19950596 Ver 1_Complete File_19950608

4u7 iSSUEL)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 29, 1995
a 'j P ?District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Buncombe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 39 over the Swannanoa
River on NC 81, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-81(1), State Project No.
8.1843001, TIP No. B-2515.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The project involves the replacement of bridge number 39 along the
existing alignment. NCDOT will maintain traffic using a two lane temporary detour and
phased construction. The project will not result in any wetland impacts but will require
minor filling in surface waters. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (May
20 letter) has stated that the project will not result in any impacts to trout waters.
Therefore, the project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do
not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
0
• - 2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141 ext. 307.
Sincer ly,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Robert Johnson, COE Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D Smart, PE, Division 13 Engineer
t
NC 81
Asheville
Bridge No. 39
Over Swannanoa River, Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-81(1)
State Project 8.1843001
T.I.P. No. B-2515
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3- 2
Date H. Franklin Vick. P.E., Manager
°r
Planning and Environmental Branch
311S 1-
-Date 1,ee,,-?Nic as L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator. FHWA
NC 81
Asheville
Bridge No. 39
Over Swannanoa River, Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-81(1)
State Project 8.1843001
T.I.P. No. B-2515
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
•.•`??? CAR011 ,
SS10 • .N .?
. q
.• es
A9
y
;
•
K

Richard W. Fedora, P.E. SEAL s
206462
Project Planning Engineer {
`
•
?•:
Ns?Q:
-
IVGI
h' ••
WAYt,
C'Ce 0%?•.
Wayne lhott 1
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubm V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
AOL
NC 81
Asheville
Bridge No. 39
Over Swannanoa River, Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-81(1)
State Project 8.1843001
T.I.P. No. B-2515
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 39, Buncombe County. It crosses over the Swannanoa River in Asheville
(Figure 1 and 1A). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project as a Federal Categorical Exclusion.
These agencies expect no significant environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 39 at the existing location as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new bridge approximately 38
meters (125 feet) long. The bridge will provide four lanes with a clear roadway width of
16.8 meters (56 feet) with curb and gutter and sidewalks. The clear roadway width includes
outside lanes of 4.2 meters (14 feet) to accommodate automobile and bicycle use and inside
lanes of 3.6 meters (12 feet). The bridge also includes curb and gutter and a 1.5-meter (5.0-
foot) wide sidewalk on each side. NCDOT will maintain traffic using a two-lane temporary
on-site detour and phased construction. NCDOT will do this by maintaining two
northbound lanes of traffic on the detour alignment and maintaining two southbound lanes
using phased construction on the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will be a
bridge approximately 39.6 meters (130 feet) long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. The speed
limit in the area will be 30 km/h (20 mph).
The estimated cost is $1,628,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1995-2001 TIP
is $2,180,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT expects no design exceptions for this project.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices throughout construction.
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The investigations will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-situ testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement
structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permit No. 23.
NCDOT will coordinate the construction schedule with project B-1070 (replacement
of the McDowell Street viaduct, Figure 2). NCDOT will not begin construction of Bridge
No. 39 until contractors complete the McDowell Street viaduct and completely open it to
traffic.
NCDOT will relocate a United States Geological Survey benchmark located on
Bridge No. 39 before demolishing the bridge.
NCDOT will consider developing a public awareness program to alert motorists of
possible construction-related delays.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is in a highly congested area of Asheville, adjacent to the Biltmore
Village Historic District and the entrance to the Biltmore House.
NCDOT classifies NC 81 as an Urban Minor Arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Near Bridge No. 39, NC 81 is a four lane paved road, 12.2 meters (40 feet) wide
with a sidewalk on each side. Vertical and horizontal alignments are flat. The deck of
Bridge No. 39 is 4.3 meters (14 feet) above the water surface. Water depth is approximately
1.5 meters (5.0 feet) in the project area.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 39 in 1935. It has reinforced concrete deck girders,
abutments, and piers (Figure 3). It is 37.5 meters (123 feet) long with a 12.2-meter (40-
foot) roadway width. It carries four lanes of traffic. There are no posted load limits.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No.
39 is 27.2 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated remaining life of five years.
The current traffic volume is 22,900 VPD. projected to 43,900 VPD for 2016.
Truck percentages are 2% TTST and 3% dual-tired vehicles. Speed limit in the area is 30
km/h (20 mph).
Southern Railway operates at grade tracks near Lodge Street, south of Bridge No.
39. The current train volume on these tracks is 18 to 20 trains each day plus yard
movements. The trains travel at speeds below 30 km/h (20 mph). Traffic is controlled by
cantilever gates and signals. The recommended alternate will not extend across the railroad
tracks.
Traffic Engineering records indicate three accidents occurred on Bridge No. 39
between 1 January 1991 and 31 March 1994. A total of 54 accidents occurred along
Biltmore Avenue between Lodge Street and Meadow Road during that time period. The
accident rate during this period was 604 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. This
compares to a 1991 to 1993 statewide average of 345 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles.
.`,
The Transportation Director for Buncombe County Schools indicated there are a
few special education county school buses that travel through the project area. The project
area is the boundary line for the city and county school systems. Because of this, the county
director expects that no city buses pass through the project area.
K ALTERNATES
There are three build alternates for replacing Bridge No. 39 (Figure 2):
Alternate 1 (Recommended) will replace the bridge at the existing location with a
bridge approximately 38 meters (125 feet) long. The bridge will provide four lanes with a
clear roadway width of 16.8 meters (56 feet). The clear roadway width includes outside
lanes of 4.2 meters (14 feet) to accommodate automobile and bicycle use and inside lanes of
3.6 meters (12 feet). The bridge includes the clear roadway width plus curb and gutter and a
1.5-meter (5.0-foot) wide sidewalk on each side. NCDOT will maintain traffic using a two-
lane temporary on-site detour and phased construction. NCDOT will do this by maintaining
two northbound lanes of traffic on the detour alignment and maintaining two southbound
lanes using phased construction on the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will
be a bridge approximately 39.6 meters (130 feet) long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. The
detour alignment will require a temporary traffic signal at its intersection with NC 81 West.
Alternate 2 would replace the bridge at the existing location with a bridge
approximately 38 meters (125 feet) long. The bridge would provide a clear roadway width
of 20.5 meters (68 feet). The replacement bridge would provide five travel lanes, curb and
gutter, and a 1.5-meter (5.0-foot) sidewalk on each side. Each outside lane would be 4.2
meters (14 feet) wide to accommodate vehicle and bicycle traffic. This alternate would
require approximately 442 meters (1450 feet) of approach roadway widening to continue the
five lane section from Lodge Street to Meadow Road (see Figure 2). NCDOT would
maintain traffic as in Alternate 1.
Alternate 3 would replace the bridge at the existing location using phased
construction. NCDOT would maintain all four existing lanes of traffic during construction.
The replacement structure and approaches would be five lanes as in Alternate 2. The
centerline of NC 81 at Bridge No. 39 would be shifted approximately 12 meters (40 feet) to
the east.
The project engineer met and spoke with adjacent property owners, city officials, the
Division 13 Construction Engineer, and the Area 5 Traffic Engineer to discuss possible
additional alternates not discussed above. The property owners and city officials proposed a
detour route through adjacent property that would include a new bridge several hundred feet
east of the existing bridge. NCDOT would detour traffic through the property and across
this bridge to NC 81. The proposed purpose of the new bridge would be to use money that
would have been spent on the recommended temporary detour to add an additional crossing
over Swannanoa River. The property owners felt this would improve traffic flow through
the area. This alternate would require traffic using NC 81 to traverse a much longer detour
alignment and to make additional turning movements along this detour route. After meeting
with the owners and city officials and discussing with the division construction engineer, area
traffic engineer, and Planning and Environmental personnel, it is determined that this
alternate is not practicable.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridge would continue deteriorating
until unusable. This would require the closing of the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
TABLE 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the alternates.
TABLE 1. COST ESTIMATES
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3
BRIDGE $488,000 $578,000 $ 675 000
BRIDGE REMOVAL 39,000 39,000 45 000
TEMPORARY
DETOUR 175,000 175,000 -----------
ROADWAY AND
APPROACHES 78,000 209,800 404,700
TEMPORARY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 30,000 30,000 ----------
MISCELLANEOUS
AND
MOBILIZATION 160,000 208,200 225,300
ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES 160,000 190,000 200,000
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION $ 1,130,000 $ 1,430,000 $ 1,550,000
RIGHT OF WAY $498,000 $ 978P0 $1,6507000
TOTAL $ 1 628 000 $ 2,408,000 $3,200,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 39 at the existing location as shown in Alternate 1,
Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new bridge approximately 38
meters (125 feet) long. The bridge will provide four lanes with a clear roadway width of
16.8 meters (56 feet). The clear roadway width includes outside lanes of 4.2 meters (14
feet) to accommodate automobile and bicycle use and inside lanes of 3.6 meters (12 feet).
The bridge includes curb and gutter and a 1.5-meter (5.0-foot) wide sidewalk on each side.
NCDOT will maintain traffic using a two-lane temporary on-site detour and phased
construction. NCDOT will do this by maintaining two northbound lanes of traffic on the
detour alignment and maintaining two southbound lanes using phased construction on the
existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will be a bridge approximately 39.6 meters
(130 feet) long and 9.0 meters (30 feet) wide. The speed limit in the area will be 30 km/h
(20 mph). The new bridge will be at approximately the same grade as the existing roadway.
NCDOT expects that none of the alternates will provide adequate capacity for
forecasted traffic volumes. Because of this and the determination that widening to five lanes
throughout the area near Bridge No. 39 is beyond the scope of a Bridge Replacement
Project, NCDOT recommends Alternate 1. The current T.I.P. and Asheville Thoroughfare
Plan do not include any proposal to widen NC 81 through the project area; therefore,
constructing a wider bridge to be in place for future widening is not applicable. In addition,
Alternate 1 is the least expensive, it will not require any business relocations, and it will not
impact the Biltmore Village historic district located south of the railroad crossing along NC
81. Alternate 2 would require one business relocation (Pizza Hut Restaurant), and Alternate
3 would require two business relocations (Pizza Hut and Long John Silver's Restaurants).
Both would require approach widening in the historic district, which includes the Biltmore
Hardware Store. This property is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places.
AIM
Due to heavy congestion in the project area, motorists may choose alternate routes to
avoid delays during construction. NCDOT will consider developing a public awareness
program to alert motorists of possible delays.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 1 recommendation. The area
traffic engineer also concurs with the recommendation. The City Planner of Asheville has
no objection to the recommendation.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
NCDOT will need to relocate a United States Geological Survey benchmark located
on Bridge No. 39 before demolishing the bridge.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigations will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-situ testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
It is unlikely the project will have any impact on underground storage tanks or
hazardous materials.
The current NCDOT schedule for this project includes right of way acquisition
beginning in May 1996 and construction in June 1997. NCDOT will coordinate the
construction schedule with project B-1070 (replacement of the McDowell Street viaduct,
Figure 2). NCDOT will not begin construction of Bridge No. 39 until contractors complete
the McDowell Street viaduct and completely open it to traffic.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview
The project study area is in a highly disturbed urban area of Asheville (Buncombe
County). It is in the southwestern part of the Mountain Physiographic Province. Buncombe
county's major economic resources include agriculture, industry, and tourism.
An NCDOT biologist conducted research using the following resources prior to field
investigations: U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map (Asheville), CGIA Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Buncombe County, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:50), Soil Conservation Service soil maps, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected
and candidate species, and N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon species
and unique habitats.
The biologist conducted general field surveys along the proposed project alignment
on 20 April 1994. The biologist identified and recorded plant communities.
B. Soils and Toyogayhy
The topography of the project area is flat (typical of river floodplains). There is a
steep river bank on the north and south bank of the Swannanoa River. Project area
elevation is approximately 606 meters (2000 feet).
#III
This portion of Buncombe County lies in the broad basins, river terraces, and
floodplain soil system. Floodplains are important components of this soil system and. In the
case of the Swannanoa River, the floodplain may contain Biltmore, Rosman, and/or Colvard
soils. The project area has intensive urban development.
C. Biotic Communities
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant vegetation and fauna in each
community and how these biotic components relate to one another.
1. Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and remnant Mixed Hardwood Forest communities are the two
terrestrial communities found in the project study area.
The man-dominated community is highly disturbed and includes road shoulder and
lawn habitats. Many plant species characteristic of the roadside have adapted to disturbed
and maintained habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed) areas are dominated by fescue,
plantain, and dandelion as well as a variety of landscape ornamentals.
Many animals present in these urban disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable
of surviving on a variety of forage resources, ranging from vegetation to animal matter.
The mixed hardwood forest community is a forested community that forms a narrow
buffer, less than 6.1 meters (20 feet), along the banks of the Swannanoa River. The open
canopy includes sycamore and box elder. Birds such as northern parula and blue-gray
gnatcatcher may be common nesters in this community layer. Subcanopy growth is spotty
and dominated by black willow and saplings of previously mention canopy species. Dense
ground cover consisting of privet, elderberry, blackberry, grape, and Japanese honeysuckle
blankets the river banks.
Observers may find in this community animals previously mentioned, as well as two-
lined salamander and slimy salamander, which may reside under vegetative litter. Raccoon,
eastern box turtle, and rough green snake are likely to reside in the project study area.
2. Aquatic Community
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Swannanoa River.
Sediments have loaded this water body as a result of development. Few areas of natural
vegetation remain to act as buffer zones for storm runoff.
River banks, which are steep and heavily eroded, exhibit vegetation previously
mentioned in both biotic community descriptions. Animals such as bullfrog may reside
along the waters edge along with mountain dusky salamander, crayfish, and segmented
worms that exist under stones and other debris on the river bed. Some fish species likely to
be in this section of the Swannanoa River include golden shiner, river chub, flat bullhead,
largemouth bass, and redbreast sunfish.
3. Biotic CommuniV Dmpacts
Biotic community impacts, resulting from project construction are being addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to steep slopes, can result in the
AM
aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not end with the communities in
which the construction activity occurs. NCDOT will make efforts to assure that sediment
will be contained within the construction site as much as possible.
Few Natural communities occur in the project area. Previous development has
fragmented and reduced those communities. The man-dominated community component of
the project area will receive the greatest impact from habitat reduction, resulting in the loss
and displacement of plant and animal life, regardless of the chosen alternate. Impacts to
terrestrial communities will result in the loss of existing habitats and displacement, as well as,
mortality of animal species currently in residence. TABLE 2 lists anticipated impacts to
terrestrial communities.
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Alternative Man-dominated Mixed Hardwood Total
Communi Forest Community
1 < 0.04 hectares (0.1 < 0.02 hectares < 0.06 hectares
acres 0.05 acres 0.15 acres
2 < 0.04 hectares (0.1 < 0.02 hectares < 0.06 hectares
acres 0.05 acres 0.15 acres
3 < 0.04 hectares (0.1 < 0.02 hectares < 0.06 hectares
acres 0.05 acres 0.15 acres
As mentioned previously, erosion due to development along the Swannanoa River
floodplain has caused siltation that has altered the aquatic component of the project area.
Project construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to the Swannanoa River.
Construction-related sedimentation can be hannfitl to local populations of invertebrates that
are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Sedimentation resulting from construction
related erosion may cover and smother less mobile organisms such as many of the filter
feeders. Construction-related sedimentation can also harm local fish populations. Increased
sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced
depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction in the water's oxygen carrying
capacity, and changes in water temperature.
D. Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water
systems. The proposed project lies within the Swannanoa River basin.
Water resource discussions include waterbody classification, location of high quality
waters, and licensed dischargers. The Swannanoa flows east to west through the proposed
project area and is approximately 24.4 meters (80 ft) wide and averages 0.9 meters (3.0 feet)
in depth. The river substrate is silt overlaying rock, gravel, and sand. The Best Usage
Classification of the Swannanoa River at the proposed project location is Class C. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists no dischargers
for the project area. The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates. Good water quality is associated with a high number of
different types of organisms and the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality
degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. There is no BMAN
information available for the immediate project area. There are no waters classified as High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, WS-I, or WS-11 within 1.6 kilometers (1.0
mile) of the project area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place
as a result of project construction.
Impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity, as well as non-point discharge of toxic substances from increased roadway surface
area (engine fluids and particulate rubber). NCDOT will strictly enforce sedimentation and
erosion control measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment control guidelines)
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow toxic substances to absorb into the soil before these substances
reach waterways. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control policies will result in
serious damage to the aquatic environment.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates
these waters.
The project will not impact any wetlands. NCDOT cannot construct the project
without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. The NCDOT staff biologist investigated
wetland occurrences in the project impact area using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Anticipated Surface Water Impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General Nationwide permit
33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. Buncombe County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout
waters. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) must review and
approve projects in these counties (see the Appendix for NCWRC comments). Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation for
impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with COE.
2. Federally Protected Species
Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, protect plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT).
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists eight federally protected species
for Buncombe County as of 17 November 1994. TABLE 3 lists these species. A
indicates the species has not been found in Buncombe County in at least 20 years.
AM
TART F 1 FF.T)F.R AT 7.V PROTF.C'TFT) SPRC:TF.S FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name _ Common Name Status
Alismidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe PE*
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E*
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel E
Geum radiatum s eadin avens E
G oderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii mountian sweet pitcher-
plant E
S iraea virginiana Virginia s iraea T*
Sa 'taria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E*
Habitat for one protected species, Virginia spiraea, occurs in the project study area.
Surveys for this species revealed no specimens in the project study area. No impacts to
protected species will result from proposed project construction. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data base contains no records of rare species or habitats in the
study area.
F. Air and Noise
The project is in the Western Mountain Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air
quality for Asheville is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create
any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, the contractor shall complete all burning in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional
reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
Developed land is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The project area is in a highly
developed urban area; therefore, the requirements of the Act do not apply.
ink
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
An NCDOT architectural historian reviewed the area of potential effect (APE). The
only structure in the APE over 50 years is the bridge. NCDOT built Bridge No. 39 in 1935.
NCDOT staff met with staff from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review
photographs, maps, and other information about the bridge. The SHPO concurred with
NCDOT and FHWA that the bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (concurrence letter in Appendix).
NCDOT and the SHPO know of no archaeological resources within the project area.
The SHPO comments it is unlikely the project will affect any archaeological resources on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO recommends no survey for
archaeological resources.
Because there are no properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, the project requires no further compliance with Section 106.
X. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
10
iIW
FIC3iURES
C?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 81
BRIDGE NO. 39 OVER
SWANNANOA RIVER
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B-2515 FIG. 1
0 kilometers 3.1 0 miles 2
?peh i
?? 1101
yy\ 0
Y1
li0!
Rhtif
lice O4
.3e
0
11/f
•b
? o
ry
n
1311
N
'! 1 N C 1L
ti
r
A
0
11
911O-
N?Iphh
1338
1•l
1332
1` D

?)?
r
G :..
12142
¦\?v<
:: \ Fin
?

ASHEVILLE
POP. 53,583 _
LAKE
KENILWORTH
1!f!?
Mf.
T
7274 i fAU '
¦
ss ? e1
i S?r?1J soUrh? 0
>.;.:. BRIDGE NO¦ 39
40
W-wa
06
It -It HE
i,34 ® /~I Ila
? P
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
.os
391t
;. .160 •?
.11 ?4 7
•??.,. ? ? 7037 "?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
NC 81
BRIDGE NO. 39 OVER
SWANNANOA RIVER
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B-2515 FIG. 1 A
0 kilometers 1.2 0 mile 3/4
1 i I i i i

x

I
BRIDGE NO. 39
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
B-2515
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
/ (?•
%
% ,
,`?•?
ZONE
C

_ZDNE B
' _-
x, .

BRIDGE NO. 39 o f

h L _-HRy. ST

Z ZONE B- %
I
Z NEB ?i ZONE B
ZONE C
M14
'c'
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
NA116111 ill/0 lNt6ll.cl .1SC11N
FIRM
F(000 INSURANCE RATE MAP
I
CITY OF
ASFIEVILIX
NORI'It CAROLINA
NUNCnMNI: (CIONT)
'
PINEI IS 0`r75
i
COMMUNITY-PAN(( NUMI(R
170037 0015 A I
[F[[[TIY( OAT(
JUI+ 16
. r960
SC.. T-F-f Or M US-W- I
V.b- DE V l LUMtlN l
1 THE PLAZA
2 BOSTON WAY
3 ANGEL STREET
4 SWAN STREET
5 PRIVATE ENTRANCE
6 ALL SOULS CRESCENT
7 IRIS STREET
8 GARFIELD STREET
9 CALEDONIA STREET
EO DEAHM STREET
11 MC DOWELL STREET OVERPASS
12 ELSE ALLEY
13 AMBOY ROAD
14 FAIRVIEW RD
ZON
• j" A3
J
Z-0B E
\., LIMIT
CP?Q
?., V-ODE TA
1
ZONE C
Ij
I\\
EK
OF (}rrA
7
Z OAN E
ZON
C
111
TY
*E
SON r
A
AO
AH
Al •A3
A99
i
e
c
O
V
V1-V-
%,ertai-
may bl
'I his n
suily.
,III plal
For it,
Ilancls
APPENDIX
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program w J?v` Z
u
DATE: May 20, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge #39 on NC 81
over Swannanoa River, Buncombe County, TIP #B-2515.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the proposed project. The Swannanoa
River is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water upstream of the
project site, but does not support trout in this area. Therefore
we would have no objection to the project based on impacts to
trout waters. Our comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will reflect the fact that this project does not impact waters
supporting trout.
For your general information, Alternative 1 likely would
have slightly less of an impact on the riparian zone of the
Swannanoa River because the existing bridge would be replaced
with a four-lane bridge, while Alternatives 2 and 3 involve
construction of five-lane bridges. However, we have no strong
preference for any particular alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with these
comments during the early stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Yow, District 9 Environmental Coordinator

.1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
November 20, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on NC 81 over
Swannanoa River, Asheville, Buncombe County, 6-
2515, 8.1843001, BRSTO-81(1), ER 93-7462
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On November 2, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we feel that Bridge No. 39, the only
structure over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect, does not possess
the necessary historical or architectural significance for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Actlof 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
•
Nicholas L. Graf
November 20, 1992, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ' L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
i

I
3
/2?X `5s
? f
Z z ic?o
lJ?'?o
77s
yd z o/?

/?/O/ 61 V? 2-