1e
enN
r? i - 19E c b? s ..
N MADISON 19 \ Yr kf1Yy f °= n Ijnlord
Cosby Walnut A t /yy
Iman I I I •? / I t Mus Ntll; `Y; ?? I f / ' Table R
t
nter *14011100
W a Q? Joe S nt Creek if :k ^ y Iltl wllierli I T
321 2 • I +s1arR1at117 125 ' Iy1 11 / f [a n '? NP •?7J
Aunl` a Iler 821111 Woo
Sterlln d wn ?I
Trust I s \r- I
Lu I I ?y i I e ly I slocksrrue _ D uck 7 M C D EL I
Y9 ..:.? 11 Lake
0 22
06611 Wesvervdle Tano , e0 A
I .... Uanto NAleu ker 41 e Y. peasant Garden 1" ? 70 5 f Britt
S TE' .13 S M,
an+ on
NAT M ` its, Woodtin l! BI2 a .70. - ?- s ® Q
`rte el I PP ~ p ;lay/ ,M[luntain y nest m s r`.
' ? I f Swa t rt'
c• sove• Cove) re nnsno
ek dabtree
UI ? ow ? 18 i ` 1pote a r70 • e ?; : t '
y As evillel p o
Glenwood
J ' I
.emont • CHf eORFEl . Y A 1 *'? :1 ?• Rid ¢e[r!S ?
276 lake I ®I t m ?Su¢a, Hit I e DYsartwil i
IN N \ I \ \ 221 r
aapp 19 Dellwao na 14 _ 19
I 112 ' ® 'd
? (v. ti i \ .0
•r ? b Fairview 9
, CAlrpk?e oiar / • alleyla 3 214 11 u Er r• IO 74A
?V I • C x Isl f 11 25A y Thermal CITY 61
IS /..e m Wtl?rori ly SSkyland Gerson ` ?Umon
wnr r`_ ?a.? 'as r yFtesn Sonntoale v Arden y ; 7 I kfrus
m ?ilsamf 41 Nazelsybod
Swnddk ¢ 'ISM 1 '.?+?• y `' 25 B,l care nlney Rocker R U( T H E R F R D
ad " ^d M« ' \ LuNb Lure \ Gdk!
7 filets I "w Fruso Fletc at Y ?7 West-
Ell
"d v 276 t0 I Mountal FrurtbnU ch-.:ammster
Sunburst o¢an
p Srlra f o,. - s h Uke lure a,
'D I[
t mills: er . o 16 11A 1. Isnbutj
il liD • 2 IOC 71y 7 Home e ^ -
1 t Webster f NAT w ad Ifl g •RUIn i I
reen
1 11 "' c ° 12 C_ S • 0 N Edneyr/m 9 Rutheflordlo Ip Forest
C
2 t (,ullownee S s ?, eor Etowan 4 m f P.' L fF \\ I a p r CI y
n • omda e )
Gar 10 East kaoort ss2 -aro A- teo < 61 ? p (East Flat I akeAdeer ? •
FOR Q.HendersOnvIlle Rock
s M111' J Ackaselle S •2 0 a and )IC t Wil Saint 2
27 4 ® s T4 Alexander
enrose Flat Rock b ®2 1111,
®/ ® s
a 4411 \ _ -••? J its J, _ \ ¦ ""'s conr Mill
a 7. ®T I
tl _? Helmer Educ,St . .L IC.I.• ? . . /seyl i\1 21 Comet
BEGIN PROJECT
I
I
D d 1 II ,
12 <
( &C 25
U to r
SI TLv(ly
qr E
r' 251 I ?I
WOODFIN 4 1684 , i c
r? POP. 2,916 Elk n. Rd.
r ° \
i ° ° l\ t
r\ 0
END PROJECT' co
w
J II r II SR 1002
r ? 1
Craoy
(J' e D r
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2017601 (U-0401)
SHEET _L OF (e1
SR1684 (ELK MTN. RD.)
FROM NC 251 TO COTAGE ST.

?LL
!O
11 (S
oo
?C
J , ?a
?.??', `o ? ba opt ?? - o ?? p
i CL
3 i
I
W I r
Lij
I I
z

W

w
?' w Q w

U :' ? crl

z ?

?? 777
h a
w a a
0
CV
R
U
r?
I
A
55+17A

CC

w

I
e
`,,
?,
I

O
v

I l i I©
I i I ,
I
I
© N I IIp
1
i
A
I Z N
? Z

z

= z F
cn

z J

W

o

o ^.
O
?
`
O

z O
z Lr N
o
o o ° z

L-1 J
00

z s

HDl`dW

tLu
1 g J
r
te
\\ a 4 j 0

u Q
1 W © ! I ©N
%0 © I© ?,

a I?
N GI
00+51 b 133HS
I ,If ?j 1,
Ol H)1`dW
w
< LL
W W LL
c i F--
Z
o O F-
a a
uz
()
zcr
?z
S cn
ix
W
u
J
Y
a
6
L c`l
Q
CD
W
C]
0
OY
u
U?
H
C
F
d
m
U
d
C
z
F
0
z

1
r
004.0e HS Oj ? 9 133 = `{ ? •?
O
' tv W Z v
o I' I `V
N '?? I ?`I C L J = Z O
- O Q L. O m F'
L © 't C4 ?Q
I LL Z QL 61 S J O O Z
A 1 1 I 0 11
I
b F- W
Z
Z Q III I t?;0 Q 6"SS
o ,J 1 ss , u f L
SC _ as Q ? I z
s ? I Z ?
- W I
s S6 0,1- 6L 'OS ll
UO LL W e i
r? t6 ? ? I _ 1 (jQ? 1 ?
Q fs
i
a / © L-Li 1 ? Q
?`J 1 1
d
/ ? I w ? i i fl
W i I Z Z ``J = N
w o
% q
J
07+ u ?,:?' Sb p
W fl
l? © z o 7?`` 09 +
i v
0 -9
q r 1 n Q 10 o
;
w 004 81
a I I I
w o ST I N G
?- F<
SY I O Z 96 OL'LL Si
I
w , © ; I w
m R
m ! I I I •bE U
OS4
1 I I I •, C
1 O I? I I• - "' Q h
w 11 I cr z
C awc C II (00
w o F + I I C% W M Lo O
O d) 0 c0 LO T
I 1? 10 I . O O ..
a 1??:° ?: < J + OOOrn000)" v
; o c? Q tO;o i0 0 F
V - YQ II
- w O
J»
n.4o?V)F-x N
c
Ob w I ;° I w i t
I ? I !i
I
I ? I
W 3NI1 H DIVV4
SS+C? 1
ct v1? ~? p W B. Z Z
L 17
?\?' ?? ? -zI 00? I ? zO
r
1 O m E-' F"
06 "
C'L6 . LZ U 6l`-L? 'lM L I rLl •t' V!
11N = 1 =?° ? ? I I I O ? ? U QE C4
L4 1 V
?G V? 'I ??? F-- a In ^7 Gi] .7i
.?.? I Sr' ? I ^-I p ..
I W J.?
? 3 I o r I I Q Z i ~
v f ?I ''? ? r? w W ? ? ? I U vCiL
7 i ?. .? l Y i LJ Q I I
? ? ? ? I ? •J J' Z I ?
r W
W •""
I r 1?. I I
? II I I W ; I
ry ? N
W I y j
r1 z
I p
k C4 LL
b LL
a QQ+l ^
O
21 34 S _ p Jd O ( ew
I? i I o 31. i
Ib-4 W W I i Li
? ,. w I w
`? i I I y N V J 0 2 i t T
>- y, w
m ?t z d
z 01 ., D n t u
LLI O? _'I ?,o ( I LL O
W 41
o i I
I
G
`2 1
C -7
Y 1`aTL LL
C P ml ? I Ln
?- II ? L -?- WQ I r
Q I"
a I II i 0
? II' o 'N I
C13 V)
J O 1+N
Q? 00. II 6:
a ?? _IS TI?I I I I ?? I W
W Z 1 `J' II O ("
I o I LL d
B
Gw III i
e
G
Cl-
W I
y?-Gq' a z
zo = o z
?CQ I lLJ1
I
I .m
i d 4
A CD
uj
o Z ?? s l ??, L ? O
a a, l n a, ' I '
t ., z
N
oo+oZ 5 133HS O1 HO1dW

O
?I
F
G:U
z
z
0
?
H ?, T w

F O
F
E- Q m C? x ?I
N o
Z y wz I
o c m a ?? `9
U ?? W

O
z U
d W
W ?
O W
? F
F
W C7
O A
a ?
O
010
V

N \.o N
O

3

3
N
O O ? N

c
c3 y
U
N ?
OIN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
.ems
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR. April 15, 1998
GOVERNOR %
MEMORANDUM ?.
WAYNE MCDEV17T
SECRETARY
TO: Review Agencies for Inland `404 1 ?t 5/
FROM: John Par
ROGER N. SCHBCTER Major Permits Processing Manager
DIRECTOR AKA - Inland `404 Coordinator
SUBJECT: Response to C.O.E.
In this mailing, you will receive three very late Notices, mislaid under mounds of
coastal permit activity. I urge you to cover your interest by commenting directly to the Corps
representative listed on the last page of the Notice. Some of you do this anyhow.
It is getting more difficult for this office to provide timely viewpoint letters on these
projects, due primarily to the coastal permit work load, law suits, contested cases,
environmental assessment processing (primarily our marina business) and being totally out of
the loop on the many complex Notice issues, i.e.,. mitigation, re-alignments, hold periods,
water quality issues, etc. For this reason, I recommend that if you submit more than a "no
comment", that you submit directly to the Corps with a copy to this office. I will attempt a
follow-up viewpoint response on each project as soon as possible.
_ ...,. JP/aw
Enclosure
,
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
pr: _
.. _..-.. _.._ ;., ._..... __ PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Q? '^
NCDENR
May 21, 1998
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
WAYNE MCDEVITT Director
SECRETARY
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
ROGER N. SCHECTER
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review

The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199830659 dated May
14, 1998 describing a proposed project by NC DOT (Buncombe Co.) is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by 5/14/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27697, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7667 / 2729 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
©?
NCDENR -
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
May 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
! ROGER N $CHECTER" Inland "404" Coordinator
DIRECTOR-
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199830659 dated May
1998 describing a proposed project by NC DOT (Buncombe Co.) is being circulated to
interested state agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this
form by 5/14/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at
733-2293. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
:.REPLY
REPLY
This office supports the project proposal. .
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Date
P.O. BOX 27667, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1-7687 /2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199830659
May 14, 1998
PUBLIC NOTICE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Post Office
Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 has applied for a Department of the Army
(DA) permit TO PLACE 1075 LINEAR FEET OF AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OF
BEAVERDAM CREEK INTO A 42-INCH DIAMETER CONCRETE PIPE TO
FACILITATE THE WIDENING AND STRAIGHTENING OF A 0.9-MILE LONG
SEGMENT OF ELK MOUNTAIN ROAD (SR 1684) BETWEEN NC HIGHWAY 251
AND COTTAGE STREET AT WOODFIN, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLIr'.1(TIP NO. U-401).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and
from observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers.
Plans submitted with the application show the proposed widening and realignment of a 0.9-mile
long segment of Elk Mountain Road between NC Highway 251 on the west and Cottage Street
on the east. The existing 18-foot wide shoulder section would be widened to a 32-foot wide curb
and gutter section. Several curves would also be straightened. Widening would occur generally
to the west of the existing road resulting in the piping of 1075 linear feet of a small (2 feet wide,
less than 6 inches deep), unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek, a tributary to the French Broad
River. This stream is in an urban residential setting and receives stormwater runoff from
surrounding streets and yards. Site inspections have determined that the lower 780 linear feet of
the channel has perennial flow and the upper 295 feet is intermittent. Impacts to surface waters
resulting from the proposed work would total .03 acres. No wetlands would be affected by the
proposed work. The applicant completed a Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and
Environmental Assessment for the proposed work on August 19, 1997. The applicant evaluated
7 combinations of alternative designs and alignments to avoid or minimize impacts to surface
waters and found them to be not practicable. The primary reasons were terrain constraints, cost,
curve geometry and residential relocations. The applicant has committed to provide
compensatory mitigation for stream channel losses at a 1:1 ratio and is currently searching the
area for a suitable mitigation site. The purpose of the proposed work is to increase the safety,
design speed and traffic flow of a public roadway. Plans showing the proposed work are
included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit
will be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and
reviewed by this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has determined the applicability of a Water
Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will review this public notice to determine the
need for the applicant to obtain any required authorization. Should the permit be issued, the
TVA will require the permittee to employ best management practices to control erosion and
sedimentation, as necessary, to prevent adverse aquatic impacts.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the
extent of cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of
the presence of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or
historical data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed
activity will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the
public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the
public interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal
must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are
therefore determined by the outcome of the general balancing process. That decision should
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards and flood plain values (in
accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion,
2
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in
waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's
404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or
criteria, a permit will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate
the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal.
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed
above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not
be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives
State certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers
whether or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of the Army (DA)
permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607. Copies of such materials
will be furnished to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, on or before
June 1, 1998, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in
this office, Attention: Mr. Steven Lund, until 4:15 p.m., June 12, 1998, or telephone
[phone].
3
V sr wmur«h Y yp? caw ?il a .ter-.
.Bf Orlr
11 71 3 rJ ' :S ?6 ` Y OR
OE Wr n, $wH3 r1 f ,? *pmrdle 10
32 70 fau
6Fa11s
9E
u ° MADISON 19 y ` Iz e 6 n `71Alnrad"?
Walnut a fh tt
ter n Cosby 1 ?* ?? I I I Mars NIIII , ?? 1F ; 4 1 fit; Table R
IJQ Mtle ;
S na Crash ' I / I :k 4 011 wr EBI?j 's i °_ T -
311 7 • 1 +E4er 11! 1 io I-t ,? 4 ?• wood wn I '\ NP -ti",a
unto o tier Ban1 I
Sterhn rust y r S \to.• 1
??` m Yq 9 l = i Is I Slochsvrue D ll?h MCD EL
r. C.rr+r?w 1 II
.J' .? 73 12 Lake 22 G
•e47r ?? rr /'?? Alesa 'It Weavtrvllle Taho eb A
, B Uanl5 N 11 e m 'leaam Carom 7 5 4 Bntl
?, • / TIE
Is/
sler Woodtin p 6 Bli Iwuntreat 1 70 Hs 4 0 m
rwNnAdT el , 1 PP )IWr WI ?1 I aw yYlountaln y 7 1 rt m ?` 4 . a
? Soq+ Coot reek Crabtree + . Swannano .1 1
.,
441 ?' 6? As eville*, taco ao 7D : •' Glenwood
Ifmont CHESOgE Rid¢ecril
276 ! Ilse) ®I Is , 1 , ®1 0 i © \ /` $Uair HIII I e Dysarlsvdl 1
? 19 Dellwao 74 )0 17 r 10 I4A 1 ? / ? 221 r
/ WMl• ? p?1 ft l• I i0
Hoar «+ ait / ,.,? Ifl E 15A Fauvlew 9 •
? n /Thermal
Of Chrir ?e Ya11-- . I 1k 5 Thermal City•
•wwr e W row S 16 Skyland Gertan? Union
1 Wnl r? err i? 1 y SMllladala v 1 SSArden / 5 S , Ills
7 atsan 1 4 Natah od 1S ?'Wk4 \ re 1 J A
atI{{ff nook ryy I `mss s 25 Bat Care hlmney7+«
k ? h/;R U T H;E R F R D'
I /Me0 i°?, •? :,LakF Lure 1 Gilhk
.yam 1 filets ruso v. Fletc or 64 \ r Wtsl-
L Fruitland ch!--v Aor mmster
... Sunburst 176 a Uhe Lure
p Sylra+ GR. v 1 +? Mills: i er M Mome Oian
1Dil sb 2 7 fib 71 ] V ^ oo? 16 74A rWaanburn
f fl dneywlie Rutn
r Green Webster I1 NAT W.aenad. / 9 t yrl FO7! 1 1
1 C'ee1i 7 /, I ,/ °ep s. d 6 S O N/ y RutherrorOto
t 4uUOwhee `;,„ e r d r P \\ 1 6 O CI y
IIl Gar ° C ast laDOrt sat 8-4 E.+o 061 1aia 74 /Esst flat / aMad er `? ^ oinda
s Md;17 J A N S .7 0 , ' FOR. .Hendersonville Rock rMin Soling Aid, W a 141 TuckasepJ 6 trii L rto?m Flat co i 7 ®sX._ -? ® 7 5 47 ® 74 Mill sander
H.bn•, Eder•st Er•a 1ie'fD ® C roles
? i1•el ??? 21 y I
BEGIN PROJECT j ,
2 ,
Qc
X 1 / C? E? 7
Z Q rl J
U to 25
S I TE ac?gr - EA
r 251 di
r 1684 ? c
WOODFIN SR Q;
r POP. 2,916 Eik 1n, Rd.
r
o
END PROJECT co
W
?r SR 1002
Cra ' 1 1
1?y ? II
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2017601 (U-0401)
SR1684 (ELK MTN. RD.)
FROM NC 251 TO COTAGE ST.
SHEET _J_ OF (q,
z

F ?; R

?
? Z O ^ C U
C L w y F F
?
F O OU w ? U O
Z
N
? ? m a
00?

U c ? o
C F
G-1
oo v, G- L-V
S

? ;, a9 ???^ / ?? \ ?? • Jib/A,

b J Z
v iI / `r wwz
azaw
© d mzw
?- 4 i I I Q / ??( '' ?n w a a
LL I f ?II' 3 ?\ a?w
d• : ? I I 40 r r ?' }
?I?? I yy p rl \'?
10
jot tc
r< _j
ry
5
w <
ri)
co
Q ?` z
a ,
w
Q •/ / ,? CIL
,
I et S LL)
W
C
C
II
U

ss+CIA
VU+?:Ji v
z
0

F ?
3
? ?
o w
c?

0
z U C
F O

O Z
O
U
U
F `" z ti W
z
w > 0
w
O

z
Qj
L
O
F
W
L-1
cn

W
8
s
laJ
of
1`y W
V) . J
I
z
0 oQ
°z
z fr
oS4 02
l?Y
J
J
Y
I
6
Z 8
m
w
0
05
It
X
G
cr
tV
..a
U?
C
C
v]
U
t.
C
O
h
z
F
O
z
XXI)
Ul
i
LL)
I
q'vo I GA
I{
w r
I Iz
r ?-
W
\a 4
v \s
u \o
1 \j u 4
?R
p
I y
N
I
W
zQ
0 LLJ
V
n ?
W
? r
?a
b9? 00
!?Z6 • .,

°p.40z
?O 9 133 Ol Ho1 bW
=t,''II I
I
z
0
cn C7 = :•
4 y+ J ? ` .J
Q

r J zO
I
' Q I I E-" O m ?'' 4' E?
OO gL . 6
0 z 0 F CV
y
9 ?? S3
oZ D
.. U
z U r
.? .?

Z ??-T I G

L'a
r
> ?:)

p o

w ?z

g ?.
co .e,
W = p :, ?
SS
~ t
6
n J
' ss I ? ./
.
?
I
S Ln
sC T I F
?c I ? ?
?
,,, ?
I z
'ICI ?I'
/ t
w t? I ?

\
05 u
d
' z
I
I 0,
I
Iw O I !? I
I w ?
..
I
1 !Y fll
1 I 'O
I :
'
?
,I `3 i p
to I
N

1 Iw

?
IO ?
I I
I
Q

w o
SL I a
'
'SY _ I O
?
w I ?
Q I ?D I
I;?,
m ©
I I
I
I v I
I
CO
0", 1 p I
1 o I ? I? ?
LJ
U)

' c I
,o ?
S
iQ gl :?
?
1 ?
I
O6LAJ
I
w I „O
:2? '?-
I I "
I Y I
I w I'
I :o I h.4J
SS+?I
S6 OZ•6L JS ?-

1 'l?.C9 I
6 y S QQ ? /
W
!
l?
1 ? y .I V __ //
I

Q ? I

Z z
? V
`
J
09+
b G

'6b
00' ; 004 81
I ti
C

S6OL•LL
'S'1 -I- m
<

1 U
<

Q D
cr z

?o
In
_

2
0
a? I
K J Oc^O
0 pOQO°0 `C
6060 ?v
v
Zb I

' ?0
C)+)
tD U')o ?r? 0
?
? f?

F
? . u u n n n u n u a n w
?N `z
z

3N1-l
H JidW DOO
Q1
t:.
0
Lr
Z
nl
c
G:V
z
-_, 1 T I O I
I
<I +
} +1 4 ? F-' O
+ N.i ry p[ W .rte '?
- \\ esqq.. 1++I J ? II, ` £ ? ? \`rk?? A i EA ? __ ? ? O
o I \ I z 0 C U
4} z I VU+ I U O
E- O CQ a' F" E '
1 I
e? \ N_ I I = w cr i i O U U
CD r ?.?; F crr, z r j z O
L-Li ~ A o. O F
f rv .?. 10 Z Q' I l?l W
w R -- O O
? ,?, ' I ?J Z I I
?w I I
LL" rY I
r W
I N
w I " I
I Z I I
k LL, ? i ?
I I ' ?
a p + I i.
21 9' -1 4 S CO N
3
U
Ib+ W W I l W I I ??
,
O 11 I Z ! I I t
y? I Z-7
Li LLS
0 LL
C\j
(` .m ' x 17Y0 J ' ' 0 W
--
>- 9, w I I I ,
m I l D I G z ' I U
W O 1 w O I I 'I
? II
I
CY i _ Z o
LL
Q ? S L ?I I t I I r
a n II', II
0 N k ' ?n
+N ??
? a
W z•v I o F
Z \ I 1 I I Q I I I' LL
Z nw \I, I f
o Z I I ?,
wuw =I W U
zQ o I <
I = I a
w ?. I % I i a o f v.
W C I
W u? ?j? i o II N
'20
= GS; Q I o Z
IG'ILLY t U ? ? I ? I CL
CD k
W WC D`? I 1,/'°JI 1 ''I
4 / ` ''111111 `?k' ., 1 II I' I 0
1 i // . 1 o N. f 1 ', .?4
00+0Z ?133HS O1 HO1dW
-?
S
z
Q

Q
D-

o

W

z

o E?-

?u
x U o
n
E-' O m ° E• F
co ?I
Q z
0 o F C4
U.
a ? wz
v
o c m a co

U :° o
a
o F
W
r
in t
z ?c

O
ICI
z V
? W
t
O
W
F F
W C7
a Z
O ?
V

N , (q a
o /? U C7

3 N ?

c?
3
?
O N O N
t/ M

C
N

N
(
^; O
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
` P.O. BOX 1890
l?y WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 14, 1998
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199830659

Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality U `
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 0
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division
of Highways for Department of the Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification
to place 1075 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek into a 48-inch diameter
concrete pipe to facilitate the widening and straightening of a 0.9-mile long segment of
Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684) between NC Highway 251 and Cottage Street at Woodfin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-401). Your receipt of this letter verities your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by July 13, 1998, the District Engineer will deem
that waiver has occurred.
2
If you have any questions or comments please contact Mr. Steven Lund in our
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
l
Robert W. Johnson
Office Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure/as
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1 1-7687
MEMO DATE: 3-/9
,o. ,,,.,,R. cit Mf, !mss
OOT
From: ^crsa
.. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
+n,,, ,, ,rw ? ?? Printed on Recycled Paper

- /v ? Tt° fa--IxP I c..,5 t A y --? ? ll < 4;3 4
kg ? lkl c,? Sam ,r ?'f.f
ct S4-
17 e- td c? o?OV?e -v
n04
BOGS /' i'S frVGrIG?
1 cJ d ?J Wf
w cd r
?0 e c u v 3-c ? ? f `o?S
MEMO
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
From:
North Carolina Department of
Health and Natural Resources
Q.- Mw
Environment,
4 Printed on Recycled Paper
Woodfin
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1)
State Project No. 8.2017601
U-401
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF PROJECT PLANNING REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
8 ' Z4M
Date ?icholas L. G af, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Dat H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Maria
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Woodfin
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1)
State Project No. 8.2017601
U-401
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF PROJECT PLANNING REPORT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Mark L. Reer P. E. '
Project Planning Engineer
CAR
.•DN, ''•
j'pSS/q
i
• SE AL =
19818 •'
s •
?'•??'GI NE?Q.'?Q .•'?
• ??i•••`
*0 0.0000
IK 11-14141
L
Linwood Stone, C.P.M.
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
No special environmental commitments are proposed for the project; however,
standard sedimentation and erosion control measures and Best Management Practices
(BMP's) will be strictly enforced during project construction.
II.
III
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY I
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Description and Status I
B. Revisions to the Project I
1. Design Speed and Speed Limit 1
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations 2
3. Right of Way 2
4. Cost Estimate 2
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan 3
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis 3
C. Accident Analysis 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Highway Construction Alternatives 4
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative 4
C. Public Transportation Alternative 4
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects 5
1. Land Use 5
a. Current Planning Status 5
b. Existing Land Use and Zoning 5
c. Future Land Use 6
d. Farmland 6
2. Neighborhood Characteristics 6
3. Public and Private Facilities 6
4. Relocation Impacts 7
5. Cultural Resources 7
a. Architectural Resources 7
b. Archaeological Resources 7
V.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
B. Economic Effects
C. Environmental Effects
PAGE
8
8
8
9
10
10
11
23
23
24
26
27
27
29
29
32
38
39
39
Table 1 Federally Protected Species For Buncombe County
Table 2 Federal Species Of Concern And State Status
For Buncombe County
Table 3 One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
1. Biotic Resources
a. Plant Communities
b. Wildlife and Aquatic Communities
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
d. Rare and Protected Species
2. Physical Resources
a. Topography and Soils
b. Water Resources
3. Wetlands and Surface Waters
4. Permits
5. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
7. Air Quality
8. Traffic Noise
9. Hazardous Materials
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
CONCLUSIONS
TABLES
FIGURES
Figures lA-113 Vicinity Maps
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Proposed Typical Section
Figures 4A-413 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 Previously Evaluated Alignment Alternatives
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
APPENDIX
Appendix A Agency Correspondence
Appendix B Air Quality and Traffic Noise Data
Woodfin
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1)
State Project No. 8.2017601
U-401
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to reevaluate the Project Planning Report and Environmental
Assessment prepared for improvements to Elk Mountain Road, Project U-401.
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage Street, a length of
1.4 kilometers (0.9 mile) (refer to Figures IA, 113, and 2 for project location). These
improvements consist of widening the existing 5.4-meter (18-foot) shoulder section to a
9.6-meter (32-foot) curb and gutter section and realigning several curves. The project is
included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 1998. The estimated project cost in the
TIP is $2,219,000, which includes $1,600,000 for construction and $619,000 spent in
previous years. Currently, the project is estimated to cost $2,175,000, which includes
$275,000 for utility relocation and $1,900,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The project will provide an overall positive benefit for the Town of Woodfin.
Existing Elk Mountain Road is characterized by a narrow, sinuous alignment. The
proposed widening and realignment improvements will increase the design speed, reduce
the potential for accidents to occur, and provide some traffic flow improvements. The
wider travel lanes will also provide safe bicycle accommodations.
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the human and natural
environment. No additional residences or businesses will be relocated by the project. No
significant impacts to architectural or archaeological resources in the project area will
occur. No federally- protected species will be affected by the project. The project
impacts an intermittent stream, but impacts to this stream are not considered to be
adverse. No adverse air quality or traffic noise impacts are anticipated from projected
traffic volumes along the proposed facility.
11
Alternatives to the Proposed Construction
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
Alternative 1 extends on new location between US 19/ US 23 and New
Street and follows Elk Mountain Road between New Street and NC 251.
Alternative 2 follows Elk Mountain Road from US 19/ 23 to Elk Mountain
Place and from Fourth Street to NC 251. From Elk Mountain Road to
Fourth Street, this alternative extends on new location.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) follows Elk Mountain Road from US 19/
US 23 to NC 251.
Alternative 3A follows Elk Mountain Road from US 19/ US 23 to Elk
Mountain Place and from Penley Avenue to NC 251. From Elk Mountain
Place to Penley Avenue, this alternative extends on new location.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
C. Public Transportation Alternative
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this Reevaluation:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. State Clearinghouse
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County Commissioners
Buncombe County Schools
Town of Woodfin
Section V of this document further discusses the comments and coordination for this
project.
iii
Permits Required
It is anticipated that the proposed improvements will require a Department of the
Army Section 404 Individual Permit. Since the project is located in a county with
designated trout waters, the authorization of a Section 404 permit by the COE requires
concurrence from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Final permit decisions rest
with the COE (refer to discussion in Section IV.C.4).
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the N.C.
Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance of the individual permit.
6. Mitigation
Stream mitigation is required for impacts to the Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
(refer to discussion in Sections IV.C.3 and IV.C.5).
7. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and reevaluation can be obtained
by contacting the following individuals:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
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
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Woodfin
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1)
State Project No. 8.2017601
U-401
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Description and Status
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage Street, a length of
1.4 kilometers (0.9 mile) (refer to Figures IA, 1B, and 2 for project location). These
improvements consist of widening the existing 5.4-meter (18-foot) shoulder section to a
9.6-meter (32-foot) curb and gutter section and realigning several curves (refer to Figure
3 for sketch of typical section). The project is included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for construction in fiscal
year 1998. The estimated project cost in the TIP is $2,219,000, which includes
$1,600,000 for construction an d $619,000 spent in previous years. Currently, the project
is estimated to cost $2,175,000, which includes $275,000 for utility relocation and
$1,900,000 for construction.
Project U-401 was previously evaluated in a Project Planning Report and
Environmental Assessment (EA), completed in 1977. This report evaluated
improvements between NC 251 (formerly designated as NC 191) and US 19/ US 23. In
1980, the right of way was acquired and cleared. In 1985, a portion of the project was
constructed under Project U-1163D between Cottage Street and US 19/ US 23, including
some minor widening along the remainder of Elk Mountain Road. In 1989, a
Reevaluation was completed for the previous project limits between NC 251 and
US 19/US 23. The current study proposes to reevaluate only the unimproved section of
Elk Mountain Road between NC 251 and Cottage Street.
B. Revisions to the Project
This section describes changes which have occurred in the project since the
Environmental Assessment and the Reevaluation were approved.
1. Design Speed and Speed Limit
A 70 km/h (45 mph) design speed was proposed in the EA. This design speed has
been revised to 65 km/h (40 mph). The proposed speed limit along Elk Mountain Road is
60 km/h (35 mph).
2
A design exception is anticipated for several horizontal and vertical curves along
the proposed alignment. These curves do not meet the current design speed standards
established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO).
2. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
Elk Mountain Road is identified in the Incidental Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs
Section of the 1998-2004 TIP. The NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation has requested wide travel lanes for shared bicycle use. The proposed
4.2-meter (14-foot) travel lanes and bicycle safe drainage grates will provide safe bicycle
accommodations.
In accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy, adopted in 1993, sidewalks may
be incorporated into a project as a shared cost item between NCDOT and a municipality.
In December, 1996, the Town of Woodfin requested a sidewalk along the south side of
the roadway (refer correspondence in Appendix A from the NCDOT Office of Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation). Because a sidewalk was not originally anticipated when
the right of way was acquired, the roadway berm width would need to be increased from
1.2 meters (4 feet) to at least 2.4 meters (8 feet) to contain a sidewalk. This wider berm
width would require additional right of way and easements, would shift the construction
limits closer to the adjacent homes, and could result in the relocation of a residence. In
June, 1997, these sidewalk issues were discussed with the Town Administrator. Because
of the additional property impacts and the delays associated with acquiring new right of
way, the Town no longer wants a sidewalk to be included in the project. Therefore, a
sidewalk is not recommended.
3. Right of Way
In 1980, the right of way was acquired and cleared for the project. This included
a 15.2-meter (50-foot) right of way and construction easements (refer to Figure 2 for
project right of way and easements) . No additional right of way is needed, but utilities
will be relocated prior to construction.
4. Cost Estimate
Utility Relocation $ 275,000
Construction $ 1,900,000
Total Cost $ 2,175,000
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Route Function and Thoroughfare Plan
Elk Mountain Road is designated a minor thoroughfare in the mutually adopted
thoroughfare plan for the Asheville Urban Area and is classified as a collector in the
Statewide Functional Classification System. The local roadway system within the Town
of Woodfin contains narrow streets with poor alignments and many dead ends.
Elk Mountain Road is the primary route for providing access to the town from NC 251
and US 19/ US 23. The roadway is characterized by narrow 2.7-meter (9-foot) travel
lanes, unusable shoulders, and a sinuous alignment.
The proposed improvements will provide wider travel lanes, a straightened
alignment, and improved design speed. The project will reduce the potential for
accidents to occur and provide some traffic flow improvements.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The current average daily traffic volume along Elk Mountain Road is 7,000
vehicles per day (vpd). By the year 2020, traffic is expected to increase to 11,900 vpd
(refer to traffic diagrams shown on Figures 4A and 4B ). These estimated traffic volumes
include 4 percent dual-tired vehicles and 3 percent tractor trailer semi trucks.
The proposed facility will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D) when
it is constructed and at capacity (LOS E) by the year 2020. The proposed widening and
realignment is needed to provide traffic flow improvements.
C. Accident Analysis
From June 1, 1993 to May 31, 1996, six accidents occurred in the project area.
The total accident rate along the roadway is 85 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
and is below the statewide average for similar facilities. The accident types consist of an
angle accident, collisions with turning vehicles, a sideswipe accident, a rear-end collision,
and an accident involving a backing vehicle. Two fatalities occurred on NC 251 near the
intersection with Elk Mountain Road.
The proposed improvements will reduce the potential for accidents to occur along
this portion of the facility. The curve realignments will improve the sight distance along
the roadway and help reduce the occurrence of rear-end, turning, and backing collisions
at driveways or intersections. Wider travel lanes will help to reduce the occurrence of
sideswipe accidents.
4
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The project alternatives consist of Highway Construction Alternatives and a
Public Transportation Alternative. These are described below.
A. Highway Construction Alternatives
Four alignment alternatives were evaluated in the EA. These are shown on
Figure 5 and described as follows:
Alternative 1 begins at US 19/ US 23, follows Jonestown Road and Elk Mountain
Place, connects with Elk Mountain Road south of New Street, and extends along
Elk Mountain Road to NC 251.
Alternative 2 generally follows existing Elk Mountain Road from US 19/ 23 to
Elk Mountain Place, extends on new location, connects with Elk Mountain Road
near Fourth Street, and extends along Elk Mountain Road to NC 251.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) generally follows Elk Mountain Road from US 19/
US 23 to NC 251.
Alternative 3A generally follows Elk Mountain Road from US 19/ US 23 to Elk
Mountain Place, extends on new location, connects with Elk Mountain Road near
Penley Avenue, and extends along Elk Mountain Road to NC 251.
Alternative 3 was recommended because it involved the least amount of community
disruption, was favored by local officials and citizens, and was less expensive than
Alternatives I and 2. Since the right of way was acquired along this alternative, no other
alignment alternatives are being considered in this reevaluation.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during the project's development.
Elk Mountain Road is the primary route for providing access to the town from NC 251
and US 19/ US 23 and is characterized by narrow travel lanes, unusable shoulders, and a
sinuous alignment. These conditions restrict sight distance and maneuverability along the
facility. The "do nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to future traffic
operations and safety. Wider travel lanes and a straightened alignment are needed to
improve the traffic flow and reduce the potential for accidents to occur. For these
reasons, the "do nothing" alternative was rejected.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
The Asheville Transit Authority operates a public transportation system in the
Greater Asheville Urban area. This system consists of a fixed route bus system, school
bus service, and paratransit services. The fixed route buses serve the City of Asheville
and Town of Biltmore Forest with 11 routes during non-peak hours and 13 routes during
the peak hours. The school bus service uses transit buses in transporting students to and
from Asheville area schools. The Buncombe Coordinated Special Transportation
(BOOST) system offers paratransit services for Buncombe County residents, including
some residents in Woodfin. Vans are used to provide transportation for disabled citizens
and for participants in programs sponsored by local human services agencies.
No other ridesharing programs exist within the Asheville area, but the Asheville
Transit Authority is considering ways to sponsor ridesharing and carpooling opportunities
in the future.
Because these transit and paratransit programs do not extensively serve the Town
of Woodfin, they will not fulfill the need of the project. However, the proposed
improvements will enhance the safety and efficiency for these modes of transportation
since they rely upon highway corridors.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use
a. Current Planning Status
The project is located within the Town of Woodfin. The town has been
incorporated into the City of Asheville's planning jurisdiction. The City of Asheville
maintains an active planning program. Its primary policy guidance document is its 2010
Asheville City Plan which was completed in 1987 and updated in 1989. The City is also
developing a series of corridor studies, but none of the completed corridor studies affect
the project area. The City is working to update its thoroughfare plan which will also
include a bikeway plan. The City enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations based on Asheville's comprehensive plan.
b. Existin Land Use and Zoning
The project begins in the center of town. The area is characterized by a mix of
residential and commercial uses and zonings. Primarily single-family residences are
located in the project vicinity. Some commercial and light industrial development is
scattered throughout the corridor, with the primary industrial uses near NC 251.
6
Future Land Use
According to local planning officials, the project area is not anticipated to
experience high growth in the future because of constraints with US 19/ US 23 to the east
and the French Broad River to the west. Development demands for this area will be
minimal because of limited access and land use restrictions.
d. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been developed, or committed to
urban development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the
Act. The US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was consulted to determine whether the
proposed widening project will impact farmland soils. The SCS study concluded that no
prime, unique, state or locally important farmlands are located within the vicinity of the
project. Since the current and future land uses in the project area are primarily urban
uses, the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply to the project.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Buncombe County is located in western North Carolina and is bounded by
Madison, Yancey, McDowell, Rutherford, Henderson, Transylvania, and Haywood
Counties. According to the 1990 Census Data, Buncombe County has a total population
of 174,821. Of this number, 158,979 are white and 15,842 are non-white.
The neighborhood of the project is characterized by urban residential and
commercial development in a mountainous community. Many of the homes and utilities
are located close to the existing roadway.
3. Public and Private Facilities
Public and private facilities in the vicinity of the project include Woodfin
Elementary School, Elk Mountain Baptist Church, Church of God Worship Center,
Woodfin Municipal Building, and Riverside Business Park (refer to Figure 2 for
locations). The Elk Mountain Business Park is proposed along Moser Road. The project
will not have an adverse impact upon these facilities.
The Buncombe County Schools' Transportation Department is located at the end
of Washington Avenue, northeast of the project area. The Transportation Department
requested a traffic study to be conducted at the Washington Avenue/ Green Oak Road
intersection. A large number of school buses and service vehicles travel to and from the
Transportation Department and have difficulty entering and crossing Elk Mountain Road.
The NCDOT Division 13 Office will analyze the traffic operations at the intersection and
will coordinate the results of the study with the school system.
4. Relocation Impacts
In 1980, the right of way was acquired for the proposed alignment. During that
time, five residences and businesses were relocated by the project. No additional families
or businesses will be displaced by the project, but utilities will be relocated prior to
construction.
Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an
effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be given an opportunity to comment.
A Phase II (Abridged) Historic Architectural Resources Survey was conducted to
determine the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the project and to identify and evaluate
all structures over 50 years of age within the APE according to the Criteria of Evaluation
for the National Register of Historic Places. Buncombe County survey files were
consulted in the Western State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Asheville, as well
as the National Register of Historic Places and the North Carolina State Study List files.
The APE was drawn to include all properties located along the existing roadway
beginning at US 19/ US 23 and ending at NC 251. On January 2, February 4, and
February 5, 1997, surveys were conducted by automobile and on foot, covering all of the
APE to identify those properties over 50 years of age that appeared to be eligible for the
National Register.
Twenty-three individual properties were identified in this survey. Of these, six
were evaluated according to National Register Criteria. The evaluated properties include
the Elk Mountain Steam Plant, the Elk Mountain Cotton Mill and Village, and four
houses associated with the mill village (refer to Figure 2 for locations). In meetings on
January 30 and February 13, 1997, the SHPO concurred with NCDOT's determination
that the remaining 17 individual structures are not eligible for the National Register and
not worthy of further evaluation (refer to correspondence in Appendix A). The six
properties evaluated in the survey report are not listed on the North Carolina State Study
List and were determined not eligible for the National Register. The SHPO concurs with
these determinations (refer to correspondence in Appendix A).
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based upon
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. Therefore, the SHPO recommended no archaeological investigation
to be conducted for the project (refer to SHPO correspondence in Appendix A).
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (May 1996) indicated
that the total labor force of Buncombe County was 97,100. Of this total, 94,000
(96.8 percent) were employed and 3,100 (3.2 percent) were unemployed.
The proposed safety and traffic flow improvements are expected to benefit the
local economy. The project will make travel safer, more efficient, and increase
accessibility to area businesses.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biotic Resources
An ecological evaluation was conducted to inventory and describe the natural
resources which occur within the proposed right of way boundaries and which are likely
to be impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of
probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for
measures which will minimize resource impacts.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists on June 9, 1997 and May 20, 1997. Water resources were
identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy
follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative
communities were mapped using aerial photography of the project site. Predictions
regarding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative habitat
assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife was identified using a
variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative
communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then
released.
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
9
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), where possible. Representative
animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the
text with an asterisk (*).
a. Plant Communities
Plant communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Most of the described
flora and fauna use resources from different communities, making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. Two distinct community types were
identified in the study area: Disturbed and Riparian.
Disturbed Community
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area, therefore the entire corridor
is disturbed by past and present human activity. Some small sections of regrowth forest
were observed in the study area. The majority of the corridor is composed of the existing
roadside shoulders, residential lawns, and commercial lawns. These areas are composed
of white clover (Trifolium repens), honey suckle (Lonicera japonica), black berry (Rubus
argutus), forsythia (Forsythia sp.), purple clover (Trifolium pratense), cultivated azalea
Rhododendron spp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginica), plantain (Plantago spp.),
flame azalea (R. calendulaceum), daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), daisy (Coreopsis sp.),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
dandelion (Taraxacum of icinale), fescue (Festuca sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and
beard tongue (Penstemon canescens). Isolated trees observed throughout this community
include: eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), blackjack
oak (Quercus marilandica), southern red oak (Q. falcata), red cedar (Juniperus
virginianus), white pine (Pinus strobus), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), redbud
(Cercis canadensis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), Japanese maple (Acer palmatum),
blue spruce (Picea pungens), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana).
Riparian Community
An unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek flows along the existing roadway near
the western end of the project. Small forested areas occur along the banks of this
intermittent stream and are dominated by box elder (A. negundo), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), red oak (Q. rubra), jewel weed
(Impatiens capensis), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), southern lady fern
(Athyrium asplenioides), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). These riparian areas are
highly fragmented.
10
b. Wildlife and Aquatic Communities
Communities that are maintained in an early successional state provide little cover
for animals in the study area. These areas do provide an important food source for
herbivores and also predators found higher up on the food chain. Butterflies, such as
cabbage butterfly (Pieris rapae) and painted lady (Vanessa cardui), are commonly seen
going from flower to flower feeding on the nectar that these plants produce. Other
animals that frequently forage on roadside shoulders and fill slopes include: black rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis)*, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris)*, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia), gray squirrel (Scurius caroliniana)*, and eastern cottontail
(Svlvilagus floridanus).
The habitats available in the unnamed tributary provide limited opportunities for
piscine species, since the stream has an intermittent flow. Piscine species likely to occur
in this stream are creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare), and shiners (Notropis spp.). Fish are most likely to be observed during
periods of high flow. Nonpiscine species such as mountain dusky salamander
(Desmognathus ochrophaeus) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) can be observed in pools
in the stream channel.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from the proposed clearing and
paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Calculated
impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the entire project
length and the entire proposed right of way width. However, project construction often
does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less. Construction of the proposed project will impact 0.84 hectare (2.1 acres) of the
disturbed community and 0.14 hectare (0.34 acre) of the riparian community.
The projected loss of habitat resulting from construction of the proposed project
will have a minimal impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Natural
communities impacted by project construction are already disturbed to a greater or lesser
extent. Plants and animals found in these communities are generally common throughout
North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting through disturbance. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable
habitat following project completion.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic communities in the stream crossed by the proposed project
will result from the proposed culvert extension. Impacts are also likely to result from the
physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks).
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats.
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the
burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic
substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertibrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities will be reduced by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instream construction, revegetation immediately following the
completion of grading activities, and strict adherence to Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters.
d. Rare and 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 human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
12
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of May 2, 1997, the FWS lists twelve federally protected species for
Buncombe County (refer to Table 1). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impacts follows this table.
Table 1
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii Proposed T (S/A)
peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered
eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar Endangered
Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
squirrel
turquois shiner (spotfin chub) Cyprinella monacha (Hybopsis monacha) Threatened*
gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered**
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered*
mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered*
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
• "Proposed T (S/A)" a species proposed for official listing as threatened due to
similarity of appearance.
• "Threatened" a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "*" Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
• "**" Obscure Record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Clemmys muhlenburgii (bog turtle)
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 centimeters
(3 to 4 inches) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and black plastron. The orange or
13
yellow blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It
inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, 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 55 days. (Martof, et. al., 1980).
Biological Conclusion: Not Threatened or Endangered and Not Subject
to Section 7 Consultation
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of Appearance
with other rare species that are listed for protection. Species listed as T (S/A) are not
considered by FWS to be biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
Falco pereQrinus (Peregrine falcon)
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, 41 to 51 centimeters (16 to 20 inches) long and 91 to 112
centimeters (36 to 44 inches) wide. In this species the female is roughly 25 percent 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 tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and
on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-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 extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Communities found in the study area do not contain suitable nesting sites for the
peregrine falcon. Construction of the proposed project will not limit foraging
opportunities and will not impact suitable nesting sites. A review of the Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats shows no records of the
occurrence of the peregrine falcon in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore,
construction of the proposed project will not affect the peregrine falcon.
14
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar)
The cougars' historic range included eastern, Canada and extended south through
the Mid Atlantic region, merging with the range of the Florida cougar. The hypothetical
range of the eastern cougar includes all of Kentucky, North Carolina, eastern Tennessee,
and northeastern South Carolina. In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur in only
a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian
mountains. Populations of cougars have been tentatively identified in Great Smokey
Mountain National Park, near Unit 22 in the Natahala National Forest, the northern
Uwharrie National Forest, and in the southeastern counties.
The eastern cougar is a large, long-tailed cat that lacks spots. These cats measure
from 2.1 to 2.7 meters (7 to 9 feet) in length, including the tail, and weigh 68 to 91
kilograms (150 to 200 pounds). Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the
muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. Cougar kittens are
spotted and have a ringed tail.
The eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an
abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed deer. Cougars are also known to
feed on wild pigs, wild turkeys, and domestic livestock. A cougar will usually occupy a
range of 40 kilometers (25 miles), and they are most active at night.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No large wilderness areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, no
suitable habitat for this species will be impacted. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats shows no recorded occurrences of this species in the study
area. No impacts to the eastern cougar will result from the project.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel)
Populations of the northern flying squirrel are stable throughout most of its range.
After the Pleistocene Epoch glaciations, this species underwent speciation in the southern
part of its range resulting in the coloratus and fuscus subspecies. Populations of
coloratus are considered to be isolated relicts and have a patchy distribution in the
southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations occur at Grandfather Mountain,
Mt. Mitchell, the Great Balsam Mountains, the Plott Balsam Mountains, the Great
Smokey Mountains (Jackson and Swain Counties), the Unicoi Mountains, and the Long
Hope Valley area.
The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent, measuring from 26 to 31
centimeters (10 to 12 inches) in total length and weighing from 95 to 140 grams (3 to 5
ounces). This squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its body,
this flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin
flaps and broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to tree.
15
It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes. Juvenile squirrels have a uniform
dark gray back and an off-white underside. Adult squirrels are characteristically gray
with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash on the back, and a grayish-white to buffy white
underside.
This squirrel is found in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and
coniferous forests, above 1517 meters (5000 ft). Foraging occurs in both communities
with nesting only occurring in the Hardwood Community type. Northern flying squirrels
feed on lichens, fungi, seeds, buds, fruit, staminate cones, insects, and animal flesh.
Winter shelters are found in tree cavities and woodpecker holes. Leaf nests are most
commonly occupied in the summer. The inside of their nests is lined with lichens, moss,
or finely chewed bark. A West Virginia study has preliminary results that show the use
of burrows by northern flying squirrels.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project occurs at an elevation of approximately 610 meters (2000
feet). This elevation is substantially below the elevation requirements for this species.
Therefore, suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel does not occur in the
study area. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrences of this species in the project vicinity. No impacts to this species will result
from project construction.
Cyprinella monacha (turquoise shiner)
The turquoise shiner once ranged throughout most of the Tennessee River System
from the upper reaches of the Holston in Virginia, to as far west as the Buffalo River in
Tennessee. Its former range included Tennessee River tributaries in Georgia and
Alabama and the Swannanoa River, Spring Creek (French Broad system), and the Little
Tennessee system in North Carolina. It has been extirpated from most of these localities.
In North Carolina, populations are known to persist only in the Little Tennessee River
between Franklin and Fontana Reservoir, Swain and Macon Counties. Other extant
populations are found in the lower North Fork of the Holston River in Virginia and
Tennessee and the Emory and Buffalo River Systems in western Tennessee.
Adult turquoise shiners range between 50 and 90 millimeters (2 to 3 inches) in
standard length (SL). Males tend to be larger than females. They have a large dark spot
at the base of the caudal fin, blackened posterior dorsal fin membranes, and a dusky
midlateral stripe. Adult females and non-nuptual males are tan, gray, or olive green
dorsally and bright silver laterally and ventrally. Often the bright silver coloring masks
the lateral stripe and caudal spot. Nuptual males are iridescent turquoise to cobalt blue on
their upper sides, with an olive or tan dorsum often flecked with green or gold glints.
From midside to belly they are a silvery cream color.
16
The turquoise shiner occupies warm, usually clear, medium streams to medium
rivers of moderate gradient. It is found in moderate to swift currents over a variety of
substrates ranging from gravel to bedrock. This shiner is rarely found in streams with
sandy substrates and almost always avoids appreciably silted areas.
Juvenile and adult turquoise shiners feed on immature midge and blackfly larvae
(90 percent of the diet) and mayfly nymphs. Most individuals are reproductively mature
at 2 years, but a few may spawn in 1 year. Spawning, food preferences, and other life
history aspects were described in depth by Jenkins and Burkhead (1984, 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek has an intermittent flow and does not
provide suitable habitat for this species. A search of the NHP database of rare species
and unique habitats shows no occurrences of this species in the vicinity of the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to this
species.
Myotis grisescens (gray bat)
The gray bat is the largest member of the Myotis genera in the eastern United
States, weighing between 7 and 16 grams (0.2 to 0.6 ounces). After molting in mid-
summer (July or August), this species is dark gray, but this color tends to fade to chestnut
brown or russet over the winter.
Gray bats occupy distinctly different habitats during different seasons. In winter
they tend to occupy unusually cold, deep, vertical caves which act as cold air traps, and in
summer they tend to occupy unusually warm caves, or caves with domed ceilings or
restricted rooms capable of trapping body heat from clusters of thousands of individuals.
Summertime foraging occurs almost exclusively over water or along the forested
margins of rivers and reservoirs. Summer roosts, especially those used by maternity
colonies, are rarely more than 4 kilometers (6.5 miles) from a river or reservoir and are
usually within 1 kilometer (0.6 mile). Foraging over one east Tennessee reservoir was
found to be directly related to mayfly populations. Degradation of water quality and the
subsequent loss of pollution sensitive mayflies is thought to adversely affect foraging
opportunities for the gray bat.
Major threats to the gray bat include direct disturbance by humans, especially of
hibernating colonies, and indirect disturbance in the form of chemical and physical water
pollution, impoundment of waterways, cave commercialization, and improper gating of
caves.
17
The only recorded occurrence of the gray bat in North Carolina was an individual
recovered in Buncombe County in October, 1968. This individual was banded in
Tennessee and is considered to be a vagrant since it was well outside the known range of
the species. No viable populations are known to exist in North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The one recorded occurrence of the gray bat in North Carolina is considered to be
a vagrant from Tennessee. There are no recorded hibernacula, maternity caves, or
summer-use caves in North Carolina. There is no maternity or hibernating habitat present
within the project area. In addition, the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
contains no records of the gray bat within the project area. Construction of the proposed
project will not effect this species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe previously ranged in the upper Tennessee River system in
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee including the river systems of the Little
Tennessee River and the French Broad River. There are now only two known
populations of the Appalachian elktoe in North Carolina: the Cane River and the North
Toe River which drain into the Nolichucky River (Mitchell and Yancey Counties) and the
Little Tennessee River and its tributaries (Macon Co.).
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to
8 centimeters (20 inches). Its shell is thin but not fragile and subovate (kidney-shaped).
Juveniles of the species generally have a yellowish-brown periostracum (outer shell)
while the periostracum of the adults is a dark brown in color. Rays are prominent on
some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell, although occasionally some
individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The nacre (inside shell) is shiny, with a
white to bluish-white color which changes to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the
central and beak cavity portions of the shell. Some specimens may be marked with
irregular brownish blotches.
Since the Appalachian elktoe is a rare specimen, little is known about the specifics
of its biology. The mussel has been reported to propagate in the waters of relatively
shallow, medium-sized creeks and in rivers with cool, moderate to fast-flowing currents.
The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble
and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates. The
reproduction of the mussel is thought to be normal, although the fish species which the
mussel glochidia parasitizes is unknown.
The populations of the Appalachian elktoe are threatened by a variety of man-
made factors such as road construction and residential and commercial development.
18
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek has an intermittent flow and therefore
does not provide suitable habitat for this species. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats shows no occurrences of this species in the vicinity of the
proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to
this species.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been
extirpated and populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of
20 to 50 centimeters (8 to 20 inches). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of
bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound,
terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are
reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate, with long
petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basal, rounded to obovate, with irregularly cut
margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7 to 9 millimeters
(0.3 to 0.4 inches) in diameter.
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 to 1541 meters (5060 to 5080 feet), 1723 to 1747 meters (5680 to 5760 feet) and
1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight
and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of sand,
pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on
rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project occurs at an elevation of approximately 610 in (2000 ft).
This elevation is substantially below the elevation requirements for this species.
Therefore, the study area does not provide suitable habitat for spreading avens. A search
of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrences of this
species in the project vicinity. No impacts to spreading avens will result from project
construction.
Sa i?ittt aria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead)
This plant is found in North Carolina and South Carolina. It is presently known
from only one population in Henderson County, North Carolina and four populations in
South Carolina. Historically it was found in seven additional locations in Henderson
19
County along the French Broad River Valley from south of East Flat Rock north to
Asheville.
The bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb that grows from
15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) in height. It has spatulate leaves that stem from the
base of the plant. The leaves are 30 centimeters (12 inches) long and 2 centimeters
(0.8 inches) wide. The erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on it, the
male being above the female. Male flowers have three reflexed sepals, three white petals,
and numerous stamens with pubescent dilated filaments. Female flowers have three
spreading or reflexed sepals, three white petals, and numerous separate carpels. The
fruiting head is composed of numerous achenes that ascend from the stalks of the lowest
whorl of flowers.
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 to 60
centimeters (10 to 24 inches).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No wetlands that provide suitable habitat for this species are located in the study
area. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no records
of this species in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project will not affect the bunched arrowhead.
Sarracenia rubra var. 'off nsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant)
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and streams in southwestern
North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina. The four North Carolina populations
are found in the French Broad River drainage basin in Henderson and Transylvania
counties. Although this species has been reported in Buncombe County, it is not known
to currently survive there.
This insectivorous, rhizomatous, perennial herb grows from 21 to 73 centimeters
(8 to 29 inches) in height. It has numerous erect leaves that grow 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. Fruits appear in August.
20
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and along
streamsides. 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 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
No wetlands are found in the study area and the one stream found in the study
area has a steep gradient. Therefore suitable habitat for the mountain sweet pitcher plant
is not found in the study area. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats shows no occurrences of this species in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project will not impact the mountain sweet pitcher plant.
SSpiraea virginian a (Virginia spiraea)
Virginia spiraea is presently known from locations in six different states. In
North Carolina it is found on the South Fork of the New River in Ashe County, the Little
Tennessee River in Macon County, the Nolichucky River in Mitchell and Yancey
Counties, the South Toe River in Yancey County, and the Cane River in Yancey County.
It is only known from historic collections in Buncombe and Graham Counties.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10
feet) tall. It sprouts readily and is often found in dense clumps. The leaves are alternate
and vary greatly in size, shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and usually
somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers occur in branched, flat-topped
inflorescences that are approximately 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) wide.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats consisting of scoured
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
Intermittent streams with dense canopies do not provide suitable habitat for
Virginia spiraea. The stream in the study area is intermittent, has a dense canopy, and
does not provide suitable habitat for this species. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats shows no populations of this species occurring in the vicinity
of the proposed project. No impacts to this species will result from the proposed
construction.
21
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen)
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 mountaintops greater than 1220 meters (4000 feet),
on cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog, or on deep lower elevation gorges below
762 meters (2500 ft) 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
Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey Counties. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome
lichen can be found in Jackson, Rutherford, and Transylvania Counties.
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 centimeters (0.4 to 0.8 inches) 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
forests 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
The proposed project occurs at an elevation of approximately 610 meters (2000
feet) which is below the elevation requirements for this species. This elevation is
substantially below the elevation requirements for this species. Therefore, the study area
does not provide suitable habitat for rock gnome lichen. A search of the NHP database of
rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrences of this species in the project
vicinity. No impacts to the rock gnome lichen will result from project construction.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 27 federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Buncombe County
(refer to listing in Table 2). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
22
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
However, the status of these species is subject to change, so they should be included for
consideration. A Federal Species of Concern (FSC) is defined as a species which is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In
addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act
and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE STATUS FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Common Name
Bachman's sparrow
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
hellbender
cerulean warbler
eastern small-footed myotis
southern Appalachian woodrat
longhead darter
paddlefish
southern water shrew
Appalachian Bewick's wren
French Broad crayfish
tawny crescent
diana fritillary butterfly
fraser fir
piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
glade spurge
mountain heartleaf
French Broad heartleaf
butternut
Gray's filly
Fraser's loosestrife
sweet pinesap
pinnate-lobed black-eyed susan
Carolina saxifrage
divided-leaf ragwort
mountain catchfly
Scientific Name
Aimophila aestivalis
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Dendroica cerulea
Myotis leibii
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Percina macrocephala
Polyodon spathula
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Thryomanes bewickii altus
Cambarus reburrus
Phycoides batesii
Speyeria diana
Abies fraseri
Buckleya distichophylla
Calamagrostis cainii
Euphorbia purpurea
Hexastylis contracta
H. rhombiformis
Juglans cinerea
Lillium grayi
Lysimachia fraseri
Monotropsis odorata
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatoloba
Saxifraga caroliniana
Senecio millefolium
Silene ovata
State
Status
SC
SC
SC
Sc
SC
SC
E
SC
E
E
E
E
T-SC
E
T
Habitat
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
23
Note:
• "E" Endangered (any species whose continued existence as a viable component of the
state's flora/fauna is determined to be in jeopardy).
• "T" Threatened (any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
• "SC" Special Concern (any species which requires monitoring but which may be
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act).
A review of the NHP data base of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrences of Federal Species of Concern in the study area. Surveys for FSC species
were not conducted during the site visit.
Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography influence
the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction
limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present
important management limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the
increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting
from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water
resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability
of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic
communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
a. Topography and Soils
The proposed project is located within the Mountain Physiographic Province of
North Carolina. The topography in the vicinity of the study area is characterized by
mountains and smaller hills. Swift moving streams are often found in the valleys. The
elevation throughout the project area is approximately 610 meters (2000 feet) above mean
sea level.
There are two soil map units in the immediate project area: Evard-Urban land and
Hayesville-Urban land. Evard-Urban land consists of Evard soils and Urban land on
lower mountain ridges and side slopes and higher mountain ridges of the intermountain
area. Slopes in this land type range from 15 to 30 percent. This soil has moderate
permeability, medium water capacity, and low shrink-swell potential. The seasonal high
water table is greater than 2 meters (6 feet). Hayesville-Urban land consists of areas of
Hayesville soils and Urban land on ridges and intermountain sideslopes below 762 meters
(2500 feet). Slopes in this land type range from 2 to 15 percent. This soil has moderate
permeability, high water capacity, and low shrink-swell potential. The seasonal high
water table is greater than 2 meters (6 feet).
24
No mapped soils that are hydric soils or soils that contain inclusions of hydric
soils were identified in the study area.
b. Water Resources
This section describes surface water resources that are likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. This assessment includes for each water resource the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, water quality, and relationships to major regional
drainage systems. Probable surface water impacts and measures to minimize these
impacts are also discussed.
Best Usaize Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the French Broad River
Drainage Basin (Subbasin Number 040302). One intermittent stream flows parallel to the
existing roadway throughout much of the project. This stream is an unnamed tributary to
Beaverdam Creek. Construction of the subject project will require that this stream be
relocated for part of its length.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed streams carry the same
best usage classification as the streams to which they are tributary. The DEM
classification of Beaverdam Creek (Index Number 6-82) is "C". The Best Usage
Classification C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project study area.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek is located to the south of SR 1648
and flows parallel to the road for approximately 350 meters (1150 feet) before it
converges with Beaverdam Creek north of the study area. Substrate in the stream varies
from stretches composed of sand and gravel to stretches dominated by cobble and
boulder. The stream is 1 meter (3 feet) wide and varies in depth from 3 to 8 centimeters
(1 to 3 inches). Much of the stream has stable banks that are vegetated with canopy trees
and a dense assemblage of shrubs.
Water Ouality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project
area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based
25
on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. This
data provides insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet
human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
General Watershed Characteristics
The watershed for this subbasin of the French Broad River includes Asheville and
its suburbs. The immediate vicinity of the study area is highly industrialized and few
streams exist in a natural setting. Streams are vulnerable to industrial spills and point
source pollution as well as domestic waste and other sources of nonpoint source
pollution. Nonpoint source pollution includes domestic waste from septic tanks,
fertilizers and pesticides from lawn maintenance.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected Benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa
richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site bioclassification. The biotic index and taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
One sampling site is located on the French Broad River 2.2 kilometers (3.5 miles)
downstream of the study area. This site was sampled in 1983 and 1985 and received a
bioclassification of fair.
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. Two permitted
dischargers with discharges greater than 0.5 MGD are located within 3.1 kilometers
(5 miles) of the study area. MSD of Buncombe County is located 0.5 kilometer (0.3
mile) upstream of the study area on the French Broad River. This facility is permitted to
discharge up to 40.0 MGD. Silverline Plastics Corporation is located 1.8 kilometers
(1.1 miles) downstream of the study area on the French Broad River. This facility is
permitted to discharge up to 0.12 MGD.
26
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers
and herbicides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased erosion in the project area and increased sedimentation and siltation
downstream of the crossing.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to vegetation removal and
increased sedimentation.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds (petroleum products) in highway
runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
The project encroaches on. approximately 350 meters (1150 feet) of the
intermittent Tributary to Beaverdam Creek between Fourth Street and Little Beaverdam
Creek Road. Measures have been considered for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the
stream (refer to discussion of avoidance and minimization measures in Section IV.C.5).
It is recommended that the drainage from the stream be incorporated into the proposed
storm drain system for the project.
The project is not located within a water supply watershed nor in a high quality
water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures. To minimize potential water resources impacts, Best
Management Practices will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating
stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
3. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
27
wetlands 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). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. No wetlands were identified in the study area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the length of the
stream that is located within the proposed right of way. One jurisdictional surface water
is located within the proposed right of way. Approximately 350 linear meters (1150 feet)
and 320 square meters (3450 square feet) of this stream will be impacted by project
construction.
4. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) would normally apply to ditch and
stream crossings in the project study area. However, because the proposed impact to the
Beaverdam Creek Tributary exceeds 61 linear meters (200 feet), the project requires an
Individual Section 404 Permit.
Since the proposed project is located in a county with designated trout waters, the
authorization of an individual permit by the COE requires concurrence from the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the individual permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
5. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
28
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
The intermittent Tributary to Beaverdam Creek between Fourth Street and Little
Beaverdam Creek Road cannot be avoided. This stream flows along the west side of Elk
Mountain Road, crosses under Little Beaverdam Creek Road, and empties into
Beaverdam Creek. Consideration has been given to avoiding most of the tributary by
widening to the east side. This eastward shift, however, is not practicable since it would
relocate three residences, encroach upon the Elk Mountain Community Cemetery, and
require a substantial amount of new right of way. In addition, this shift would create a
less desirable alignment by adding a reverse curve near Fourth Street and sharpening the
curvature near the NC 251 intersection. Near Little Beaverdam Creek Road, impacts to
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) of the tributary are unavoidable since the roadway
must cross the stream to intersect with NC 251.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, right of way widths, and fill slopes.
Consideration has been given for minimizing impacts to the Beaverdam Creek
Tributary. A 236-meter (775-foot) retaining wall was considered to retain most of the
existing stream channel. Approximately 55 meters (180 feet) of stream rechannel ization
would be required in conjunction with the retaining wall. This wall would cost $252,000
and is not considered a practicable alternative for minimizing impacts to the stream.
Consideration was also given for relocating the tributary along the west side of the
existing roadway. The relocated channel and sideslopes would require an extensive
amount of excavation through the steep terrain, resulting in a high construction cost and a
large quantity of waste material. The terrain would not allow sufficient room to include
meanders along the new channel that would imitate the existing stream channel. In
addition, the new channel would be located at the toe of the highway fill slope and would
29
require rip rap on the highway side of the channel for stabilization. For these reasons,
rechannel izat ion is not recommended. However, it is recommended that this portion of
the tributary be incorporated into the project's stormdrain system.
The proposed cross section consists of a two-lane curb and gutter section with
1.2-meter (4-foot) berms and 2:1 sideslopes in the vicinity of the stream. This typical
section is contained within 50 feet of uniform right of way and easements.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Section
404 Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.45 hectare (1 acre) of
wetlands and/ or more than 45.7 linear meters (150 feet) of streams. Stream mitigation is
required for the proposed impacts to the intermittent Tributary to Beaverdam Creek.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Buncombe County is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Two detail study streams, the French Broad River and Beaverdam Creek, are
located just west of the project terminus. The project does not cross either of these
streams or any other identified flood hazard area.
7. Air uali
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
30
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background.
The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways
in the vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The
background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the background
concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However,
regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements maybe offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (6.2 to 12.4 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere,
and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and
other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog
which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
31
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning
of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead
which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
0.54 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per
liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded
fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected
that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections, and the highest volume along
the project was used in the CAL3QHC modeling. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the completion year of 2000 and the design year of 2020 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be a point located on the
right of way at a distance of 7.6 meters from the proposed centerline of the roadway. The
"build" and "no- build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for
the years of 2000 and 2020 are shown in the following table.
32
Table 3
ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
Nearest
Sensitive Build No Build
Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
R/W 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted (for I-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables A 1 and A2 in Appendix B for input data and output for the
build scenario.
The project is located in Buncombe County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be performed
under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce
the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening on
noise levels in the immediate project area (refer to Figure N1 in Appendix B). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey
of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts
can be expected from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from
the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
33
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust,
drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the
range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound
pressures to some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures
described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of
frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N 1 in Appendix B.
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are
exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and
the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivities to noise. Loud noises bother some more than
others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time
patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgment of whether or not a noise is
offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to
be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an
unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background
noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
34
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car
horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals.
In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible while sleep might be
difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by
loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
in order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 of Appendix B. The Leq, or equivalent sound
level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise levels were determined in the vicinity of the project using
STAMINA 2.0 noise prediction program. Based on past project history, the noise
prediction program has been a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. The 1996
Estimated Average Daily Traffic count for this project is 7,000. The computed noise
levels along SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) at 15 meters (49 feet) from the roadway is
62 dBA. The purpose of this noise level information is to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
35
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study is the Noise Barrier
Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The
BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model
uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only a preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing SR 1400 from a
5.4-meter (18-foot), two-lane shoulder section to a 9.6-meter (32-foot) meter, two-lane
curb & gutter section. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used in order to determine the number of
land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2020. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30,
60, 120, 240, and 480 meters (25, 49, 98, 197, 394, 787, and 1575 feet) from the center of
the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the posted
speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each
identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N3
of Appendix B. Information included in these tables consists of listings of all receptors in
close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated
noise level increase for each.
Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
36
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2 in
Appendix B. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for noise abatement measures at new
developments for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CE's, FONSI's,
ROD'S, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to
insure that noise compatible designs are used along the proposed facility.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to
be impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N4 of Appendix B. These are noted
in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 20 impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in
the project area. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours are less
than 9.5 and 12.2 meters, respectively, from the center 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 proper 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.
Table N5 of Appendix B indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. There are no receptors predicted to be
impacted by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The predicted noise level
increases for this project range from +1 to +7 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is
barely possible to 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.
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted
receptors. There are 20 impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project
area.
37
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
_ Management Measures
Traffic System
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time
of operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures
to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (49 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (394 feet) long . An access opening of 12 meters (39 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL
AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-
73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities
and would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
38
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed project is not constructed there will be 20 impacted receptors
due to highway traffic noise. Future traffic noise levels will increase in the range of 3 to
+4 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3
dBA. This small increase to the present noise level would be barely noticeable to the
people working and living in the area.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
9. Hazardous Materials
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted within the project corridor to
identify properties that may contain hazardous materials. Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) databases and environmental agencies' files were also reviewed. Based
upon these investigations, no underground storage tanks (UST's), regulated or
unregulated landfills, or dumpsites exist within the project limits.
39
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed project were requested from the following federal,
state, and local agencies. An asterisk indicates that a written response was received (refer
to Appendix A for agency comments).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
* Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County Commissioners
* Buncombe County Schools
* Town of Woodfin
These comments and issues have been addressed in this study.
Public Hearings
On February 22, 1978, a combined public hearing was held for the project in the
Woodfin Elementary School. Approximately 80 people attended the hearing. Several
people made statements or asked questions about the project. While some expressed
concerns about the amount of their properties that would be taken by the proposed right
of way, the project was generally supported by the citizens.
On July 16, 1997, an open-forum public hearing was held at the Woodfin
Elementary School to provide more current information about the proposed
improvements. Approximately 25 people attended the hearing, including representatives
from the Town of Woodfin and NCDOT. Citizens were primarily concerned about right
of way issues and the project's effect on their properties. Other comments focused on the
inclusion of a sidewalk and a right turn lane at Moser Road. A sidewalk and a turn lane
were considered but not recommended because of additional property impacts and delays
associated with acquiring new right of way. The majority of the hearing participants
were in favor of the project.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The findings presented in the 1977 Project Planning Report and Environmental
Assessment remain valid. It is anticipated that the proposed project will not have
significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environment. No additional
residences or businesses will be relocated by the project. No significant impacts to
40
architectural or archaeological resources in the project area will occur. No federally-
protected species will be impacted by the project. The project impacts an intermittent
stream, but impacts to this stream are not considered to be adverse. No adverse air
quality or traffic noise impacts are anticipated from projected traffic volumes along the
proposed facility.
MLR/pIr
FIGURES

ly> ,y
\ u
\
609
/179°
1 W15
6
1 ?
1758
1\
I\ ti
I \
I _
/
/
/
/ 1351
I
? I
ai?a. v
.38
1357 Y 1355 , .
J \
/ I
/ 1349 1353 I
/ 133e
I
'I ` ---------
/- I I I I ?
716 d7-?
I I m 338
x \ I _ _
I
I
I
BUNCOMBE
J COUNTY-
IR y ? \
alb \\
I? / !m
I•
I a..? e*9.1
I
I
' Project
U-401
1
I - - ? 1
1 -
I / PalW4r
1361 1633 1 1680
z !!
WOODFIN
1363 853 /
loce
61 OS ` 1
1856 Cg9r
.S
OB
1
ro lase " ? ®3434
• \h 362 \\
Y ,1
1S ?y _ 1361
\ F r.(1 r
O
i 1305 ?
6 I 1
e / I-
I ce \ I I
? Ian
IB ?' W 1305
135A rmW
J /
CIS
r

\
\
\
\
:'p1 ..a /
i--
M ?9 ,
/
/
a
m?
?4 -PA
?.
I \
/ / 0 1 I
cl? 02 "Ikol
t2??yZ
\
/
?I
,695
111674 ?"•L._ ....
I .
& 1 7230
111
1 (h 1613
4 07 ' ! U
11679 1 1 /
I1
• 06 / \
1697 I
ASHEVILLE
3QG1? 101..1.841
b
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
L - TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Woodfin, Buncombe County, TIP No. U-401
Vicinity Map
0 1/2 1 (kilometer)
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 mile FIGURE IA

MAr LQ
O
pR• W
rlp`AMp dr
V
? J W
i 2 S
A W
3
19
?LJ V A L L
\ N
\ O

Od wv0 ?Ja
i
aa OA 31AN 3 -19 ?p
* I
W O J J/r
Isla0,
--?
Oa QUV/I15 M f `
' W
ALCLAMF vi a OR o \ \ /?
z Q > t l S 1N?,1' /
\ 60 '
\ b
\ \ ?? !` ; SAREVA o` J
\ \ r. 40 C Q I Z?
\ my?y?f
\ \ \ \ \ \';? Z Z `? R %
d•J p?r'Ma`` LNEppv `N FDI ;1
I
\\
C1
W

o
z

Z 4 Vi o.

C4 0
C-
j

•

ti
J
< z z cz 7 CS

a`i .-.

y
z o C
oU
¢ y
E
o<L
¢ o
° U
r
,
uozzx
a v, O ° O

'
c
D u
Fz

oa

M
j
M Q m U
z
?
? O
w o 0

'C7
O
O
3
0 0
{
\ \ tp
3AY
71
E{ r w O n ?E 1 o .- ?. - r 3 3 - / A >?/^ zo rviJ r t 9`
OOOb ? ? E p0
)vERVIEW LH ?r? S, AYH fD l?yl`*
W
? 00 PELIiAR y ; \
>
O ; A W ? W N
10
CAVEW?n a 53
M 00 (D >
Z S ?S /
-- ? S 3 tl?_ P cr /
z
M „ASNINGroN W -
Q1 N C ?- 57 3,\v
.-vooM
W > F? C)
\ ana3o.Ns oy t0
® \
00 AVE ?--?_ o h Jab
Q
40
Q
vr_ BROWN AVE JNI A _-
t W
] I
Q . L a
a e LIP Cl ,T 0
?MO AV
5+" J *4 a a ?RESFlELO ? \
s1
Z PENN
a \,
kc) \
ppN \
? I "d
? Ya
J Q PO \
?Wm
w is
y¢? \
i z JPL N O M 314 ? ?llP ? o o °r O L ? i 1
a y'
J ?p .?NnnnU?. NINA °
' U Cl1 fit ?MM + L AV E p Z AJF o°
/AL Q
cri
O , z } u °
P-1 ?° Cl
LC)
N n y
? L3..
s,
04
- -- O
fDl
M \
M - M N
04
M ? ?V / (D z z
I/ MI
MI 0
s
<
{{'//yyyy W ?
NV?` 1 J •n ?? O?

.Jll
?I
r
R

t

3

moo. :' .:..: L

f ."

7
a
3r?l ¦

ti\Z

IM ;F
ti
w- -,
Nil 1")
M
W
w
W
Z
d
O
F
A
a
O
a
O
F
U
W
H
r?
V
V
b
ry E
T
-d
3 N ?

3

N M
kr;

N ?

N
N
o
A 3
O
_
w

a. Q " e° o
v
J
0 U ? d,,
C. > U U c

a> y
's4 U
A ?
O
N

?7
a ? II II it II
a
Q?
1Q?.
U
as
a?
0
L.
O)
N?
1
0
? p
N p
V N
z
b p

b
p

Lam.
N

O
M
N
01

0
O
w
C/n
aj
bQ
w
O
U
?a
54'
0
Q i?
1 -?
00
M
? M
Q
00
N
0
o ?
O / N
0
N
O I o 0

I
r
o
a ••
,;
I ry ? s i
t

°c
a

5 ? a
Q
J co
u f
d o° ?
•° " ?` o U v
a W ai o

I
l
(f

1? hI! I ^T

Q

a q? ? o

~ ? Q N ?
U H
N
?vxFF-
Q
w Qa'Q?
?
a x u ?? n n
QQa1(?H

"O
U
?v
a?
c?
a?
c.
a?
0
a

' rt
RG
vi
O
o
o. v? ?
f
W o ? °

to o
o
al
M w

d
x
o0 O ?
?
? N
O
o O
N ?
Cl)
0 0
0 0
M
N
rl
O

?

O
M r--q
O
N
V]
bA
CCS
O
U
?a

O
O
ti
0
O
?G
A
0 ?
2 Ile
y N ?
O
N
C
O

o
?
O
a U

-

x
z '? cl
w
0 ??Q o

j c o p a
v 50

,uQ'c F?Q

U U
7

z ate
, --
•ba ? cy
c'+ o
ry
T

7
ti
%I
OY 7MA ?? 0^
FMO /
f
• l4`? ? Dr \\ a ? v ?\
FAILS
7tl +WO - ?7Y
i
?M. 011 4k 3IAN 7l? I `p r
s SI, I
\ I
? ?rlYOi I
? I .
v
? Z / ooMAs w ? ,
O \
0 z
? oz > W
\\ v:?Y\ -71? /f : c f 1,LCLAW to f OR ?` \ \
t ? ? W W
Q = t : V1' /
\ \
$A cv? , L
? i
\ ? ? J J
\
fit I
'At
J , 11N
ILAV
Av E '? ? i
a
O ?_ ? QOJ' ? f A ?i
?vF NVIEW 51 CD .
-?'--1 W o ?W tD '
vEL1ZAR ? ? ?w1 ? ? )I
ssSS A i; 1 l ?n r
l 60 W O
?tnvtNV?..t ? f7r? Jv???
1

V)
Lij
O ?

z U ° LL.
C?
z cnn >
np
C.
Q a ?
C F^ CZ
w o
zo c
° o o ¢
E
0
?¢ U
C)4 -
<iLl 0 C7 - a? O
0
0
O
¢ ? 4 A
h
U O
C) < o
o
C
A
W
N r
? O
. w
-b
0
0
3
o O
z:
?I
0
0,
;1
) 1 >?? ? ,Sj OMt
Op0t 4 1?
1?nM
J r_'
wZ
i1 ASHINGTON 5? 7Ar \\ K?
h i00pM K
N ?I n
® / ?W
1\ =I v? OS. tt1
O tl0 ii 70?NS
h))
?- Td O00 AV[ . bg I l
?3 Q O fS /
BROWN AVE 7N1A
Y p
` 1 f ' I
y O V S 4? Q
? i ed GMT " • A? I
s G W n 1 i?
HMO AVE? n f I ??
y?' ` +J Z RE SF)E.yc \ \
7 pt N - n z \ \?
a - , ..
W
;
C\i
ilia 00?*
'? JV , iNnA111) ? NIN)' O 4.
0 vfvF S ?f O 1 ®a\ (L?
Cn OD
0
z O z
;
c
o 0
1L) , O ? a C
' N °
o % i

?I
?D
-?\ tp
M
MI N
N? 0 --
(D 0 /
II C 7 __? /
b
a?

O
U

N
? Q

y a? a, a?

? ? c c

? ? Q Q Q

i
APPENDIX
/j??L
C IF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 r-vC ^ 19 ,
C
December 24, 1996
-? IN REPLY REFER TO
y.i
Special Studies and 4
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of November 4, 1996, requesting comments on "U-401
Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), From NC 251 to Cottage Street, Buncombe
County, State Project #8.2017601, Federal-Aid Project #M-5019(1)" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199702226).
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerel?4y&??- F.E.
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with incoming correspondence):
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
December 24, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"U-401 Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), From NC 251 to Cottage Street,
Buncombe County, State Project #8.2017601, Federal-Aid Project #M-5019(1)" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199702226)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in jurisdiction of the town of Woodfin, which participates in
the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 188 and 189 of the
Buncombe County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, it
appears that the only identified flood plain involvement is the western terminus of the project.
This portion of the project may involve the floodway and/or flood plain of the detail study
streams, French Broad River and Beaverdam Creek. If floodways are impacted, we refer you to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification
for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been provided
previously to your office. The engineering point of contact for the National Flood Insurance
Program in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who may be reached at [phone]. In
addition, we suggest coordination with the community for compliance with their flood plain
ordinance.
We would like to note that Buncombe County is within the planning jurisdiction of the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with
respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. The Nashville District
does not currently have projects that would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Jamie
James may be contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the
Nashville District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a
permitting process. A 26a permit is required for all construction or development involving
streams or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at
[phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA. 26a permitting process.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - David Baker Asheville Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone]
The proposed improvements to Elk Mountain Road include widening to a 36-foot curb and
gutter section and improving the alignment in several locations. Section 404 jurisdictional
areas are limited to Beaverdam Creek, which crosses under NC 251 at the western terminus of
the project, and an unnamed headwater tributary to Beaverdam Creek which parallels a
portion of the existing roadway alignment on the west side.
The discharge of any dredged and/or fill material into these waters of the United States,
associated with potential stabilization, relocation, or crossings, will require valid Department of
the Army (DA) authorization prior to undertaking construction activities.
Please contact Mr. Baker if you have any questions related to Department of the Army
permits.
f - l? \
/T i t ? Cif I c?. ?..: f ? 11`? r?..J
S? NT OF Ty
O?PP ?' .aFy?
9o
7 fi
'a
M4ACH 9 yes
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 21, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
1 iai-ming aiiu Ei?vHow-ii-n7ad'Brancil
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
0 AEI ?t
NOY 2 6 1996;
1 2 aI1/ISICN OF
HIGHWAYS
???ORONNIE
Subject: U-401 Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), from NC 251 to Cottage Street,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project #M-5019(1), State Project
8.2017601
In your letter of November 4, 1996, you requested information regarding potential environmental
impacts that could result from the subject project. 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.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, the original environmental assessment on this
project was completed in 1977. Following a public hearing, a 50-foot right-of-way was
purchased and cleared. A reevaluation, completed in 1989, noted that ne substantial ebangPC had
been made to the original scope of the project. No changes have been made to the current action
that calls for widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section of Elk Mountain Road to a 36-foot
curb and gutter section and improving the alignment in several locations. The proposed roadway
will be striped for two lanes.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has no major concerns with the proposed action.
However, given the proximity of the project to the French Broad River, we want to emphasize
that stringent sedimentation and erosion control measures should be implemented and strictly
adhered to.
We do not have records of any federally listed species or Federal species of concern in the
proposed project area. In view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or threatened
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In any future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-018.
Sin cqply,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Route 1, Box 624,
Waynesville, NC 28786
FM206
NORTH CAROLINA STATF CLEARINGHOUSE
DFPARTMFNT OF AnMINTSTRATTON
116 WEST InNFS STRFFT
RALFTGH NORTH CAROLTNA 27603-8003
ACKNOWLFDGFMFNT OF RFfFTPT
MAILED TO
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANK VICK
PLANN. E ENV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFFICF
FROM
MS. JFANFTTE FURNEY
ADMINTSTRATTVE ASSISTANT
STATF CLFARINGHOUSE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSFD TMPROVFMFNTS TO FLK MOUNTATN ROAD (SR 1684)
FROM NC 251 TO COTTAGF STRFET FFD. AID #M-5019(1)
TYPF - SCOPING
THE N•C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSF HAS RFCFIVFD THE AROVF PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS RFFN ASSTGNFD STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 97F42200322. PLFASF USF THIS NUMRFR WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRFSPONDENCF WITH THIS OFFTCF.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD RF COMPLFTFD ON OR RFFORF 12/15/96.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

NOV
1996
z
Z? C'4/I S
\
in

FM20n
12-16-96
/Ilan K 1' av-
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH N:JRTH CAROLINA -,7503-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILzD TJ: FROM:
N.C. j:--PT- j;-- TKANSPJRTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICt: DIRECTOR
PLANN- L _NV. DRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSP,jRTATIJN 3LDG./INTER-OFF
PR:;JCCT' J?-SCAIPTIJN:
SCiJPIN,, - PRZPJSED IMPROVEMENTS TO ELK MOUNTAIN ROAD (SR 1684)
rROM NC -,:?1 Tj C6TTASE STREET: FcD- AID #M-5019(1)
SAI Nu PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE Az?JVz PnJJcCT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTEr;?JV_tiV;?=NTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUS,'°iITTCJ: ( ) Nu COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YJU HAVE A14Y QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
C-C. R:'-6ILN
DEC 09 '96 04:36FIl EHtR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Socretary
Richard F. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
p HNR
MEMORANDUM
TO.. Chrys Baggett
state clearinghouse
FROM: Melba mcaee
Project Review Coordinator
REs 97-0322 scoping Elk Mountain Road Reevaluation, Buncombe coon+,
DATE: December 9, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has rcvi? "
the proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review.
specific comments will be provided during the environmental review procesp
Thank you for the opportunity to respond- If during the preparation of
environmental document, additional information is needed, the applicao,!
enCouraged to notify our respective divisions.
attachments
NAP F 715-3060
P.O. Box 27687. An Equal Opportunity/ ty/Amrmatrve ,acs - -'I , FC
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 50% recycled/10% Post•cvi ?surc s i>
q}9-715-4148
?- 1.-- DEC 09 '96 04:38P" EHPR•PUBLIC AFFAIRS
State of North Cara
Healltth and Natural
Div1310n of Land Re50Ul
James B. Hunt, Jr., Go,
Jonathan B. Howes, Se
Charles H. Gardner. P.
Director and State Ge
Froject number:
project Name:
e

0000etiC a rPa N.C.
e of state pla 0 geodetic survey markaro.
at
This project will impact _._-? rfor to construction at P-.
-- Geodetic survey should be contacted ) 733_3836. IntentionGOnera
Raleigh, N.C. 77611 (919) a violation aE N.C.
Box 27687,
d-struatipn of a geodetic monument 18
Statute 102•-4. markers,
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey Other (comments attached)
C. office of state
For more informationcatt919J733-•3836• Imo' C,?
plwnni ng, Geodet c Survey A l office \?
ilJ pate V `r
Rev ewer
sea' 4 ti tr '
E Os u
No comment
fan erosion and aediment't'
ire approval o activity
This prC7ect will Xe? inning any land-disturbing
control plan prior to beg disturbed.
more than one (1) acre will be Environmen'a'
environmental document ment is Leo" fired to satisfy
re i, the document control must be submitte`' ?
If an a
--?'? policy Act (SEFA) 4u
part of the erosion and sedimentation p
a high Qualit';
ortion of the project•in located within
If any p classified by the Dlvi8ion of Envd onmeii'i1
---?-r"? Water zone (Howl, Ap cl standards for sediment and °r? s`
ManagoglQnt, increased design
control will apply-
lan.re4utred for this
re erred by the Department of Transl1?°rtat.i?')?1
she ®ro®ion and aeprepar eticn contd®1 cation to the Division
p p ro9rte,
.?--_- project should be p
Highway Control conu•? "''
under the erosion control s from the North Carolina Sedimentation
other (comments attached) sect'-on at 919/731-41,),1
tion contact the Land Quality
For more "forma
/a.?".?q?` ?.Cldrr' Bate (,EOEfe11c 57;
vp <91Q)?' t
R ewer Land 6lualiN Section FAX: 7;;.' '`
urvey sech [phone]
Geolo9icd S FAX
2876
[phone] : 733 -
I 9)
FAX (,p 733-0900
telep?x'ne 914 733-3833 FAX [phone]a`'
F.1
4 0 107i_
?&rv)
jeft;;
pEHNR

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., DirWplember 18,
T -T
4" Y
• •
? F= F=1
1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galambv`7
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
Elk Mountain Road Improvements
Buncombe County, TIP # U-401
The Division of Water Quality (WQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/re locations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the ch an nel i zed/re located
stream banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? WQ 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 control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from WQ.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
M Fquol OppmWnky Attlmw" Acton E,r,ptoyw Sox recyd@M O% poet core rrw papa
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from WQ.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area?
L. 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.
M. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek.
N. DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
WQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For WQ to concur with an
alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full control of
access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process)
are met. This regulation prevents WQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI
or Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until
the applicant informs WO that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the
Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
u-401.sco
cc: Mphello Suverkrubbe
;?ngela Smith, DOT

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: I- Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch NCDOT
Mark S. Davis, Western Mountain Region Coordinatorzl:,,,
FROM:
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 26, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposed widening of SR1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from US 19-23 to
NC 251 near Woodfin, Buncombe County, State Project No.8.2017601, F.A.
Project No. M-5019(1), U-401.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for
comments regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The
N. C.-Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and 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 the widening of SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from an 18-
foot, 2-lane section to a 32-foot Pf curb and gutter section along the same existing alignment
from U.S. 19-23 to NC 251. Fish and wildlife habitat in the project area is primarily associated
with surface water resources because of extensive development in this urban area. Trout waters
are not involved, although we are concerned about sedimentation and stormwater impacts to
nearby surface waters and associated wetlands.
In addition to the specific concerns mentioned above, the NCWRC offers the following list
of general recommendation 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 animal and plant species can be
developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project.
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 highway facility.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands be avoided. Non-wetland and
non-riparian alternatives should be examined during design. Where wetland losses are
unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation of the losses. Because Buncombe County
is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the NCWRC will review any nationwide or
general 404 permits for this project. While we do not anticipate modification of the project
because of trout waters, we will evaluate the extent to which the project design avoids wetland
areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the 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
David Baker, Asheville Field Office, USACE
Janice Nicholls, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Jay Robinson, Chairman
Department of Public Instruction
Bob Etheridge, State Superintendent
November 25, 1996
TO: Ms. Angela Smith, NC Department of Transportation
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
?J
SUBJECT: U401 Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), From NC 251 to Cottage Street,
Buncombe County, State Project #8.2017601, Federal-Aid Project #M-5019(1)
Enclosed is the response from Buncombe County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
301 N. Wilmington Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Buncombc County Public Schools
Mransp,,rtation Department
74 -Vashington Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
November 19, 1996
Mr. Gerald H. Knott. AIA
Section Chief, School Planning
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Reevaluation of Proposed Improvements to
Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684)
Dear Mr. Knott:
2 5,1996
I am writing in response to your letter to Dr. J. Frank Yeager. Superintendent of
Buncombe County Schools, regarding the proposed improvements to Elk Mountain Road.
In your letter you asked our school system to review the proposal, and to indicate if
the improvements will have any impact on a proposed or existing school site, or
school bus route.
I have reviewed the proposed improvements with Mr. Marshall Roberts, Director of
Facility Services for Buncombe County Schools. Mr. Roberts and I do not see these
improvements causing any adverse impact to a school site or school bus route.
However, before/after the project is completed, I am requesting that a traffic study
be conducted at the intersection of Washington Avenue, Elk Mountain Road, and Green
Oak Road. The Buncombe County Schools' Transportation Department is located on
Washington Avenue. Monday through Friday a large number of school buses and service
vehicles enter or cross Elk Mountain Road going to and from this facility. Drivers
find it difficult at certain periods of the day to negotiate this intersection
because of traffic, and I am sure traffic will increase when the improvements to Elk
Mountain Road are completed.
Your assistance in transferring this request to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is appreciated. If you need further information, please contact me at
the address or telephone number listed above.
Sincerely,
Harold F. Laflin
Director of Transportation
pc: Dr. J. Frank Yeager
Mr. Marshall Roberts

Jr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve Elk Mountain Road, Buncombe
County, U-401, Federal Aid Project M-
50190), State Project 8.2017601, 97-E-
4220-0322
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, 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:
Elk Mountain Cotton Mills (BN 374)
Because the survey of historic architectural resources in Buncombe County is over a
decade old, we recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation survey the project's area of potential effect and report the
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County
state clearinghouse
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Fcdcral Aid # N1 "5J 1 q (1 1 TIP # 0-H01 County _SU? corymUe
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Bricf Projcct Description ?LjirlJn t,?IC I LDRq (E Imo. M?n
US Iq 23 la hl(i 251 _ W Qi
On I q q , 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 at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
_?there arc no properties over fifty ?•cars old within the project's arcs of potential cffccts.
! there arc no properties less than fifty years old which arc considcrcd to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
_?there arc propcrtics over fifty }'cars old (list attached) within the project's area of potential cffccts,
but based on the historical information available and the photograph?; of each propcm,, properties
identified as rope-rH es x--10 arc considcrcd not eligible
for National Rcgistcr and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there arc no National Rcgistcr-listed properties within the project's area of potential cffccts.
Signcd:
99 ?
Represent iv , NODOT
For tho Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO
Date
?_) /) T/i7
tate 4istoric Preservation Officer
if a survey report is prepared, a linal copy of this form and the attached list %vill N., included.
Fcdcral Aid # M -,5D19 ( I) TIP # U' Hb? County Buncombe-
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Bricf Projcct Description Wl &Qrt1 S(Z I(cga t! EIIC NI}11? t TDrn US 19 ' 23 1-0
NCG Z-51 Wood. in
On ? an I q9J- , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
y North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there arc no properties over fifty rears old within the project's area of potential cffccts.
?there arc no properties less than fifty years old which arc considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
? there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project s area of potential cffccts,
but based on the historical information available and the pliotographs'of each propcm', properties
identified ash \1 - Z3 arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary
there arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential cffccts.
Signed:
V-- ta-u ? 'ham W ?t? n_. i q g ?-
Represcnt 've, CDOT Date
FHwktor the Division Atministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
1
2
Date
Preservation Officcr \. Date
if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and tic attached list will be included.

?!'.. srnR'?w

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 2, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widen and improve SR 1684 in Woodfin, Buncombe
County, U-401, Federal Aid Project M-5019(1), State
Project 8.201706, ER 97-9162
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

JUN 0 4 1997a
' _ ' ;'V OF
` ?. Mit-itUVAYS <
Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1997, transmitting the historic structures survey report
by Mary Pope Furr concerning the above project.
We concur that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places for the reasons cited:
Elk Mountain Steam Plant (BN 373), west side of-US 251, at junction with SR
1684. While the plant played an important role in the early electrification of the
area, it has undergone interior and exterior alterations and lacks integrity.
Elk Mountain Cotton Mill and Mill Village (BN 374), bounded by US 251, SR 1684,
and Penley Avenue in Woodfin. While the mill and mill village are associated with
the rapid growth of manufacturing in western North Carolina in the early twentieth
century, alterations to the mill, mill houses, and village layout have diminished the
district's integrity.
The above cornments 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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 qXV
8915-3395 i i 1 • ' '
DEC-12-1996 14:28 FROM LAND OF E4<1' REG COUIvi, i L TL
Regional Clearinghouse
N_C. Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached information about a prolin*n
which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to commen on his proposed action, complete this form and return it with vole
comments to this office by Comments received after this date cannot be included in av 91,
response to the State Cleari gh e.
If you need additional time in order to obtain more informsnhien about the application fir 4,
formulate your comments, please call Jean Sluder at 251-6622 as soon as possible. An extension
the review period may be possibie.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application Identifier (below) is
funding proposal review. Comments should focus on the acceptability or Unacceptability at tli-
project- Projects with an "E" in tho identifier are environmental or site reviews. Commpnrc fl-
these projects should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection prOcPt-
If no comment is received by the above data, it will be assumed you have no comrnpni
regarding this proposal.
97- - .zD-O .2a _ Regional No. 17-97
State Application Identifier #
Qommenter'o Name RULULL E sheuherd Title uxpruti ve - W -tor _
Representing Land-of-Ski" Regional Council Board
(local government)
Address -
Phone [phone] Date 31/ig/46 _
Comment (or attach), Presented to Board. There was no cmm9nt.
y Heritage Drive-Asheville, NC 288064998
T,levhnne 7*251-613119fax 904. .6353?E-Ivtiil

4 `a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATTION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF BICYCLE &
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
December 17, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
and Environmental Branch
P ni If.
41SIV'Yates, Director
GARLAND B. GARRETT I R.
SECRETARY
Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), from NC 251
to Cottage Street, Woodfin, Buncombe County,
TIP No. U-401
In your memorandum of November 4, 1996, you requested our comments regarding the
proposed improvements to the subject roadway.
Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684) is listed in the 1997 - 2003 TIP in the Incidental Bicycle and
Pedestrian Needs Section. Wide outside lanes and a sidewalk are requested as a part of the
proposed improvements.
The two-lane 36-foot curb and gutter cross section described in the November 4 memo will
provide adequate width for motorists and bicyclists to share the same lane. The Woodfin Town
Administrator, Ron Nalley, requests that a sidewalk be considered for construction on the south
side of SR 1684; however, the proposed sidewalk should not become an issue which would delay
the roadway improvement. This sidewalk would continue an existing section of sidewalk by the
elementary school. Under the Department's current pedestrian policy, the Town would be required
to share in the cost of sidewalk construction or seek matching funds from another source.
If there is a need for further information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program
Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/tn C E / 1,
cc: Ron Nalley, Town of Woodfin
DEC 1
Z ' 1996
0)
PHONE [phone] ,,,3( [phone]
Stephen R. Henderson, Mayor
Charles G. Bradley, Mayor Pro-Tent
Willis K. Banks, Alderman
W.D. Garland, Alderman
John B. Maney, Alderman
Donald W. Penland, Alderman
John C. Young, Alderman
TOWN OF WOODFIN
Ron Nalley
Town Administrator
Cheryl Mears
Town Clerk
90 Elk Mountain Road • Woodfin, North Carolina 28804 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
August 26, 1996
Tarbwa Field, TAC Chair
Asheville Urban Area - MPO
P.O. Boy: 7148
Asheville. N.C. 28802
Dear Vice-Mayor Fields:
At their regular scheduled meeting on August 20, the Town of Woodfin Board of Aldermen
voted unanimously to withdraw the requested extension of project U-401 from US 19-23 to
Elkwood Avenue. U-401 has been a requested project for many years, and the Aldermen are
concerned that any further delay would increase local frustrations and only add to present safety
concerns. The Town would request that the section of Elk Mountain Road from Cottage Street to
Elkwood Avenue be included as a new TIP project.
The Town of Woodfin would appreciate any assistance you can offer on this matter. If you have
questions, or require additional infornlation, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Ron Nalley
Town Administrator
cc: H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT, Planning and Environmental
Whitmel H. Webb, NCDOT, Program Development Branch
Debi Hutchings, NCDOT, Statewide Planning Branch
William Smart, NCDOT, Division 13 Engineer
Ron Fuller, MPO Transportation Planner
Town of Woodfin Board of Aldermen
0
-? AU6 2 8 1996
?Y7F?:,•/
Stephen R. Henderson, Mayor
Charles G. Bradley, Mayor Pro-Tem
Willis K. Banks, Alderman
W.D. Garland, Alderman
John B. Maney, Alderman
Donald W. Penland, Alderman
John C. Young, Alderman
TOWN OF WOODFIN
90 Elk Mountain Road • Woodfln, North Carolina 28804 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
September 3, 1996
Angela Smith
Project Planning Engineer
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Smith:
Ron Nalley
Town Administrator
Cheryl Mears
Town Clerk
Please find enclosed a copy of the grading and drainage plan for the Elk Mountain Business
Park. The development, when completed, will contain four office/warehouse buildings. As the
project progresses and traffic flow increases, discussing the ingress and egress will be necessary,
specifically regarding large truck traffic, for this development. I will be contacting the developer
in the next week to discuss the State's plans for widening Elk Mountain Road and if necessary,
will have them contact you.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter, and thank you for the warm reception we
received in Raleigh on August 28 at the scoping meeting. If you require additional information
or if I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ew? `v
Ron Nalley
Town Administrator
cc: Town of Woodfin Board of Aldermen
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-401: Woodfin; SR 1684, Buncombe County RUN: SR 1684, YR 2000
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U . 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2
----------------- ------- "---------------------- -------
1. Far Lane Link " 3.6 -805.0 3.6
2. Near Lane Link * .0 805.0 .0
PAGE 1
* LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-------- *---------------------------------------------------
805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 351. 17.6 .0 9.6
-805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 351. 17.8 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
------------------------- *-------------------------------------"
1. R/W, 7.6m from CL " -5.8 .0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX " 2.5
DEGR. " 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.50 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REM .
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 2
JOB: U-401: Woodfln; SR 1684, Buncombe County RUN: SR 1684, YR 2020
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . .0 CM/S VD . .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ "---------------------------------------- "---------------•-------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 801.0 " 1610. 360. AG 534. 14.8 .0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link " .0 805.0 .0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 534. 14.8 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
--------° ---------------"-------------------------------------*
1. R/W, 7.6m from CL * -5.8 .0 1.8 "
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)" REC1
MAX " 2.6
DEGR. • 2
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.60 PPM AT 2 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
lc-•n
/.::In C') •q WC?Une
,.SZ ON O: CZ'81 On WO1J
it891 tIS/Dvoy u,r,unoIN )113
U,1DOOm
HD%Y-do
1Y1N9WN0VL%.SZ7 0NY DNIN%Y1J
S.l V.UNDIli JO NOISL\IC'
NoIlrlao?iNYy1 a ?`)1% ?/?•'
..+0 1?aI?1>t?•Jia VNnoava utao%;
??? / „cln : rt?Ir•n
I
111 w.. _ Z00,
11131IUJl lv3a aUNirl III in
9 1. 3 '1J Zf Ui UJIM IN 3U U1 l 11
'033VJan57u UNV
\ +•??,,w• tli , 1.1 UI 01 (I31,30IM • ONII -n / r
`^ C
U• \ \ /
hl 41` 1, 1791-''? ...>,:,,a NUdOOM
kz j.
•• C I lM ,J
Jul
j ? ..1,. •. I I
6-91
` . gy,',rr
b,
1 I I!.' IL.? II 1: ICI dIiC L'i III Ir'.
% Il\ ?? ? -J--: J-11-LC 111 Ilhl
} / II C
r
r(Ir II I
I
r
I
I
/
1
r
,I
I
I
I II ?' ,:
109LTOZ-8 # 40810zd 94vgS TOV-fl #dIs
)?ZNf1OO 39WOONfls
TSZ oN OZ 132HIS EEMLLOO W0dJ
(b89T US) Qf1O'd NIVIN110W x'I3
S3ZIS ZN3W32if1SK3W ,LN3ISWK I NOILLVDO'I ZO3L`Oldd
TN 3df E)I3
(•zuT8H moy dq OTgdv3B pezv3aan UT uv uT eungTII
' OBBOT40 sq3 UT P898TTgnd pug qunH suvf 'N Aq pegosveveg)
p30239H 'H '3 Pug TMOMOTTO 'H 'f dg ..uOT4983enu00
6uTIvsH pug DOWN TvT34snpuI,. 'gugOT3suri vTpedOTO.T0u3
'APOS uvmnH sqq ;O svTIV ATTvN0W Pugh 'MOOR PTIOM :seo3no8
smiu 3H ainov ma O'IOHS31ifGL I 0
OT
32sI0nV ZSnf IedsTgM
ONIHV3H 30 O'IOHSMM S.NOMMd IJVN3AV
89nvsT ;O OT3sn3 'TT9;uTv3 IgBT'I OZ
dvMv m S•T IedsTgM
geanv; 6uTddT30 OE
smog BBVZGAV
09

a3Inb AUA 80T;;O WTnO
I0lv3e6T3;es pTogeenOH
OS

x3I(10 8DT;;0 e693env 'u0T;vs3enu00 TV=ON
OTTgomolnv 3eTn0 9
Ieu0T4TPu00-ITv MOPuTM '8PITq BuT6uTS 09 Z
3e4TamedAl IOTna 3
OL S

CM(Yi x'I3SVuaaow dvmv m 5T gdmK 08 Iva 3sbuesewd I
IeuveTO mnnovA 'Xjogovj obv2oAV 3
TveodsTP ebvg3v6 14uv3nviss3 pepmozo 08 3
dvmv m 5T gdmx 59 xans4 Te8eT0 0
06

OnOZ d10409; deTOU 'aT;1234 X3TO AA98H
ssead 38dedemou 'I8m0m umwT Ism0d
I01Oe31 m3v; 'uT934 PBgvn8Te 'uTelq dvmgns OOT
MOT 8TT'1X8I
OTT

On0'I x'iHVSHO&COHn OTenm zoos POT;TTdmv
PmOID dexaoH
38wwvgXavG OTyvmneud 'Iepungy 83enes OZT
930Ma9300ITd
OET

O'IOMEHS NIVd M NVWi1H Iegme40 Joel I03oW
NIVd ;108M91 zv Aumv m OE 48G 'a evTq un6logS 09T
xgiva sn ONIauvw4OH samno8 :DNIuvaH
TN aiav;L
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels ORA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
4
1/1
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE S
Woodfin, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1664) From Cottage Street to NC 251
Buncombe County, State Project M 8.2017601, TIP k U-401
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L-
..... .................. .:....... -Y- MAXIMUM
:_ INCREASE
From Kirkpatrick Road to Huffman Mill Road
1 Residence B SR 1684 12.2 L 63 SR 1664 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
2 Residence B " 18.3 L 61 " 18.3 L - - 64 + 3
3 Residence B " 13.7 L 62 " 13.7 L - - * 66 + 4
4 Residence B " 6.1 L 64 " 9.1 L - - * 68 + 4
5 Residence B " 6.1 L 64 12.2 L - - * 66 + 2
6 Residence B •' 18.3 L 61 " 18.3 L - - 64 + 3
7 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
8 Residence B " 6.1 L 64 " 6.1 L - - " 68 + 4
9 Residence B 6.1 L 64 " 6.1 L - - " 68 + 4
10 Residence B " 9.1 R 64 " 6.1 R - - * 66 + 4
11 Church E " 30.5 R 58/<40 to 39.6 R - - 59/440 + 1/0
12 Business C " 15.2 R 62 It 18.3 R - - 64 + 2
13 Residence B 21.3 L 60 " 18.3 L - - 64 + 4
14 Residence B " 21.3 L 60 " 18.3 L - - 64 + 4
15 Residence B " 21.3 L 60 " 21.3 L - - 63 + 3
16 Residence B " 18.3 R 61 " 6.1 R - - It 68 + 7
17 Residence B " 18.3 R 61 " 9.1 R - - * 68 + 7
18 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
19 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
20 Residence B " 12.2 R 63 to 15.2 R - - 65 + 2
21 Residence B " 18.3 R 61 " 21.3 R - - 63 + 2
22 Residence B " 15.2 R 62 " 18.3 R - - 64 + 2
23 Residence B " 18.3 R 61 " 21.3 R - - 63 + 2
24 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 10.7 L - - * 67 + 4
25 Residence B '• 18.3 L 61 " 15.2 L - - 65 + 4
26 Residence B " 24.4 L 59 " 21.3 L - - 63 + 4
27 Residence B " 9.1 L 64 " 9.1 L - - " 68 + 4
28 Residence B " 9.1 L 64 " 9.1 L - * 68 + 4
29 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
30 Church E " 18.3 R 61/440 to 15.2 R - - 65/40 + 4/0
31 Church E " 15.2 R 62/<40 " 12.2 R - - 66/41 + 4/1
32 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
33 Residence B " 12.2 L 63 " 12.2 L - - * 66 + 3
34 Residence B " 12.2 R 63 " 15.2 R - - 65 + 2
35 Residence B " 12.2 R 63 to 12.2 R - - * 66 + 3
36 Residence B to 6.1 R 64 " 6.1 R - - * 68 + 4
1
I

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Description
From Cottage Street to NC 251
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Woodfin, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684) From Cottage Street to NC 251,
Buncombe County, State Project N 8.2017601, TIP N U-401
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFA Part 772
15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
68.2 61.2 55.5 <9m 12m 0 20 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Woodfin, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684) From Cottage Street to NC 251,
Buncombe County, State Project 1 8.2017601, TIP N U-401
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
From Cottage Street to NC 251 0 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
(I) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
A? a /'C111 MY
Alternative Comparison for widening/ realigning
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfln
TIP No. U-401
Buncombe County
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has investigated several alternatives in
order to improve SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin. Roadway improvements
include widening and realigning the roadway to increase the design speed, reduce the
potential for accidents, and provide some traffic flow improvements. The resource
agencies have a concern about the DOT's current proposal to accommodate widening/
realigning SR 1684 by enclosing 1070 feet of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek
in a pipe. The discussions for Alternatives IA, 2A, 2B and 2D can be found in the
Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and Environmental Assessment, signed on
August 19, 1997 by the Federal Highway Administration.
The DOT has investigated 7 alternatives to accommodate the proposed upgrading
and widening of SR 1684. Based on this investigation, it has been determined that each
alternative would require a new pipe crossing of the unnamed tributary to Beaverdam
Creek. This impact for any alternative would be greater than 200 feet; therefore, project
construction will necessitate a Section 404 Individual Permit from the Corps of Engineers.
A brief discussion of each alternative is presented. Following the summarized
alternative discussions, a table can be found providing a comparison between Alternatives
1B, 1C and 2D. This table includes project costs (right of way, construction, stream
mitigation), number of relocatees, and information regarding stream impacts. Of the seven
investigated alternatives, the DOT considers these alternatives to be most practicable and
has generated greater data for these three alternatives.
Alternative 1A: Widen along the east portion of SR 1684
This alternative would widen SR 1684 to the east and thereby avoiding stream
relocation. A portion of the stream would still be piped in order to intersect with NC 251.
This pipe length would be greater than two hundred feet.
This eastward shift would require the relocation of three residences, encroach
upon the Elk Mountain Community Cemetery and require a substantial amount of new
right of way. This alternative would create a less desirable alignment by adding a reverse
curve near Fourth Street and sharpening the curvature near the NC 251 intersection.
The resource agencies inquired about the DOT utilizing the existing pipe crossing
of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road and/or the existing sections of Lower Beaverdam Creek
2
Road and SR 1684. The new facility would be wider and cause the following
consequences: 1) a greater impact upon the unnamed tributary to accommodate the wider
facility; 2) the relocation of the railroad which parallels Lower Beaverdam Creek Road;
and 3) the project would necessitate constructing the facility on new location across the
cemetery property before connecting the new location section of SR 1684 to the existing
facility, south of 4th Street. The DOT considers this alternative of using the existing pipe
crossing of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road to be impracticable.
Alternative 1B: Widen SR 1684 along the east side without a retaining wall
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along its east side. The existing pavement
would be retained and used. This alternative would involve acquiring a sizable amount of
the cemetery, as well as portions of other parcels. One residential relocation would be
required to construct this alternative.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. The new pipe will impact
290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the stream
relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total amount of
relocation would be 320 feet. These stream relocations would be straight, open channels.
These relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A five foot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. This buffer would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, the additional right of way cost would amount
to $ 214,000. The additional construction cost would total $ 19,200. Costs associated
with stream mitigation (310 feet x $125 per foot, based on the Wetland Restoration
Program) would be $ 38,750. Total additional project cost is $ 271,950. Based on these
figures, the DOT does not consider this alternative to be the most practicable considering
the other alternatives.
Alternative 1C: Widen SR 1684 along east side with retaining wall
This alternative involves widening the secondary road on the east side, following
the same alignment as Alternative B. To construct this alternative, the DOT would
acquire right of way from the cemetery and other parcels. This alternative would not
involve any residential relocations. Right of way acquisition would be minimized by
constructing a retaining wall along the east side of the roadway.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. The new pipe will impact
290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the stream
relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total amount of
relocation would be 320 feet. These stream relocations would be straight, open channels.
These relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A five foot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. This buffer would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, additional right of way cost would be $
135,000. The additional construction cost for the retaining wall would total $ 146,000.
Costs associated with stream mitigation (310 feet x $125 per foot, based on the Wetland
Restoration Program) would amount to $ 38,750. Total additional project cost is
$ 319,750. Based on a comparison with other alternatives, the DOT does not consider
this alternative to be the most practicable.
Alternative 2A: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a retaining wall
This alternative involves west side widening of SR 1684 and would minimize
stream impacts and pipe enclosure by the construction of a retaining wall. A 775-foot
retaining wall would allow most of the stream to remain intact. The retaining wall would
cost $ 252,000. Additional right of way would not be required in this alternative.
In this alternative, the DOT also investigated the possibility of rechanneling 180
feet of the stream in an open channel prior to pipe enclosure under the roadway for the
NC 251 intersection. This open channel would be straight because the terrain would not
allow sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing
channel. The open channel would require excavation work involving substantial
construction costs, as well as a considerable quantity of waste material. This relocated
open channel would lie at the toe of the highway fill slope and require rip rap on the
highway side of the channel for stabilization. As mentioned, this alternative would also
include piping the stream under the realigned roadway. The DOT believes this alternative
is also not practicable.
4
Alternative 2B: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a relocated stream
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along the west side and would minimize
pipe enclosure by relocating the stream in an open channel. An extensive amount of
excavation through steep terrain would be required to relocate an open channel and to
establish side slopes. This excavation work would generate high construction costs, as
well as a large quantity of waste material. Additional right of way would not be acquired
in this alternative.
The open stream channel would be straight because the terrain would not allow
sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing channel.
This relocated open channel would lie at the toe of the highway fill slope and require rip
rap on the highway side of the channel for stabilization. This alternative would still
necessitate that a portion of the stream be piped under the realigned roadway. The DOT
believes this alternative is also not practicable.
Alternative 2C: Widen SR 1684 along the west side and relocate an open
channel stream on the east side of roadway
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along the west side of the roadway and
would minimize pipe enclosure by relocating the unnamed tributary on the eastern side of
the roadway. The resource agencies suggested this alternative during a review of permit
drawings and plan sheets on November 6, 1997. The agencies desire that the stream have
an open channel. This alternative would initially require piping the stream under SR 1684
to the east and place the stream in an open channel. The stream would flow along the
eastern side before being piped back under SR 1684, prior to the stream's confluence with
Beaverdam Creek.
The DOT Hydraulics Unit reviewed the agencies' recommendation. This
alternative would require a substantial amount of additional right of way to excavate an
open channel. The terrain is steep on the east side of the roadway. An excavated stream
channel would cause encroachment into the cemetery and large portions of residential
property. Excavation for the open straight stream channel would induce greater
construction costs and a large amount of waste material. The channel would lack
meanders, and rip rap would likely need to be placed on the highway side of the channel
for stabilization. Based on this information, the DOT does not also consider this
alternative to be practicable.
Alternative 213: Widen SR 1684 along the west side and include the stream in
the project's storm drain system
SR 1684 would be widened along its west side, and 1070 feet of stream would be
enclosed in a pipe. The DOT recognizes that this alternative would require stream
mitigation which would cost $ 133,750 based on stream mitigation figures from the
5
Wetland Restoration Program. In the DOT's opinion, this alternative is the most
practicable and is recommended for roadway widening and improvements to SR 1684.
Table 1. Comparison Summary of Alternatives 1B, 1C, and 2D
Alternative Alternative Alternative
1B 1 C 2D
A di i n 1 Costs
Right of Way
Construction
Stream Mitigation
Total Additional Costs
Relocatees
Residential
Stream Impacts
Stream Loss from Relocation
Stream Loss from Piping
Total Stream Loss from Project
$ 214,000 $ 135,000 $ 0
$ 19,200 $ 146,000 $ 0
$ 38.750 $38.75 0
0
133.75
$ 271,950 $ 319,750 $ 133,750
1 0 0
20 feet 20 feet n/a
290 feet 290 feet 1075 feet
310 feet 310 feet 1075 feet
B
11/12/1997 12:52 7042516452 PAGE 01
To: ptodd(M.dot.state.ne.us
From: elf cNRO?Nluovi ROUTS19W70
Subject: U-401 El ountain Road
Copies to: Steve [e-mail] N1EW0507dem.ehnr.state.n
Date sent: , 12 1997 11: 36:09 +1100
Phillip, I looked at this stream today and feel if it were
culverted it would remove signigicant aquatic habit resources. The
section of stream below (downstream) of fourth street in the Town
of Woodfin appears to be perennial and should be protected. The
section above fourth street appears to be intermittent, but there are
some wet areas that are providing storage and treatment of
stormwater during rainy periods.
I would like to see the DOT come up with a plan to relocate this
stream rather than enclose it in a culvert.
Post-W Fax Note
Michael Parker -- 1 -- Wed, 12 Nov 1e8T 11:38:05

State of North Carolina I',
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources LT.K?FA
Division of Water Quality A4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary E3 E 1---I N FI
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
Date 16) -3?J T
FAX TO: zPl-, 1--P,- - A-,- &-- I FAX NUMBER:

FROM:
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
z Ik /0 1'-3 1 X/
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% poet consumer paper
AIM! . '.,
40
i v 1 ?r. an4. 1 /\ ? n / 1 &?
Project 1
1
U-401
ON
low
_ WOODFINF
/ ,520 cmwr \ I Q3 \I a
c. ? 7 ° a III j
'6" W
? J
77 C'
.38
13" )F1
/ +q i ? un I / 1 V
\ y 135, .12
Io f,
1
.3
I / 1 / 1/ 1 un ?\ \\'
1 g \ a i s
to \
1
I
P
BUNCOMBE
c-ouNrY
/ ASHEVILLE
..,..NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION j
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS /
" - m PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL J
/ BRANCH T?
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
From NC 251 to Cottage Street
Woodfin, Buncombe County, TIP No. U-401
Vicinity Map
.42 0 1/2 1 (kilometer)
mN 0 1/4 1/2 314 (mile) FIGURE IA
j ))

1653

657
1363
CRAGGY
/ 1353
1002
\ 1659
t,
• f Cf5'ER
1357
pU
% 1362 P
1364
J
p0
1366 ^1 361 I
r •
II I
PROJECT
LIMITS
SOOT
1684 '?Ead
, E ? K 0t'
MTN •.EM
i ?
I r
' c i
c
BURL iNG ° r
TON MIt t 5 t
!/ T o
251 y GIBE
I ? ,? z p0' ? ? 1
' Z ELK MTN
BAP' f* 'H
i
? o
'V00i
1654/x/ C
WOODFIN , MESrO
' OR y s0 p0 41
" _ . °0+
"E?ONO? O \
`II 002
111 ?.
s 25
I/
PAr
PR,SON THE 90 10,
? .• REDEEMER
French Broad River ?i
lo?
r-
/ ?'S,
MILL 5 ? ? A OP
MFG /
L
9 n ; L '?w
Ito
23
t / / aP
r / ?
JEPOAM \ NG ?;? f' tLby OP W 1'
Mr o I ?
THOMAS n? o
HOWARD V JOt ??O Rk.
(QE E' F F?V
ODIN( f.
RO P?"EACRE
Pr + oo 25 L :
R A : I L? wEAV
i C A RVEN V ERV?I?
v, A
1 ?
1695 E E
0 ELKOALE OR >
v =p > r 1674 ,??>
x S-? o LONE = N I
F 2 C
'I M
N p m ?q ST z 1 w JU ANEW GL \\
BRIDGE BAPT
,h4 = o = O inn H n n F 0
_ \ r s
< s a \\ r
O
a ( AtLF-5'Pf1 E a v AE*
H 1 a o AVE RON ?A
Al Z O SANNE
hQODFIN CH OF GOC' M CO r7' v?lF r Avf v+
= PApk I JARNAUL AVE ;
4 ?
?t
O
R D.
O
. \ RD m EA9T- 1
I rrAr OR. 1
PROJECT METH H. 41 r
F, . 1684 1 , rg gNDRE It
'NESTDM LIMITS
` tires N W
G _>
A \
,,, ? ? W 1 (O q n \ s ? W
I T r a aOSE CREW CL? p a u
AFFF( f 5 ? p
? o J, O r
a •r y
h W o W . al ?'P ,,.E*
' AyE ? t S ? g;?
h / Or'
1668
h
Rh / t A
1674
. W ?? ? I oP ? 1 r p
P5%gE 0%r_
Jq ! rW ? ` C?rY
> ' ` _ _ oti to WOODFIN / ?..
EXEL 3 NOR'T'H CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
' DRURNi URE W W TRANSPOR'T'ATION
? ? "C ? GHWAYS
r ; rAj DIVISION OI' 111
3 , PLANNING AND ENVIRONMCN fAL:`
N. i / ./ BRANCH
?n•. Qc
1684?(Elkmountain Road) ''vv
?y*I'roniNC 251 to COtta6e St eet
Woodfin, Buncombe County, TIP No. U=401
I \ ARLONProject Area
i
y
a f \ \ '1 o
( 0'+?>«a500"+._ `1000 (feet ?FIGURI
\\ ?. A
J
26
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fer ilizers
and herbicides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased erosion in the project area and increased sedimentation and siltation
downstream of the crossing.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to vegetation removal and
increased sedimentation.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds (petroleum products) in highway
runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
The project encroaches on. approximately 350 meters (1150 feet) of the
intermittent Tributary to Beaverdam Creek between Fourth Street and Little Beaverdam
Creek Road. Measures have been considered for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the
stream (refer to discussion of avoidance and minimization measures in Section IV.C.5).
It is recommended that the drainage from the stream be incorporated into the proposed
storm drain system for the project.
The project is not located within a water supply watershed nor in a high quality
water zone; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures. To minimize potential water resources impacts, Best
Management Practices will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating
stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
3. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
27
wetlands 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). Surface waters value toudthe e pall
ublic.
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. No wetlands were identified in the study area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the length of the
stream that is located within the proposed right of way. One jurisdictional surface water
is located within the proposed right of way. Approximately 350 linear meters (1150 feet)
and 320 square meters (3450 square feet) of this stream will be impacted by project
construction.
4. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) would normally apply to ditch and
stream crossings in the project study area. However, because the proposed impact to the
Beaverdam Creek Tributary exceeds 61 linear meters (200 feet), the project requires an
Individual Section 404 Permit.
Since the proposed project is located in a county with designated trout waters, the
authorization of an individual permit by the COE requires concurrence from the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the individual permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
5. Avoidance.,, Minimization, and Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ML
[D FE F1
September 22, 1997
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorne?
From: Cyndi Bell L ' \\I ''lam
Subject: Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and Environmental Assessment for
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from NC 251 to Cottage Street in Woodfin
Buncombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.2017601, T.I.P. No. U-0401; EHNR # 98-0207
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The proposed work would
involve up to 0.06 acre of fill in wetlands at one location. No perennial stream crossings
will be involved. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT has sufficiently addressed avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts, so that DWQ can concur with NCDO'r's suggested improvements to
Elk Mountain Road.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the wetland and stream impacts described in the EA, General Certification No.
3103 will be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal
application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this
approval will be contingent upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation
where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the EA. NCDOT is reminded that
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality
concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses
are lost. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at
[phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steven Lund, COE, Asheville
David Cox, WRC
Howard Hall, FWS
U0401 EA.DOC
Envirorynentai Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AfflmwMre Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post comumer paper
`0s 1
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet AU,
DWQ - Water Quality Section
.' 1997,
I III 1 G C
SNWl ON'MF' r' LSCIENCES
M.
Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
gCyndi Bell (Dar)
O Eric Galamb (others)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oRW/HQw)
O
Toxicology
O Lang Ausley
O
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th)
O
FgOM& Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
EL. n ?O _' U-bt.U r - WD od ti,_
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Colson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville - O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated !
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version

JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RAEIJ(11 I, N.C. 27011 5201
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: Angela H. Smith W
Planning and Environmental Branch
11&Ctko
6?V?OCT 14 1996
)4'
uFNIg4
GARLANI) B. GARRETS IR.
SECRI 1ARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Project U-401, Town of Woodfin,
Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), from NC 251 to
Cottage St., Buncombe County, State Project #8.2017601,
F. A. Project #M-5019(1)
A scoping meeting was held to discuss the proposed improvements to Elk
Mountain Road (SR 1684) in the town of Woodfin. The following were in attendance at
the August 28, 1996 meeting:
Charles G. Bradley
Ron Nalley
Gene Wills
Greg Punske
Charles Mullen
Debbie Bevin
Brenda Moore
John Taylor
Derrick Lewis
Keith Johnston
Richard Davis
Linwood Stone
Angela Smith
d"nor SfAif's
Town of Woodfin
Town of Woodfin
Town of Woodfin
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Traffic Control
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Engineering
Photogrammetry
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The original Environmental Assessment was completed in 1977 followed by a
formal public hearing. Right of way was purchased and cleared in 1979, although, no
utilities were relocated. A reevaluation, completed in 1989, noted that no substantial
changes had been made to the original project scope. At that time, the archaeological site
as
i
(located at the west end of the project) was evaluated and determined to have been
disturbed, therefore, no Section 106 consultation was required. The SHPO concurred
with this finding in their letter dated July 26, 1989 (attached).
In 1985, under project U-1 163D, the proposed improvements were partially built.
Elk Mountain Road from NC 251 to Cottage Street was widened from 16 feet to an 18-
foot pavement and Cottage Street to US 19-23 was widened to a 2-lane, 32-foot curb and
gutter section. No improvements to the alignment were made.
Since the project scope has not changed and the proposed improvements
constitute a safety improvement, FHWA has determined that a Reevaluation of the
original EA will be adequate. An informal public hearing will be held. No workshop will
be required, since a public hearing was held previously. The public involvement branch
was also consulted regarding the public involvement activities for this project and
concurred with the plan.
The town of Woodfin discussed recent plans for development in the mid-section of
the project. They sent a copy of the proposed development to the Planning and
Environmental Branch following the meeting. The traffic forecast will be updated to
reflect those plans.
Roadway Design will request that Location and Surveys update their mapping to
include all new structures.
A complete environmental analysis will be conducted by the Planning and
Environmental Branch and included in the reevaluation. It was determined that the old
plansheets will be used for environmental evaluation.
The current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) schedule shows
construction to begin in 1988. The Planning and Environmental Branch anticipates
completing the reevaluation by July, 1997. A public hearing is anticipated to be held in
early 1997 before the document is finalized.
The TIP cost estimate is $1.6 million for construction. The posted speed along the
project is 25 mph.
The 1996 traffic volumes range from 3800 vehicles per day (vpd) at NC 251 to
7000 vpd at Cottage Street. The 2020 volumes range from 6100 vpd at NC 251 to
11,900 vpd at Cottage Street. The truck traffic is expected to increase from 3% in 1996
to 5% by 2020.
An elementary school and a county school bus garage are located near the eastern
end of the project. The elementary school has two buses that use Elk Mountain Road
every school day. The bus garage serves the buses for all schools in the area. The actual
number of buses that use the studied portion of Elk Mountain Road is unknown due to the
spontaneous nature of the bus traffic to and from the garage.
An evaluation for wetlands was also completed in 1989. It was determined that
only 6/100's of an acre is to be impacted and is considered to be an atypical wetland with
minimal habitat value. In the evaluation, it was anticipated that the wetland taking be
processed under a Nationwide Permit above headwaters with the implementation of best
management practices and the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
No historic structures were identified by the State Historic Preservation Office.
However, they recommend that a survey be conducted of the mill village since the original
study was completed almost twenty years ago. An evaluation of the site is currently
underway by the Planning and Environmental Branch.
Utility involvement is expected to be heavy. No utilities were moved when the
right of way was purchased.
AHS/plr
1
yam,,. ?TAIF ?
J ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 26, 1989
Kenneth L. Bellamy
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Elk Mountain Road Improvements, Woodfin,
Buncombe County, CH 78-0979, ER 90-7002
Dear Mr. Bellamy:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1989, concerning the above project.
After reevaluating the project with the information you provided, we
concur that an archaeological survey along the project area defined as
Alternate 3 is not necessary. However, any further changes or realignments
concerning this project alternative should be submitted for additional
evaluation and review.
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 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
1
6
1Y/ David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: J. M. Greenhill
O Padgett
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

RECF1VED
Np
©719
F?/ROry'? SC/CA,,
STATE Or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNK JR.
C 0VIiRNOR
DIVISION Or HIGHWAYS
P.O. MA 25201. RAI_FI(I 11. N.C. ).7011 5201
GARLAND B. GARREF[ )R.
SICRIIARY
November 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: U-401 Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), From NC 251
to Cottage Street, Buncombe County, State Project #8.2017601,
Federal-Aid Project #M-5019(l)
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684). The project is included in the
1997-2003 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
construction in fiscal year 1998 (right of way was acquired in 1979).
The original Environmental Assessment was completed in 1977. Following the public
hearing, 50 feet of right of way was purchased and cleared. A reevaluation, completed in 1989,
noted that no substantial changes had been made to the original project scope. No changes have
been made to the current action which calls for widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section of
Elk Mountain Road to a 36-foot curb and gutter section and improving the alignment in several
locations (see attached map). This cross section is consistent with the cross section from
US 29-23 to Cottage Street which was upgraded in 1985. The proposed roadway will be striped
for two lanes.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation
of a federally funded Reevaluation. This document will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by December 16,
1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Angela Smith, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 204.
HFV/plr
Attachment 0
. o
O
Oyyi1? ?F! . ?
LL v p ?AILLS
OR,
TOWR g R
ODep
N Z 4,
', COUNTRZ? . CL,FT.
B A ESTATES B9LAG J.
N ?. P
r ?P1- V
QP?? c ` ,Epv 4M E L G ..
?FK MO TAIN
ANN , ?, PROJECT a rn
s
? G
v
l 1 / 4I =
O s AV P y HIGH ST a V o
9AGGY y x ap.
\O? .A
A a ?yN ES O w E` 0 t( 1
tER `?? ?`' ? PE ?`9s b ?
W l ST.
M T N
L19 r gEES ?OrT?G° 3 CL
< 10
WOODFIN MAN i,g YI.
? m UQ 4
ESQ GYr HAIt,,? `.r " I'
CHURCH C I t y „E pnp W>
RD. R? MA,/0/i GEN. ? p N ?? W Cq Ou
O ALBERT BOYD REYOP a ESC
f
114 ° X01 BRIDGE o 4V EN?jrMZ N ti 3 v h
<L Ul
tE'jc? ~ HWY. CRAGGY PRISO. _?? y J r v
PO gyp, < ? L
o ?l ,p ? ?G TJr,
QC0:, 363 P BROAD
q* ti,
B
0 a
R? Q 415 'U p
BINGHAM Q .?G
SM?s RD HGTS. "
N 1
o !O _.?. a
8 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION h
i P.O. y1??' q??Eq d DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IA
BRANCH
vlEw 1
Z Woodfin t;
=V 9 Elk Mountain Road(SR 1884) , .
G From NC 251 to US 19-23
Buncombe County
G?Qilf SMART R U-401
FIG
REceVet,
5TATE FNV/RCN 1996
ME,, s
m.? C/EryCS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARInNn B. GARRrrr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RAI.EIGI 1, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 24, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Woodfin, Elk Mountain Road
(SR 1684), From US 19-23 to NC 251, Buncombe County, State
Project #8.2017601, F. A. Project No. M-5019(1), U-401
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project (See
attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure
is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and
thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled
for August 28, 1996 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room
(Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to
that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Angela Smith, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 204.
AS/plr 0?t? z-
Ae~ c - b ?2
Attachment
Eco,
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: July 23, 1996
Revision Date:
TIP No.: U-401
F.A. Project No.: M-5019(1)
Division: 13
Route. SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road)
Functional Classification: Urban collector
Project Development Stage
Programming:
Planning:
Design: _96_
State Project No.: 8.2017601
County: Buncombe
Length: 0.8 mile
Purpose Of Project: To upgrade the existing substandard roadway to state standards to improve
safety.
Description Of Project (including specific limits) And Major Elements Of Work: Upgrade the
existing 18-foot, 2-lane section to a 32-foot f-f curb and gutter section, generally along the
existing alignment from US 19-23 to NC 251.
Type Of Environmental Document To Be Prepared: Reevaluation
Environmental Study Schedule: Complete Reevaluation in July, 1997,
Type Of Funding: Federal
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes: No: X
If YES, by whom:
If YES, by what amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid? _
, or (%)
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Thoroughfare Plan Designation:
Type of Access Control- Full:
Number of- Interchanges: _
Typical Section of Roadway:
Traffic Projections- Current:
% TTST: _2_
minor thoroughfare
Partial: None: _X_
Grade Separations: Stream Crossings:
18-foot shoulder section (shoulders are unusable).
x,000 vpd Design Year (2020): 11,900 vpd
% DUAL: % DHV:
Design Speed: 40 mph
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost ................................................................................ $ 1,600,000_
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost ................................................................................ $
(including relocations, utilities, and acquisition)
Force Account Items ........................................................................ $
Preliminary Engineering ................................................................... $
Total Cost ............................................................................ $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction .................................................................................... $ 1,600,000
Right of Way (purchased in 1979) ....................................................... S _589,000_
Total Cost ........................................................................... S 2,189,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect
cost or schedule of project: The State Historical Preservation Officer requested (in 1977) that an
archeological survey be conducted on the western end of the project (at NC 251). To date, I
have no knowledge that this has been completed.
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
CONSTRUCTION: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements
Pavement
x Surface ............................................................................................. $ 257,372
- - Base ...........................................................................
- Milling & Recycling .......................................................................... $
Turnouts ........................................................................................... $
_
Shoulders: Paved ............................................................................ $
- - Earth .............................................................................. $
x Earthwork .................................................. ............................................ $ -151,200
-
- Subsurface Items .................................................................................
Subgrade and Stabilization .................................................................... $ 33,110
_x_ Drainage (List any special items) ........................................................... $ -149,793
- 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: Avg. Ht.: Skew: $
Noise Walls ..................................................................................... $
_
- Any Other Misc. Structures ............................................................. $
x Concrete Curb & Gutter ......................................................................... $ -100,620
_
_x Concrete Sidewalk Driveways, wheelchair ramps, Islands ....................... $ 39,775
Guardrail ................................................................................................ $
_
_x_ Fencing-- W.W.: - and/or C.L.: - .............................................. $ 3,215
x Erosion Control ..................................................................................... $ 21,000
- Landscape ............................................................................................. $
- Lighting .................................................................................................. $
x Traffic Control ........................................................................................ $ 24,120
- - Signing: - New ................................................................................ $
- Upgrading ....................................................................... $
r Traffic Signals: - New ..................................................................... $
Revised ............................................................... $
_ _
RR Signals: - New .......................................................................... $
Revised .................................................................... $
_
With or Without Arms .............................................. $
_
Drainage Safety Enhancement ...........................................
If 3R: $
- -
- Roadside Safety Enhancement .......................................... $
_ Realignment for Safety Upgrade ......................................... $
_x Pavement Markings-- Paint: - Thermo: _x_ Markers: _x- ......... $ 17,688
Delineators ........................................................................................... $
_x Other (clearing,grubbing, mobilization, misc.) ....................................... $ -572,107
Contract Cost (Subtotal) ....................................... $ _1,370,000
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering ........................................................................ $ _230,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ....................................................................... $
Force Account ............................................................................................... $
Construction (Subtotal) ........................................... $ 1,600,000
Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width: 50 feet
Will Contain within Exist. Right of Way-- Yes: x No:
New Right of Way Needed-
Width: Est. Cost ................................... $
Easements- Type:
Width: Est. Cost ................................... $
Utilities ................................................................................................... $
Right Of Way (Subtotal) ........................................ $
Total Estimated Project Cost ........................................................................ $
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved by-
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Mgr. Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Oper
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 Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
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
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Comments or Remarks Section:
Prepared By: Angela H. Smith
Date: July 23, 1996
Page 5
/ t J v ardsvd
y? killing
t I 1119 StaMSV111a
'fat 2] W1
Alesantl r ewerville 1 ,-q9y
• Can o e 4p • va„r.
Ll 5 N p E..h o f -[
woodlin Ir D ` Black
`. ountain 9
Swsnnan L
teen o 10
20 'Er ,i 25A 10 7M
a Fairview 9
rt
/ n, S 1 4 - SkYland Gerton?
gdsl v? rden /
_ra 25
"yn 16 -11
r J 1
\ II`,. 'a? j e t ?" 1111. 11!_0 .'n
J I ?? yFV R ? J 1•
619 3-1
'? r r '.,. \ 3179 .v !!; .04 0 'OJ
367 ^D 1?4p . P ? 704i
F ??? roOhr -' > \.e°J 14u \ ?,F° / trpD 297T - >?
!
1-6
r ?iR w 15 1.71 M ) / es 7971 1079
.170 H ! e_9l S ` ?.\ .rn„r?,? UAL
4St 0 .17 m.!7t7
- 7 ?., •De +1?? ?' 044. ?o
ss!
o..,o• 1763
Cr
r\ -'. 7 r'; ?aa.ali r>rty !441 ?, H 7--t_? •` ??V'', .... toil
1 eau - r: < WOODFIN re 8 " I
^? I T N I
7179.
,r? •s?utio ! 777eio?'. i POP. 3,2150 \\,'\, ° P1V w _,Vy I
1.9
py.. a.1lleseCrD90Y/ tF \]'Sid.1.4N '1 "le7>ti,?_ iIb
1 e77' J7s7 I'.. / l
?, m ?.?s-•? 0. J ?e•. ` 1 a r
?e1s. .fe leso 06 :. !tt \ ?A!P J? ^ 1 ? ` •i 1,70.9
{.r 'lAl \ \\ Eau I^ a,•.1 .r ??ti?`:? >? 'r \ ?, o?
I'l 5'
447.
_N a ! f??,+ t yO ? r :' 4th
13'6y?'14- ' `144 v `tom ? ' \'I'j'I el
!74L `"y aiv.r Vi .t G f J) I
vn Cvs, ,? 7 1409 ?r
IN121L Ch.
nie uss
1141
BM 11DOM - 17., I 0
S.1. 1777 f I.n a a'°Dd.oy ?_ /191 L i I
1 [> 17.1 FAU
[ I 4 ye3,i U77 77 11.E r ar4d0. RAN ki -.1 •' JFA.a,
Singlirrv,
j H.rphh t r ;.
?` apt 694 t t I!)
W?? `. E 7 i ?: .?
IU 1344
° ..5 1111 h° [? ,1 1 iG 1 1• ?f+
v4y4/1
1776 >A !7.1 % • ®.30
( Mt 17.71 1711 `\\ ` I ® P41 7p 3601 .rj
"' _? s 11.71 [ 1 _ T47 m
/?"? V j .o f 1 oe 1719 7D py X77° !1177 v 'G `5 `?`?[ ^•`G
1 1 V 30 1 I. \? `?G :? \3 I-?
1 _ 1J37 L7U ? R r4 .. !t { i!
^? Emma 1771 !? >y> 1492 7isi 70 :?. ?, Iii
N..+ f,?,r• .IT]7 \\\a, s JASHEVILLE
1141 15 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Woodfin
Elk Mountain Road(SR 1684)
From US 19-23 to NC 251
Buncombe County
U-401
p MILES
FIG. 1A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howesy Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., DiMpjember
[D FE 1111#4 1=1
18, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb4
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
Elk Mountain Road Improvements
Buncombe County, TIP # U-401
The Division of Water Quality (WQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channel ization/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? WQ 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 control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from WQ.
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/10% poet consumer paper
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from WQ.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area?
L. 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.
M. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek.
N. DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
WQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For WQ to concur with an
alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full control of
access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the
conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process)
are met. This regulation prevents WQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI
or Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until
the applicant informs WQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the
Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
u-401.sco
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Angela Smith, DOT

I1 t-f I ?
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
11/9, NO 1 2 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO.
ENVVONI%I[NVALS'EINGk S
Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? John Dorney
P( Eric Galamb (DoT)
? Greg Price (airports, COE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/HQw)
? -
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Planning Branch
Technical Support Branch
? Coleen Sullins, P&E
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch 1 ?` `t I
RAE M& ad. pcy 'ys- Z?"4fCV V ? Co.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
(?&U
'Ir '4'J. - 1„-1- d v 41 dl& . s

mis:',circmemo.doc
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
anv }w tlip tintP indirntF-d inn . /1 1 91 - If /.
You can reach me at: So V% -rA C/tr$4 * V -
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: (91?) 715-5637 e-mail: [e-mail]
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form L-I 1
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ? All RIO Areas xrsoil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
t Air El Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
ayet
e Water ? Water Resources environmental Health
? Mooresville
Groundwater
'Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
? W ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as D Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
El Wilmington
? Others
environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
f?1In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
n Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS S-10a

NUV 6 1996
?fr4?? ,1?3
N.C. STATE CLEARINGI-IOUSEF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRIAARY
November 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: U-401 Reevaluation, Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684), From NC 251
to Cottage Street, Buncombe County, State Project #8.2017601,
Federal-Aid Project #M-5019(1)
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun studying
the proposed improvements to Elk Mountain Road (SR 1684). The project is included in the
1997-2003 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
construction in fiscal year 1998 (right of way was acquired in 1979).
Tile original Environmental Assessment was completed in 1977. Following the public
hearing, 50 feet of right of way was purchased and cleared. A reevaluation, completed in 1989,
noted that no substantial changes had been made to the original project scope. No changes have
been made to the current action which calls for widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section of
Elk Mountain Road to a 36-foot curb and gutter section and improving the alignment in several
locations (see attached map). This cross section is consistent with the cross section from
US 29-23 to Cottage Street which was upgraded in 1985. The proposed roadway will be striped
for two lanes.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation
of a federally fiuided Reevaluation. This document will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by December 16,
1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Angela Smith, Project
Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919) 7.33-7844, Extension 204.
1-IFV/plr ?ee'j ,.,-- ( ? ?U rI L C
Attachment 9
0
s
?a mot,
Q
LL
B
a
v Lj
RD.
`BAGGY ° L
tER
7
n1o, l
D ?

CHURCH
RD
.
c p tAILLS
0 R.
TOWN g
Q = 4?OUSO
COUNTR O CI/FT,
151
A n ESTATES B
N 'g:? SLAG+P1•
??? o EAV 1 4M E L L
tNNO?P ? ? P KCT TAIN
d - r
1
, O?
+t ` - ;• µplop?
(f?Cf HWY
TfR
Pp ??5
e
?? l36s ?, GP
v
?? ?pLF 1 Q hElv?'
B a ,P?
z RD
u
In
it
L
RO
0
cr
VZ

y AVP HIGH ST i
Pp ?V o "i I
O JONES SE N E?x
P ti ¢ (?.? 0 R
Q? ¢ NEK LrS`? v 9 °?o o lE1
ST. MTN 0 r / 1
a gff5 LOrr 3 T I
1 ?? s I o CITY ..ntlAaT YODFIN
J 9
C01 E,.? PgP3
W?
9 ?'? A• V?
a h Rp^tEt h
MAJOR GEN ?' N N w Cy u '? n' h c~ r
ALBERT BOYO REYC(l c f?C V h
BRIOGf , =4 u 4 v eN r o v '?; t5'J ?' .. 1
z Ul 3 v
° ? SL> ? ?? f: ?? h I
CRAGGY PRISO.
© f ?V ?`IA (A ???
?C OAS ?? L ?? T_,
BINGHAM
--Cl HGTS.
VIEW
' 90
2
fI(f
r
r.?

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Dire696ember 9,
MEMORANDUM
,Tk:.R;WA
?EHNF=R
1996
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galambe`C
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
Elk Mountain Road Reevaluation
Buncombe County, TIP # M-504-9 V.-40\
DEHNR No. 97-0322, DWQ NO. 11417
The Division of Water Quality (WQ) requests that the following topics be discussed in
the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channeIization/re locations. 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? WQ 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 control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from WO.
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
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from WQ.
Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area?
L. 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.
M. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek.
N. DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
WQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For WO to concur with an
alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full control of
access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland mitigation.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the conditions
of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This
regulation prevents WQ from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the document. It is
recommended that if the 401 Certification application is submitted for review prior to the
sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the applicant
informs WQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
r-2420.sco
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe FAXED
utc 0 1996

NOTICE OF AN OPEN FORUM PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF ELK MOUNTAIN ROAD (SR 1684) FROM NC 251
TO COTTAGE STREET IN WOODFIN
Project 8.2017601 U-401 Buncombe County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above open forum
public meeting on July 16, 1997 between the hours of 4 PM and 7 PM at Woodfin
Elementary School, 108 Elk Mountain Road.
Interested individuals may attend this informal meeting at their convenience
during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation representatives will be
available to answer questions and receive comments relative to the proposed project.
There will be no formal session held.
Under this project, it is proposed to improve Elk Mountain Road in Woodfin from
NC 251 to Cottage Street, a length of approximately 1 mile. These improvements
consist of widening the existing 18-ft. section to a 32-ft. curb and gutter section and
realigning several curves. The project will not require additional right of way and is to
be let to contract in April, 1998.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. L. T. Dudley at P. 0. Box
25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, phone [phone], or fax [phone].
In order to comply with the American Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to attend the hearing. To
receive special services, please contact Mr. Dudley one week prior to the date of the
hearing so that arrangements can be made.

STATE: OF NORT1 I CARO1.1 NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES K I-1UN-1 JR. P.O. 130X25201. RAI I I(;I I. N.C. 27(,11-5)01
GOVI RNOR
April 3, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Dear Sir:
I:. No sous 'k)[Y)N
SWRIIARY

Subject: Buncombe County, SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road), from NC 251 to
Cottage Street; Federal Aid Project No. M-5019(1); State Project
No. 8.2017601; TIP No. U-401; COE Action ID 199702226.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage Street. The project is
scheduled to be let to construction in November 1998.
The Federal Highway Administration signed a Reevaluation of the Project
Planning Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project on August 19, 1997.
The project was previously studied in 1977 as a Project Planning Report and EA.
The NCDOT proposes to improve a 0.9 mile stretch of SR 1684. These
improvements consist of widening the existing 18-foot shoulder section to a 32-foot curb
and gutter section. Several curves will also be realigned. The preferred alternative
involves widening SR 1684 along the west side of the existing facility and impacting an
unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. The stream would be included in the storm
drain system of the widened roadway.
The NCDOT met in the field with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) on Tuesday, March 17, 1998 to review the project. During the
site visit, a jurisdictional call was made liar tilt; stream located in the project study area, an
unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek.

The proposed roadway improvements necessitate impacts to surface waters. The
unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek will be piped a total distance of 1075 linear feet.
Of this amount, the impact to the perennial stream is 780 feet. Surface water impact for
this impact totals 0.03 acre. This unnamed tributary flows along the west side of
SR 1684.
The NCDOT has investigated opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts to this
unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. A summary of this alternative investigation has
been attached to this letter.
The NCDOT understands that project impacts to the unnamed tributary of
Beaverdam Creek will necessitate mitigation. The NCDOT proposes to pay a fee into the
Wetland Restoration Program for project impacts. If the WRP is not appropriate
mitigation, the NCDOT proposes that the Section 404 Individual permit be conditioned
such that a stream mitigation plan will be completed prior to the completion of project
construction.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 Individual
Permit to widen SR 1684 in Woodfin, Buncombe County. Impacts to waters of the
United States are 0.03 acre of surface waters, including 780 feet of a perennial stream.
The NCDOT has sent a copy of this permit application to the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) and asks that the WRC give comments to the COE. Application for
401 Water Quality Certification is also requested from the DWQ.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P. E.
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/pet
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northside
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. 1). Smart, P.E. , Division 13 Engineer
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
OF THE ARMY PERMIT Expires October 1996
(33 CFR 325)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, an(] completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service
Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and
to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10: 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require authorizing activities in, or
affecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge or fill material into waters of the United States, and the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary.
If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must
be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business [phone]
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND
TITLE (an agent is not required)
Mr. David C. Robinson, P.E., Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manger
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
10. AGENT'S PHONE Nos. W/ AREA
CODE
a. Residence
b. Business
hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
TIP No. U-401; Widening of SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) from NC 251 to Cottage Street in Woodfin
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS
(if applicable)
Unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Buncombe County North Carolina.
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See vicinity map associated with permit drawings
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
widen the existing roadway to a 32 foot curb and gutter facility
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project see instructions)
Public Roadway; increase design speed, remove potential for accidents to occur and provide traffic flow improvements
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
pipe construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Roadway Fill
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Surface Water Impact: 0.03 acre
23 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X _ IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED
WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be
entered here. please allach a supplemental list)
See listing of property owners associated with permit drawings
25, List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work
Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED/ DENIED
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application.
certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)
or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a
material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Alternative Comparison for widening/ realigning
SR 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin
'I'll' No. U-401
Buncombe County
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has investigated several alternatives in
order to improve SlZ 1684 (Elk Mountain Road) in Woodlin. Roadway improvements
include wldcnlllg and realigning the roadway to increase the desi?pn speed, reduce the
potential for accidents, and provide sonic traffic flow improvements. The resource
agencies have a concern about the DOT'S current proposal to accommodate widening/
realigning SR 1684 by enclosing 1070 feet of an Unnamed tributary of Rcaverdam Creek
in a pipe. Of the 1070 feet of stream to be piped, 780 feet has been jurisidictionally
determined to be a perennial stream. The discussions for Alternatives 1 A, 2A, 213 and 2D
can be found in the Reevaluation of Project Planning Report and Environmental
Assessment, signed on August 19, 1997 by the Federal I lighway Administration.
The DOT has investigated 7 alternatives to accommodate the proposed upgrading
and widening of SR 1684. Rased on this investigation, it has been determined that each
alternative would require a new pipe crossing of the unnamed tributary to licaverdanl
Creek. This impact for any alternative would be greater than 200 feet; therefore, project
construction will necessitate a Section 404 Individual Permit from the Corps of
Engineers.
A brief discussion of each alternative is presented. Following the summarized
alternative discussions, a table can be found providing a comparison between Alternatives
I B, 1 C and 2D. This table includes project costs (right of way, construction, stream
mitigation), number of relocatees, and information regarding stream impacts. Of the
seven investigated alternatives, the DOT considers these alternatives to be most
practicable and has generated greater data for these three alternatives.
Alternative IA: Widen along the cast portion of SR 1684
This alternative would widen SR 1684 to the cast and thereby avoiding stream
relocation. A portion of the stream would still be piped in order to intersect with NC 251.
This pipe length would be greater than two hundred feet.
This eastward shift would require the relocation ofthrec residences, encroach
upon the F.Ik Mountain CO11111111111ty Cemetery and require it substantial amount of new
right of way. This alternative would create it less desirable alignment by adding a reverse
curve near Fou?•th Street and sharpening the curvature near the NC 251 intersection.

The resource agencies inquired about the 1)0T utilizing the existing pipe crossing
of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road and/or the existing sections of Lower Beaverdam Creek
Road and SR 1684. The new facility would be wider and Cause the following
consequences: 1) a greater impact upon the unnamed tributary to accommodate the wider
facility; 2) the relocation of the railroad which parallels Lower Beaverdam ('reek Road;
and 3) the project would necessitate constructing the facility on new location across the
cemetery property before connecting the new location section of SR 1684 to the existing
lacility, south of 4th Street. The DOT considers this alternative of using the existing pipe
crossing of Lower Beaverdam Creek Road to be impracticable.
Alternative 113: Widen SR 1684 along the east side without a retaining wall
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along its east side. The existing pavement
would be retained and used. This alternative would involve acquiring a sizable amount of
the cemetery, as well as portions of other parcels. One residential relocation would be
required to construct this alternative.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. The new pipe will
impact 290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the
stream relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total
amount of relocation would be 320 feet. "These stream relocations would be straight,
open channels. These relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain
constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A five foot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. This buffer would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, the additional right of way cost would amount
to $ 214,000. The additional construction cost would total $ 19,200. Costs associated
with stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio (310 tect x $ 125 per foot, based on the Wetland
Restoration Program) would be $ 38,750. Total additional project cost is $ 271,950.
Based on these figures, the DOT does not consider this alternative to be the most
practicable considering the other alternatives.
Alternative IC: Widen SR 1684 along east side with retaining wall
'['his alternative involves widening the secondary road on the east side, following
the same alignment as AlternativC B. TO construct this alternative, the DOT would
acquire right of way from the CCmetCry and other parcels. This alternative would not

involve any residential relocations. Right ofway acquisition would be minimized by
constructing a retaining wall along the east side of the roadway.
This alternative would cause 630 feet of stream impacts. "File new pipe will
impact 290 feet of stream and an additional 20 feet of stream would be lost from the
stream relocation. Four sections of the stream would require relocation. The total
amount of relocation would be 320 feet. 'these stream relocations would be straight,
open channels. 'T'hese relocated channels would lack meanders due to terrain
constrictions.
Relocation of two stream segments would also require the construction of
retaining walls between the relocated stream and the roadway. A five loot berm would be
constructed between the stream and the retaining wall. '['his butter would provide an
offset to protect the retaining wall of the roadway from erosion and scouring.
This alternative would provide a slightly sharper curve near the NC 251
intersection than Alternative 2 D does, and would result in a 30 mph (miles per hour),
which is the same as the Alternative 2 D (Recommended).
In terms of cost for this alternative, additional right of way cost would be $
135,000. The additional construction cost for the retaining wall would total $ 146,000.
Costs associated with stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio (310 feet x $125 per trot, based on
the Wetland Restoration Program) would amount to $ 38,750. 'total additional project
cost is $ 319,750. Based on a comparison with other alternatives, the DOT does not
consider this alternative to be the most practicable.
Alternative 2A: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a retaining wall
This alternative involves west side widening of SR 1684 and would minimize
stream impacts and pipe enclosure by the construction of a retaining wall. A 775-foot
retaining wall would allow most of the stream to remain intact. The retaining wall would
cost $ 252,000. Additional right of way would not be required in this alternative.
In this alternative, the DOT also investigated the possibility of rcchanneling 180
feet of the stream in an open channel prior to pipe enclosure under the roadway for the
NC 251 intersection. This open channel would be straight because the terrain would not
allow sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing
channel. The open channel would require excavation work involving substantial
construction costs, as well as a considerable quantity ofwaste material. This relocated
open channel would lie at the toe ofthc highway fill slope and require rip rap on the
highway side of the channel fOr stabilization. As mentioned, this alternative would also
include piping the stream under the realigned roadway. The DOT believes this
alternative is also not practicable.
4
Alternative 213: Widen SR 1684 along the west side with a relocated stream
This alternative Would widen SR 1684 along the west side and Would minimize
pipe enclosure by relocating the stream in an open channel. An extensive amount of
excavation through steep terrain would be required to relocate an open channel and to
establish side slopes. This excavation work would generate high construction costs, as
well as a large quantity of waste material. Additional right Of Way Would not be acquired
in this alternative.
'['he open stream channel Would be straight because the terrain Would not allow
sufficient room to include meanders along the new channel to imitate the existing
channel. This relocated open channel would lie at the toe of the highway fill slope and
require rip rap on the highway side of the channel for stabilization. '['his alternative
would still necessitate that a portion of the stream be piped under the realigned roadway.
The DOT believes this alternative is also not practicable.
Alternative 2C: Widen SR 1684 along the west side and relocate an open
channel stream on the east side of roadway
This alternative would widen SR 1684 along the west side of the roadway and
would minimize pipe enclosure by relocating the unnamed tributary on the eastern side of'
the roadway. The resource agencies suggested this alternative during a review of permit
drawings and plan sheets on November 6, 1997. The agencies desire that the stream have
an open channel. This alternative would initially require piping the stream under SR
1684 to the east and place the stream in an open channel. The stream Would flow along
the eastern side before being piped back under SR 1684, prior to the stream's Confluence
with Beaverdam Creek.
'The DOT Ilydraulics Unit reviewed the agencies' recommendation. This
alternative would require a substantial amount of additional right of way to excavate an
open channel. The terrain is steep on the east side of the roadway. An excavated stream
channel would cause encroachment into the cemetery and large portions of residential
property. Excavation for the open straight stream channel would induce greater
construction costs and a large amount of waste material. The channel Would lack
meanders, and rip rap would likely need to be placed on the highway side of the channel
for stabilization. Based on this information, the DOT does not also consider this
alternative to be practicable.
Alternative 21): Widen SR 1684 along the west side and include the stream in
the project's storm drain system
SR 1684 would he widened along its west side, and 1070 Icet of stream would he
enclosed in a pipe. As mentioned earlier, 780 feet of the piping is a perennial stream.
The DOT recognizes that this alternative would require stream mitigation which would
cost $ 97,500 at a 1 :l ratio based on stream mitigation figures from the Wetland
5
Restoration Program. In the DOT's opinion, this alternative is the most practicable and is
recommended for roadway widening and improvements to SR 1684.
Table 1. Comparison Summary of Alternatives 113, IC, and 21)
Alternative Alternative Alternative
111 1C 21)
Additional Costs
Right of Way $ 214,000 $ 135,000 $ 0
Construction $ 19,200 $ 146,000 $ 0
Stream Mitigation 38,750 A750 $97,500
Total Additional Costs $ 271,950 $ 319,750 $ 97,500
Relocatees
Residential 1 0 0
Stream Impacts
Stream Loss from Relocation 20 feet 20 feet n/a
Stream Loss from Piping 290 feet 290 feet 1075 feet
Perennial Stream enclosed in a pipe 290 feet 290 feet 780 feet
Total Stream Loss from Project 310 feet 310 feet 1075 feet
SUMMARY SHEET
SITE STATION FILL IN
• SURFACE LENGTH OF LENGTH OF CULVERT
WATERS EXIST. STREAM OR ENCLOSED PIPE
(ACRES) LOST
1 13 + 00 0.03 1025• 1000'
TO
22 + 90
N. C. D11"PT-OF 'FRANSPOR'I ATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUN,rA-
PROJECT:8.2017601 (U-0401)
SR1684 (ELK MTN. RD.)
FROM NC 251 TO COTAGE ST.
SHEET 6 OF 6
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN
MARSH SMITH
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
[phone]
May 22, 1998
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
ATT: Mr. Steven Lund
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
RE: Action ID No. 199830659
Dear Mr. Lund:
<c?
Piping over 1,000 linear feet of a mountain creek so that NCDOT can
straighten and widen yet another mountain road makes little sense,
especially in light of the torrent of insults NCDOT has already
visited on the mountain streams feeding the French Broad (e.g. Hwy
25 - 70 on either side of Hot Springs). Please exercise COE's
authority to deny this unnecessary and non water dependent project.
If people want perfectly straight roads along with the "lobotomized
landscape" their construction creates then they can move to
Fayetteville or Cary.
Sincerely,
CUNNING AM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH, LLP
Marsh Smith
MS/bo
-- MAILING ADDRESS
SO UTH&KI PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO [phone]
?-LWAT?ER P1q.13OX 1468
9 ijrj?s AUTSk' i-ION
cc: John Dorney
Trip van Noppen
Joe McDonald
United States Department of the InteriQ - p
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1 ;R
Asheville Field Office p 1'{
160 Zillicoa Street , I 5 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 10, 1998
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
Wilmington District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:

Subject: Permit Application by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place 1,075
linear feet of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek into a concrete pipe to
facilitate the widening of Elk Mountain Road, Woodfin, Buncombe County, North
Carolina (TIP No. U-401)
This is the response of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department of the
Interior to the public notice dated May 14, 1998, for a permit application submitted by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways, to place 1,075 linear
feet of an unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek into a concrete pipe to facilitate the widening
of Elk Mountain Road, Woodfin, Buncombe County, North Carolina. This report is based on a
site visit, review of information provided by the NCDOT, and the public notice and is submitted
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed project includes the widening and straightening of a 0.9-mile stretch of Elk
Mountain Road (SR 1684) between NC 251 and Cottage Street at Woodfin, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. Approximately 1,075 linear feet of stream channel will be impacted by the
project. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the project. The applicant has committed
to provide compensatory stream mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for the 1,075 linear feet of the impacted
stream channel. The purpose of the proposed work is to increase safety, design speed, and traffic
flow of a public roadway.
The Service agrees with the conclusion of the alternatives analysis that the proposed project is
the only practicable alternative because of terrain constraints, residences, and curve geometry.
r
Based upon the inclusion of a plan for the proposed stream mitigation in the project, the Service
does not object to issuance of this permit. The compensatory mitigation plan should be approved
by the Service prior to implementation. The Service has been disappointed recently with
compensatory stream mitigation by the NCDOT, which was not commensurate with the level of
impacts permitted and was accomplished outside of the impacted watershed. We also
recommend that the applicant be required to complete the compensatory stream mitigation prior
to or concurrent with the proposed impacts. The Service believes that mitigation for the stream
impacts should be compensated for within the French Broad drainage, preferably within the
Beaverdam Creek watershed. Beaverdam Creek itself may be improved west of US 19/23/70.
The Service does not believe that mitigation should occur- at a city park or other site that would
limit natural stream functions. The mitigation plan should include regular monitoring following
construction, with regular reports of these findings provided to the resource agencies.
We recommend the following elements be included in any stream mitigation proposed for this
project:
(1) Riparian vegetation should include native woody species, such as alder (Alnus spp.),
black willow, sycamore, and dogwood, as well as sedges, grasses, and rushes. Exotic
vegetation should be screened from any plant material. Large woody species will
provide thermal cover as well as deep bank-stabilizing root systems along the
constructed/reconstructed stream channel.
(2) Stream channel construction and vegetation establishment should take place prior to
the diversion of water into the new channel. Sequential construction of segments and
temporary pipe diversions can be utilized to ensure channel stability. The Service
would like to have an opportunity to inspect stream segments for stability prior to the
water diversion.
(3) Stream channel design should mimic slope, riffle slope, pool slope, valley slope,
meander geometry, sinuosity, cross-sectional dimensions, entrenchment ratio, bed
material (pebble count), and bank-full discharge of a nearby reference reach of a
stable stream of the same classification (Rosgen 1996). The Service would be glad to
review the final design of the stream channel.
(4) Monitoring should continue for at least 5 years following channel construction.
Annual reports should be submitted to the resource agencies. Resource agencies
should be notified of problems with success or function of the stream mitigation
within 30 days of detection.
(5) An appropriate regional conservation organization should hold title to the deed
restrictions on the mitigation site. The title to the conservation easement should be
conveyed along with an endowment for future monitoring, management, and any
contingencies to ensure a perpetual net increase in stream channel function in the
project area. Since North Carolina law currently requires the filing of conservation

easements every 30 years, the endowment should make provisions for the required
legal filing.
(6) Details need to be provided in the final mitigation plan relative to what measures will
be taken to control watershed conditions and prevent sediment pollution and
increased water discharge that would potentially negate efforts at the stream
mitigation site. Zoning or local controls may ensure that there is no increase in
impervious surfaces.
The Service concurs with the determination that there will be no effect to listed species, since no
endangered species were located within the impact area of the site. Therefore, the Service
believes the requirements under Section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 227, if you
have any questions regarding our comments. We have assigned our Log Number 4-2-97-018 to
this project; please refer to it in all future correspondence directed to us concerning this matter.
Sincere ,
B an P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Mark Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Old Fish Hatchery, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway,
Waynesville, NC 288
Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607

Apo 14 t?.
K North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., Inland 404 Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management - DENR
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 27, 1998
SUBJECT: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Action No. 199830659, request from the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for authorization of a 404 permit to place
1075 linear feet of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek into a 42-inch
reinforced concrete pipe to facilitate the widening of Elk Mountain Road (SR
1684) between NC 251 and Cottage Street at Woodfin, Buncombe County, North
Carolina, TIP Project No. U-401.
Mr. David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). I
have reviewed information provided by the applicant, and I am familiar with habitat values of the
1r{!Jr-..lo/?t area. nnM, „i°vit??J (? ore rn in nnV•..r..w?.4 ?..+.. »t?. 1V 1'1sr?/-.11J V ,. all iir„a;,? A
\.1'./ a Y.v j}. •dV?a a.V.?a11Vb a'ala.L.a1'1.11V LiV
1 V'QLVI AVE.
Il'?
of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The applicant proposes to widen and straighten a 0.9 mile section of Elk Mountain Road
(SR 1684) between NC 251 and Cottage Street at Woodfin. The existing 18-foot wide shoulder
section will be widened to a 32-foot wide curb and gutter section. Project impacts include the
piping of 1075 linear feet of a small (2 feet wide, less than 6 inches deep) unnamed tributary to
Beaverdam Creek resulting in 0.03 acres of fill in surface waters. Due to the small size of the
stream, flow and available fish habitat is limited in the project area. The subject stream is in an
urban residential setting and has been degraded by stormwater runoff from the surrounding area.
Site inspections have determined that the lower 780 linear feet of stream channel has perennial
flow and the upper 295 feet has intermittent flow. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by
the project.

TIP No. U-401
Page 2
May 27, 1998
The NCWRC was involved in the early planning stages of this project, which required the
applicant to reevaluate alternative designs to avoid or minimize stream impacts. Seven
combinations of alternative designs were considered, but due to terrain constraints, curve
geometry, residential relocations, and cost, none were found to be a practical alternative. As a
result, NCDOT has committed to provide compensatory mitigation for stream channel losses at a
1:1 ratio and is currently looking for a suitable mitigation site. The NCWRC is concerned about
potential project impacts to aquatic resources in this drainage; however, we do not object to the
issuance of a 404 permit provided the following conditions be placed on the subject permit:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures should be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
2. If concrete is used during culvert installation, adequate precautions should be taken to
prevent direct contact between wet concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete
affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
3. Stormwater should be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and should not be
routed directly into streams.
4. The NCWRC would prefer that compensatory stream mitigation be carried out in the
Beaverdam Creek watershed if possible. The mitigation plan should be approved by
the NCWRC prior to implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending
availability of field staff, the NCWRC may inspect the work site during or after construction. If
there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Mr. David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., NCDOT, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USF&WS, Asheville
1 ST/?7[ o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E..NOMR Too
GOVERNOR SEA T;
41
January 8, 1999 y? "Y
any ?/
Memorandum to: Mr. Ron Ferrell, Wetland Restoration Program`yg'??o
From: i ham D.i moP. 1?., Manage T
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Payment to the Wetland Restoration Program for TIP No. U-401
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve SR 1684
(Elk Mountain Road) in Woodfin from NC 251 to Cottage Street. The project lies in
Buncombe County in the French Broad River Basin.
Construction of this project will result in the avoidable impact of an unnamed
tributary to Beaverdam Creek. The NCDOT must provide compensatory mitigation for
780 feet (USACE Action Id 199830659; DWQ # 980491). A mitigation ratio of 1:1 has
been agreed upon by the NCDOT and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The
last remaining issue to resolve prior to the issuance of the Section 404 and 401 Individual
Permits is compensatory mitigation.
In accordance with the provisions of the "Memorandum of Understanding
between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Wetlands Restoration Program and the USACE, Wilmington District" dated November 4,
1998, the NCDOT officially requests that it be allowed to purchase restoration credits
from the WRP for 780 feet. This credit purchase would enable the NCDOT to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirement for the USACE and the Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.
Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville
Ms. Cyndi Bell, DWQ, Raleigh