R-2116

SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
r Buncombe County h
NC 151 from SR 1110 at South Hominy p.a
to SR 1117 JAN f 4
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. R-2116A
"A f
In addition to the Standard Conditions for Nationwide Permit numbers 14, 26, and 12, the
general Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by the NCDOT:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental UnW Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
A special provision will be included.in the construction contract stating the contractor must
construct spanning structures and culverts without letting wet concrete contact the stream waters.
Commitments Developed Through Permitting
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 1 no more. than 16.4 linear feet of stream can be filled.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 2 no more than 141 linear feet of stream can be filled. Also at Site 2, 65.6 linear feet of
stream will be relocated. Rip rap will be removed from the channel. The channel must be
constructed to mirror the existing channel's dimension, plan, and profile. An appropriate
reference reach must be selected in developing the new channel's dimension, plan, and profile.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 3 there must be no fill in the stream.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 4 no more than 108.2 linear feet of stream can be filled. The double culverts should be
designed so that one is installed below the stream grade to carry normal water flow and the other
higher to carry flood waters.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 5 no more than 72 linear feet of stream can be filled. The double culverts should be
designed so that one is installed below the stream grade to carry normal water flow and the other
higher to carry flood waters:
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
At Site 5a no more than 75.4 linear feet of stream can be filled:
•
Page 1 of 4
01/07/00
SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
i
Buncombe County
NC 151 from SR 1110 at South Hominy
to SR 1117
State Project No. 6:841027
T.I.P R-2116A

Hydrauljc? :i%/ Jvision 13 Construction Unit
At' Site 6 0 yore than 299 linear feet of stream can be filled. Also at Site 6, 226 linear feet of
stream will be relocated. Rip rap will be removed from the channel. The channel must be
constructed to mirror the existing channel's dimension, plan, and profile. An appropriate
reach reference must be selected in developing the new channel's dimension, plan, and profile.
ya? lics tit/Division 13 Construction Unit
NCD6T will strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in
Sensliive ershede' (15A NCAC 04B .0024).
r
PDI& EA Unit
ie ,WRP for off-site mitigation for impacting 72 linear feet of stream. Payment to
the WRP shall be sent within two months of issuance of the 404 and 401 permits' (401 permit
issued November 19, 1999).
nit/Division 13 Construction Unit
All channel locations will be constructed in accordance with the NCWRC.'s/Guidelines for
tion and Restoration in North Carolina, August 1998.
Roadside Environmental Unit/Design Services Unit, Utilities Section
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to any ground
disturbing vities to minimize 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. ,
Hydraulics r
tit
The culverts should be placed with the floor of the barrels approximately one foot below the
level of the str
eam bottom to allow natural stream bottom materials to become established in the
culvert and to allow fish-passage during periods of low flow. This may require increasing the,
size of the. culvert to meet flow conveyance requirements.
Hydraulics Vnit?Structure Design Unit
Double-barrel reinforced. concrete box culverts should be design/ so that all water flows
through a single cell during low flow conditions. This could be accomplished by constructing a
low sill on the upstream end of one of the barrels to divert flow?to the other barrel. This will
facilitate fish passage during periods of low flow and also transport sediments downstream ''more
efficiently.

SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Buncombe County
NC 151 from SR 1110 at South Hominy
to SR 1117
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. R-2116A
Hydraulics Unit
Notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15-foot intervals to allow
for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities, and to provide resting
places for fish moving through the structure.
Hydraulics Unit
Under no circumstances should riprap be used to completely line the stream channel at culvert
outlets. Riprap can impede fish passage; therefore, the stream channel should be left in a natural
condition.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit/Design Services Unit, Utilities Section
If possible, all instream work should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, cofferdams,
flexible pipe, or other diversion structures should be used to minimize excavation in flowing
water.
Hydraulics Unit/Division 13 Construction Unit
The new channels should be constructed in a dry work area and stabilized before water is
diverted. The new channels to be designed to resemble natural channels in width, depth, gradient,
and meander pattern and that natural substrate, not riprap, be used in the channel floor. NCDOT
should coordinate stream relocation designs with NCVWRC staff.
Roadside Environmental Unit
Native trees (willows, alders, sycamores, dogwoods, black walnut and red maple), and
herbaceous shrubs, should be planted along the stream banks to reestablish the riparian zone,
provide shade and long term erosion control.
Division 13 Construction Unit
Storrhwater should be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and should not be routed
directly into streams.
Division 13 Construction Unit/ Design Services Unit, Utilities Section
'All instream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of November 1 to April
15 in order to protect the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
Division 13 Construction Unit
Construction staging areas should be located on upland sites, specifically not in or adjacent to
wetland areas. This will prevent contamination of streams or wetlands from fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Page 3 of 4
01/07/00
SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Buncombe County
NC 151 from SR 1110 at South Hominy
r to SR 1117
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. R-2116A
PD & EA Natural Systems Unit
The mitigation plan as outlined in the permit application is implemented.
?esign Services Unit, Utilities Section
/Utility lines should cross streams at right angles to minimize impacts to riparian area.
' Design Services Unit, Utilities Section
Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the stream
channel under authorization of thisnpermit, except in the immediate vicinity of the utility line
crossings. Instream dredging has catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and disturbance of the
natural form of the stream. channel will likely cause downstream erosion problems, possibly
affecting adjacent landowners.
f
i Design Services Unit, Utilities Section
If utility lines are installed adjacent to streams, an undisturbed buffer zone should be left between
streams and all construction if possible. We prefer buffer zones of at least 50'feet to control`
' sedimentation into streams, provide shade, and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife.
Roadside Environmental Unit
i Riparian vegetation, especially trees, should be preserved. as much as/possible at stream
crossings. Trees that, must be removed should be cut near ground level, leaving the stump and
roots in the bank for stability and to possibly sprout.
j Roadside Environmental Unit
Natural materials should be used as much as possible to restore stream banks at crossings:
Riprap should be limited to the stream bank below the high water mark, and vegetation should be
used for stabilization above high water.
Division I3 Construction Unit
All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should;beregularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials
Page 4 of 4
7/07/00
% 1;
NC 151
From 0.1 mile south of SR 3452
to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74
Buncombe County
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. Project No. R-2116
R

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Approved:
L
a e H. Frank in Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 151
From 0.1 mile south of SR 3452
to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74
Buncombe County
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. Project No. R-2116
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Brian F. Yamam o
Project Plann ng Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
•``'o16 CARD/
I
r • `l / . 1
alr,?? 2 S) 'L al
Richard 'B. Davis, P. E., Assistant ana er 6544
.%••??'G?
Planning and Environmental Branch

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ....................... 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS............ ..................... 1
III. NEED FOR ACTION ............................................. 2
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................... 2
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............... 3
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................... 3
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................... 4
C. N. C. Department of Cultural Resources ................ 8
D. N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources .... ....... .... . ... ... 9
E. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management ...... 10
F. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ................... 11
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ................. 12
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..... 13
A. Recommended Alignment ................................. 13
B. Cost Estimates ........................................ 14
C. Wetland Findings ...................................... 14
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................ 15
Maps and Illustrations
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2A Recommended Cross Section - Between
SR 1110 and SR 1117
Figure 2B Recommended Cross Section - Between
SR 1117 and US 19-23-74
Figure 3 Aerial Mosaic with Proposed Right of
Way Limits
Appendix
A. Agency Comments
B. Protected Species Survey Results
4 t . .1
NC 151
From 0.1 mile south of SR 3452
to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74
Buncombe County
State Project No. 6.841027
T.I.P. Project No. R-2116
1. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to improve NC 151 from SR 1110 (Warren Creek Road) at
South Hominy to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74 in Buncombe County (See
Figure 1 for a vicinity map of the project). From SR 1110 to SR 1117, a
distance of 2.5 miles, the proposed improvements call for widening the
existing pavement to 30 feet (two 11-foot lanes and 4-foot paved
shoulders) and improving the alignment of one horizontal curve located
approximately 0.2 mile north of SR 1115. See Figure 2A for a sketch of
the recommended cross section in this area. From SR 1117 to the north
project limit, a distance of 2.2 miles, the proposed improvements include
widening the existing pavement to 32 feet (two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot
paved shoulders) and relocating portions of the road to improve design
speed and safety. See Figure 2B for a sketch of the recommended cross
section in this area. The project is located within Buncombe County and
is approximately 4.7 miles long.
The project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 1995. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1996. The
TIP includes a total funding of $10,400,000 that encompasses $4,200,000
for right of way and $6,200,000 for construction. The total projected
cost for the recommended improvements is $13,070,000 including $8,350,000
for construction and $4,720,000 for right of way. The estimated cost
exceeds the TIP funding by $2,670,000.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under
Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for discharges Above Headwaters
or for Road Crossing Fills in-accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and 33
CFR 330.5(a)(14), respectively.
One to one replacement of wetlands will be considered for unavoidable
impacts to the wet meadow at Crossing Number 5 as identified in the
Biological/Ecological Evaluation for the NC 151 Widening/Extension Project
(Espey, Huston, and Associates Project No. 12870). It is located in the
vicinity of the NC 151 intersection with SR 1123 and is a diverse,
atypical wetland area.
2 e' . '
Once a determination of the permit areas is made by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, additional studies may be required at archaeological
site 31Bn112. If the site lies within a Corps of Engineers permit area,
Phase II or Phase. III studies may be needed to comply with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. In addition,
if the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers concludes that any of the identified
significant architectural/historic structures lies within the permit area,
further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act will be pursued.
A special provision will be included in the construction contract
stating the contractor must construct spanning structures and culverts
without letting wet concrete contact the stream waters.
All applicable Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented
and maintained throughout construction of the proposed project.
NCDOT has not conducted extensive surveys for candidate species as
listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service; however, surveys will be
conducted if the species' status classifications are upgraded in the
future.
The Pisgah Valley Market/Phillip's 66 station is located on the west
side of the existing alignment south of SR 1115 (Morgan Branch Road). Its
underground fuel storage tanks may be affected by the proposed
improvements to NC 151. As further design is completed, potential for
involvement with the fuel tanks will be monitored.
III. NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed project will improve the safety of NC 151 for motorists
and bicyclists as well as improve access to the Hominy Valley for fire and
rescue units. The recommended alignment will allow reduced travel times
and more efficient vehicle operation. The existing substandard roadway
has an accident history over 2 1/2 times greater than the statewide
average for similar NC routes. Improving the horizontal and vertical
alignment, widening the travel lanes and shoulders, and relocating
portions of the road away from areas of dense, uncontrolled development
will improve the safety of NC 151.
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The state environmental assessment (SEA) was circulated among the
following federal, state and local agencies and officials:
Tennessee Valley Authority
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
*U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
3
U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives
and History
*N. C. Department of Environment,
Land-Of-Sky Regional Council
City of Asheville
Mayor of Asheville
Buncombe County Commissioners
Health, and Natural Resources
Written comments were received from the agencies denoted with an
asterisk (*). Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix A.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
"We recommend that the wetland located in the vicinity of the
NC 151 --intersection with SR 1123 be avoided by adjusting the highway
alignment. Remaining unavoidable wetland impacts will need to be
mitigated, preferably within the same watershed. A conceptual
mitigation proposal should be part of DOT's request for
authorization."
Response:
A field survey was conducted to delineate the subject wetland.
The wetland is characterized as a wet meadow and is located in the
southwest quadrant of the SR 1123/NC 151 intersection. An NCDOT
biologist, in accompaniment with an NCDOT Geographic Positioning
System Field Coordinator, delineated the wetland on July 20, 1994
using the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual." The
wet meadow is an early successional community, apparently man
created, that is located in a pastured area. It encompasses an area
of less than 0.1 acre. As a result of the wetland assessment, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation determined a centerline
shift 150 feet to the west of the recommended centerline is necessary
to avoid the wet meadow. The shift of centerline requires relocating
at least 5-additional families. The NCDOT does not consider shifting
the alignment to avoid the wet meadow a practicable avoidance
alternative; rather, one to one replacement of wetlands is
recommended to mitigate losses which may occur from project
construction.
The alignment recommended in the environmental assessment was
developed avoiding wetlands, where possible, and minimizing impacts
to unavoidable wetland areas. Potential impacts have been minimized
with perpendicular stream crossings. The majority of the remaining
riparian wetland areas will remain intact and undisturbed by the
proposal. The wetland areas are generally small fringes associated
4
with headwater streams and offer limited specialized habitat value or
water quality benefits. The cumulative remaining impacts comprise
approximately 0.8 acre. Because of the small amount of potential
wetland losses and impacts, the quality and function of the wetlands
will remain essentially unchanged. No mitigation for wetlands, other
than those at the wet meadow site, is proposed.
Comment:
"Spanning structures or bottomless culverts should be utilized
_on all stream crossings to avoid disturbance to stream substrates.
Any authorization granted will require that construction of concrete
structural bridge components be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact surface waters, to reduce the likelihood of fish
kills."
Response:
Spanning structures are being provided, where feasible. The
remaining stream crossings will be accommodated by culverts or pipes.
The feasibility of providing bottomless culverts, which depends on
the hydraulics of the crossings as well as the streams' foundations,
will be.-further investigated during final design.
A special provision will be included in the contract stating
that the contractor must construct spanning structures and culverts
without letting wet concrete contact the stream waters.
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
"The (U. S. Fish. and Wildlife) Service prefers Alternative 1
(Studied in the State Environmental Assessment - 2.0 miles of
realignment on new location) to Alternative 2 (Recommended in the
State Environmental Assessment - 3.2 miles of realignment on new
location) because it results in less impacts to wetlands (0.1 versus
0.9 acres) and upland habitats (fewer miles of new alignment).
However, the Service does not object to Alternative 2 (preferred
alternative) provided that all wetland stream losses (i.e., 0.9
acres) associated with construction are mitigated by replacement of
these habitats with areas of equal or greater habitat value.
Mitigation should occur on site, if possible, or off site in an area
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the Service."
Response:
Since completing the State Environmental Assessment, the NCDOT
has studied shifting the recommended alignment to avoid the diverse,
atypical wetland near SR 1123. Shifting the alignment is not
considered to be practicable in this area due to the probable
relocation of at least 5 families; however, one to one replacement of
wetlands to mitigate losses will be considered for the wet meadow.
5
The cumulative remaining wetland impacts along the project comprise
approximately 0.8 acre. The quality and function of the remaining
wetlands will remain essentially unchanged, and no mitigation
measures are proposed.
The NCDOT has also reconsidered the area of new location between
SR 3461 and SR 1116 recommended in the State Environmental
Assessment. It is now recommended to widen the existing roadway
between SR 1110 and SR 1117 and realign only one curve located
between SR 1115 and SR 3458. The change in the recommended alignment
will result in impacting less new location and reducing upland
habitat impacted by the project.
Comment:
"The Service prefers spanning structures or bottomless box
culverts, if possible, for all new crossings, especially over South
Hominy Creek (trout waters). Culvert construction and extensions
should be constructed and placed in such a manner that they will not
impede the up- or downstream movement of aquatic organisms (buried 12
inches into the substrate to allow fish passage)." The Service also
recommends that construction be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact water entering or flowing into the streams to reduce
the likelihood of fish kills associated with bridge construction.
Response:
See response to similar comment from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers on page 4.
Comment:
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has the
opportunity to review and comment on all nationwide permit
applications for all NCWRC trout water counties including Buncombe
County, a discretionary authority established by the Army Corps of
Engineers. South Hominy Creek has-been proposed to be added to the
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water Program.
Response:
The NCWRC will be given the opportunity to comment on any
nationwide permit application that may be necessary for the proposed
project. In comments received from the NCWRC on the State
Environmental Assessment for the project, they indicate that South
Hominy Creek is no longer under consideration as an addition to the
list of Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. Public access could
not be obtained.
Comment:
"One factor contributing to the selection of Alternative 2 (in
the State Environmental Assessment) is design speed, which is 60
miles per hour (versus 50 miles per hour for Alternative 1). Does a
higher design speed necessarily imply a safer design?"
6
Response:
Design speed is determined by the degree of horizontal and
vertical curvature of the road along with sight distance at
intersections; therefore, a road with a higher design speed is
"safer" than a road with a lower design speed due to better alignment
and higher design standards. The design speed of 60 mph for
Alternative 2 is consistent with the existing posted speed limit of
55 mph.
Since completion of the State Environmental Assessment, a
recommendation to eliminate an area of new location between SR 3461
and SR 1116 has been made. The design speed will be reduced to
45 mph in this area since the existing horizontal alignment does not
allow a higher design speed. NCDOT considers the remainder of the
existing facility between SR 1117 and the north project limit to have
the greatest need for horizontal and vertical alignment improvements
recommended in the State Environmental Assessment.
Comment:
The Service along with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
recommend that the wetland located in the vicinity of the
intersection of NC 151 and SR 1123 be avoided by adjusting the
alignment of the highway.
Response:
See response to similar comment from the Army Corps of Engineers
on page 3.
Comment:
The Service also recommends that stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures be employed during all phases of road
and culvert construction and bridge replacement activities.
"Existing riparian vegetation should be protected wherever possible,
and disturbed areas should be replanted immediately after
construction is completed."
Response:
All applicable Best Management Practices will be implemented and
strictly maintained throughout construction of the proposed project
in an effort to minimize siltation of affected wetland areas and
aquatic habitat.
Comment:
The Service noted during its field inspection that Hominy Creek
and South Hominy Creek appear to provide habitat for a variety of
nongame fish species. South Hominy Creek is suitable for brown trout
Salmo trutta and rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri) and has been
7
proposed as an addition to the NCWRC's Public Mountain Trout Water
program. Crossing structures should disturb the stream banks and
natural stream bottom as little as possible.
Response:
Spanning structures are recommended for all crossings of South
Hominy Creek. Efforts will be made to disturb the stream bottom as
little as possible. Comments received from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission indicate South Hominy Creek is no
longer under consideration as an addition to the list of Designated
Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Comment:
"The Service believes that the only federally listed species
likely to be within the project area is Virginia spiraea S iraea
virginiana), a threatened plant.... The Service believes t at more
information on surveys and/or habitat assessment for this species
should have been provided in the document. In order to fill
obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended, we believe this information should be provided before we can
concur with any decision that is made."
Response:
On July 25-26 and October 26-28, 1994, surveys were conducted to
assess potential impacts to the Virginia spiraea. Plant-by-plant
surveys were conducted within the impact zones along Hominy Creek,
South Hominy Creek, and tributaries for the Virginia spiraea. No
individual plants were found; therefore, no impacts to this species
will occur from project construction.
Comment:
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that it is
important to consider the potential impacts to newly listed or
proposed species. "In the past two years the following species were
added to our list for Buncombe County: Carolina northern flying
squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) - endangered, Cerulean
warbler (Dendroica cerulea - candidate, and butternut Ju lans
cinerea - candidate. The Carolina northern flying squirrel is not
known to occur in the project area.
Response:
Investigations, including field surveys, have been conducted on
behalf of all federally protected species listed by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for Buncombe County. The NCDOT does not conduct
extensive investigations for candidate species, but acknowledges that
such work may be required if the species' status classifications are
upgraded in the future.
8
C. N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comment:
"As indicated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and our
letter of July 30, 1991, no National Register-listed properties are
located in the area of potential effect and compliance with GS
121-12(a) is complete. However, contrary to the statement on page .13
of the EA, the potential for federal permits may require further
consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act."
Response:
Although the project will likely require federal permits (U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers General permits), none of the properties
evaluated in the NCDOT Architectural Survey for this project lie
within the anticipated permit areas identified in the Biological/
Ecological evaluation for the project. Currently, the NCDOT defers
the decision on what constitutes the permit area subject to a Section
106 review to the lead federal agency, the Corps of Engineers, on
state funded projects that require federal permits from them. If,
during the permitting stage, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
concludes that any of the identified significant properties lies
within a permit area, further consultation and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will be
pursued.
Comment:
The Department of Cultural Resources recommends additional
testing at archaeological sites 31BN114 and 31BN116 as identified in
the NCDOT Archaeological Study for the project.
Response:
Since the State Environmental Assessment was completed in 1993,
the recommended alignment has been changed between SR 3461 and
SR 1117. The new recommendation uses the existing NC 151 alignment
with one curve realignment between SR 1115 and SR 3458. As a result,
neither site 31BN114 nor 31BN116 will be affected by proposed
construction.
Two sites identified in the archaeological study for the
project, site 31Bn112 and site 31Bn113, are located close to the
existing alignment of NC 151. Site 31Bn112 is situated near the
existing highway at the confluence of Morgan Branch and South Hominy
Creek. The proposed right of way width between the south project
limit and SR 1117 is variable between 60 and 160 feet and is not
anticipated to impact site 31Bn112. Site 31Bn113 has apparently been
impacted by land alterations on the grounds of Pisgah School. It is
not anticipated construction activities will affect site 31Bn113;
however, additional testing will be conducted in compliance with
9
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 if the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs that the site lies within a
federal permit area.
D. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Comment:
"Existing water mains and public water supply wells may be
affected depending upon the location of the proposed project.
-Appropriate water system officials should be contacted if affected."
Response:
As stated in the Environmental Assessment (page 28), "The
contractor will prepare a work schedule that minimizes possible
damage to or rupture of the water lines and interruption of water
service. The contractor will consult appropriate water system
officials in preparing this schedule."
Comment:
The correct water quality classification for South Hominy Creek
and associated tributaries is "C-Tr". The document states the
classification is "C" and then follows with a paragraph stating that
- it also carries a supplemental designation of "Tr" (trout). While it
is true that "Tr" is called a supplemental designation, it is
inappropriate to split the complete classification into its component
parts.
Response:
The best usage water quality classification for South Hominy
Creek and its associated tributaries is Class "C-Tr". Waters
classified as "C-Tr" are suitable for natural trout propagation and
maintenance of stocked trout. In addition, Class "C-Tr" waters are
suitable for other aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Comment:
DEHNR suggests referencing the Trout Stream Buffer requirements
under the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act for parallel
encroachments within 25 feet of the top of the bank on any Division
of Environmental Management classified trout stream.
Response:
The NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act has special Buffer
Zone requirements that apply to applicable land disturbing activities
adjacent to waters classified as trout streams by the NC Division of
Environmental Management. These rules require an undisturbed buffer
zone 25 feet wide or of sufficient width to confine visible siltation
10
within the twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer zone nearest the
land-disturbing activity, whichever is greatest. This buffer zone
requirement does not apply to land-disturbing activities in
connection with constructing facilities located on, over, or under a
lake or natural watercourse.
E. N. C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management
Comment:
"Page 16 of the (State Environmental Assessment) states that a
one to one replacement ratio of wetlands will be considered in the
watershed. Our staff recommends a 2:1 ratio for mitigating wetland
impacts. The Division of Environmental Management supports
mitigation proposals which provide mitigation in the same watershed
and utilize restoration as the preferred mitigation option, creation
as the second option, and enhancement as the last option."
Response:
See response to similar U. S. Army Corps of Engineers comment on
Page 3 of this document.
Comment:
Page 17 of the Environmental Assessment should be revised to
discuss wetland impacts in terms of the plant communities affected.
Response:
Wetlands in the project area consist primarily of two types: the
wet meadow identified in the State Environmental Assessment as
Crossing Number 5, and narrow, intermittent fringes at stream
crossings.
The wet meadow is located in the southwest quadrant of the
SR 1123/NC 151 intersection. The wet meadow is an early successional
community, apparently man created, that is located in a pastured
area. It encompasses an area of less than 0.1 acre. Bordered by a
channelized stream, it is dominated by wetland herbaceous vegetation
comprised of soft needle rush Juncus effusus bull rush Scir us
cyperinus), carex Carex stricta rattle box Ludwi is
alternifolia), bedstraw Galium a arine monkey-flower Mimulus
rin ens and sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis). Black willow
Salix ni ra is scattered throughout, as is tag alder Alnus
serrulata).
The remaining plant communities that may be affected exist along
the edges of intermittent streams. These areas are periodically
saturated or flooded and contain overhanging tag alder, willow, and
sycamore. Several streams contain small sandy bars, which contain a
mixture of rush Juncus spp.) and smartweed (Polygonum spp.).
11
F. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
The Commission
the NCDOT mitigate
reduced by using
crossings.
Response:
has no objection to Alternative 2 provided that
for wetland loss. Final wetland impacts may be
increased- spans to minimize fill at stream
See response to similar comment from U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on page 4 of this document.
Comment:
The Commission along with the Army Corps of Engineers and the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed concern for wet
concrete contacting stream water during the construction process
resulting in fish kills by altering the stream's water chemistry.
Response:
See response to similar comment from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers on page 4.
Comment:
"Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.) must
be placed on all bare soil during construction. Permanent vegetation
in these same areas must be established within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control."
Response:
Stipulations for temporary and permanent erosion control are
outlined in the NCDOT Division of Highways Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters. As stated on page 16 of the State
Environmental Assessment or the project, Best Management Practices
(BMP's) will be implemented to minimize adverse effects of
construction activities.
Comment:
"The procedure to obtain a Nationwide or General 404 Permit from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has changed from that
recorded in the EA. As of January 1992, the NCDOT must obtain a
letter of concurrence from the NCWRC for work in any of the 25 "trout
counties," which includes Buncombe County, before the COE will issue
a 404 permit. This is no longer limited to Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters and their tributaries. The NCDOT should send a copy of
the 404 permit application to the NCWRC at the same time one is sent
to the COE."
12
Response:
Any applications for U.
required for the project will
Wildlife Resources Commission
S. Army Corps of Engineers permits
be furnished to the North Carolina
for their review and comments.
Comment:
"The revised EA should include a table similar to Table 4 on
page 11 (of the State Environmental Assessment) that gives acreages
of different wildlife habitat affected by each alternative. The
table should include acreages for agricultural land, areas. of mixed
deciduous hardwoods and pine forest stands along with wetland
acreages."
Response:
A table with the proposed affected acreages of impacted upland
and wetland types is provided in the Biological/Ecological Evaluation
for the NC 151 Widening/Extension Project. That report is located in
the project p anning document files in the Planning and Environmental
Branch of the NCDOT.
Comment:
Several names of fish species on page 18 (of the State
Environmental Assessment) have been misspelled or need to reflect
recent changes.
Response:
The identified fish species with correct spellings are as
follows: mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides)_L blacknose dace
(Rhinichthys atratulus), warpaint shiner Luxi us coccogenis),
whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura), and rainbow trout
(Oncorh_ynchus m kiss .
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the State EA, a public hearing was held
on June 10, 1993 in the auditorium of Enka Middle School. Approximately
250 citizens and 13 representatives of the NCDOT were in attendance.
Many comments and questions were offered by the public, and much of the
concern focused on individual properties, right of way acquisition
procedures, and the NCDOT's road building process.
Two other comments were voiced at the hearing and were sent to the
NCDOT in the form of a petition:
13
Comment:
Why is the southern project limit located at SR 1110 (Warren
Creek Road) rather than extended past SR 3452 or to the foot of
Mt. Pisgah?
Response:
Extensive improvements have been proposed for areas along NC 151
with poor horizontal and vertical alignment. Most of these areas are
located north of SR 1117 with the exception of one curve located
south of SR 1117 between SR 3458 and SR 1115. Since the original
project scope called for improvements to take place between South
Hominy and US 19-23-74, and the alignment of NC 151-south of SR 1110
is good relative to the remainder of the project area, the
recommended south project limit is SR 1110. The accident history
near SR 3452 does not indicate a need to improve the cross section or
alignment of NC 151 south of SR 1110 under this project.
Improvements to Bridge Number 181, located at SR 3452, are
anticipated to be programmed in the future.
Comment:
"We ... recommend that the proposed new section (of roadway) from
Glady curve (SR 3459) to Emma's Cove Road (SR 3469) be eliminated.
Instead, we strongly suggest realigning dangerous curves ...on the
existing (alignment)."
Response:
Since receiving comments at the.public hearing, the Division of
Highways has reexamined the recommended roadway alignment between
SR 1110 and SR 1117. The revised recommendation is to widen the road
primarily along its existing alignment. Realigning the existing
curve at SR 3459 is the only proposed realignment between the south
project limit and SR 1117. Improving the existing alignment north of
SR 1117 is not feasible since most of the existing road needs to be
reconstructed.
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Recommended Alignment
Between SR 1110 and SR 1117, the recommended alignment has been
changed to incorporate more of the existing roadway (See Figure 3 for
recommended alignment shift). The new recommendation is within the
environmental survey area originally studied for the State Environmental
Assessment and is not controversial on environmental grounds.
There are no historic structures on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places anticipated to be impacted by the proposed
alignment shift. Two archaeological sites, 31Bn112 and 31Bn113, may need
to be tested in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
14
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, if the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
concludes that they lie within wetland permit areas for the project. No
jurisdictional wetland impacts are anticipated at either of the creek
crossings along the relocated alignment. It is anticipated the creek
crossings will qualify for Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for
discharges Above Headwaters or for Road Crossing Fills in accordance with
33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14), respectively. The Pisgah
Valley Market/Phillips 66 is located on the west side of the existing
alignment and its underground storage tanks may be affected by the.
alignment shift. No information concerning releases or tank registration
is available from the Division of Environmental Management - Groundwater
Section, however, the facility appears to be a relatively new operation.
All. but one of these tanks appear to be approximately 30 feet from the
existing centerline of NC 151.
B. Cost Estimates
The estimated project cost presented in the State Environmental
Assessment was $10,721,000 including $6,200,000 for construction and
$4,521,000 for right of way. The revised cost is estimated at $13,070,000
including $8,350,000 for construction and $4,720,000 for right of way.
C. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that
there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and that
the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands.
The proposed project will impact approximately 0.1 acre of wetland
associated with Site Number 5 located near.the intersection of SR.1123 and
NC 151. The cumulative remaining wetlands impacted by the project
comprise approximately 0.8 acre and offer limited specialized habitat
value or water quality benefits. No practicable alternative to this
wetland taking exists because:
1. The no-build alternative or improvements to the existing
alignment between SR 1117 and the north project limit would not
substantially relieve the accident rate along NC 151, which is
over 2 1/2 times the rate for similar NC routes in the state.
2. Shifting the alignment to avoid Crossing Number 5 is not
considered practicable because it would involve relocating
approximately five additional families.
NCDOT has incorporated with this project all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands including:
1. A commitment to mitigate for the project related loss of the wet
meadow at Crossing Number 5 by the restoration, enhancement, or
replacement of a similar amount of wetland in the project
vicinity. A complete mitigation plan will be developed in
cooperation with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies
during the permit process after final project design is
complete.
15
2. The application of Best Management Practices in the construction
of this project will be implemented to insure that the amount of
impacted wetland and surface waters will be minimized.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no
practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that
the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
. Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the State
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state,
and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation that this project will not have a significant
impact upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, an environmental
impact statement will not be required.
BFY/plr
FIGURES

10 .0 _-T^-
? Diter t9 f . Barnardsvil
•
'
? 1 Dillinlh
3
19 Slockfvill!
23 1
Wooverville
Ale¦add
y . •iCanto e1 ,
• v¦¦r. V d ; , 1
\B U s N E `t
O
I Leicester Wood iD3 If f j 1I MOnlreal
fl
k
,I
+ 6 ac
c
9 :
I Mou aln •
Asheville °; ? ?, t!!n o ?o
.
f
.t . wennanoa ?
I1
n uth 23 h i 10 71 to 9
Can
I
1 * Ifl 25A Fairview ?/'?
IS •,1? S ?Abvd gerrton - ,
redale ?r•Ff' ver
-h 2 den • •rr _

7. '6 2
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
•
•
¦
:
:
¦
•
•
¦
¦
¦
¦ fU
• v:'s7
¦
•
PISGAH
G NATIONAL
.... FOREST s
. "? .G., Mln t7.
d Good
i LL! ?" a? • r?
J1r ? 1fi2
• s ¦Cr
u.r
•L3
• `? w Jim 0
BEGIN PROJECT
DIINSMORE
MTN.
3-11
I'"
i.
.21
raw
??'+•? '"- END Pft15JEC
I&L
: /P. •

1 ?
FOREST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANN:N AND ENVIRO.' IMENTAI.
BRANCH
NC 151
FROM SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF US 19-23-74
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
R-2116 -
VICINITY MAP
FIG. 1
RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION
BETWEEN SR 1110 AND SR 1117
A
80' RIGHT OF WAY (APPROXIMATE)
8'
PAVED SHOULDER
2'
2'
8'
PAVED SHOULDER
FIGURE 2A
RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION
BETWEEN SR 1117 AND US 19-23-74
t

90' RIGHT OF WAY (APPROXIMATE)
PAVED SHOULDER
PAVED SHOULDER
FIGURE 2B
IM R, ?? > >
1 n x? 7$e ITl !'? O rn
ff1
i'ft Q (Ti
.? - _
O ?-?' D.
om
46
Aek
- s-
Y,
rte. •+? ' ,•?' ?' 1. ?=':. ? I
r? t
5? y
? i
-
r
r _
"£ f c
` y 4
it
-4
yII
Ty ' ? t
V `# ``?? f 4` ! y???{ Aft R
A -,A 4L
:k " - - -
. µ_ s s
?w
Irk
o-
1?
r ?
- w
?aµ
11",? told R, I I'll
-
? s ,? _ % 'C , ? ?i rte,. ."?'1, •5' `'r.
' f ! • i?MEDr- r)BRAE KOP . s ti
4 *10 ? ?? 4Y - • ,[J ? yr. R?`:4?f ` w 'a ! ?1??
,
L
? `f in JJ
t -
V'
i?'?" ti,'.?s ? - ??? rya ?`'.-a: / ? ? IC ? •' ?''r• ?_' '???'a 7R` ?'??"'," t
4' -
.,,? j '?' ` ` •?, ?y ? ? ??.]? ? r F ? IS+,./ 1` Tl i? ? lye
r ?? , rt-- tY`??-?- a ._..??, _ , ? ? 1•' ?ca? ???.?. -
0
`
er Ayr'
a >
fix: r:•' ,?-`???.? ?, , ...?-? ? ? ???? -ate ??,,?
SR a
illy
ffFFF", f ?ti?x ice; r? ` 3.. ? / •/ ? _?i_
rl.v
u.
f_. emu' ?.V f t '`'. RF., ry 'ti
7'r l .tip •?. - ?. ? ? ??.
:!a ?f yam.:} t A
AiL
Fa
o.
W xr?o c
Z p5? p y ai ?" _
-o c
.h
! nd: aC
C) c
_ 0S0 x zoh
cD N ? 0 0
m >0
O? mV,OyyOZ>:, •r r
?i z lp
?Y < 4
k
AL*
M1L
I.
A
1 4
r? yR f .a
r
IV.
lkb
46
' ?•. .. ?' .? arm ? ?-
'?? ! }, '• .•"?y F? ?? .r ? S r ? Vii.
3 t: ? f
Y' ? ?? K ? Y f
rn
r'
:iEn
4? T,
£ •..>`
` a
Yt
r {. f ?
r
y
F 1.5 ` y { N4 h 10 + JMs
V 4i / -
150
'r ;, r ' ?i ; b}?•??,.,J'?4 -y '.fir
R+n

a yt?i4R±1
ART z
y
ym -
l a1

i

ter;
?k
kt?'' ..rte i1?'9 _ s+ ?? ntL ? 3s.-?' 4{,L`?I. ''?• :: -i ? ?jk ?r ..
_ ? ~ a? yr+ E ?'''?' - ? ? ? ?+? A ? ??
# _ ? ?? rn tit c? m
.i?
t 3 ?? )? Elf J ? 1?..?,{
*• s 0 I
a., ?- 71
mwm CD
440
?? < ti , 1 G }
, f
Ik
1
46
n
.
a ?.
m' o
.4T
°R -
_ T
r ?: ,, 1, ? ? `? '? ? •"? `? y `+... ,y
MAW
.. ?? k ,?'?"? 4 '. _i-_ '? ? i ?-?!'AD S! Imo. ? ?.. ? ' "?•e? F
? y
s
As
i?
? 'f ? r? r urn ¦ ? x 741!.r ?? , . ?- ? ?. ?:., y _
4PI an.
? y
.
1123 ... _ ,?
•5 .h ?
71
" ? 'i ? ? ? r ? n? ,?1.+t'?; . ? • ?'" Iv ? ? ; .... ? ,? .? ?" r= "'"ram
4
_ u
?b - -
w:
k+
ti
TN ti 1 \
y?
y ?• - wt
a . o R Q? if
?. a
?o n,?/ - p
A {
z 44
-A n
a) n j ,a d {, v J e?1
O -G ss Ofl y ?P t z' W s
14
?? , ? r: 1 err
IW
c?
-4 e
S
S
L_ _ 3
^^ 1?
y 'J
?.? a F
S
`a
4 a x jt r. fi: a
;Or
All,
fk ! .?
15.
el't
-Al
r
o ?-
If,
4
l _
iL "k
?Tl
dh r
. 4111%
lot, IL
APPENDIX A
EI L
1%
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS APR 1 4
P.O. BOX 1890
199,;
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
DrVrSr0 01=
IN REPLY REFER TO April 12, 1993 p HIGHWAY
Regulatory Branch ?k-RONME
Action ID. 199301884
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
` N.C. Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward;
Reference your notification of February 11, 1993, concerning your plans to
widen existing N.C. 151 to a 32-foot pavement, including two 12-foot lanes and
4-foot paved shoulders in Buncombe County, from S.R. 1110 at South Hominy to
South of U.S. 19-23-74, State Project 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116.
The chosen Alternative No. 2 will involve the construction of three
bridges on a new location spanning South Hominy Creek; eight stream crossings;
and the loss of 0.9 acre of wetlands, all of which will require Department of
the Army authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
DA authorization for such impacts could potentially be approved under a
combination of regional General permit 198200031 and nationwide permit numbers
26 and/or 14. Since the project is located within a Designated Trout Water
County, written notification to our office as well as the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission will be.required.
We recommend that the wetland located in the vicinity of the N.C. 151
intersection with S.R. 1123 be avoided by adjusting the highway alignment.
Remaining unavoidable wetland impacts will need to be mitigated, preferably
within the same watershed. A conceptual mitigation proposal should be a part
of DOT's request for authorization.
Spanning structures or bottomless culverts should be utilized on all
stream crossings to avoid disturbance to stream substrates. Any authorization
' granted will require that construction of concrete structural bridge
components be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact surface
waters, to reduce the likelihood of fish kills.
A-1

-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Dave Baker, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Itne Wri
Chie Regulatory Branch

a
U
A-2
(upQt?EN7 OF ry?'y
o
CN 3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 11, 1993
7107?
?CE1
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 -
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
MAR 15 1993
DIVISI
Subject: State environmental assessment for NC 151 from SR 1110 at South
Hominy to south of US 19-23/74, Buncombe County, North
Carolina, State Project 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116
In your letter of February 11, 1993, received February 22, 1993, you
requested our comments on the subject document. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) biologist conducted a site inspection on March 8, 1993.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Service prefers Alternative 1 (2.0 miles of realignment on new
location) to Alternative 2 (3.2 miles of realignment on new location)
because it results in less impacts-to wetlands (0.1 versus 0.9 acres)
upland habitats (fewer miles of new alignment). However, the Service
does not object to Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) provided that
all wetland and stream losses (i.e., 0.9 acres) associated with
construction are mitigated by replacement of these habitats with areas
equal or greater habitat value. Mitigation should occur on site, if
possible, or off site in an area approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), and the Service.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 7 - D. Structures: The Service prefers spanning
structures or bottomless box culverts, if possible, for all new
and
of
A-3
2
crossings, especially over South Hominy Creek (trout waters).
Culvert construction and extensions should be constructed and
placed in such a manner that they will not impede the up- or
downstream movement of aquatic organisms (buried 12 inches into
the substrate to allow fish passage).
Page 8 - H. Special Permits Required: Although none of the
streams in the project area are officially "Designated Public
Mountain Trout Waters" by the NCWRC, the Corps has established
discretionary authority for all NCWRC trout water counties.
Thus, the NCWRC has the opportunity to review and comment on
all nationwide permit applications in these particular
counties, including Buncombe County. Also, it is important to
note the NCWRC's scoping comments of July 16, 1990, on this
project which state that "South Hominy has been proposed as an
addition to our Designated Public Mountain Trout Water program
and should be in the program before this project begins."
Page 9 - A. Design Alternatives: One factor contributing to the
selection of Alternative 2 is design speed, which is 60 miles per,
hour (versus 50 miles per hour for Alternative 1). Does a higher
design speed necessarily imply a safer design?
Page 16, C, Environmental Effects: The Service strongly
recommends that the wetland located in the vicinity of the
NC 151 intersection with SR 1123 be avoided (i.e., Crossing
Number 5) by adjusting the alignment. In addition, stringent
erosion and sedimentation control measures should be employed
during all phases of road and culvert construction and bridge
replacement activities (as implied on Page 16, recommending the
use of "Best Management Practices"). Construction should be
accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water
entering or flowing into the streams to reduce the likelihood
of fish kills associated with bridge construction. Existing
riparian vegetation should be protected wherever possible, and
disturbed areas should be replanted immediately after
construction is completed.
Page 18, b, Animal Life: The Service noted during its field
inspection that Curtis Creek and Morgan Branch were fairly
degraded due to agricultural runoff and other adjacent land use
activities (both appeared to be channelized and ditched).
Hominy Creek and South Hominy Creek appear to be in better
shape and provide habitat for a variety of nongame fish
species. Additionally, South Hominy Creek is suitable for
brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri)
and has been proposed as an addition to the NCWRC's Public
Mountain Trout Water program (as noted above). Crossing
structures over South Hominy Creek should disturb the stream
banks and natural stream bottom as little as possible.
A-4
3
Page 19, C. Threatened and Endangered Species: As you are
aware, the Service provided a list of proposed, threatened, and
endangered species for Buncombe County on July 18, 1990, to
alert the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
species that may occur in the project area. While we
appreciate the length of time required to complete design plans
and prepare the necessary environmental documents for this
project, it is important to keep abreast of, and consider
potential impacts to, newly listed or proposed species.
In the past 2 years the following species were added to our
list for Buncombe County: Carolina northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus) - endangered, Cerulean warbler
(Dendroica cerulea) - candidate, and butternut (Juglans
cinerea) - candidate. According to our records, the Carolina
northern flying squirrel is not known to occur in the project
area. We concur with your determination that the following
species do not occur within the immediate project vicinity:
gray bat (Mvotis arisecens), mountain sweet pitcher-plant
(Sarracenia rubra var..jonesii), spreading avens (Geum
radiatum), and bunched arrowhead (SaQittaria fasciculata).
The Service believes that the only federally listed species
likely to be within the project area is Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana), a threatened plant. This species was
reported to occur along Hominy Creek in Buncombe County in the
early 1900s. Dr. Douglas Ogle, Virginia Highlands Community
College, attempted to relocate this population in 1988 but was
not successful. During the Service's field visit, it was noted
that some potential habitat exists within the project area
(this species is typically found on disturbed sites along
second and third order rivers and streams). The Service
believes that more information on surveys and/or habitat
assessment for this species should have been,provided in the
document. In order to fulfill obligations under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act, as amended, we believe this
information should be provided before we can concur with any
decision that is made.
The proposed finding of no significant impact for this project appears
appropriate at this time only if the wetland losses associated with the
preferred alternative are mitigated as recommended above and if further
information is provided regarding the presence/absence of Spiraea
virginiana. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and
request that you.continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
A-5
4
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-90-078.
Sincerely,
%, r*r,4 /I`• ly
Nora A. Murdo
Acting Field Supervisor '
cc:
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Division of Boating and Inland'Fisheries, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Office, Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
4
A-6
North Carolina
Department of Admin
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
April 13, 1993
DC?C??UtiC????:
1993
1SLTat10-F RO.lECT MANACE1V3Ei':T
- "'
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Q,? C E 1 CFO
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportations APR 19'1993 T
Program Development Branch
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27611 , DIVISIGN OF
HIGHWAYS Dear Mr. Leggett :
RE: SCH File #93-E-4220-0704; Environmental Assessment (EA) for
Improvements to NC 151, From SR 1103 to South of 1129
(TIP# R-2116)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state agencies in
the course of this review. Because of the nature of the
comments, it has been determined that you should submit an
amended EA or a Finding of No Significant Impact which addresses
the attached concerns to the State Clearinghouse foi'compliance
with the Act. Also, as noted in the attached comments from the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
it would be helpful if you would coordinate your efforts to
resolve the concerns of that department with David Foster.
Best regards.
cc: Region B
Melba McGee
David Foster
Attachments
Sincerely
Katie G. Dorsett
116 West Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Cc A-7 01.00 tea
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Emplover

State of North Carolina
nent of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Governor
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan a Howes, Secretary TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee t'?
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0704 Environmental Assessment - Improvements to NC 151
from SR 1103 to South of SR 1129, Buncombe County
DATE: April 8, 1992
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the proposed improvements
to NC 151, from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129, Buncombe County, R-
2116.
There are a number of substantial concerns expressed by our
reviewers in the attached comments. These comments identify the
weaknesses and information voids that should.be addressed either
through the circulation of an amended environmental assessment or
in the body of the Finding of No Significant* Impact. It would also
he prudent to work directly with commenting divisions, prior to
circulation of further documentation, to assure that their concerns
have been addressed. Failure to do this could result in delays in
the document review process and in future permit acquisition.
In addition to the attached comments, the document should reflect
the following:
1. The correct water quality classification for South Hominy
Creek and associated tributaries is "C-Tr". The document states the
classification is "C" and then follows with a paragraph stating
that it also carries a supplemental designation of "Tr"(trout).
While it is true that "Tr" is called a supplemental designation,
it is inappropriate to split the complete classification into its
component parts.
2. The document should reference the Trout Stream Buffer
requirements under the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act for
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina : _ "-- Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
A-8
An Equal Opportunity Amrmative Action Employer
_ rz'?
parallel encroachments within 25 feet of the top of bank on any
Division of Environmental Management classified trout stream.
Should you require assistance in reaching adequate solutions with
the involved agencies, please contact David B. Foster, Director of
Highway Environmental Evaluation at 733-4984.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
attachments
David Foster

A-9

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment for improvements to NC 151
from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129, Buncombe County, TIP
No. R-2116, SCH No.93-0704
This memorandum responds to a request by you for our review
and comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for -
improvements to NC 151 from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129 in
Buncombe County. Biological field staff of the North. Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).conducted a site visit on
March 11, 1993. These comments are provided in accordance with
the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the-North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1
NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve NC 151 to a 32-foot wide paved roadway,
including two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot shoulders. The existing
roadway is 18 feet wide with 3- to 6-foot wide grassed shoulders.
Improvements to the horizontal and vertical alignment are also
included in the project. The alternative preferred by the NCDOT
(Alternative 2) will be 4.7 miles in length and will result in
approximately 3.2 miles on new alignment. Three new bridges over
South Hominy Creek will be required, and one 91x 71 reinforced
concrete box culvert and one 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe
will be placed in unnamed tributaries to South Hominy Creek.
Four existing reinforced concrete box culverts will be retained
and extended.'
South Hominy Creek provides good habitat for trout, but is
not Designated Public Mountain Trout Water. Curtis-Creek, -which_ should not be impacted by Alternative 2, likely serves as a trout
r?aR
A-10
Memo Page 2 March 179, 1993
nursery stream. Morgan Creek and other tributaries in the
.project area do not support trout, but some likely do support
nongame fish such as shiners, chubs,-and dace. Wetlands in the
project area are associated with tributaries. As pointed out in
the EA, the area near the intersection of NC 151 and SR 1123
represents the wetland with the most value to wildlife in the
project area, but it has been somewhat disturbed through
sedimentation. However, it does provide habitat for birds,
reptiles, and amphibians. The general land use of the project
area is agricultural (pasture and cropland) with residential
areas, isolated lots of mixed hardwoods, pine forest, and
Christmas tree farms.
The NCWRC has the following comments and recommendations
regarding this project:
1) While we prefer that roadway widening projects be done on
existing alignment-where possible, we acknowledge that this
may not feasible along NC 151 in the project area.
Alternative 1 involves the least wetland impact and the
least construction on new alignment, and is the alternative
preferred by the NCWRC. However, the NCDOT prefers
Alternative 2, due to its shorter total length, fewer
relocations, and lower cost than Alternative 1. Differences
in impacts on fish and wildlife resources (0.8 acres more
wetland impact on Alternative 2, no difference in floodplain
encroachment) are relatively minor between the two
alternatives; therefore, we have no objection to Alternative
2 being the preferred alternative, provided that the NCDOT
mitigate for wetland loss. Use of increased spans to
minimize fill at stream crossings may reduce final wetland
impact at the design phase of the project. We support the
plan to mitigate for the wetland area at the SR. 1123
intersection (p. 16) and encourage the NCDOT to proceed with
the described measures. Detailed description and designs of
such measures should accompany the anticipated request for
NCWRC concurrence at the time of permit application.
2) The NCDOT has indicated in the EA that the three new
crossings over South Hominy Creek will be spanning
structures. We are pleased that culverts are not being
considered for the crossings; our recommendation would have
been to construct spanning structures.
3) If concrete will be used, construction must be accomplished
so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This
will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
4) Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.)
must be placed on all bare soil during construction.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide
long term erosion control.
A-11
Memo Page 3 March 19, 1993

The NCWRC recommends that the EA be revised to include the
following information:
1) The procedure to obtain a Nationwide or General 404 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has changed from
that recorded in the EA. As of January. 1992, the NCDOT must
obtain a letter of concurrence from the NCWRC for work in
any waters of the 25 "trout counties", which includes
Buncombe County, before the COE will issue a 404 permit.
This is no longer limited to Designated Public Mountain
Trout waters and their tributaries. The NCDOT should send a
copy of the 404'permit application to the NCWRC at the same
time one is sent to the COE.
2) The revised EA should include a table similar to Table 4 on i4
page 11 that gives acreages of different wildlife habitat Irv
affected by each alternative. The table should include
acreages for agricultural land, areas of mixed deciduous
hardwoods and pine forest stands along with wetland
acreages.
3) South Hominy Creek is no longer under consideration as an
addition to the list of Designated Public Mountain Trout
Waters, which was mentioned in our memorandum of July 16,
1990 to Melba McGee. Public access could not be obtained.
4) Several names of fish species on page 18 have been
misspelled or need to reflect recent changes. The revised
EA should contain these corrected names:
Cottus bairdi - mottled sculpin
Catostomus commersoni - white sucker-
Clinostomus funduloides - rosyside dace
Rhinichthvs atratulus - blacknose dace
Luxilus coccoaenis - warpaint shiner
C'-mrinella galactura - whitetail shiner
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss - rainbow trout
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Ms. Stephanie Goudreau at 704/652-4257.
CC: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Coordinator
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
A-12
e?swt??
State of North Carolina ,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor March 24, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary. TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihar, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0704; NC DOT - EA of Improvements to
NC 151, from SR 1103 to South of SR 1129 (TIP #R-2116),
Buncombe County
r
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality
Section has reviewed the subject document. Our Wetland and
Technical Review group had several comments regarding the coverage
of wetland issues in the document:
1. Page 16 of the document discusses the impact of the stream
crossings on wetland resources. One of the stream crossings
is identified as -impacting a wetland of "relatively high
environmental value". In discussing this wetland, the
document refers to a document entitled Biological/Ecolocrical
Evaluation for the NC 151 Widenincr/Extension Protect . (Espey,
Huston and Associates). This report should be included as an
attachment to the EA, or more information from this report
should be included in the EA, in order for our staff to
properly evaluate the project impacts on wetland resources.
2. Page 16 states that a one to one replacement ratio of
wetlands will be considered in the watershed. Our staff
recommend a 2:1 ratio for mitigating wetland impacts. DEM
supports mitigation proposals which provide mitigation in the
same watershed and utilize restoration as the. preferred
mitigation option, creation as the second option, and
enhancement as the last option.
3. Page 17 of the document should be revised to discuss
wetland impacts in terms of the plant communities affected.
REGIONAL OFEICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
7041251-6208 9191486-1541 7041663-1699 9191571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppormtity Affirraad a Action Employer
A-13
6
Melba McGee
March 25, 1993
Page 2
Additional questions should be directed to Eric Galamb in our
Wetlands and Technical Review Group at [phone].

8543er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb.

A-14
State of North Carolina f
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources M4
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT RBVIEW COM24MUS cha? 4t,l r er
WUllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Dir
Project Number: _ 4 3 o 7? L/ County: T/QN
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
_??T-his'
project.will impact /S geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
,LCD.
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at (9 7313836.
MAR '^93
2 0
Review r' Tom- Date D EkA'-? c.• PL;; Y
Erosion and Sedimentation Control C'•
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
v If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as-part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
T/ •.%? 03/a 3/93
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box Z7687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A-1 5 Action Employer
ry` - -
Cho.1
WITE MIN.
EEV. 4"A
tall Z 1

1P?
LOCI
R
A 4
'T0 1001-Vol
DOUVA Tor
MTK
l
}. TOP
O
G
y
a

w103 Tv ToROO
MG FISGAM MM
PIS""
MY PIS"" WLRS TV TVR
,09
h E N D E R S O N
w
2
x
r° 0CAala.o
f
EG 9
1
NOTE: ALA? INCLUDES ONLY STATE MAINTAINED ROADS
J OR W?ORTANT MOH-SYSTEM ROADS.
A.ILEAGE NOT SHOWN ON FRONTAGE ROADS.
O 12a ?, ?= ROADS SHOWN AS 'OF )AK 1. 1960.
a .. ?I
?I EI
A-161
-? I i
Stale of North Carolina Reviewing Oiftce:
.Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources f (1
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions reoardiifa these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
? Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days .
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES. Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES_
permit-whichever is later.
30 day's
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application
must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 daysl
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
-? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
lJ may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
ili
i
l
i
i
15
CAC 21H
E
S
0
I 60 days
es and
or
m
on
ac
t
ss
ources as per
A N
.
6 N
A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal ,
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion S sedimentatio
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoanv the plan. 130 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with CHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bona t60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required 1t more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.-

?
NIA 90-120 days
N
A
Oil Refining Facilities (
I
)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safely Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces.
sary )o verily Hazard Classification. A minimum lee of 5200.00 must .a=
Corr `- --iration. An additional orocnssing fee based on a
Derr A-1 7 total protect cost wdi be te-rec uoon completion
t
A
COntanued On rCv C1t!V

e
w w,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation .
FROM: David Brook ///L'/i"t-VtD /?• -
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 151 from SR 1110 at Hominy to
south of US 19-23-74, Buncombe County, R-2116,
6.841027, CH 93-E-4220-0704
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
As indicated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and our letter of July 30,
1991, no National Register-listed properties are located in the area of potential
effect and compliance with GS 121-12(a) is complete. However, contrary to the
statement on page 13 of the EA, the potential for federal permits may require
further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
We concur with the recommendation for additional testing at the two
archaeological sites, 31 BN 114 and 3113N1 16.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:sIw?
cc: b5tate Clearinghouse
David Baker, Army Corps of
Engineers, Asheville
109 Fast Jones Street - R A-1 8.b Carolina 27601-2807
Q31c1
1

1
P.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North' Carolina V6
Jonathan a Howes, Secretary
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett -
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee J'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0747, 93-0704
DATE: April 13, 1993
The attached comments were received by this office after the
response due date. These comments should be forwarded to the
applicant and made a part of our previous,comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:bb
Attachments

R ?.
AP I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Oppo---`-- "' wive Action Employer
(M A-19
C7Z WS esydd/1071pe.-OWAUW" pq-
Project Review
Project Number 93-0747
Nash County
Existing water mains and public water supply wells may be
affected depending upon the location of the proposed project.
Appropriate water system officials should be contacted if
affected
3
William Barlow
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
0
7
A-20
APPENDIX B
?SWFo?
.Yer
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GowmoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.G 27611-5201 SECREURY
15 March 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Review of Water Resources and Protected
Species for proposed widening and extension
of NC 151 from NC 19-23 to SR 1110,
Buncombe County; TIP No. R-2116;
State Project No. 8.1800501.
REFERENCE: Biological/Ecological Evaluation for NC 151
by Espey, Hutson & Associates, dated
May 1991.
ATTENTION: Brian Yamamoto, Project Manager
This memorandum reviews the topics of water resources
and protected species in the study area for the subject
project. A review of these issues is submitted be,c.ause some
information on these issues has been updated since completion
of the Biological/Ecological Evaluation (Reference) for the
subject project.
The subject project crosses Hominy Creek, South Hominy
Creek and tributaries of these streams. Best usge water
quality classifications were reviewed. The classification of
Hominy Creek and South Hominy Creek remains Class C.
"Class C" waters are those waters which have water quality
uses suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
South Hominy Creek also has a supplemental classification of
Trout Waters. "Trout waters" are waters in which water
quality is suitable for natural trout propagation and
maintenance of stocked trout.
Since completion of Biological/Ecological Evalutation by
Espey, Hutson & Associates (Reference), the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has updated its listing of federally protected
species. As of 27 January 1994, FWS lists eight federally
B-1 9

2
protected species in Buncombe County (Table 1).
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species
for Buncombe County -
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta ravenel-iana Appalachian elktoe PE*
Felis concolor couquar Eastern cougar E*
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern. s
coloratus flying squirrel E
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen PE
Sagitaria fasciculata Bunched arrowhead E*
Sarracenia rubra Mountain sweet
var. ionesii. pitcher-plant E*
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range)..
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is proposed
to.be listed as endangered and which is protected under
law while its status is under review).
No specimen from Buncombe County found in the.past
twenty years (1973-1993).
No habitat for spreading avens, mountain sweet pitcher
plant, bunched arrowhead and Virginia spiraea exists in the
project study area. No impacts to spreading avens, mountain
sweet pitcher plant, bunched arrowhead and Virginia spiraea
will result from project construction (Reference).
FWS has delisted the gray bat (Myotis grisecens) from
Buncombe County as the sighting of the bat has been
considered vagrant. The following species have been added to
the list of federally-protected species: Appalachian elktoe;
eastern cougar; Carolina northern flying bat and rock gnome
lichen. Brief discussions of characteristics and habitat for
these species are provided.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) PE
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum
length reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the
B-2
shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is
dark brown in color, while juveniles have a yellowish-brown
color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its
tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River)., and
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The
Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock
and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Surveys for the Appalachian elktoe by several agencies,
including FWS, revealed-that no populations of the
Appalachian elktoe occur in the project study area of the
French Broad River and its tributaries. No impacts to the
Appalachian elktoe will occur from project construction.
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) E
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the
muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which
are black. In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur
in only a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal
swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern
cougar _is found in large remote wilderness areas where there
is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed
deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles and
they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the eastern cougar exists in the project
study area as the mixed deciduous hardwood stands are
scattered thoughout the study area. No impact to the eastern
cougar will result from project construction.
Carolina northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) E
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This
furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with
large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern
B-3
4
flying squirrel in the
the Tennessee border.
meters (5000 ft) in the
hardwood and coniferous
to search for food and
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
western part of North
This squirrel is found
vegetation transition
forests. Both forest
the hardwood forest is
NO EFFECT
Carolina, along
above 1517
n zone between
t types are used
used for
No habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel
exists; the elevation of the project study area ranges
between 637-728 m (2100-2400 ft). No impact to the Carolina
northern flying squirrel will occur from construction of the
proposed project.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) PE
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. This lichen is a narrow endemic,
restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation (>.1220 m/ 4000 ft)
mountaintops.and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in
fog or lower elevation (< 762 m/ 2500 ft) deep gorges in the
Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily
occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest
soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock
gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss
Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The high
elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery,
Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson; Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat
of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of
Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
The lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies
which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are
found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting eason of
the rock gnome lichen occurs from July through September.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the rock gnome lichen exists; the
elevation of the project study area ranges between 637-728 m
(2100-2400 ft). No impact to the rock gnome lichen will
result from project construction.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2116
B-4
SrArr
ti
1b
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)nenES B. Hurry. )R DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
July 27, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project'Planning
ATTENTION: Brian Yamamoto,..Pro.ject Manager
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SAM Hurry
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation and Protected Species
Survey for Proposed Widening of NC 151, from
NC 19-23 to SR 1110, Buncombe County; TIP NO.
R-2116; State Project NO. 8.1800501.
REFERENCE: Comments received from the Corps of Engineers
and Fish and Wildlife Service, dated April 12,
1993, and Mar-ch 11, 1993, respectively.
Memorandum prepared by Phillip Todd, dated 15
March 1994.
Referenced letters from resource agencies requested an
alignment shift at the intersection of NC 151 and SR 1123, in
order to avoid wetland impacts. The specific wetland to be
avoided is characterized as a wet meadow and is located in
the southwest quadrant of the SR 1123/NC 151 intersection.
In order to determine the magnitude and direction of the
alignment shift, NCDOT Biologist, Janet L. Shipley delineated
this wetland July 20, 1994, in accompaniment with NCDOT GPS
Field Coordinator, Sam Springle. Forested wetlands were also
delineated in the northeast and northwest quadrants of same
intersection. Mapping will be forwarded to the Planning and
Environmental Branch upon completion.
The wet meadow is an early successional community,
apparently man-created, that is located in a pastured area.
It encompasses an area of <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac). Bordered by a
channelized stream, it is dominated by wetland herbaceous
vegetation comprised of soft needle rush (Juncus effusus),
bull rush (Sciraus cvnerinus), carex (Carex stricta), rattle
box (LudwiQia alternifolia), bedstraw (Galium aparine),
B-5
0
monkey-flower (Mimulus rinaens), and sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis). Black willow (Salix niara) is scattered
throughout, as is tag alder (A nus serrulata). Hydrology was
evident by the presence of saturated soils and or pockets of
standing water. Soils ranged in color from 7.5YR 5/0 to 10YR
4/2. Mottles and oxidized rhizophered are present.
Referenced letter from the FWS concurs with the finding
that the gray bat ( otis arisecens), mountain sweet pitcher-
plant (Sarracenia rubra var. ionesii), spreading avens (Geum
radiatum), and bunched arrowhead (Saaittaria f asciculata) do
not occur within the immediate project vicinity. However,
they do indicate that suitable habitat is present for
Virginia spiraea (Suiraea virainiana) along Hominy Creek.
Other federally protected species, namely the Appalachian.
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), eastern cougar (Felix
concolor cougar), Carolina northern flying squirrel
(Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus), and rock gnome lichen
(Gvmnoderme lineare) have been listed since the FWS comments
were issued. Referenced report from Phillip Todd addresses
these species and.a biological conclusion of no effect was
determined.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect.
Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted within the impact
zones along Hominy Creek, South Hominy Creek, and tributaries
for Virginia spiraea. No individuals were found. No impacts.
to this species will occur from project construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2116
B-6
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T kANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I1
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 2520L RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Bryan Yamamoto, Project Manager
FROM: M. Randall Turner,.Environmental Supervisor
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Surveys for Virginia spiraea in Curtis Creek
and Morgan Branch (between Medford Road and SR
1115) for the Proposed Improvements to NC 151
from US 19/23/74 to SR 1110; Buncombe County;
TIP No. R-2116; State Project No. 6.341027
A site visit to Curtis Creek and Morgan Branch was
conducted on October 25, 1994. Neither streams provide ideal
habitat for the Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana);
however surveys were necessary to properly reach a'biological
conclusion.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) T
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Buncombe, Clay, Graham,
Macon, Mitchell, Yancey.
t
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from
one to three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grow dense
clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size,
shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and
usually somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers
are present from June to July and occur in branched,
flattoped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is easily located
during the late fall while herbaceous growth is minimal and
the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of
habitats in the mountains of North Carolina. Habitats for
the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams,
on meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, or braided
6-7

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 waterls 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
R
Vegetation along both streams (upstream and downstream)
were searched visually for Virginia spiraea. The subject
species does not occur at either stream system. No impacts .
to the species will result from project construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.

B-8
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: j Date Response Due (firm deadline):
--oFr s f - 06, 161
&x? Df-- 63.01;1"
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: q3 -OZD? \I-
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
sheville El All RIO Areas Soil and Water El Marine Fisheries
Air ? Coastal Management *ater Planning
Fayetteville Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
El Mooresville roundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh -Land Quality Engineer crest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W Recreational Consultant Land Resources El David Foster
on
ng
as ?Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
El Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Management
r_1 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 RECEIVED
? No Comment 14AR 021995
? Insufficient information to complete review ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
"OAAinu
? 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
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? 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-104

h
Oa

t ??o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor March 24, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihao Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0704; NC DOT - EA of Improvements to
NC 151, from SR 1103 to South of SR 1129 (TIP #R-2116),
Buncombe County
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality
Section has reviewed the subject document. Our Wetland and
Technical Review group had several comments regarding the coverage
of wetland issues in the document:
1. Page 16 of the document discusses the impact of the stream
crossings on wetland resources. One of the stream crossings
is identified as-impacting a wetland of "relatively high
environmental value". In discussing this wetland, the
document refers to a document entitled Biological/Ecolocrical
Evaluation for the NC 151 Widening/Extension Evaluation for the NC 151 Widening/Extension Project (Espey,
Huston and Associates). This report should be included as an
attachment to the EA, or more information from this report
should be included in the EA, in order for our staff to
properly evaluate the project impacts on wetland resources.
2. Page 16 states that a one to one replacement ratio of
wetlands will be considered in the watershed. Our staff
recommend a 2:1 ratio for mitigating wetland impacts. DEM
supports mitigation proposals which provide mitigation in the
same watershed and utilize restoration as the preferred
mitigation option, creation as the second option, and
enhancement as the last option.
3. Page 17 of the document should be revised to discuss
wetland impacts in terms of the plant communities affected.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
March 25, 1993
Page 2
Additional questions should be directed to Eric Galamb in our
Wetlands and Technical Review Group at [phone].
8543er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
:1
NC 151
Buncombe County
From SR 1110 at South Hominy
to South of US 19-23-74
State Project 6.841027
TIP No. R-2116
F
J
Administrative Action
State Environmental Assessment
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A.
Date L. J. Ward', P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 151
Buncombe County
From SR 1110 at South Hominy
to South of US 19-23-74
State Project 6.841027
TIP No. R-2116
State Environmental Assessment
January, 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Brian Yamamoto
Project Planning ngineer
4M.1' 1
V ?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
CA
R0?%
?? JJ
,?O we.. ww r co„
cc L
A .
p / D
? l ?
Summary
State Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Wetlands
w Mitigation for the anticipated loss of approximately 0.9 acre of
wetlands will be considered through the measures discussed in Section
IV.C.1 of this report.
b. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed
under Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for discharges Above
Headwaters or for Road Crossing Fills in accordance with 33 CFR
330.5(a)(26) and 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) respectively. Final permit
decisions are left to the discretion of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Presently, none of the streams in the project area are
considered "Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters" by the State of
North Carolina. If the status of any of these streams or tributaries
changes, an Individual Department of the Army Section 404 permit may
be required for these crossings.
C. Tennessee Valley Authority Coordination
Final plans for the structures and associated approach fills at
stream crossings will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority
for review under section 26a of the TVA Act. Along with these plans,
TVA has requested a copy of a letter from the State Historic
Preservation Office stating that the proposal complies with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. TVA has also requested a copy of
the hydraulic analysis of the effects of the structures and
associated approach fills at these stream crossings on the 100-year
flood elevation.
d. Geodetic Survey Markers
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the relocation of survey markers. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of NC General
Statute 102-4.
e. Archaeological Resources
The recommended alignment for NC 151 may affect four previously
identified archaeological sites. Of these four sites, only two
(31Bn116 and 31Bn114) are potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. If the final alignment affects either of
these sites, additional testing of the sites will need to be
performed prior to completing the final document to determine
eligibility for the National Register.
f. Bicycle Provisions
In addition to providing a 32-foot pavement (two 12-foot travel
lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders) throughout the project length,
"Share the Road" signs will be placed at intervals approximately 1.5
miles apart.
2. Type of Action
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation action, State
Environmental Assessment.
3. Additional Information
For additional information concerning this proposal and statement,
please contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Highway Building
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone [phone]
4. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
existing NC 151 to a 32-foot pavement, including two 12-foot lanes and
4-foot paved shoulders. Usable shoulders will be 8 feet wide including
the 4-foot paved shoulder. The horizontal and vertical alignment will
also be improved as part of the project. The project begins at the
intersection of NC 151 with SR 1110 and extends northward to approximately
0.2 mile south of the intersection of NC 151 with US 19-23-74, a distance
of 4.7 miles.
5. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will improve the safety of NC 151 for motorists
and bicyclists as well as improve access to the Hominy Valley for fire and
rescue units. The anticipated alignment will allow reduced travel times
and more efficient vehicle operation. The existing substandard roadway
has had an accident history over 2 1/2 times the statewide average for
similar NC routes.
Approximately 69 acres of additional right of way will be acquired.
This right of way total includes approximately 0.9 acres of wetlands, 6.5
acres of prime farmland, and 2.4 acres of state important farmland. It is
anticipated 20 residences and 3 businesses will be relocated. Noise
levels along the project will likely increase, both during construction
and after completion of the project.
6. Alternatives Considered
Widening the existing road with no realignment and two alternatives
with some realignment were considered. In addition, the following
alternatives were considered:
a. Postponement of Project
b. "Do Nothing" Alternative
c. Alternative Modes of Transportation
7. Federal, State and Local Agencies Contacted at the
Beginning of this Study
Appalachian Regional Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of
Archives and History
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Land-Of-Sky Regional Council
City of Asheville
Mayor of Asheville
Buncombe County Commissioners
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project were voiced at the public meeting held on September 26, 1990. For
these reasons, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is
applicable to this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................. 1
A. General Description of Project ........................ 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status .................. 1
C. Existing Conditions ................................... 1
' 1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ................ 1
2. Route Classification ............................. 2
3. Existing Cross Section ........................... 2
` 4. Existing Right of Way ............................ 2
5. Speed Limits ..................................... 2
6. Access Control ................................... 2
7. Bridges .......................................... 2
8. Drainage Structures .............................. 3
9. Traffic Data....... . ... ................... 3
10. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature ................ 3
11. Intersecting Roads.. .. ....................... 3
12. Degree of Roadside Interference .................. 3
13. Railroad Crossings ............................... 4
14. School Bus Data .................................. 4
D. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 4
E. Accident Analysis ..................................... 5
F. Project Terminals ..................................... 6
G. Thoroughfare Plan...... .... . .... ............ 6
H. Benefits to the State, Region and Community ........... 6
II. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 7
A. General Description.. ............................... 7
B. Cross Section Description .............................. 7
C. Realignment ............................................ 7.
D. Structures ............................................. 7
E. Design Speed ........................................... 7
F. Access Control ......................................... 7
G. Right of Way....... .............................. 7
H. Special Permits Required ............................... 8
I. Changes in the State Highway System .................... 8
J. Multiple Use of Space .................................. 8
K. Bikeways ............................................... 8
L. Airports ............................................... 8
M. Cost Estimates ......................................... 9
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 9
A. Design Alternatives .................................. 9
1. Alternative 1.. ....... ....................... 9
2. Alternative 2 (Recommended) ...................... 9
3. Alternative 3 .................................... 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
B. Postponement of the Proposed Action ................... 12
C. "Do Nothing" Alternative....... .................... 12
D. Alternative Modes of Transportation ................... 12
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................ 12
A. Social Effects ........................................ 12
1. Cultural Resources ............................... 12
a. Archaeological Sites..... ................ 12
b. Architectural/HistoricalSites .............. 13
2. Public Facilities and Services ................... 13
3. Geodetic Monuments ............................... 14
4. Neighborhood Analysis ............................ 14
5. Relocatees....................................... 14
6. Land Use Planning ................................ 15
a. Existing Land Use ........................... 15
b. Existing Zoning ............................. 15
C. Proposed Land Use ........................... 15
d. Relation of Project and Plans ............... 15
B. Economic Effects ...................................... 16
C. Environmental Effects ................................. 16
1. Wetlands... ..................................... 16
2. Biological Resources ............................. 17
a. Plant Life .................................. 17
b. Animal Life.... ..... . ............ 17
C. Threatened and Endangered Species ........... 19
3. Flood Hazard Evaluation .......................... 19
4. Water Quality... ............................... 19
5. Stream Modification .............................. 20
6. Farmland... ................................... 20
7. Geological Factors ............................. 20
8. Traffic Noise Analysis ........................... 21
9. Air Quality Analysis ............................. 24
10. Construction Impacts ............................. 27
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................. 29
A. Comments Received ..................................... 29
B. Public Meeting ........................................ 29
C. Public Hearing ........................................ 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
TABLES
Table 1 - Bridge Data .... ....................... 2
Table 2 - Mainline Capacity Analysis ...................... 4
Table 3 - Accident Rates ... ......................... 5
Table 4 - Comparison of Alternatives ..................... 11
Table 5 - Public Facilities and Services .................. 14
Table 6 - Noise Abatement Criteria ...................... 22
Table 7 - Noise Abatement Criteria Summary 23
Table 8 - Air Quality Impacts ............................. 26
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 2a - Existing Typical Section
Figure 3 - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Aerial Mosaic (Studied Alternatives)
Figure 5 - Proposed Typical Section
Figure 6 - Stream Crossing No. 5
Figure 7 - 100-year Floodplain Limits
APPENDIX
Comments Received ................................. A-1
Relocation Report ................................. A-28
Relocation Programs . .......................... A-31
Public Meeting Press Release ...................... A-33

NC 151
From SR 1110 at South Hominy
to South of US 19-23-74
Buncombe County
State Project No. 6.841027
TIP No. R-2116
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
NC 151 from SR 1110 at South Hominy to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74 in
Buncombe County. The proposed improvements include widening the existing
pavement to 32 feet (two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders) and
relocating portions of the road to improve design speed and safety. The
project is located within Buncombe County and is approximately 4.7 miles
long (see Figure 1).
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The subject section of NC 151 was added to the Federal-aid secondary
system in 1902. In 1939, it was paved to a width of 18 feet as a concrete
county road. Since 1939, one bridge along the subject section of NC 151
has been replaced, and the roadway has been resurfaced with asphalt. No
other improvements to the road have been made.
The proposed improvements to NC 151 are included in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP calls for upgrading the existing
two-lane facility with some realignment. Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994. Construction is scheduled to
begin in Fiscal Year 1995. The TIP includes a total funding of $8,340,000
that encompasses $2,990,000 for right of way and $5,100,000 for
construction. The total projected cost for the recommended improvements is
$10,721,000 including $6,200,000 for construction and $4,521,000 for right
of way. The estimate cost exceeds the TIP funding by $2,381,000.
A project planning report which addressed improvements to NC 151 from
US 19-23-74 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, a distance of 12.6 miles, was
completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in July,
1971. That report called for widening the existing roadway to 24 feet with
10-foot usable shoulders (2 feet paved) along the existing alignment and
some new location. A design speed of 60 mph was recommended. The estimated
total cost of the project presented in that report, including right of way
and construction, was $5,483,000. A corridor public hearing for the
project was held in Enka, N. C. on September 23, 1971. No opposition to
the project was voiced at the hearing.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 151 is 5.2 miles.
2
2. Route Classification
NC 151 is classified as a Rural Major Collector and is a Rural
Federal-aid Secondary route.
3. Existing Cross Section
The present roadway is 18 feet wide with three to six-foot
grassed shoulders. Currently, no paved shoulders exist. Photographs
of existing conditions are shown in Figure 2, and the existing
roadway cross section is shown in Figure 2A.
4. Existing Right of Way
Presently, the NCDOT has no right of way beyond the existing
ditch lines. The distance from the edge of pavement to the outside
ditch line varies from 7 to 10 feet, giving a right of way width of
40 feet or less.
5. Speed Limits
The speed limit along the majority of the existing road is 55
miles per hour. Precautionary speed limits of 25 mph and 35 mph are
posted in 5 areas along the project. Speed limit reductions are a
result of poor horizontal and vertical alignment along the existing
facility.
6. Access Control
There is no control of access along existing NC 151.
7. Bridges
There are five bridges along the subject section of the existing
road, as described in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Bridge Data
Clear Suffi- Estimated

Bridge Feature Date Roadway Bridge ciency Remaining
No. Intersected Built Width Length Rating Life
276 S. Hominy Creek 1989 30' 64' 81.6 50 yrs.
195 Curtis Creek 1926 20' 22' 60.2 15 yrs.
219 Morgan Creek 1926 23' 21' 51.6 10 yrs.
241 Hominy Creek 1926 20' 48' 63.4 10 yrs.
265 Hominy Creek 1936 19' 52' 61.3 12 yrs.
3
8. Drainage Structures
In addition to the bridges described in item 7, the following
four drainage structures (with approximate dimensions shown) exist
along the project:
Unnamed Creek - approximately 0.1 mile north of SR 3458 -
reinforced concrete box culvert (1 @ 3'x5')
Unnamed Creek - at intersection of NC 151 and SR 1119 -
reinforced concrete box culvert (1 @ 10'x8')
Unnamed Creek - at intersection of NC 151 and SR 1123 -
reinforced concrete box culvert (1 @ 6'x6')
Unnamed Creek - at intersection of NC 151 and SR 1123 -
reinforced concrete box culvert (1 @ 6'x6')
9. Traffic Data
The projected traffic volumes along the project for the year
1995 range from 3200 vehicles per day near the south project terminal
to 7100 vehicles per day between SR 1126 and SR 1128. Projected
traffic volumes for the year 2015 range from 6600 vehicles per day
near the south project terminal to 12800 vehicles per day between
SR 1126 and SR 1128. Truck traffic will comprise approximately 4% of
these volumes (3% duals and 1% TTST). Projected traffic volumes,
major turning movements, truck data, and design hour data are shown
in Figure 3.
10. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The horizontal alignment of the existing section of NC 151
consists of 10 curves between 3 and 10 degrees (average design speed:
49 mph), 5 curves between 11 and 20 degrees (average design speed:
36 mph), 6 curves between 21 and 35 degrees (average design speed:
27 mph), and 4 curves between 36 and 60 degrees (average design
speed: 21 mph).
Vertical grades along the subject section of NC 151 range from 3
percent to 7 percent.
11. Intersecting Roads
The subject section of NC 151 is intersected by 23 secondary
roads, seven of them paved. All intersections are at grade and
unsignalized.
12. Degree of Roadside Interference
The amount of roadside interference varies along the project
from light-moderate to heavy. In some areas, especially in old
Candlertown, businesses and homes are very close to the road. Two of
4
the businesses are within 9 feet of the existing edge of pavement in
Old Candlertown. Parking areas for some businesses extend to the
edge of pavement of NC 151.
13. Railroad Crossings
The only railroad crossing is a grade separation just beyond the
northern limits of the project.
14. School Bus Data
From 15 to 20 school buses use the subject section of NC 151
daily.
D. Capacity Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for the existing two-lane
highway (9-foot travel lanes and 3-foot usable shoulders) and an improved
two-lane highway (12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot usable shoulders). The
results of these studies are shown in Table 2:
Table 2
Mainline Capacity Analysis
Existing Improved
2-Lane Facility 2-Lane Facility
Section Description 1995 2015 1995 2015
SR 1110 to SR 1113 C E B C
SR 1113 to SR 1114 C E B D
SR 1114 to SR 3456 C E C D
SR 3456 to SR 3450 D E C D
SR 3450 to SR 1126 D E C E
SR 1126 to SR 3447 E E D E
SR 3447 to end project D E C D
Table 2 shows the recommended improvements will provide better
operating conditions along the project during the planning period. In the
year 2015, the level-of-service improves from "E" to "C" along the
mainline from SR 1110 to SR 1113 with the proposed improvements. From
SR 1113 to SR 3450, the level-of-service improves from "E" to "D". From
SR 3450 to SR 3447, the level-of-service will be level E for both an
improved section and an unimproved section. From SR 3447 to the northern
project limit, the level-of-service improves from "E" to "D".
Level-of-service "B" represents traffic that is in the range of
stable flow. However, the presence of others in the traffic flow begins to
affect individual behavior therefore reducing the level of comfort and
freedom to maneuver as compared to a free flow system.
Level-of-service "C" is in the range of stable flow. The operation of
individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with
others in the traffic stream. Selection of speed and maneuvering within
traffic requires vigilance on the part of the user.
Level-of-service "D" represents high density, stable flow. Passing
demand is very high, while passing opportunities are extremely limited.
The driver generally experiences a poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems at this
level. Platoon sizes increase, and turning vehicles disrupt continuity of
the traffic stream.
Level-of-service "E" applies to operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but fairly common, value.
Comfort and convenience levels are very poor, and freedom to maneuver
within the traffic stream is extremely limited. Operations are usually
unstable at this level.
E. Accident Analysis
There were 196 accidents along the subject section of NC 151 between
January 1, 1986 and January 31, 1990. Two of these accidents were fatal.
Eighty-two involved vehicles running off the road, 37 were angle
accidents, 32 involved vehicles making left turns, 25 were rear end
collisions, and 21 were other types of accidents.
Table 3 shows the accident rates for NC 151 and the statewide average
rates.
Table 3
Accident Rates
(Accidents per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates along NC 151 Statewide Average
for Rural NC Routes
(1988-1990)
Fatal 5.8 3.1
Non-fatal 272.9 99.9
Nighttime 185.8 60.2
Wet Conditions 116.1 44.7
Total Rate 569.1 207.2
As Table 3 shows, the total accident rate for the subject section of
NC 151 is over twice the statewide average for similar facilities.
Approximately 42 percent of the 196 accidents recorded along the project
during the four-year study involved vehicles running off the road. It is
anticipated the proposed widening of the existing pavement and
construction of paved shoulders will reduce the probability of this type
of accident.
6
Approximately 28 percent of the recorded accidents along this project
occur at 5 intersections. All of the intersections are at-grade and
unsignalized. Three of the high accident intersections will be bypassed by
the recommended alternative. It is anticipated improvements to the
horizontal and vertical alignment will enhance safety at the other two
high accident intersections.
F. Project Terminals
The proposed project extends from SR 1110 at South Hominy northward
to 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74. NC 151 intersects with the Blue Ridge
Parkway south of the project limits and with US 19-23-74 north of the
project limits.
South of SR 1110, NC 151 consists of an 18-foot pavement. No
improvements other than resurfacing have been done along NC 151 since
1941. South of the project limit, NC 151 consists of a 1.3 mile long
segment containing 75 curves that vary from 10 degrees to 180 degrees.
NC 151 intersects with the Blue Ridge Parkway at the Buncombe/Henderson
County Line.
From the north project terminal to its intersection with US 19-23-74,
NC 151 consists of a 24-foot pavement that was constructed as part of a
bridge replacement project (B-11) in 1983. US 19-23-74 consists of a
64-foot face to face curb and gutter facility at its intersection with
NC 151.
There are no projects in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement
Program to improve the segments of NC 151 adjacent to TIP Project R-2116.
G. Thoroughfare Plan
The subject section of NC 151 is not included on The Asheville
Thoroughfare Plan.
H. Benefits to the State, Region and Community
The primary benefit of the proposed improvements to NC 151 will be
increased safety. The high accident rates along the subject section of
NC 151 can be attributed to the existing road's poor horizontal and
vertical alignment, narrow lanes and shoulders, and large amount of
roadside interference. The proposed project will improve the alignment,
widen the lanes and shoulders, and move the road away from areas of dense
development, thus improving safety along NC 151. In addition, fire and
rescue units will have increased maneuverability along the proposed
improved facility.
Another benefit
accessibility to the
southwest Asheville.
grass shoulders, NC
bicyclists.
of the proposed project will be increased
Hominy Valley and the Blue Ridge Parkway from
With an added 4-foot paved shoulder and improved
151 will be a safer route for motorists and
7
II. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation recommends that
NC 151 be widened with some realignment from SR 1110 to 0.2 mile south of
US 19-23-74 as shown in Figure 4.
B. Cross Section Description
The proposed cross section for NC 151 consists of 32 feet of pavement
with 8-foot usable shoulders. The pavement width allows for two 12-foot
travel lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders on each side (see Figure 5) .
C. Realignment
Realignment is proposed for sections of NC 151 with poor horizontal
alignment. The recommended alternative (Alternative 2) proposes
realignment for two sections of NC 151 (See Figure 4). The length of
proposed new location for the two realignment segments is 3.2 miles. The
total length of the recommended alternative is 4.7 miles.
D. Structures
The recommended alternative for improving NC 151 will require 3
bridges on new location. Each of the proposed bridges will span South
Hominy Creek. The recommended structures range in length from 100 to 120
feet. A clear roadway width of 32 feet is recommended for each of the
bridges. Bicycle safe guardrail is also recommended for each bridge.
It is anticipated one 9'x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert and one
60-inch reinforced concrete pipe will be installed on the new location
portions of the recommended alignment. All reinforced concrete box
culverts already in existence along the recommended alternative shall be
retained and extended to accommodate the proposed widening of NC 151.
E. Design Speed
The recommended alternative generally has a design speed of 60 mph,
except for a few areas where design speeds of only 45 to 50 mph can be
attained due to terrain restrictions.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.

G. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width is variable from approximately 60
feet to approximately 300 feet.
8
H. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under
Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for discharge Above Headwaters
or for Road Crossing Fills in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and 33
CFR 330.5(a)(14) respectively. Presently, none of the streams in the
project area are considered "Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters" by
the State of North Carolina. If the status of any of these streams or
tributaries changes, an Individual Department of the Army Section 404
permit may be required for each of these crossings.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has requested to review final plans
for the structures and associated fills at stream crossings. Coordination
between the Division of Highways and the TVA satisfies the requirements of
section 26a of the TVA Act. TVA has also requested a copy of a letter from
the State Historic Preservation Officer stating that the proposal complies
with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The hydraulic analysis of the
effects of the structures and associated approach fills at the stream
crossings will also be provided to the TVA.
I. Changes in the State Highway System
Portions of existing NC 151 replaced by new alignment will be
renumbered as secondary roads and left in place where needed for property
access.
J. Multiple Use of Space
No multiple use of space is proposed, with the exception of utilities
which might be located on the right of way under encroachment agreements.
K. Bikeways
The FY 1991 Transportation Improvement Program Priority Needs List
for the Asheville Urban Area, adopted March 15, 1990 by the Asheville
Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee, identifies the need to
provide bicycle improvements along NC 151 (see pg. A-26 in the Appendix).
The recommendations for NC 151 included in the above list include 14-foot
lanes, "Share the Road" signs, and bicycle safe drainage grates. The
proposed improvements to NC 151 call for 12-foot travel lanes, 4-foot
paved shoulders, improvements to the existing horizontal and vertical
alignment, and "Share the Road" signs provided at 1.5 mile intervals.
These improvements will enhance safety for both motorists and bicyclists.
L. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities will be adversely impacted
by the proposed project.
9
M. Cost Estimates
The total estimated cost for the recommended alternative for the
proposed project is $10,721,000. The right of way cost is $4,521,000 and
the construction cost is $6,200,000. The estimated cost included in the
1993-1999 TIP is $8,340,000, including $2,990,000 for right of way and
$5,100,000 for construction.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Three design alternatives were investigated for improving NC 151.
Table 4 shows a comparison of the alternatives. The recommended
improvement, Alternative 2, is shown in Figure 4. The design alternatives
are discussed below.
1. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 (see Figure 4) consists of widening the existing
road with approximately 2.0 miles of realignment on new location.
Under Alternative 1, one section of new alignment starts near
the intersection of SR 1115 with NC 151 and ties back into the
existing road at SR 3458. This new alignment eliminates a reverse
curve on existing NC 151 by replacing it with a single curve.
The second portion of new alignment under Alternative 1 begins
just south of SR 3452 and ties back into NC 151 0.5 mile north of
SR 3452. This realignment eliminates a reverse curve.
The third portion of realignment under Alternative 1 begins at
the intersection of SR 1123 with NC 151 and extends to the north
project limit approximately 0.2 mile south of US 19-23-74. This new
location portion replaces six curves along existing NC 151.
Alternative 1 was studied because it has fewer miles (2.0 miles)
of new location, impacts less wetlands, and impacts fewer acres of
farmland than the recommended improvement (Alternative 2). However,
Alternative 1 has a lower design speed than Alternative 2, would
involve relocating more residences and businesses, and would have
more noise impacts than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 is also the
most expensive of the three studied alternatives (See Table 4, page
11). For these reasons, Alternative 1 has been rejected.
2. Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Alternative 2 (see Figure 4) is the recommended alternative for
improving NC 151. Alternative 2 includes widening portions of the
existing road as well as 3.2 miles of realignment on new location.
10
The first section of new alignment under Alternative 2 begins at
the intersection of SR 3461 with NC 151. The new alignment bears
east of existing NC 151, crosses several fields, crosses South Hominy
Creek twice, and ties back in with existing NC 151 near SR 3458. The
proposed new location would eliminate four curves along the existing
alignment. In addition, high speed traffic would be routed away from
the entrance to Pisgah Elementary School.
Under Alternative 2, the second portion of new alignment begins
near the intersection of NC 151 with SR 1119. The new alignment bears
west of existing NC 151, crosses fields, wooded areas, and existing
NC 151 in two places and ties back into existing NC 151 at the
northern project limit.
Alternative 2 achieves the highest level of design of any of the
alternatives. This alternative will result in the fewest number of
relocatees (23) as well. Even though Alternative 2 impacts more
wetlands than the other alternatives, its total wetland impact is
less than an acre (See Table 4). Alternative 2 provides the safest
facility with minimal environmental impacts; therefore, Alternative 2
is the recommended alternative.
3. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 (see Figure 4) calls for widening the existing
road with no realignment. This alternative is the least expensive of
the three construction alternatives. Alternative 3 also involves
less wetland and farmland impacts than Alternative 2 (see Table 4).
Alternative 3 would provide a widened cross section; however,
the horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 151 would remain poor.
Alternative 3 has the lowest design speed of the studied
alternatives. The widened cross section would improve safety, but
deficient sight distance would still be a concern. Alternative 3
would have more relocatees (32) than the recommended alternative and
would impact more underground storage tanks (11) than the other two
alternatives. For these reasons, Alternative 3 is not recommended.
11
TABLE 4
R-2116
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ALT. 1 ALT. 2
(recommended)
Total Length 5.0 miles 4.7 miles
Length of new
Location 2.0 miles 3.2 miles
Design Speed 50 mph 60 mph
Cost:
Construction $ 6,100,000 $ 6,200,000
Right of Way $ 5,919,600 $ 4,521,000
Total $12,019,600 $109721,000
Relocatees:
Residences 34 20
Businesses 6 3
Total 40 23
Flood Plain 0.8 mile 0.8 mile
Encroachment
Impacted 0.1 acre 0.9 acre
Wetlands
Important 5.7 acres 8.9 acres
Farmland
Noise Impacts
Residences 14 8
Businesses 0 0
Underground 7 0
Storage Tanks
Architectural/Historical
Sites 2 0
Archaeological 3 (1)* 4 (2)*
Sites
* Number in parentheses indicates number of sites potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
ALT. 3
5.2 miles
0.0 miles
40 mph
$ 4,000,000
$ 5,793,700
$ 9,793,700
25
7
32
1.4 miles
0.1 acre
5.7 acres
29
0
11
3
3 (1)*
12
B. Postponement of the Proposed Action
Currently, the total accident rate along the studied segment of
NC 151 is over twice the statewide average for similar facilities. The
current level-of-service "C" is expected to deteriorate to
level-of-service "E" in the future as traffic demand increases. For these
reasons, postponement of the proposed action is not recommended.
C. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative is not considered feasible. The
accident rate along existing NC 151 is above the statewide average
accident rate for rural NC routes. The accident rates can be attributed to
the road's narrow width and substandard horizontal and vertical alignment.
Improvements are clearly needed.
D. Alternative Modes of Transportation
Highways are the primary mode of transportation in the area of the
proposed project. Therefore, no alternative mode of transportation is
considered feasible.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Cultural Resources
a. Archaeological Sites
The proposed project is located in the Hominy Creek Valley,
a rural, agricultural section of Buncombe County. Most of the
archaeological sites recorded in the Hominy Creek Valley were
first reported by Harold T. Johnson during the Works Progress
Administration (WPA)-University of North Carolina Statewide
Survey (Keel 1966: 15). Eight of these archaeological sites
were recorded in the State Archaeological Site Files as being
located near portions of the proposed project.
A reconnaissance level survey of the entire project area
was conducted. Areas with potential for prehistoric or historic
site locations along the proposed alternatives were covered by
pedestrian survey. Areas with low probability for
archaeological site locations, such as lands disturbed by modern
development, steep slopes (above 20% grade), wetlands and narrow
stream floodplains, were excluded.
Artifact collections were washed, processed and cataloged
at NCDOT using the Office of State Archaeology catalog system.
The material will be turned over to that office for final
curation and storage.
13
Of the eight archaeological sites within the immediate
project area, four may be affected by the recommended
alternative (Alternative 2). Of these, two (31Bn116 and
31Bn114) are potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The other two sites (31Bn106 and 31Bn108) do
not appear to contain any significant cultural deposits and have
little or no potential to add to our knowledge of the prehistory
of the area.
Additional testing is recommended before completing the
final environmental document to determine the eligibility of
sites 31Bn116 and 31Bn114 for the National Register. These two
sites are located at stream crossings which may require federal
permits. Determination of these sites' eligibility may be
required to obtain these permits. The State Historic
Preservation Officer concurs with this recommendation (see
Appendix page A-12).
b. Architectural/Historical Sites
A search was made of the files of the State Historic
Preservation Office in Asheville for historic structures in the
area of the proposed project. There are no properties listed in
the National Register that are located within the area of
potential effect of the proposed project. This concludes
compliance with GS 121-12(a).
The proposed section of NC 151 was reviewed with regard to
the possibility of Federal permits being required. The possible
permit areas were reviewed for the presence of National Register
Eligible properties. None was found. None of the seven
properties identified by the State Historic Preservation Office
letter of July 30, 1991 (see Appendix pg. A-13 and A-14) is
located within the area of potential effect of the permit areas.
This completes compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for possible permit areas for this
project.
Based on the Historic Architecture Survey Report for this
project located in the Planning and Environmental Branch project
file, three properties of architectural significance were
identified. One of the properties, the Old Pisgah School
(Church of Christ) located near SR 3459, was within the proposed
preliminary construction limits of the recommended alternative.
The alignment of the recommended alternative (Alternative 2) was
shifted appropriately to avoid impacting the Old Pisgah School.
The other two properties are not within the proposed
construction limits of the recommended alternative.
2. Public Facilities and Services
There are a number of public facilities located along the
proposed project. They are listed in Table 5 below:
14
Table 5
Public Facilities and Services
Along Proposed Project
Facility
Pisgah Elementary School
White Rock Baptist Church
Hominy Valley Singing Ground
Glady Missionary Baptist Church
Cemetery
Piney Mountain Church & cemetery
Montmorenci Church
Enka-Candler Fire Station
Post office
Location
Near SR 1113
Across from school on west
side of existing NC 151
North of school
North of school
NE of Morgan Branch Road
Northeast of SR 3456
South of Bridge 241
South of US 19-23
South of US 19-23
It is anticipated the proposed action will not interfere with
these public facilities.
3. Geodetic Monuments
The proposed project could possibly impact 15 geodetic survey
monuments. The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction so that affected monuments may be relocated.
4. Neighborhood Analysis
Buncombe County is located in the western part of the state and
is bounded by McDowell, Henderson, Haywood, Madison and Yancey
Counties. Based on the 1990 US census, Buncombe County had a
population of 174,821. By 1995, the population of Buncombe County is
anticipated to be 182,134, by year 2000 it is anticipated to be
187,899, and by year 2010 it is anticipated to be 196,968.
The Hominy Valley is a rural, agricultural area with small
family farms and businesses. NC 151 is the major collector road in
the area, providing access to US 19-23-74 and I-40, and thus to
larger regional markets and jobs in Asheville, Canton, and
Waynesville. It is anticipated the proposed action will not split
neighborhoods or disrupt social cohesion in the project area.
5. Relocatees
It is anticipated twenty residences and three businesses will be
relocated as a result of the project. Fourteen of the residential
relocatees and three of the business relocatees are owner-occupants.
Six of the residential relocatees are tenants. None of the
anticipated relocatees are minorities. A relocation report which
further describes the anticipated relocatees is included in the
Appendix (see page A-29). It is anticipated adequate replacement
housing will be available for all relocatees at the time the
residents and businesses must relocate.
15
It is anticipated with the assistance of the NCDOT Relocation
Program, replacement housing payments, rent and/or down payment
supplements, and increased interest payments, all displacees (both
families and businesses) can be relocated without working a hardship
on the displacees. Further information regarding the Division of
Highways relocation programs is included in the Appendix (see pages
A-31 and A-32).
6. Land Use Planning
a. Existing Land Use
The Hominy Valley is dominated by agricultural land uses,
with little urban development. The largest commercial area
exists at the intersection of US 19-23-74 and NC 151, where the
Enka-Candler Fire Station, a law office and several other
businesses are located. Commercial development along the rest
of NC 151 is limited to small stores and automobile service
facilities. Most of these are located at intersections of
NC 151 with various secondary roads. The southern end of the
project provides an entrance to the Pisgah National Forest.
The U. S. Forest Service reports no National Forest lands
exist along the project (see letter on page A-2 in the
Appendix).
b. Existing Zoning
The area of the proposed improvements lies within the
planning and zoning jurisdiction of Buncombe County. However,
no zoning districts have been established within the project's
vicinity. The project area is within the acquisition boundary of
the Pisgah National Forest, but all land in the project vicinity
is privately owned.
C. Proposed Land Use
Buncombe County has not developed a land use plan. The
project area is not addressed in the Pisgah National Forest
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
d. Relation of Project and Plans
As mentioned previously, there are presently no land use
plans for the Hominy Valley. Given the topographic constraints
to development and the relative isolation of the valley, it is
unlikely that substantial growth or change will occur in the
area. It is anticipated the proposed project will enhance safety
and traffic flow along NC 151 while maintaining the rural
character of the valley.
16

B. Economic Effects
Based on the North Carolina civilian labor force estimates for April
1990, Buncombe County had a labor force of 92,200. Out of this total,
89,500 persons were employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,700 or
2.9 percent.
The proposed project will have a positive effect on the economy of
the area. Improved access to the valley will assist workers in getting to
and from their jobs. Property values will probably increase along the
proposed project.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Wetlands
The total wetland loss associated with the proposed project is
approximately 0.9 acre. It is anticipated construction activities
will be permitted under Department of the Army Nationwide Permits for
Road Crossing Fills (33 CFR 330.5(a)(14)) and Construction Above
Headwaters (33 CFR 330.5(a)(26)). The provisions of articles 330.5(b)
and 330.6 will be followed.
Seven out of the eight anticipated stream crossings along the
recommended alignment involve small, sporatic patches or fringes of
wetlands typical of headwater streams. The effects of these crossings
are anticipated to be minimal from both an individual and cumulative
perspective. Crossing Number 5 as identified in the Biological/
Ecological Evaluation for the NC 151 Widening/Extension Project
(Espey, Huston, and Associates Project No. 12870 located in Planning
and Environmental R-2116 project file) is a diverse, atypical wetland
area with relatively high environmental value. It is located in the
vicinity of the NC 151 intersection with SR 1123 near the north end
of the project (See Figure 6).
r,
4 If impacts to this area are unavoidable, one to one replacement
of wetlands within this watershed will be considered. The site will
likely have to be demucked. This material could be taken to a nearby 2:
?
mitigation site and spread over the area to assure seed or root stock
for herbacious species It is recommended the site be graded lower than needed to allow for this placement. Shrubs will need to be
??, ;
replaced.
t
In general, impacts to wetland areas will be avoided or t`ds
minimized by alignment adjustment, where possible. Best management
practices will be implemented (33 CFR 330.6) to minimize adverse
effects of construction activities. Finally, the Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of Highways in
cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources will be followed during construction.
3`

17
2. Biological Resources
a. Plant Life
The majority of the land impacted by the recommended
alternative (Alternative 2) is man-dominated or agricultural.
These areas have been disturbed and altered, but encompass
cropland, fallow farm fields, and pastureland.
Areas of mixed deciduous hardwoods will be impacted by the
proposed project. Approximately 15.8 acres will be affected by
the recommended alternative. Most of these areas are found
along slopes and at the tops of hills along the project.
Dominant species within these areas include the white oak
uercus alba rock chestnut oak uercus rinus southern red
oak uercus falcata black oak uercus velutina), and red oak
uercus rubra . Other dominant species include the tulip tree
Liriodendron tulipifera), dogwood Cornus florida and
mockernut hickory Cara tomentosa). White pine Pinus
strobus scrub pine Pinus virginiana), and red maple Acer
rubrum are also found in these forest areas. Shrubs found in
these areas are mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia), huckleberry
(Gaylussacia sp.), and great laurel (Rhododendron maximum).
Pine forest areas within the project corridor consist of
small pine stands (1-4 acres) surrounded by mixed deciduous
hardwood forests. No impacts to pine forests will occur from
constructing the recommended alternative.
b. Animal Life
Animal habitats within the project corridor include active
or fallow farm fields, pastures, yards, mixed deciduous hardwood
forests, and pine forests. Since habitat is fragmented, many
animal species common to one plant community will also be found
in other communities.
Animals found in the agricultural and man-dominated areas
include amphibians such as Fowler's toad Bufo Woodhousii) and
reptiles such as the black rat snake Ela he obsoleta obsoleta),
the black racer Coluber constrictor), and the copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix). Bird species include the common
bobwhite Colinus virginianus), mourning dove Zenaida
macroura eastern bluebird Sialia sialis eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna) and the American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis . Mammals found in these areas include the Virginia
opossum Dedel his virginiana), woodchuck Marmota monax
eastern mole Scalo us aguaticus), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
as well as bats such as the little brown myotis M otis
lucifugus).
18
The mixed deciduous hardwood forested areas are likely to
contain reptiles such as the eastern box turtle (Terropene
carolina), broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps), the five-lined
skink Eumeces fasciatus), the ringneck snake (Diadiphos
punctatus), the black rat snake, and the copperhead. Birds
found in these areas include the ruffed grouse Bonasa
umbellus), red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl
Bubo virginianus), barred owl Strix varia great crested
flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus and the red eyed vireo Vireo
olivaceus). The long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata eastern
chipmunk Tomias striatus gray squirrel Sciurus
carolinensis), red squirrel (Tamiascivrus hudsonicus), white
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and the eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale utorius are among the mammals found in the
mixed deciduous forest areas within the project corridor.
The pine forest areas along the project provide habitat for
reptiles such as the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and the
corn snake Ela he uttate . Bird species include the red
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker
Picoides pubescens), Carolina chickadee Paus carolinensis),
white breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis), and the tufted
titmouse Parus bicolor). Mammals likely to be found within
this habitat include the Virginia opossum and the woodland vole
Microtus pinetorum) as well as mammals found in mixed deciduous
hardwood forests.
Animals found in the wetland areas along the banks of
streams and drainage ditches in the project area include various
types of salamanders and frogs, as well as snakes such as the
rough green snake 0 hodr s aestovis and the eastern garter
snake. Birds associated with these areas include the red
shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus eastern phoebe Sa ornis
phoebe), and the red wing blackbird A elaius phoeniceus). The
raccoon (Procyon lotor is a mammal common to such areas.
Aquatic life found in the streams of the project area
include numerous varieties of insects. Fish species found in the
streams include the creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
mottled sculpin Cattus bairdi fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare), and the white sucker (Catastomus commersoni).
Other fish common to the streams in the area include the
rosyside dace (Clinistomus funduloides), blacknose dace
(Rhinicthys altratulus), warpaint shiner Notro is coccogenis),
whitetail shiner Notro is galacturus), and the telescope shiner
Notro is telescopus). Brown trout Salmo trutta and rainbow
trout Salmo gairdneri) also occur in South Hominy Creek and its
tributaries. Many of these trout are stocked by private
landowners, and population densities are not known.
19
The primary impacts to wildlife from the proposed project
will occur during construction. More mobile animals such as
rabbits and squirrels will avoid construction activities by
moving to adjacent areas. Smaller, less mobile animals such as
turtles, salamanders and some rodents may be adversely impacted
by construction.
C. Threatened and Endangered Species
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted regarding
threatened and endangered species in the project area. The gray
bat M otis grisecens) is the only endangered mammal listed for
Buncombe County. The gray bat's prefered habitat is limestone
caves with flowing water. There does not appear to be suitable
habitat for this species in the project area.
Endangered plants listed for Buncombe County include the
mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. 'onesii
spreading avens Geum radiaum and bunched arrowhead
(Sagittaria fasiculata). Virginia spiraea S iraea virginiana)
is the only threatened plant species listed for Buncombe County.
There does not appear to be suitable habitat for any of these
species in the project area.
In addition to the federally-listed threatened and
endangered species, there are three state-listed species of
concern. The Appalachian Bewick's wren (Thryomares bewickii
altlus =muhlembergii) Is sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), and the bog
turtle are all state-listed threatened
species. There is suitable habitat for the two bird species in
the project area, but it is doubtful there is for the bog
turtle.
3. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Buncombe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. The 100-year flood plains in the project area are shown in
Figure 7. Encroachment into the 100-year flood plains by the
proposed project will be minor.
4. Water Quality
Hominy Creek, South Hominy Creek and their tributaries are
classified as Class C waters by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Best usages for which
Class C waters must be protected include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management has submitted a request to
reclassify Hominy Creek as WS II water. If the request is approved,
"High Quality Water" sedimentation and erosion control will be
required.
20
South Hominy Creek and its tributaries also carry a supplemental
classification as trout waters. They are suitable for natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. South Hominy Creek and
its tributaries are not "Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters",
although this could change before project construction. If the stream
designations change, Individual Section 404 permits will be necessary
for stream crossings.
Short term impacts to water quality include an increase in
turbidity and siltation from the clearing and grading during
construction. After construction is complete, communities affected
by increased turbidity and siltation will recover. No significant
long term impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5. Stream Modification
No stream modification is recommended as part of the proposed
project.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires that all federal
agencies and their representatives consider the potential impact of
construction projects on prime, unique and important farmland soils
as defined by the Act.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was contacted to determine
the possible impact each alternative alignment may have on prime or
important farmland soil in the area. The SCS responded with maps
indicating the location of prime and important farmland soils in the
vicinity of each alternative. The SCS was unable to complete Form AD
1006 for the project.
The recommended alternative (Alternative 2) will impact
approximately 6.5 acres of prime farmland and 2.4 acres of state
important farmland, as well as approximately 2 acres that would meet
the criteria for prime farmland if drained.
Alternatives 1 and 3 would both affect 3.3 acres of prime
farmland and 2.4 acres of state important farmland.
7. Geological Factors
The proposed project is located within the Blue Ridge province
of the southern Appalachian Highlands. According to the Geologic Map
of North Carolina (1985), a geologic complex known as the Ashe
Metamorphic Suite underlies this portion of the Blue Ridge belt.
Late Proterozoic muscovite-biotite gneiss is the mappable unit within
this complex. This unit has a medium grained texture and is locally
sulfidic. Layers of amphibolite and hornblende gneiss also occur as
thin layers. Based on visual inspection, soils in the area are
primarily well drained A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 soils of the AASHTO
system.
21
Exposures of hard rock observed along the northern project
terminus consisted primarily of a muscovite-biotite gneiss.
Exposures of this rock are considered to be relatively competent and
generally resistant to weathering. Although extensive excavation of
hard rock is not anticipated, excavation could require blasting.
8. Traffic Noise Analysis
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,
drivetrain, and tire-road 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 scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
In order to determine whether or not highway noise levels are
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations, (Title 23 CFR, Part 772). The FHWA criteria were used
only as guidelines, since the project is to be state funded. A
summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is
presented in Table 5. 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.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure (BCR), STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along NC 151
as measured at 50 feet from the roadway ranged from 64 dBA at the
southern end of the project (near SR 1110) to 67 dBA at the northern
terminus of the project near US 19-23-74.
22
TABLE 6
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-/Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leg(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet
(Exterior) are of extraordinary significance
and serve an important public 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,
(Exterior) playgrounds, active sports areas,
parks, residences, motels, hotels,
schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or
(Exterior) activities not included in
Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public
(Interior) meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual 7-7-3, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise,
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, August 9, 1982, revised November 20, 1986.
The proposed project was modeled assuming no special noise
abatement measures would be incorporated. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus,
this analysis represents "worst-case" topographic conditions.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the
design year 2010, would be exposed to traffic noise impacts exceeding
the FHWA noise abatement criteria.
23
Traffic noise level increases because of the proposed project
ranged from -5 to +29 dBA. These varied noise level changes result
from the proposed relocation of the road in some areas. The road was
moved closer to some receptors and further away from others. When
real life noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are barely
perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA
change is judged by most people to be a doubling or halving of the
sound.
The number of receivers in each activity category that are
predicted to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) are shown in Table 7. Other information included in Table 7 is
the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use
control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway
to prevent further development of incompatible activities and land
uses.
TABLE 7
Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Approximate No.
of Receptors
Maximum Predicted Contour Approaching or
Leq Noise Levels Distances Exceeding FHWA
(dBA) (Maximum) Noise Abatement
Criteria
Segment 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
From SR 1110
to SR 3459 64 60 54 <25' 26' 0 1 0 0 0
From SR 3459
to SR 1117 65 61 55 <25' 33' 0 2 0 0 0
From SR 1117
to SR 3451 66 62 56 <25' 43' 0 3 0 0 0
From SR 3451
to SR 1129 67 63 57 <25' 55' 0 2 0 0 0
Total 0 8 0 0 0
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise levels
either approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria, or
substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined below:
EXISTING Leg(h) INCREASE
< 50 dBA > 15 dBA
> 50 dBA > 10 dBA
24
Noise abatement must be considered when either of the two preceding
conditions exist. Physical measures, such as earth berms or
artificial abatement walls, can be used with some success to abate
anticipated traffic noise levels.
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 effectiveness of the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings due to restricted sight
distance would be a concern, as well. Also, businesses and churches
located along a highway require accessibility and high visibility.
Control of access is not proposed for this project, most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
connections and all intersections will be at-grade. Based on past
project experience, these factors would make physical abatement
measures ineffective, and none are recommended for this project. (see
Highway Traffic Noise report in Planning and Environmental file for
TIP Project R-2116).
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing" alternative was
also considered. If traffic volumes on NC 151 and nearby roadways
were to double in the next twenty years, only minimal noise level
increases on the order of 2-3 dBA would result. This would represent
a barely perceptible change in the acoustic environment for those
living and working in the area.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passersby and those individuals living or working
near the project, can be expected particularly from paving operations
and from the earth moving equipment during grading. Overall,
construction noise impacts are expected to be minimal. The
transmission characteristics of nearby wooded areas and structures
will likely be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and
emissions from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting
from the construction of a new highway or the improvement of an
existing highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are
known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon
monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analyses presented
are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
25
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near'a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due
to CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the
receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using the line
source computer modeling and the background component was determined
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were
determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient
CO concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally 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. It is the ozone and nitrogen
dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxide. Area-wide 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, and thus
help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
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 downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets or 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 generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources. Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from cars 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 emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane
rating of the fuel. New 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 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this
composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
26
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. 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. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors 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
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The modeling analysis was
performed for a "worst-case" condition using winds blowing parallel
to the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emissions factors were
calculated for the years 2000 and 2010 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most rural areas.
The closest receptor affected by "worst-case" air quality
conditions resulting from the proposed project and for the "do
nothing" alternative is R122A (business). The predicted 2000 and
2010 one-hour average CO concentrations for the proposed widening and
the "do nothing" alternative are listed in Table 8:
Table 8
Air Quality Impacts
One Hour
Closest CO Conc. (ppm)
Alternative Receptor 2000 2010
2 Lane Upgrade and R122A (Bus) 3.7 3.6
Partial Realignment
"Do Nothing" R122A (Bus) 3.7 3.6
27
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum 1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour average - 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.
The project is located within the Western Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Buncombe County has been
determined to be in compliance with the NAAQS. Since this project is
located in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not
contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
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 burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will
be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
10. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
28
e. The contractor will prepare a work schedule that minimizes
possible damage to or rupture of the water lines and
interruption of water service. The contractor will consult
appropriate water system officials in preparing this
schedule.
f. 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 done
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 burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to
the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
g. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance
with the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary
erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
i. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
29
k. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior
to construction regarding the relocation of survey markers.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
During the planning study process, contact was made with the
following Federal, State and local agencies. Comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
*U..S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
*U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service
*U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
*U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
*Tennessee Valley Authority
*N.C. Department of Administration-State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources-Division of
Archives and History
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Appalachian Regional Commission
*Land-Of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County Commissioners
City of Asheville
*Mayor of Asheville
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix.
B. Public Meeting
An informal public meeting for the subject project was held on
September 26, 1990 at the Pisgah Elementary School near the southern
project limit. Approximately 50 people (not including DOT
representatives) attended the meeting. The press release for the public
meeting is included on page A-33 of the Appendix.
The three design alternatives for improving NC 151 were presented at
the meeting. Alternative 1 received some support from meeting attendees,
but there was some concern it would increase traffic in front of Pisgah
Elementary School. Alternative 2 (the recommended alternative) had the
most support from those attending the meeting. Alternative 3 (widening
the existing road) received virtually no support.
An aerial mosaic showing the three alternatives was used at the
meeting. Attendees were given a handout discussing the project. Each
handout included a comment sheet on which those present could write their
comments concerning the project. Several of these comment sheets were
returned.
30
C. Public Hearin
A public hearing will be held concerning this project following the
circulation of this document. This public hearing will provide more
detailed information to the public concerning the proposed project. The
public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns
regarding the proposed project.
BFY/plr

d

r
10
10
piter 197 ?. BarnardsviI
. / g 3 DillinBh
. I 19 Stocksville
13 1
pWeaver 1,1, ,.
ea er
Alex
yB UanM N 42 O •e°in`de.
Leicester Wood in10 if i, Montreat
zs 1 6 lack M 9 s
ountain
Aeha illnlu .-? tams-7n •

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANN:N:: ,kND ENVIRO:vMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 151
FROM SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF US 19-.23-74
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
R-2116
VICINITY MAP
H
N
r
O
O
x
H
z
cn G]
O
C-- z
HO
x sa
H
O x
Ili >
In r
?d O
z
NO
F?
tv ro
w xi
O
m
n
H
L-1
O
O
x
Hz
z (D
Oy 0
t-i
?
cill
^V
`) X
z?
?z
H
0
O
C4
t=i
C]
H
r
O
zc
Ox
'd H
F-3 z
x 0
ow
fti 0
c
O H
tr x
d
C? t~
zzz
d c?
r
rti ro
1-30
O CA
H
r
O
0
Pi
H
z
4)
z to
tri O
> C?
x
?>
L71
?O
?z
F, G)
w
ro
O
U
t=i
C)
H
L-1
O
O
x
yyH
t
z=i 0
??
N
t-l
?0z
Ln
ro
O
L4
txi
C]
H
t-+
0
O
x
H
z
Z G)
O
?a U)
HO
xC:
H
Ox
U) r
?i 0
z
F-
?ro
?x
0
U
t=i
C]
H

T Y..

' j
, srz.
t
a ?
.
52

} r
tii

s

z;

? k
v
,

f s:

w.
r r
EXISTING TWO LANES - RURAL
30'
3'-6' 9' 9' T-6

SHOULDER
TRAVEL I
I WAY
SHOULDER
FIGURE 2A
re,
w
a
N ?
r P.
CY)
N r?1
O
(Y U -
Q
E Q Q ?] m
O
C
D MI ?
A O I°
y -4N O
M V
M e')I h 4 rI N

r Q
O cr,
(J C! 1
r
? (n
TT I
O, ?
? ? N

'-

O co
??
4\NIn
O
` M M
cc
cr

T ?
T
1 O M .-
Vl
`
CT)
N-

Vl M
?

.-? N
??

aT

=I
T
,
T
t
ry. 7
?
Cl)

n M
Q

U)

4

\o

o o\o

.+ T
7 0

? ?m

v

N

"

V

?? ??

?
]l
/
J 14??
'I H
U7
H a
a >
A Q
O N
C/)
U')

1

(n
cc

1
Ern
O T
L
L.L• "
;I
(?
NI <
? ?
10
N
T
A 1
M

N
Lo E
T4+
r
N C-
N
ai
U W
m nIa o rj?
4 N ? ?'IN ?
? IJ "?a
M
y
?? M
N
?
mlrn
r(?1?
y

t •_,I

?Y m-
M NJ?

Y N
m
7 ?"I N

olw m
U)

M •'

?4N
Cl- M
N M- N

a a m m
PROPOSED
TWO LANES - RURAL
FIGURE 5
" No. mow-12370-01
DAIS JOCARr 7. 1M
DRAWN B'Yt cuwjj=lr.wana+m.
m om
°
/
d
Z

n
T O N T
4 o p ° = T
r
M U)
Z
o D
? r -'
Z

X D > FA

:?

•
'?
?
z z
m o
n z
:T D ?
,
O
m

C7 Z
N G7
r
O rn r -
p T
C ° T

D ? \
r T
O O
O O T
F.
H
C

_ (n
m = m O
0 Q;;o c p ? .`
z 0 0
p

z zm

M Fri

M
r?
Z3
p
0
z ? r ?, - 2
n rn D
?' H
'
-?
r
? O z

n ;

I .

7
s
O m z x l
C C)

z -? 0
?
/
C7
0

pO t1i
y
O
?
z .
0 -?
M
M cn D
p
'
1
M
M
cn
° z Z ? /
-?
m Fri o .

N
cn T y.
c

®

.?

? 0
0

w
(D y
°
P,
a?Z
w

PL) F3
}
.
?\
O
. rt C
(D M
n
P)
°
Q
U

CD S
tJ? O

o„ c,bd
z ?
A cp0
0 0Cm c7 y
?cnx
~z?
0
N?o0=(n x ?zo0
o
p
p

Z 1 / mom A

= cn
C
a O
r
y
d ?
i
°
l
rn o ?
N zNm

4 y 0
?
p
ZSti£-bS
-
4a 3z y

rn r 0
?i-e-e•MATCHLINE A
organ ?0 1` ?i?L1? ??
t
»
'n
co vz
R`d?e
Warren
Glady 1'° •• '"?
ek i? 0 0,

South Hominy
X
ZONE A
Dunsmore
Mountain
ZONE C I '°Z
II 4
is
I Jl II ..`? ?\\ ?
r
oPOA?a,

ZONE C Cho
f
T ? . IN,
¦
\ BEGIN PROJECT
?e
G°
0 ?r
P P E R
BerrysGap
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
100-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
..?...........
• 1 Pte..: . ?.:.::"_:;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 151
FROM SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF US 19-23-74
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
R-2116
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
0 feet 2000
FIGURE 7 Sht. 1 of 2

It
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 ..............
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3 -----
100-YEAR7_ --.:..:.Y
FLOODPLAIN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
NC 151
FROM SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF US 19-23-74
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
R-2116
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
0 feet 2000
I 1 1
FIGURE 7 Sht. 2 of 2
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
August 6, 1990
' Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
` North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
v T t ??/?fy''v>L?
C IF / _?N
0
->, AUG p 7 1990
2 ? V'SION OF
AFSE?G??
We have reviewed your letter of June 19, 1990, requesting
information for "NC 151, from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129,
Buncombe County, State Project No. 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116"
and offer the following comments.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the,Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material:.-in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. David Baker, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
7cerely,
Lawrencers
Chief,ivision
A -1
United States
Department of
{ Agriculture
Forest National Forests
Service in North Carolina
United States Federaqja*"&*
Court House Building
100 Otis Street
P.O. Box 2750
Asheville, NC 28802
Reply to: 1950
Date: August 14, 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
In reference to NC 151, from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129, Buncombe County, State
Project No. 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116, there are no National Forest lands in this
project area.,
Thank you for keeping us informed of your agency's projects.
Sincerely,
f- I V
t t? BJORN DAHL
Forest Supervisor
7 Mo V
'C1
Cs? DNISION OF
??? F-IIGHW A Z ¢
RESeP

A-2
S Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS-6200-28b(4/88)
United States Soil
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
August 1, 1990
Ms. Leza Wright Mundt : -o 'AUG 0 2 1990
Commun i ty Planner
DfVlS?pN OF N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201 HIGHWAYS QP`?
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 h'ESEAR?
Re: NC 151 from SR 1103 to SR 1129, Buncombe Co., T.I.P. No. R-2216,
Project No. 6.841027
Dear Ms. Mundt:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information for
R-2216 project area. We have plotted important farmland soil areas on the
attached topography base map that you provided. The color codes are:
P1 Color Code Green: All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
Prime Farmland.
P2 Color Code Orange: Only drained soil areas meet the soil criteria
for Prime Farmland.
S Color Code Yellow: All soil areas meet the soil criteria for State
Important Farmlands.
Non-marked soil areas do not meet the soil criteria for Important
Farmlands.
In summary, Alternate 1 proposed corridor Is along soil areas that are not
important farmland. Alternate 2 proposed corridor has small areas of
important farmlands in categories P2 and S. Alternate 3 proposed corridor
has small areas of important farmland in categories P1 and S. These
important farmland soils are located mainly on the southern end of the
project area in the vicinity of South Hominy.
If there are any questions, please contact Ernest Hayhurst at (919)
790-2905.
Sincerely,
Y
bye on
State o erv tionist
cc: Victor L. McIntyre

O The Soil Conservation Service
is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture A-3
rr,(.
?i

A-4
1l?ENT Or 1 1
United States Department of the Interior PR
`- _ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
^Z f;
July 18, 1990

f4

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed upgrade of NC 151 from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129 in
Buncombe County, North Carolina (State Project No. 6.841027, TIP
No. R-2116)
This responds to your letter of June 19, 1990 (received June 21, 1990),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Sectidn 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the proposed action may have on endangered/threatened
species and on stream and wetland ecosystems within the project impact
area. Preference should be given to alternative alignments, stream
crossing structures, and construction techniques that avoid and/or minimize
encroachment and impacts to these resources.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered (E) and
threatened (T) species that may occur in the area of influence of this
proposed action. The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their
designated non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended, were detailed in material sent to you previously.
If you would like another copy of this material or if you have any
questions, please contact Mr. John Fridell at 704/259-0321 (FTS 672-0321).
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of-all available alternatives
including the no action alternative.
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any areas,
F1.
A-5
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreage and descriptions of branches, creeks, streams, rivers, or
wetlands which will be filled as a consequence of proposed
highway improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project
should be mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(6) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(8) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed improvements.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us apprised on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-90-078.
Sin erely,
c
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program, P.O.
Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
A-6
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-90-078
LISTED SPECIES
MAMMALS
Gray bat - MMyotis arisecens (E)
PLANTS
Mountain Sweet pitcher plant - Sarracenia rubra ssp. ionesii (E)
Virginia spiraea - Spiraea virginiana (T)
Speading avens - Geum radiatum (E)
Bunched arrowhead - Sagittaria fasciculata (E)
STATUS REVIEW SPECIES
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response for
the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do to avoid impacting them.
MAMMALS
Southern pygmy shrew - Microsrex ho i winnemana
Rafinesque's big-eared bat - Plecotus rafinesquii
BIRDS
Bachman's sparrow .- Aimophila aestivalis
Appalachian Bewick's wren - Thryomanes bewickii altus
REPTILES
Bog turtle - Clemmys muhlembergi
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender - Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
INSECTS
Tawny crescent butterfly - Phyciodes batesi
PLANTS
Pinnately lobed brown-eyed sunflower - Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba
Gray's lily - Lilium ra i
t Mountain heartleaf - Hexastvlis contracta
Gray's saxifrage - Saxifraga caroliniana
Piratebush - Buckleya distichophylla
Wolf's milk spurge - Euphorbia purpurea
One flowered rush - Juncus tifidus ssp. carolinianus
A-7
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
NORMS. TENNESSEE 37828
V lJ I V L%
r
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761.1-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

? ??:' N rf ee

? J
`
r 1O
5 ti

1A
s y?RA* ' ,,, o
NC 151, FROM SR 1103 TO SOUTH OF SR 1.129, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, STATE PROJECT
NO. 6.841027, TIP NO. R-2116
This is in response to your June 19 request for TVA's comments on the
state's proposal to upgrade the subject highway.
The proposed project crosses the floodplains of several streams in
Buncombe County, North Carolina, where we have no detailed flood data.
The bridge crossings for these streams should provide equal or greater
flow area than that of existing bridges. The project should be designed
to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and for
compliance with floodplain management Executive Order 11988.
Final plans for the structures and associated approach fills crossing
these streams should be submitted to TVA for review under Section 26a of
the TVA Act. Along with these plans, please include a copy of a letter
from the state Historic Preservation Officer stating that the proposal
complies with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and a copy of the
hydraulic analysis of the effects of the structures and associated
approach fills crossing these streams on the 100-year flood elevation.
Sincerely,
/ Lawrence L. Calvert, Manager
+ Land Resources
A-8
An Equal Opportunity Employer
NCRTH C:,ARCL INA STATE Cl.i/'Rli.( HLjUSL
F2J6 J6 /22/90
.,, i •.?' ' A >>EPA?T,4Et;T CF ADMJN ISTRAT MIN
' 116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NIORTH CAROLINA c P-/

?
r
?
v _
Ju
N2
ALK" 06LED"EM ENT CF RECEIPT yZ 6 199(1

MAILED TC FR C{1
1
?
N..C. DEPT. OF TR,^.NSPJ.RTATI GN MS. j EANETTE
t ? °tRC
L.J. WARD CLEAR INGHOUSE STA
PLANN. & ENJV. Bi,A! ,ICH
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTt "-JFFICE
PROJECT JESCRIPT IU%
SCOPING FOP. CCMM;_!vTS GN IMPACT OF IMPRQVEMEN-TS TO NC 151, FROM
SP 11 03 TO SC I, TH Ufa SR 1129 (T.I P R-2116)
T Y P F - SC t.:t'I \JG
THE !O.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RI:CEIVEC THE ABOVE PRL'JECT FOA
IfJTE:RGCVCRNr1ENTAt N:EVIC;^!. THIS PRCJECT HAS LLL J ASSIGNED STATE
APPL ICATION NUM ER 90E42201027. PLEASE USE. I HIS NUMBER WITH ALL
IMQUIVIES OR COKRESPCND fICE V!ITH TH.I.S CFf 1 E.
P.EVIE'W OF THI S PF+:tJECT SHCUL.U L;E CO.MPLETED CN OR BEFORE 07/?2/9J.
y.
SHOULD Y11U HAVE ;"-NY CUE:iT10N1S PLEASE CALL (51733 -049

A-9

FM208 08102/90
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE A17-1
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANN. C ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG:./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOP.ING FOR COMMENTS ON.IMPACT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 1519 FROM
SR. 1103 TO SOUTH OF SR 1129 (TIP R-2116)
SAI NO 90E42201027 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
TIME ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( I NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
I X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE (919) 7.33-0499.
C.C. REGION B
aWO 0 7 X990
-o of Q
OtV?Sy?N'KS Q.
"IGIANN
?? & RES???
A-10
'Pd? p?4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 1, 1990
MR..MnR ANDITM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
T0: L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trauortation
? r
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 151 from SR 1103 to south
of SR 1129, R-2116, State project 6.841027,
Buncombe County, CH 90-E-4220-1027
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the
above project.
Although no systematic survey has been conducted in the project area,
numerous sites are located in the Hominy Creek valley. Eight recorded
sites (31BN106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116) are located along the
roadway and many additional sites are expected to occur there. None of
these sites has been evaluated for significance.
We recommend that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted prior
to the initiation of construction activities.
r
At least a half-dozen historic structures along US 151 are listed in
Cabins and Castles, an architectural inventory of Asheville and Buncombe
County. We, therefore, recommend that NCDOT contact Martha Fullington,
preservation specialist in our Asheville Office, to schedule a time to
thoroughly check the files of historic properties in the area of potential
effect and their National Register status. Given the number of properties
and our lack of information on them in Raleigh, Ms. Fullington will be
your best source of information. She, however, cannot gather and check
the information for your agency.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-11
STATE 79
sXSQ" ??; }irr•, t? ?UF
+:t? 1 13?-i N y?`S U'? n O
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource,,,'{': w,ta`
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 29, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer ?Davt?o
Improvements to NC 151 from SR 1103 to
south of SR 1129, R-2116, Buncombe County,
CH 90-E-4220-1027, GS 92-0042
46_6'k
we have received the archaeological report for the above project from
Thomas Padgett.
During the course of the survey eight previously recorded archaeological
sites were investigated. Two of the sites are judged to be potentially
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (31BN114
and 31BN116). Mr. Padgett recommends additional testing of these sites
if the final selected alternative includes their locations. He also
recommends additional survey for Alternative 3A°1if it is selected. We
concur with these recommendations.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB : s lw
cc: T. Padgett
a
Alternative 3A is a new location segment that is.
part of the recommended alternative
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-12
Nn i ?T
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
P
TO: V. Charles Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
Research and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina fitment of Transpor ation
FROM: David Brook ??
Deputy State is?Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 151 from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129, Buncombe
County, 6.841027, R2116, GS 92-0010
Thank you for your letter of July 18, 1991, concerning the above project.
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. These properties have not been evaluated
for National Register eligibility.
Jesse Israel House. East side of NC 151, just south of the junction
with SR 1113, Candler vicinity.
Pisgah School. East side of NC 151 at the junction with SR 1113,
Candler vicinity.
Miller House. West side of NC 151, just south of the junction with
SR 3458, Candler vicinity.
Miller-Hipps House. North side of SR 3420, 0.1 mile east of the
junction with NC 151, Candler vicinity.
William Gaston Candler House. South side of NC 151 just east of
the junction with SR 3449, Candler.
Dr. A. P. Willis House. South side of NC 151, 0.2 mile east of the
junction with SR 3447, Candler.
John Thrash House. East side of NC 151, just north of the junction
with SR 1129, Candler.
A map is enclosed which shows the approximate locations of the above
properties. 109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-13-
V, Charles Bruton
July 30, 1991, Page Two
Since no properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places
are located in the area of potential effect, compliance with G.S. 121-
12(a) is complete for historic structures.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for
" federal permits may require further consultation and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc B. Church
A-14
r
v
t
O E
n ? J ? 1
? ? la?•) ? Blau ^???
?• 6s
Asheville,
1
A61i a •n. ?'?;o 9
? l IM (aw.•<?

1, C,.dl,l 15A U
11 `?.2' S S
IOaI< v< I ?1 MOen ? - `
`C.s " ?L I .... { Ls
7i0
,, to JIM
N?
ua
PISGA:H
NATIONAL
FOREST
Moryu.. lss• '
;1 R, of ?
Pisga -Sc_ h?1- ~ 1 Ila
Jesse TS ? kk? '-? `°
jai ^ )• ,
K
i
I '
I
I
N
O
FOREST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTWIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWGYS
uy` PLANNING AND RESEARCH 5.R,4NCH
NC 151
FROM SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF SR 1129
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
R-2116
VICINITY MAP
0 mile 1
7? i _ ro'^^f H I l
of ?
1)11 `"" '\v
1)1
< ?r
?'• A? Wi11is 4?
Df
L
)u?
1„Q
AM \1
W.?. G?11er' k?c ? u
A-15
STATE.
•VY Qrr Yd?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

r
James G. Martin, Governor 5??4.? ?t Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
JUL 1990 s
r
MEMORANDUMN ?j"ED 20
SECRE?1A' I'S OFFICE
DOA
TO: Chrys Baggett 6???1?y151t.???l\\
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee !x--"
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-1027 - Realignment and New Construction of N.C. 151
DATE: July 27, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
are from our reviewing divisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
attachments
A-16
I1.0. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611.7687 lilcphonc 919-7=3.637(,
- l
C ?,•. SCA7f v
ti
' ?.
19
190
.????. ?N c`y?oFp F
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Situ Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
July 2, 1990
TO: Melba Mc Ge e
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
Harry F. Layman
Director

.
C7 0 s

J ??? Lu.?L
SUBJECT: EA Scoping for Realignment and New Construction of N. C. 151 from SR
1103 to South of SR 1129 in Buncombe County, N. C,
PROJECT 90-1027
DUE DATE 7-16-90
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the proposed route for the possible right-of-way
purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils, in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
A-17
s
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-768; Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
PROJECT 90-1027
Page 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR: gm
pc: Warren Boyette
File
F
A-18
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES la - o zl
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Cou y
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
, S? ll03
? I
Project Name f4C I5? V S o? 572 112-11 Type of Project ? ,, .! e...
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
?- must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC 10D .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional intormation is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone]-
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under.10 NCAC IDA .1900 et. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].-
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For informaiton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
h the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
Reviewer Branc /Unit ate
A-19
v.
~ r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
0
James G. Martin, Governor
1 111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Thr-u :
June 28, 1990
Melba McGee
Randv Cotten ?,\?
Gary Thompson
JUL 1990
RECEIVED ?
r-?
SECP,ETAR'PS OFFICE o
?' DOA
Charles H. Gardner
Director
Subject: 90-1027, Buncombe County, NC 1-51, from SR 1103
to South of SR 1129
.State Project No. 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116
We have reviewed the above referenced project and -find
that 15 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
r
A-20
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
A.. C-nl n-nrt-nih, AffiirrnAtivP Artinn Fsnnlover
P1771 North Carolina Wildlife Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Ful!wood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director (?T
DATE: July 16, 1990
SUBJECT: Scopina comments for the planned upgrade of NC 151
from .3 miles north of SR 1112 to US 19-23, South
Hominy Community, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the
in-formation provided by L. J. Ward of NCDOT and:professional
biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of
the project area. An onsite investigation was conducted on
July 12, 1990 for the purpose of further assessing
construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and North Carolina General
Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et. seq.).
The information provided to us was not sufficient to
determine what type of upgrade was planned, i.e four-lane or
resurfacing. Wildlife Resources Commission review of the
environmental document would be greatly facilitated if it
contained:
1. A description of fishery and wildlife resources
including habitats, existing within, or impacted
by the project.
2. The quantity of wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds
and other fish or wildlife habitats to be graded,
filled or otherwise disturbed.
3. Stream relocations, crossings or other proposed
construction activity that may impact them.
4. Acreage of upland habitat impacted by cover type.
A-21
Memo
Page 2
July 16, 1990
5. Mitigation measures proposed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for fish and wildlife
habitat losses.
04
7
We are concerned that South Hominy Creek and its
tributaries could be negatively impacted by this project.
South Hominy has been proposed as an addition to our
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water program and should be
in the program before this project begins. If this stream
enters the program, a 404 permit review by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission will be required by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. A stringent erosion control plan is needed
for any construction along this road. We ask that all road
crossings of streams disturb the natural stream bottom as
little as possible.
In addition to erosion control activities and other
activities which decrease the negative impacts of
construction, we require that all wetlands and stream losses
due to construction be mitigated by replacement of these
habitats with areas of equal habitat value. If replacement
of wetlands or stream channel is needed with the final road
alignment, plans should be made during the right-of-way
acquisition period to acquire land for this mitigation.
However, when realignment of the road right-of-way is needed
we ask that avoidance of streams and wetlands-occur.
Thank you for the opportunity for input during the pre-
planning stage for this project. We will be happy to assist
in any manner feasible during all phases of the project.
RBH/lp
cc: Micky Clemmons, D-9 Fisheries Biologist
Joffrey Brooks, D-9 Wildlife Biologist
A-22
'Pl!RTH CAROLINA STATE CLEA11INGHOUS E
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRAT ION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
REVIEW DISTRIBUTIt,
)EPT OF
)EPT OF
)EPT CF
)EPT OF
)EPT 10F
STATE P
AGRICULTURE
CUL RESOURCES
EH NR
TRAN SPORTATI CN
CC F,P S - NF P
LANNING REGION 3.
STATE NUMBER 90-E-4220-1027
C'EG lolv 4L .g- q6-)C, F 02
DATE RECEIVED 06 22 90
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 07 20 90
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE 01 19 90
REVIEW CLOSED 07 22 90
PROJECT
APPL H.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
CFUA OOC02
OFSC Sf- CP ING F CR CO"4?AENTS CN IAPACT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO INC 151, FRU{1
SR 1103 TO SOUTH OF Sit 1 129 (TIP R-2116)
C,:USS-REFLRENCE NUMBER
f:FVIr_'rl THE ATTACHED PROJECT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
Dr.TF. IF rDDITIGNIAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CUNTACT THIS OFFICE.
--------------------------------------------
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FCLLCWING IS SUEM ITT EC
( ) C0,'IMENT5 ATTACHE
S I G' l E D C? Y C?'v? 1i /? _ GTG
r
OA TE _ V&190 -----
???` JAL 199 6-'
CC` r. Jw? ?aS ?
/ a S-- TN C A`rTAc r-(&)) c t? rr i C t E
IN r1 F -7' '? 1 I??tE Dft1 tfE;' A 'E
(`,( {J 4?rrV 1 - - LEA} SE` 14, Re c-c cI?' E T)O
1'ECeVEM ,

."s
! I A-23

A
Review and Comment Form
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached information
about a proposal which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to comment on this proposed action, complete this form and
return it with your comments to this office by ,Zr{LV 16 19510 . Comments
received after this date cannot be included in our spons'e to the State
Clearinghouse.
If you need additional time in order to obtain more information about
the application or to formulate your comments, please call Jim Stokoe
at 254-8131. as soon as possible. An extension of the review period may be
possible.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "CI' in
Identifier (below) is a funding proposal review.
the acceptability or unacceptability of the proje
the identifier are environmental or site reviews.
should focus on the adequacy of the environmental
process.
the State Application
Comments should focus on
:?t. Projects with an "E" in
Comments for these projects
document or site selection
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no
comments regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier # 9C ?20-/0?7 Regional No. Z&, -??
Commenter's Name Mary Helen Duke Title Transportation Planner
Land.-ofSky Regional Council
Representing Asheville Planning Department
(local government)
r
Address 25 Heritage Drive
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone [phone]
Date Julv 20, 1990
Comment (or attach): See Attached.
5's =.r
JUL 1990 sl '-;:L;s J, a
TjEC[:1V D * ?
$vr?rikI,y S OFFICE
DOA zzz?
L,ANO-Q..? -SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL
2 5 /q
I q " , ,'E • D R I V E A S H E V I L L E. N O R T H C A R O L I N A 2 8 8 0 6
31 ? Go
T EL EPH ONE 17041254.8131
Regional Clearinghouse
N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
A-24
SERVING REGION B; BUNCOMBE. HENDERSON. MADISON & TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES
90-E-4220-1027 No. 46-90
V]'Q 151,. from south of SR _1103. -to south. 'of SR 1129,: Buncombe Co.
1) The scheduled project does not lie within the jurisdictional limits
of the City of Asheville. However, the northern portion does lie
within the Asheville Urban Area as defined for transportation planning
purposes.
2) South Hominy Creek and its tributaries are designated as "trout waters"
by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. South
Hominy Creek is listed as "threatened" due to sedimentation. Strong
measures should be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts
to streams in the project area.
3) The FY 1991 Transportation Improvement Program Priority Needs List for
the Asheville Urban Area (attached), adopted March 15, 1990 by the
Transportation Advisory Committee, identifies the need to provide
bicycle improvements on NC 151 between South Hominy to south of SR
1129. Specifically, the Asheville Urban Area Transportation Advisory
Committee, Technical Coordinating Committee and Bikeways Task Force
recommend the following bicycle improvements:
"Construct outside lanes a minimum of 14 feet wide on each side
of roadway. Install Share-the-Road signs and bicycle safe
drainage grates."
The draft Buncombe County Bikeways Suitability Map currently being
drafted by the Bikeways Task Force identifies the above referenced
portion of NC 151 as a desirable bicycle route.

A-25
ASHEVILLE
July 20, 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611

41 -
fir,
RE: NC 151, from SR 1103 to south of SR 1129, Buncombe County,
State Project No. 6.841027, TIP No. R-2116
Dear Mr. Ward:
The City of Asheville appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above
referenced project. Specific comments are outlined below.
1) The scheduled project does not lie within the jurisdictional limits
of the City, of Asheville. However, the northern portion does lie
within the Asheville Urban Area as defined for transportation planning
purposes.
2) South Hominy Creek and its tributaries are designated as "trout waters"
by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. South
Hominy Creek is listed as "threatened" due to sedimentation. Strong
measures should be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts
to streams in the project area.
3) The FY 1991 Transportation Improvement Program Priority Needs List for Needs List for
the Asheville Urban Area (attached), adopted March 15, 1990 by the
Transportation Advisory Committee, identifies the need to provide
bicycle improvements on NC 151 between South Hominy to south of SR
1129. Specifically, the Asheville Urban Area Transportation Advisory
Committee, Technical Coordinating Committee and Bikeways Task Force
recommend the following bicycle improvements:
"Construct outside lanes a minimum of 14 feet wide on each side
of roadway. Install Share-the-Road signs and bicycle safe
drainage grates."
The draft Buncombe County Bikeways. Suitability Map currently being
drafted by the Bikeways Task Force identifies the above referenced
portion of NC 151 as a desirable bicycle route.
A-26
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
POST OFFICE BOX 7148
ASHEVILLE, NC 28802
[phone]
Letter Mr..L. J. Ward
June 20, 1990
Page 2
As additional information becomes available on this project, the City of
Asheville may submit additional comments.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Michalove
Mayor

A-27
R 1=L-C7CAT I C7N
X _ E.I_S. - CORRIDOR
PROJECT=
I . D. NO.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
R E P C7 R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
_ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY: C?r?GOYi')C?e__ Alternate of 3 Alternate
F . A . PROJECT :
IC-5/ xrnm 5R I11r) of 5,u-1) Horn i n v -60 0- Z o)1 ]C
S.A_-
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
.....................................................
"Type of
IDispIacee
In0ividLjals
1. 17
... .... ...
... ... ..
...
.
41! , i np7. s?=
I a. m5
....._ .....................
.Mon-f'r of i t
Minor-p
Owners Tenants,Tatal ities W 0-15M
Z
?O
3
ANSWER ALL CILESTIONS
........................
YES N0, EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
X
*X
......... I .............
X I.
X
i
i X 'i
.._............ I;..... _...
i
(
N
j
1
INCOME LEVEL
15-25M 0 25-35M I 35-SOM 1 50 LIP
_ ..... ALA' OF ........ G
..._............... ......_..__...__.-..._.......--_..................._..........
?u Tenants
Owners
0-20M $ 0-.150
20-40M (p 150-250
...... ...... _.._..._._._ ._____..____ ._.._?......._....._........
40-70M !¢ 250-400

ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. W i l l public housing be (D Local Real-br, Mule List, New-SPOPe'r tr ?Hvafe- markc+
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail- 8 AS necessary in accord8nce Wok ?Ial-e LavV.
OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
..... _..____
Q .. .__._.................. . _3..._. ..
0-20M .. ......... _..__............... ......... ..
$ U-1`_ 0 ..o....
20-40M ?
....__.._......................... __ 150-2SU
...._....... .._..... ..... ._....._ ......... 5
...........
40-70M 70
_ 750-4010
......_..... _............................. .. ?O
.._..........

1. Will special relocation 70-100 Z 4UU-6U0 O 70-100 O 4O0I-6D0
?
7

7- services be necessary
W i l l schoo I s or churches be ................... _._... _ ...__.._........_........ _ ._...._...._. _..
1001 LIP 1 600 LIP O ............_..........................................
___.......__..........
100 UP 48 600 LlP ....
......._
3

3. f f ec t. e d by d i s p l nc Pm P. n t
W i l l business serv i r_Ps st i I I ..__ ............... ..-_.._ _.___..__.
TOTAL- Z& 8 ._......... ............. .......... ................. ..._........................ _.........
?q3 . . ................
25
,
be ava i I ab I e s f ter project .... ................... ........._. .___._...._._.._............._._._._............ _................... ..... ......... .... __..........
..
6. lAli II any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed- If so, indicate size
fed due fb+lie projCd--
Will no+bedr5m
3
type, estimated number of p
•
emp l oyees, minorities) etc. 4 Qus?ncss 1)1,Sr1acees -
S. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage
a)Ire-Cmam Shop, C000 GFi 2 emp la'ee5
6. Source for available hous-
i
(I i
t)
b•) Grxerr5+bra, 1200sF, 2 Gr»pIogeeS
ng
s
7. W i I I add i t i ona I hous i ng C) Nai;rS yls n1 Salon, OL sF, 3 employees
programs be needed lOC?eeS
5 GmP
z4.Oo sF
n?uc},cn Com
any
) C
?
8. Shou I d Last Resort Housing .
p
,
c
c
•
be considered e) Musical Group, So05F) (o emploge-c5
9. Are there large, disabled,

elderly, etc . families ,

?•)25 £Cohvenience) ?AoosF, 5 employees
G
able
12. Is it felt there will he ad-
equate Df1 housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
I housing within financial
means
1.4. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
- --
/delocation Agent.
?r, 15.4 Poise 9U
-----_.?.. Date
r
A-28
_._.............. _..__..... _..---
Approved Dat-
Original & 1 Copy: State Relor_atinn A,,r-,nt
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R E L_ O C A T I a" R a P a R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT- (p.. 8 - 7 COLKTY= Alternate of AI ternate
I . D. NO. = _.?;. 21 Cv _? F . A . PROJECT:
..?rt7Dr1"1 SR??1Q_ 2f .._c?_?'`! CLC!-nL? ???!/__? ?. ? rn! 11f! --._..--
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT :151
50 h aF U.s. n -23
.
........................... _........._..............._....-....................._.................................. ..... __..._............ _..................................................................... ............................................ .......... .... ----.----___.._._____.._......... _........... _..............
....................................._ ..-.. _... ..
EST.. .. IMATED.. _.. ... DISPLACE.. ES E INCOME LEVEL
-_ ............... ......... ............. _._._..
"Type of
Displacee
.
..................................................
Irid i%)iduals
...............................
.-- ...
? ig".i I iAs
............................ _.............. _
is i nmgses
._ .............. _....._
.1=?rms
Non-Profit
YES NO
........ ._..... .._.....
X
X
.x_..... .__.._...
X
_ ............... Y
X
X
.... .....................
X

Minor-
OwnersTenants Total ities
I zo
_..R.__.._....._._...._I.._.__......................... A............1...__.p....._.....
ANSWER ALL (NEST I ONS
EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
_....... .

.
5 .....................

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

...4...-............._............
..... ......... .... ....

..._..._..-_-.._....
_..._
......... .._..... ..__.................
...._..._..................._............_3.._..._._._..

-..__........_..__.!........................_....
......_..
......._
.
.
.
.......... ....
VALLE OF .
DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
. _................
.
.
..
.
....................... ..............
Owners __......._......... ................ ............................
Tenants ........ -_.-_.._.... ... ._....... .......... ..... ............_...._...__ .
For Sale _.
..
.
.
.__.........___.........
For Rent
0-2UM A
7 .S....-0-15U .. ... ..? ?-
0-20M..._ 3__ ..
.. _ .
.$ 0-1!'_o-_.._0__..
. .
20-40M
... _......
.
.
.
I
_ .._._.... 150-250
. ...................... ............... ... Z
._ ._. 2.0-40M 2
_...._._... _ ......_.... 3 .._ _ 150-250 5
._.__._...._.......... ----..
...__ ...
..
.....
....
40-70M
.............. ...... ........
-- (?

-- 250-400

... ..... .......... ... ...._........ ?.

__. 40-70M 70
250-400 ??
___.._.____..__.._..._..........._
1. Will special relocation 70-100 Q 400-600 O 70-100 A,-) 4.011-600 7

2. services be necessary
Wi I I schools or churches be __............ ._....... .... ._.---.....__ ........ ........ ..... .............. _ .___.._..._.........
600 LIP
100 LF 600 LP O 100 UP ACJ
CJ
3. affected by d i sp 1 acempnt
Wi I I bus i ness sere i r_es st i I I ...
._..
........ ........... ...... ... __._.......... .._.._ ......... .................... ........__......__.__..._
)
TOTAL_ 4 (D i 2-5
.?
.
.._.. _--
A

b e a v a i l a b l e niter project . .
_._.
_ _ - _.- _..__. _
..........., ._......... _...................... ....._.._._.._....__. _...._......__.._._..............._ ...
................ _......................_._..
G. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If soy indicate size h iG'?+ tf mere 5 ava. ab le,
Z O
Ch
type, estimated number of urc
ne
proper4
+t) rebki Id
emp I oyees, m i nor i t i es y etc. y
5- Will relocation cause a
3. W;11 hof be&sra& due -110 +bc, pt-O)C&-
housing shortage
6. Source for ava i I ab I e hous- 4 : &si ness D;5piaceeS =

7. ins (list)
Will additional Housing

e2m pp? (cm 5F, 2 ernpl o yee 5
a Tee C

6. programs be needed
Shou I d Last Resort Housing 1
b•) Con9fYtdG+i on Con)pany, 24oo 6F? 5 elnF1 a-eS
be considered C) Mus;ca I Qrvup, goo 5F? (p emp 1ogee5
9. Are there large) disabledy
elderly) etc. families Mull; LiS`?, Newspaper ; friva+e_ rnarkat.
(p Lnc21 Real-lor
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN ?
10. Wi I I public housing be As he/-e55ary 'in 2cr-ordarY- w?fh ?? (-.td,
/
needed for project 1
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there wi I I he ad- Due to alignment shift, church
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
will not be relocated.
13. Wi I I there Ise a problem of
Housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comp I e%PELOCAT I ON
_
............................................ -_-..__.....-........_ -.1-.....__-...._...--:2 _..............................._......._.........._.........._-.--....

............... ...._ .... y _...__.._._ x
I?? I bent i on Agent
i
I
Date
v /"1L-
A-29
r-
Approved Dat.p
Oriylnnl & 9. Copy' State Relocation Anpnt
2 Copy: Area RPlnr-ation Filo
R E I_ (D C A T I O" R E F= O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN / RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: (Q,. ¢ /027Y_,_ COUNTY: 5utK101 Alternate 3 of 3 Alternate*
I .0 . NO. :...R. F . A . PROJECT:
f`-L?J 1A --•--_._..._.._..__
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : •C • 51 _ _'C M hs -2 I I 1 o a-t _SUP) Lbnni h?( 4?) 0 Z m; /A&
........................ _............... __..............
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
"Type of Minor-
Drsplacee Owners Tenants Total ities
. ..........................................................................._....._......_
Indiwiduals
_.
.......................................... ,........... _................ ...... ._....................... ............ _.....
}1 . Fam i I i Ps
........ ................ ..... ....... ....._.. _.ZJ __ ..__ __._._.... z.s _....__.._.._._._
.RU7, r n;?sses
..._. ........ ..........................................
........ ........... .._..._........__..___.._._...............
e ,1-:Ir.ms
._..._._...._
.... ............ ...... .........._........ _ .__._..._......_......_.._....._........
Non-Profit
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
I .......
YES?NOq EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
i
INCOME LEVEL
0-15M 1 15-25M I 25-35M I 35-SOM 1 50 UP
5 q ..................._......7.._......................
_........... __.._. _.....__._..... ......... .........................._....._..
VALUE OF DWELLING - DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Owners
0-ZUM 2
2.0-40M A
40-70M
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent
? 0-150 O
150-250
0-20M 3
7.0-40M 32
750-4.00 40-70M 70
? v-1 ?0 0
150-250
7.50-400
............:.-........ .................. ........_-.-----...- .-.-.. ------......_..._.
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400--600 70-100 400-600 --7
_.
services be necessary ....... ....... ......... _......... ._.......... ..._.............................................. ..... ............. ....
)( 7. W i l l schoo I s or churches be 100 LIP 0 E)UO LP 1 U0 UP ¢? 600 Llf' 3
affect ed by d i s p l ac ern P n t ..... ..... _ --.._._............ ....... ....... ...... ........_....._..._.__..._._...... ..._..._....._..._..........._ ..........................................................................................
x ...................i 3. Wi I I business servlres st111 TOTAL_ ZI ?- 1Q3
25
............. ....... ...... be available niter project .._......... _.......... . .._...._.................._..................._....._........_..._..._............................_.............__.....
4. W i I I an business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size 3. Wi jl r,& be di5ru. W due +b •Pke- Pro j erk
type, estimated number of
- employees) minorities) etc . 4.8Gsi less DisplaCGeS
5 W i l l relocation caus0- a a)Ice- Cream ShO aF 2. .amp housing shortage P, GOO Source for available hous- b,)Grecery 54-o?"G, 1200 SF, 2 ernp t ogees
..............G,........... .? ing (list)
.X i , 7 . W i l l additional Housing C.) Hair?llihj Salon, (oCO 5<r, 3 emp Ioc1e?5
- .......................•.., programs be needed d.) Censhu,c,14on Coryfany, 24oo 5F, 5 employee S
8. Should Last Resort Housing
X
be considered e, Warehouse 2400 Sr= 1 emfloyee•
......_.......? / l
x 9. Are there large, d I sab I ed, ?.) Hahufao+vesn , 1(x50 SF, 3 cr?Playees
P elderly, etr_. f?mi I ies
............... ..............N ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN Musical Greup, 800 SF') (o cme loyees
?10. Will public housing be
.......... needed for project? Q2llor/ Mul?+ Lid, hlewsr ; p-e_ market-
!1 11. Is public housing avail-
abIo +1 % C_Yf {e (.avl.
8. As hece55ar acord ante w r
12. Is it felt there will be ad- /?n
equate DDS housing ava i I ab I e
li
.... .....I,.......... during relocation period
'13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
......... ......I . mean c;
1.4. Are suitable business sites
............... r available (I i st source)
Y 15. Number months estimated to
comp I e t, ELOCAT I ON
.
- . 7 ..................... ..... ..__-_._.._...... _......................... .... ........ .................... ......... ......................................................
Pr- IocntIon Agent.
rm S.4 119V i wed ?pfJ
i
Date.
A-30
..
Approved naf
Or i ca i na l & 9. Copy State Re l oce.t i nn AmPrnt
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Trans-
portation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience
of relocation:
44
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
` * Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who
are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property-Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations
for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its
work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
z be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
0 -
property will be within the financial means of the families and individ-
uals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and-farm operations in searching
for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing,
either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
A-31
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assist-
ance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as
needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting
to a new location.
i
t

The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will partici-
pate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings o
such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs z
and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses
for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replace-
ment housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and
until comparable or-`adequate replacement housing has been offered or
provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the
purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any
person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal
law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.

A-32
James G. Martin, Governor Thomas J. Harrelson, Secretary
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Release: Immediate Date: Sept. 11, 1990
1Contact: Bill Jones, [phone] Distribution: 11
Release No: 346
%PUBLIC MEETING SET FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
RALEIGH -- The N.C, Department of Transportation will hold a public
meeting Wednesday, Sept., 26 on a proposal to upgrade 6.2 miles of N.C.
151 south of Asheville.
The meeting is scheduled from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Pisgah
Elementary School cafeteria on N.C. 151-between South Hominy and
Asheville.
Construction has been scheduled in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), NCDOT's planning document for highway projects, to widen
the existing 18-foot wide road to a 24-foot wide highway from South
Hominy Road (S.R. 1103) at Dusmore to south of Ridge Road (S.R. 1129)
south of Hominy, beginning in Fiscal Year 1994.
Construction of two-foot pave shoulders on each side of the road
also is proposed.
The public is invited to attend the informal meeting, ask questions,
make comments or recommendations and submit material about the proposed
project. NCDOT officials are asking interested citizens to meet with them
on a one-to-one basis. This will give the department a better opportunity
to understand citizens' attitudes about the proposed project.
Other written material may be submitted to L. Jack Ward, manager of
the Planning and EnvironmentAl. Branch, N.C. Department of Transportation,
P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
r
***DOT***

Public Affairs Division
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
NC DOTLINE
1-800-526-2368
Media Information Updates
I Joanne V. Latham
Director of Public Affairs
T 7 7
4
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 151 FROM SR 1110 AT SOUTH HOMINY
TO SOUTH OF US 19-23-74
R-2116 Project 6.841027 Buncombe County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
public hearing on June 10, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. at the Enka Middle
School Auditorium, 390 Asbury Road, Candler.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed design
and location, right of way requirements and procedures, and
relocation advisory assistance. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions, comments, and/or submittal of
material pertaining to the proposed project. Additional material
may be submitted for a period of 15 days from the date of the
hearing to : C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E., P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC
27611.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen NC 151 to 32' with two
12' lanes and 4' paved shoulders on each side. Some of the
improvements will occur on new location in order to eliminate
sections with poor alignment. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes will be required.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of the
Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the
NCDOT Division Office, 55 Orange Street in Asheville.
Anyone desiring additional information about the public hearing may
contact C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at [phone] or P.O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611.
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
the public hearing. To request the above you may call Mr. Goode at
the above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
hearing.

A' .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNENT OF TRANSPORT
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 29, 1999
Mr. Ronald E. Ferrell, Program Manager
North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Sir:

zB
DAVID MCCOY
ACr1NG SECRETARY
Subject: Buncombe County, NC 151 from SR 1110 Warren Creek Road At South
Hominy to SR 1117 Fowler Mountain Road, State Project No. 6.841027,
T.I.P. R-2116A
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
NC 151 from SR 1110, Warren Creek Road, at South Hominy to SR 1117, Fowler
Mountain Road. The project will widen the existing pavement to a 32-foot pavement,
including two 12-foot lanes and four-foot paved shoulder. The proposed project is 3.926
kilometers (2.440 miles) in length.
The project will involve impacts to tributaries to South Hominy Creek. The purpose
of this letter is to request that the WRP provide confirmation that you are willing to accept
payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements. We need 72 feet of stream
mitigation from the WRP.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. The NCDWQ
regulations require 1:1 mitigation for impacts to streams when impacts are greater than 150
feet. Site 6 is the only site that exceeds 150 feet. At that site we are providing on-site
restoration to 226.3 feet of stream as described above. The remaining 72 feet of impacts
will be mitigated by use of the NCWRP. We have committed to providing payment to the
WRP at $125 per linear foot for a total of $9000.00.
The project is located in Buncombe County. Site 6 is located on an un-named
tributary (UT) to South Hominy Creek in the French Broad River basin in Cataloguing Unit

06010105 in the Mountain (Blue Ridge) Province. The UT is a headwater stream and
considered to be a first order stream. The stream does not have a DWQ classification;
however, other tributaries of South Hominy Creek upstream and downstream of this UT are
Class C with Trout.
Please send the letter of confirmation to John Dorney (Attention: John Hennessy),
Division of Water Quality, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607. The DWQ has
put the Section 401 permit on hold pending receipt of a letter from you accepting use of the
WRP. The Corps of Engineers will not require mitigation from the WRP.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N,
Gordon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manage
dv-r
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. John Domey, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
V^?A C 01'k) 4> e C CD
Date sent: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:59:43 -0500
From: Alice Gordon <[e-mail]:
To: [e-mail]
Copies to: [e-mail]
Subject: R-2116B and Mud Creek
Just a heads up. I will be on the trip to see Mud Creek on
asking the agencies to consider it for mitigation for the i
which is a widening and new location in Buncombe off of Sou
Creek. However, the primary focus of the visit is to review
Creek Mitigation Plan and I don't want to distract the agen
primary purpose of the trip. I will bring the project plan
there is time we can discuss the project.
We visited both Mud Creek and the project site with Mark Da
November. We have asked the COE to determine the applica
General Permit 31 for Site 11 (Sheets 8 and 9).
The principle stream in the valley is South Hominy Creek. T
crosses the creek once with a 3-span bridge at station 75
(Jurisdictional Site 15, sheet 11). All other crossings ar
tributaries to South Hominy Creek. Jurisdictional Sites 7,
14, 15, and 16 are all road crossings impacting less than o
Therefore, they should qualify for NW 14 status (please not
-- 6 are part of R-2116A which is not the subject of this a
11 will fill 0.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.01
waters. Although the site is above headwaters, construction
complete by December 13, 1998. Therefore, this site will no
NW 26. We think that the site may qualify for General Permi
request concurrence by the Corps of Engineers. We will, of
comply with the environmental commitment listed in the Dece
1994, FONSI to provide mitigation for the site.
The Dec 24, 1994 FONSI promised 1:1 mitigation for the site
disturbed wet meadow.