19960714 Ver 1_Complete File_19960729

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / 0
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 15, 1997
Buncombe County
WQC 401 Project #960714
TIP #I-0100, COE #199604215
State Project #8-1909315
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.17 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing an interchange at I-40 and US 25A in Asheville, as you described in your application dated 19
December 1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be
required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must
follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
l John Domey
Central Files
960714.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
N. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
Q; REF. NO. OR. ROOM, BLDG.
"FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
.? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS -. ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER, ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS'
?PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURES' .,.
? - TAKE APPROPRIATEACTION - - ? INVESTIGATES AND REPORT
` COMMENTS:

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
RECE€ D
;DEC 2 J 1996
8911lft0 l0h, , ES
-? r
Subject: Buncombe County, Construction of Interchange on I-40 at US 25A in Asheville, Federal Project
No. I-40-1(85)51, State Project No. 8.1909315, T.I.P. No. I-0100. Action ID: 199604215.
On Julv 19,1996 the Department of Transportation submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers for
a Nationwide 26 permit for fill in 0.16 acres of surface waters. The work was authorized by the Corps of
Engineers on November 26, 1996. The project has been redesigned to include a 65 foot extension of the
reinforced concrete box culvert under ramp A of the interchange to tie in with the reinforced concrete box
culvert under Crayton Road. Joining these two culverts together will result in 0.011 acres of additional fill
in surface waters of Sweeten Creek. No wetlands will be affected.
We hereby request that this activity be authorized under a modification of the Nationwide Permit 26 issued
November 26, 1996. We further request concurrence by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the NCDEHNR Division of Water Quality for the proposed modification.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844
Ext. 307.
ySiere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: wlattachment
Mr.-Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr.'Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit `
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit ?.?
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Richard L. Brewer, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Mark S. Davis, Western Mountain Regional Coordinator
STATE
. t= S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 19, 1996
GARLAND B. GARRETTJR.
SECRETARY
,1?D
0

f ,•'
STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 19, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington. North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Buncombe County, Construction of Interchange on 1-40 at US 25A in Asheville, Federal Project
No. I-40-1(85)51, State Project No. 8.1909315, T.I.P. No. I-0100. Action ID: 199604215.
On July 19,1996 the Department of Transportation submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers for
a Nationwide 26 permit for fill in 0.16 acres of surface waters. The work was authorized by the Corps of
Engineers on November 26, 1996. The project has been redesigned to include a 65 foot extension of the
reinforced concrete box culvert under ramp A of the interchange to tie in with the reinforced concrete box
culvert under Crayton Road. Joining these two culverts together will result in 0.011 acres of additional fill
in surface waters of Sweeten Creek. No wetlands will be affected.
We hereby request that this activity be authorized under a modification of the Nationwide Permit 26 issued
November 26, 1996. We further request concurrence by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the NCDEHNR Division of Water Quality for the proposed modification.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844
Ext. 307.
ySiere,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
y Mr. 1Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Richard L. Brewer, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Mark S. Davis, Western Mountain Regional Coordinator
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, 74
?I?T
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
A-ftwwo-ftftwooft A
James Governor ? E1011111111
Jonathan B. B. I- Fb owa s, Secreta ry
H N Fl
A. Preston F toward, Jr., P.E., Directo r
August 8, 1996
Buncombe County
DWQ Project # 960714
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.014 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing an interchange at I-40 and US 25A in Asheville, as you described in your application dated 19
July 1996. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide PermitNumber 26
when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
. If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Pr Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
960714.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
401 ISSUED 4 960714
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIG1-1. N.C. 27611-5201
July 19, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
r_ ?v
V?0?p
a
ti
Subject: Buncombe County, Construction of Interchange on I-40 at US'`25A in
Asheville, Federal Project No. 1-40-1(85)51, State Project No. 8.19093 15,
T.I.P. No. I-0100.
Enclosed please find the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), project site
map and preconstruction notification form for the above referenced project. The project
involves the construction of a partial clover interchange on the west side of US 25A,
widening I-40 over US 25A and the westbound structure over Caribou Road, realignment
of Crayton Road and widening of US 25A to five lanes. Construction of the proposed
project will not impact any jurisdictional wetland communities and will affect a minor area
of Sweeten Creek ( 0. 16 acres).
We have determined that this activity will be authorized under Nationwide Permit
26, and would not require notification if not for the fact that this project will.take place in
a mountain trout county. Thus we anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required. By copy of this letter and
attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at [phone], Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Richard L. Brewer, P. E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit ft 26
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: N r Dent. of Tranennrtat i nn • of inn; °Ad Envir-enmentai RPR eh
2. Owners Address: P (1 Ray 29201; Rai Pi gh nor 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Buncombe
Nearest Town or City:
Asheville
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-40 at US 25A (Sweeten Creek Road)
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Sweeten reek
7. River Basin:
French Broad River
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES Jx] NO [ ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO ;fix]
If yes, explain,
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
0.16 acres of Waters onl
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.16 waters
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0.16 acres water only
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Construction of a
_ha]f-rlnvar intarchan9e at I-40 and Sweeten Creek Road
13. Purpose of proposed work: Provide direct access fromI-40 to Sweeten Creek Road
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. no wetlands on site
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine,Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES (xx] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ J NO [x J
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? highway f r.nmmerr.i ai
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? NA
Owner's Signature Date
ou01a A l t • w e .ah / _ t0 , . i• 17 - 23 ?i1 ?r H
U•t Lam ?r ti Od ! 2I Day Book 7Bandan t e,
u, Is
r ,` `b .rlt gro wbrter«? / Bilo 13
? ? ?' .? j{t `7 SI '? a t 1 Creek + 6
.r• tl? S ,4f?LWJ 23 6 6 .•..r^. t
411 • .? l ._ Swr s _ 7 B rnshlle unll ? +
1,i}: ,,^ ..? r 'k •;3 ?, yy v 10 , of Dn cola ?• 6.\
? >, I i,;y. f ? ,.+• i p15GA N o , • 19E i c m 2211
I? t Y A E c 7
J :ii e;=' r
MADISON A
r f•• walnut a If a,
'b;• ^. iy.:?,l"l5°' .Cosh ?'''k'.''-_?,r.,.; • `•. I Mars Hill, U Ce ° I t d ???
ittmiri rJ;]?'1...,•y erlr. ' 1 ?•.>•.:r'i;:.;..;. < ? II a J Pensacola
tton'Faea a er?il;?'?"•,: ii•'I,tOi+r.c?' 1 7 J LtU ter al
Rt Y. > s em ei; " ) 1
•3.L:-'.;j;. t ?; J.,k,'r? Iv.^ 2 .?^;.. '•lot 5 reek M rcnrson 4. Ii W, I/
'1i'.'I!`? 321' 'j':• t // 1 .}Mus tl1 1 io If ,r ?Srrn •eee•r +a W n ,1' v\?Is•••
? E° •.•• 7u0ila, B, udsvi
•S.f•:.; r;Mount t°
( rust ti S / I illin „'r rd•'-•? /-McD EL
' r?:?+tMer??G 7° l ,j ? I i 19 SI«?srille . 17t S 8 rek 17 i.ak•• ? S
.iJ +?ySy, // Il I E (S 21 eD
•: ,r;.t?•(,?+r. ?t1' .Ma: '*i? r aferrillt J Weavernlle i k?0 Tohn
ake Tlt
dn?Sll S
i???,..?,1` • ?;.,.,•. ?; .:. ?6sft Au Lse•0 ,n o AI is eKa r e •.wr pleasant Car a
k AU"?.•C fr I /•-\i ?• 1 Sa75 B U S N r t O i..?e ? C°.d..,. Pt\ , ?- O
,. Leicester woodn ,,, i Black felt 1 N d J
? •y ? NAT. ei . I PARK 1-N ) IS rr i OOnlalO y 7 ... 1 [I] ?•
Nr.l d ?I
to ' so. ee0? C seek JA Crabtree+ 5 t Swann ... • i • 1 , I :.
4 n? i , m m teen )0 Genw
t 41 Mn ville RidttOrta ? .
Art Smokemoni cNE,O19C A Or ODD ®, I t 'i t S 0 yy!!yy?...py. ;? _Y y n.r.
atttt 216 akt J ®
,. . S:i
Z `n
I N r a )unit Ii n Id v f.:..'.
N Vallt
/ i.Ct:^:•: •rt,:•...
• I to )a S'(?' •:?tiH.•
Air 5OVNDAtr tllwoo trdt Ifl IS . F,rrvww . _v' 4.:?Aii:' ?,• I?.+ t'tiiM
own CAero ee 17 / a nSSYI • 3 S 11 t I S / Iy`s: 'ISs2^1t!??:, :.`•=..:.: 'I'
and Certon ?i i??:=(.,• J ?...:j; ?- .
n a5 w.r...ees Y J I ? r IS S
/Keeb t SDrr tdal 1r .1 :. •i ,.. •: •., t
?ir WM rte. is.e. 23 Hat
Au Aid / J S J'v?•i'• ::r r, ::t Yt•J
7 nrteA `v: t.c. b y:9 :. I i .:
t, nook PI GA ` Ir ?_ 25 B,lCave
441 .o ad vw rte; r:r!: {
i..+ rso T. etc at ket r a
64 m r y. r °f er c r 1
illtts ;; is
1 7 7 II •.N 1 J 7* irw Ilan } ?,.t,t ?? ?a L
Uu, , S Ir o Sunburst 2 '\ ar i Lakt 1 ?>
Wit rte ` H e t, ,4'Rr.T,. •. c? Lry
t
?Dr s r t ?ro?f 71 \ 191 \( Edntyville
r Webster 12 NAT.
Creen
?.cu. .? ,? ?Fa,'°1Ser i 5 O N /r :'as.N ,•?i::,:
Creek «s e - , P •,S:i,'-;: *. ':.t::>
1 t •r ?ullwvbet I \ ? • r ,{'
ov/? • + EastFlal Lak A ;k`i;`i •? •+';rrt.a'.
S C,Y r. E,ft Upon I 1e7t1 a..er•Gev If a 1 ) r,:•!
Berson 'tle r 1e
t• FOR. 1 ill d.i A`• o s• :•'+;t'-?'•i?•
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 ' nose Flat «k•
rk' ! tt i
20 30 \ •
,a .r ldw H 2r om}
t Breva t Forest rue Rrrer Tu,e o J n S A s r - v p?• '? ° s r`ll•
10 20 30 40 a8 .il. l11 ?1l5?•6• t f_t 1•
Scale of Kilometers NSa
0- b•.h?pr.rl. eppoonu.nr7y l I m:k -I J1.1 .n.1.4y 111Aan.•r,+s /sorb/ ( ?/ rr?"'-;•LaAr ;? .
1 \\ \/0.r"- ,1?.,.0 k y/? 1 %. _ ...1 nni ':!•• .. r,•
/ `, •; irr7,i:r yG ? 4, ? ?r YG o ?"4ia :..... --tii E::1'J ?: > 'Pj..•'
t .r
SrIVET •:Y.I?. V:?,?t •, Of rte. •/jl ?;.L.., 7
t linl ? ? 1r• : Ire • ? ?I ?':d : it?:p. ..,.
01
y ASHE LLE •v... ^-'kil ° ; v
a test ?y •I top. st. t rwu zo a
\ l J tr ? r?QA?
.1,1 t? Ifr ?' G>tr I*J ` 7,..Y' rol.°
'ENKA J ' • I?jl,, fAV Y" , 1 1?J / r•t END
for.ssst ''• L.tKE.. .. .. i;'. .•':.:.v. r .r ?A .
c ?u a ' .? HNO tao Ala .yN' • ..: ? r
ti }Yt ?'` s°^d ° : I o PF BILTMORE
24
.S rrka ?' •? NI?i • ';"?`? tusate ON
Hpn:ny (kf \ Vulo•e Cr k oD. - 7 eta
C r _fi.R' i r ,?•'' :`" ?. ° ,C`? I Saar .t 111
BN tlt;4?' co ?ip'aAiMORE It / . auTlHt MTN.r
iF' r S u to esy ?5. :P
° ESTATE '11
?S I (??lu '',1.441 I n+l RICE p 9 d?
rwNAR! ? 7f
y e.v e, %lfl(6 d`+ '???.?//r?yl, 3? ?J? ? ? , ?•.,.: ,o ? , /I 78 lll1
?.. j 1SG/4H ??G~SDIO,' ?a -? fit 3` it
BUNCOMBE COUN T Y; N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1909315 J-0100
INTERCHANGE AT I-40
US 25A (SWEETEN CREEK RD.)
SHPET
01 •r*;-4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
09 October 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
Richard Brewer, Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologisg&
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed construction of
an interchange on 1-40 at US 25A in Asheville, Buncombe
County. T.I.P. No. 1-100; State Project 8.1909315; Federal Aid
No. 1-40-1(85)51.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent informaton
concerning Waters of the United States and protected species is also provided. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need this report copied onto disk
format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
vFile 1-100

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ................................................ ...................................1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................. ..................................1
1.3 Methodology .......................................................... ..................................1
1.4 Investigator's Credentials ....................................... ..................................3
2.0 Physical Resources ........................................................ ...................................3
2.1 Soils ...................................................................... ..................................3
2.2 Water Resources ................................................... ..................................3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources ................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................. ..................................4
2.2.3 Water Quality ............................................... ..................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...........................:........................4
3.0 Biotic Resources ...............................................................................................5
3.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities ..................... ..................................5
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Area .............................................................5
3.1.2 Disturbed Streamside Forest Forest ............. ..................................6
3.1.3 Mountain Perennial Stream .......................... ..................................6
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................... ..................................6
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ........................................................ ...................................7
4.1 Waters of the United States ................................... ...................................7
4.1.1 Study Area Waters of the United States ........ ...................................8
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................. ...................................8
4.1.3 Permits ......................................................... ...................................8
4.1.4 Mitigation ...................................................... ...................................8
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................ ...................................8
4.1.4.2 Mitigation ......................................... ...................................9
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................. ....................................9
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ................................... ...................................9
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......................... ....................................9
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ..................................14
5.0 References ..................................................................... .................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General location map ...................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils in the Project Study Area .......................................................................3
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............................ ......................7
Table 3. Federally Protected Species Known From Buncombe County, NC ...............10
Table 4. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species Known From Buncombe
County, NC .............................................................................................15
1-40 Proposed Interchange at US 25A
Asheville, Buncombe County
Project 8.1909315
Federal Aid Project: 1-40-1(85)51
T.I.P. 1-100
Natural Resources Technical Report
1-100
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
DALE W. SUITER, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
09 OCTOBER 1995
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted as a reevaluation for
an Environmental Assessment for the proposed project. The project lies within the city of
Asheville, Buncombe County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The project involves the construction of a partial clover interchange on the west side
of US 25A. Project plans call for widening the dual structures on 1-40 over US 25A and
the westbound structure over Caribou Road. A cul-de-sac will be constructed on Crayton
Road northeast of the railroad tracks and there will be a realignment of Crayton Road west
of the railroad tracks. The project will also widen US 25A to a 5-lane curb and gutter
section 18.0 m (59.0 ft.).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. An attempt will be made
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will
need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigations of the project study area include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Asheville, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project
study area (1:2000) and Natural Resources Conservation Service soils map of Buncombe
County. Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR 1993) and from the
Environmental Base Sensitivity map of Buncombe County (NC Center for Geographic
Information Analysis 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) (1995) list of protected and candidate species and from the NC Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignments by NCDOT
biologists Dale Suiter and Logan Williams on 25 July 1995. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one
or more of the following observational techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks
and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Cowardin et
al. 1987).
O ? v
77
e
? ;AU Q ASHEIAUE
For. .17AV
., c
.1131 UKE
i ?. XSNfLWORrm
BILTMORE /
VILL AGc
%TE
All.
2?t ? : ? tit LO 2s?
??^' ''s a11L
» ? - .?. ? to v A Iut
.la rw / w- ra.:. to
s
as x YOMrgwq
py ?. a
.IOAw
•fi??t • p 5??;.kv .
D IL
?? 41•
PROPOSED ""
INTERCHANGE
LOCAT I 0 N
`??' n` m 3R1 '?' px
auL
17i2 : m s3a r Q amma \ \
• ,,? 3fLl
u oa
ILTMOR"'' '°'i ( uv
•, z
'A.. 'e.`°" ? ?tst 3313
t y ?a
C:\ v
NORTH CAROLINA OQPAVr MHNT
,t or TWAHeP0RTA110N
F_ DlVfaloN or HIaHwAYa
• =PLANNING AND 6NVIR0NMHNTAL
GRANCH
FIGURE 1- VICINTTY MAP
140 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
AT US 25A
ASHOLLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
TIP NO. 1-100
1 ? .rr ,
as
1
?,°I ,?
FOREST •'`
I
:
a a ,,,.

??ror. 3.29 3ab,
t4... Kw •• 1s!! ;
14
x sue
R4 .
?; ` r0 3;l37

r•i: ,? 3132

i ..........
yrrww 1 .1

3
1.4 Investigators' Credentials
Investigator: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: M.S. Degree Biology, Marshall University, Huntington, WV
Expertise: Field Botany, Plant Taxonomy, Natural History
2.0 Physical Characteristics
Buncombe County lies in the Mountain physiographic province. The topography is
characterized by mountains and smaller hills. Swift moving streams are often found in the
valleys. The study area is 628.0 m (2060.0 ft.) above mean sea level. Soil types and
water availability directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any
biotic community.
2.1 Soils
Tate-Urban Land and Evard-Urban Land soils dominate the project area. The
Tate-Urban Land complex consists of Tate soils and urban land occurring on alluvial fans,
terraces, footslopes and benches. Evard-Urban Land soils occur on lower mountain
ridges and side slopes and higher mountain ridges of the intermountain area (USDA
NRCS 1995). Table 1 summarizes the specific soil types which occur in the project study
area. Neither of these soils are included in the national and county lists of hydric soils
(USDA 1987).
Table 1. Soils in the project study area. Map unit symbol, specific mapping unit, percent
slope (USDA NRCS 1995) and hydric classification (USDA SCS 1991).
MAP UNIT SYMBOL
SPECIFIC MAPPING
UNIT
PERCENT HYDRIC
SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
TmC
EsE
Tate-Urban land
complex
Evard-Urban land
complex
2-15 none
15-30 none
2.2 Water Resources
Water resource information encompasses the resources relationship to major water
systems, physical aspect, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of the resources.
Impacts to water resources are discussed, along with suggestions to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the French Broad River
Basin. Sweeten Creek (6-78-24) is the only stream in the project area. Sweeten Creek
originates approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi.) south of the project site and flows into the
Swannanoa River at a point 2.4 km (1.5 mi.) northwest of the project. At the project site,
4
Sweeten Creek is 3.0 m (10.0 ft.) wide and 30.5 cm (1.0 ft.) deep. On the survey date,
this stream had very slow flow and no aquatic vegetation was present. The streambed
was made up of rubble and cobble-gravel.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage classification for Sweeten Creek is
Class C. Class C waters are suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. Sweeten Creek received a BMAN rating of poor
in October 1987 at a sampling station downstream from the project site.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted dischargers are located on Sweeten
Creek.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
The installation of culverts will cause irreversible damage to this portion of Sweeten
Creek. Physical impacts to the Sweeten Creek will be most obvious at the point of
construction. Biological impacts to the stream are most likely to occur downstream from
the area of disturbance.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and
toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources in the study area. This can be accomplished by protecting stream bank
vegetation, installing silt fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls.
NCDOTs Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the construction stage
of the project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances
during the construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems . This section describes
the flora and fauna encountered or expected within the communities present at the project
site. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Fauna observed during field investigations are annotated with an asterisk
(*). Scientific nomenclature and common names, when applicable, are provided for each
plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area. A
disturbed / maintained community was found between SR 25A and Sweeten Creek on the
south side of 1-40 and in many of the other disturbed sites throughout this urban area. A
Disturbed Streamside Forest is present along Sweeten Creek south of 1-40 within the
project boundary. In addition, a very small wetland is located in the disturbed roadside
ROW along US 25A opposite its intersection with Crayton Road. Sweeten Creek is a
perennial stream flowing north through the project area.
3. 1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Areas
Disturbed or maintained areas are located throughout the project area on road
shoulders, in vacant fields, parking lots and surrounding industrial buildings. These areas
contain many herbaceous species common to ruderal environments such as fescue
Festuca sp.), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), lance-leaved plantain
Planta o lanceolata , Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera is onica , dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale , poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata , red clover
rifolium rap tense), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), chickory Cichorum in bus ,
goldenrod Solida o sop.), Deptford pink Dianthus armeria), bull thistle Cirsium
umilum , woolgrass Scir us c erinus , Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota), silvergrass
(Miscanthus sinensis). Few woody species have the opportunity to grow in areas that are
continually maintained. Princess tree Paulowr is tomentosa), mimosa Albizzia
julibrissin), flowering dogwood Corpus florida and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis_)
were the only trees and shrubs recorded in these disturbed areas.
Various insects such as the short horned grasshopper (Family Acrididae) frequent
road shoulders as they forage on vegetation. Few larger animals are likely to use this area
for foraging due to its urban location. Least shrews (Cryptotis parva), Eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), the hispid cotton rat (ai odon his idus and the eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus) are some mammal species likely to inhabit the grassy areas of this
disturbed community. Many of the bird species observed or heard in the Disturbed
Streamside Forest (section 3.1.2) may also be found in disturbed areas. One might also
expect to find eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis or black rat snakes Ela he
obsoleta) in this habitat.
31.2 Disturbed Streamside Forest
This streamside community is dominated by sycamore Platanus occidentalis),
black locust Robinia pseudo-acacia) and sugar maple Acer saccharum) in the canopy.
Climbing bittersweet Celestrus scandens and grape Vitis s2.) were vining high into the
canopy. Shrubby species encountered include autumn olive (Elea gnus umbellata) and
multiflora. rose Rosa multiflora). Japanese honeysuckle and poison ivy were two other
very common vines. Herbaceous specias included white clover rifolium rap tense),
horse-nettle Solanum carolinense), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
touch-me-not (Impatiens ca ensis , curly dock Rumex cris us , boneset (Eg torium
perfoliatum) and tall goldenrod Solida o altissima .
Mammal species that could inhabit this streamside forest include Virginia opossum
Didel his virginiana), Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris), Eastern chipmunk*
amias striatus) and gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis). Avian species observed or
heard during the site visit include: rufous-sided towhee* Pi ilo erythrophthalmus),
American robin urdus migratorius), American crow* Corvus brachyrhy chos),
European starling* Sturnus vul aris and song sparrow* Melos iza melodia . Amphibian
species that may be present along the stream include American toad Bufo americanus),
bullfrog Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog* Rana alustris . Garter and black rat
snakes could also inhabit this community.
3.1.3 Mountain Perennial Stream
Sweeten Creek is a tributary of the Swannanoa River and drains part of southeast
Asheville. At the point where Sweeten Creek crosses SR 1560, the banks of Sweeten
Creek are relatively steep, rising approximately 0.9 m (3.0 ft.) to 1.2 m (4.0 ft.) above the
water surface. Water quality seemed poor and little aquatic life was found. However, a
pumpkinseed Le omis gibbosus) along with a dusky salamander (Desmo naq_thus sp.)
was found in Sweeten Creek.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems effected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance's of
each community at the project site. Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts

are derived using a ROW width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft.). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting, feeding and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Although the current roadside disturbed areas will
most likely be destroyed, similar areas will be created during the interchange construction.
Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some
species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. Impacts to the
Mountain Perennial Stream will mainly result from the interchange construction.
Table 2. Anticipated impacts to biotic communities from the construction of the
interchange, Crayton Road realignment and the widening of US 25A. Values are given in
hectares (acres).
COMMUNITY TYPE INTER- CRAYTON 25A TOTAL
CHANGE ROAD WIDENING IMPACTS
Disturbed/Maintained 1.23(3.05) 0.27(0.68) 0.33(0.80) 1.83(4.53)
Areas
Disturbed Streamside 0.16(0.41) 0.22(0.54) 0.0(0.0) 0.38(0.95)
Forest
Mountain Perennial 0.14(0.34) 0.0(0.0) 0.0(0.0) 0.14(0.34)
Stream*
TOTAL IMPACTS 1.53(3.80) 0.49(1.22) 0.33(0.80) 2.35(5.82)
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues: Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of 'Waters
of the United States, as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill material into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. A delineation was not performed
during the site visit but one wetland was present along the west side of US 25A at the
intersection of Crayton Road. The dominant hydrophytic plants are cattail (Typha latifolia).
Needle rush Juncus effusus, spikerush Eleocharis sR.) and smartweeds (PolyQonum
spp.) are also present. A soil color of 5YR 4/2 which is indicative of hyddc soils was
observed in this wetland. Two hydrologic indicators of wetlands present include oxidized
root channels and water stained leaves.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Due to its close proximity to US 25A, widening this portion of the road to five lanes
will destroy a small wetland. This wetland received a DEM rating of 21 and covers a small
area approximately 0.006 ha (0.014 ac) in size. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire ROW, therefore, actual wetland impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification
for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of
the United States. Since the proposed project is located in a designated "trout" county,
the authorization of a nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence
of the Wildlife Resources Commission. This project will require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit (NWP 33 CFR
3305 (A) (26).
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEO), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures would be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
9
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. The widening of 25A in the vicinity of this proposed interchange will potentially
impact one small wetland unless the widening could be done on the east side of 25A.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Road sections
of the proposed interchange should be constructed as close to each other as
possible to m1nimize cumulative Impacts to Waters of the United States as well as
habitat fragmentation.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized1to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, the process of decline either due
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law, under the provisions of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by. the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Seciton 7 And Section 9 of the ESA. Table 3 lists eight federally-protected species for
Buncombe County as of 28 March 1995,
to
Table 3. Federally-protected species for Buncombe County. An asterisk (*) indicates that
no specimen has been found in Buncombe County in 20 years.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Felis concolor
var. cougar
Glaucomys sabrinus
var. coLoratus
Geum radiatum
Gymnoderma lineare
Sagittaria fasciculata
Sarracenia rubra
var. 'off nesii
S i? raea vir inq iana
Appalachian elktoe E* No
eastern cougar E* No
Carolina northern
flying squirrel E No
spreading avens E No
rock gnome lichen E No
bunched arrowhead E* No
mountain sweet
pitcher-plant E* No
Virginia spiraea T No
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of 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).
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: September 3, 1993
Distribution in N. C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Macon, Mitchell, Swain,
Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to
8.0 cm. Its shell is think although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (Kidney-shaped).
The periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while
juveniles have a yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina; the
Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of the Can 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
Sweeten Creek which flows through the project site is a tributary of the Swannanoa
River which is then a tributary of the French Broad River. The Appalachian elktoe is not
known to occur in the Swannanoa or French Broad Rivers. Therefore, this project is not
Ilkely to have an effect on the Appalachlan elktoe.
11
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) E
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: June 4, 1973
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret, Haywood, Montgomery,
Onslow, Swain, Yancey.
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
This project is located in a heavily developed industrial area within the city of
Asheville. There are no large remote wilderness areas nearby, therefore, this project is
not expected to effect the eastern cougar.
Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: July 1, 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, McDowell,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
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 flips and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying
squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western
part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 1517 m
(5000 ft.) in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests.
Both forest types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting,
sites.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The project is located at 628 m (2060 A.) elevation which is well below the
elevation this species is typically found at. This project will not have an impact on the
Carolina flying squirrel.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
12
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright
yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to
early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately compound;
terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are
reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been
found at elevations of 1535-1540 m (5040-5080 ft.), 1723-1747 m (5680-5760 ft) and
1759 m (5800 ft.). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and
shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy
loam, sand loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
This species has not been found at elevations as low as the elevation of the project
site [628 m (2060 ft.)]. Project construction is not likely to impact spreading avens.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) PE
Plant Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson,
Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The
lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in
color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome
lichen occurs from July through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity.
These high humidity environments occur on high elevation L 1220 m14000 ft.) mountain
tops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation L 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 major threat of extinction to the rock gnome
lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These
coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen.
The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower
elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
13
Rock gnome lichen is another high elevation species found above 120 m (4000 ft.).
The only known populations from lower elevations occur on cliff faces in areas of high
humidity. This highly developed area does not contain suitable habitat for rock gnome
lichen. Therefore, the construction of this project is not likely to impact this species.
Sagittaria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: July 25, 1979
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has spatulate leaves
that stem from the base of the plant. The erect flowering stalk has both male and female
flowers on it, the male being above the female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are
present from April to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs with a slow,
continuous flow of cool, clean water, underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water
temperatures are variable, soil and water pHs are between 4.8 and 6.6, and water depths
are constant. These plants occur naturally in shaded sites, but populations also occur in
unshaded areas. These populations have smaller, less vigorous plants. Soils are
characterized as sandy loams below a muck layer ranging in depth from 25-60 cm (6-12
in.).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Bunched arrowhead occurs in gently sloping bogs, none of which occur within the
project site. This project is not likely to impact this species.
Sarracenia rubra var. ff'o nsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, rhizomatous, perennial herb.
Leaves of this plant grow erect and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet
shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull green
color and reticulately veined with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely
haired and usually partially filled with liquid and decaying insect parts. The maroon
colored flowers are borne singly on erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are
present during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and streams in southwestern
North carolina and northwestern South Carolina. The mountain sweet pitcher plant is
found in mountain bogs and along streamsides. This habitat is characterized by deep,
poorly drained wetlands with soils that are combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a
14
high organic content and medium to highly acidic pH. Sites are intermittently exposed to
flooding. This plant is an early successional plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation,
periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant occurs in mountain bogs and along streamsides.
There are no bogs located within the project boundaries however Sweeten Creek does
flow through the project site. A plant by plant survey at the site revealed no mountain
sweet pitcher plants. It is not likely that this project will impact this species.
SS iraea 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.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall.
Virginia spiraea often grows in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in
size, shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and usually somewhat
glaucous below. The cream colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in
branched, flat-topped 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 features of lower reaches. The
scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely
remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at
the water's edge with various other disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful
in areas with full sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas until it is released from
competition.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Sweeten Creek does flow through the project site but it is not considered a high
gradient stream. However, plant by plant surveys were made along this stream and no
Virginia spiraea plants were found. It is not likely that this project will have an impact on
this species.
4.2.2. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 23 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Buncombe County. Federal
candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
Ilsted as Endangered (E), Threatened M or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare
is
Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State ESA and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species' state and federal status and the
existence of suitable habitat for each species in the project study area. This list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the
future.
Table 4. Federal candidate species from Buncombe County, NC with indications as to
whether or not specific habitat likely to support this species was found at the survey site.
NC status was assigned from LeGrand et al. (1993) and Weakley (1993). An asterisk (*)
indicates that no specimen has been found in Buncombe County in 20 years.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT STATUS
Myotis subulatus leibii
Sorex alp ustris
punctulatus
Dendroica cerulea
Clemmys muhlenbemii
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
Percina macrocephala*
Cambarus reburrus
Phyciodes batesil
Speyeria diana
Buckleva distichophylla
Calamagrostis cainii
Euphorbia eurpurea
Hexas lis contracta
Hexas lis rhombiformis
Juglans cinerea
Juncus trifidus
carolinianus
Lilium grayi
Lysimachia fraseri*
Monotrogsis odorata
Rudbeckia triloba var.
pinnatiloba
Saxifraga caroliniana
Silene ovata
Senecio millefolium
Eastern small-footed bat
Southern water shrew
Cerulean warbler
bog turtle
Hellbender
longhead darter
French Broad stream crayfish
tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Wolfs milk spruge
mountain heartleaf
French Broad heartleaf
butternut
one flowered rush
Gray's lily
Fraser's loosestrife
sweet pinesap
pinnately-lobed brown-
eyed sunflower
Gray's saxifrage
mountain catchfly
divided-leaf ragwort
Yes SC
No SC
No SR
No T
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
SC
SC
WC
SR
SR
E
E
C
E
C
W5
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
E
T-SC
E
C
C
C
C
T
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
16
5.0 References
American American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th
ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands
and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, DC. 131 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg. Miss.
Lee, D. S., J. B. Funderburg, Jr., and M. K. Clark. 1982. Distributional Survey of
North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H. E. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey and J. R. Harrison III. 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E. F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N. C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNRH-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina
River Basins. Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species. Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles and G. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina Press.
'i
h
17
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1991. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
Hydric soils list by North Carolina county.
USDA NRCS. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States. Washington. D.C.
USDA NRCS. 1995. Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. Draft copy.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina Press. 255
pp.

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
Q(. ?? C_ s- la,0 ?? I (? ( 1 -1 /??
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries

ill
F
tt
? El Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e
? Water
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
?Groundwater
Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Other (specify)
? Pard Recreatier_
? Wilmington ? Others \
nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem Pws

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable) V `
nal Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
o objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
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)
FAXED
UN 9 7100A
Melba McGee
PS-104
- .iy
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
a'
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
I-40 AND US 25 A (SWEETEN CREEK ROAD)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT I-40-1(85)51
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1909315
T.I.P. NO. I-100
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Approved: 711
ate It Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Y/4 is . s L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
M" a
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
I-40 AND US 25 A (SWEETEN CREEK ROAD)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT 1-40-1(85)51
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1909315
T.I.P. NO. I-100
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
REEVALUATION OF A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
April 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
,. 4. ........ 14 •.
?•.•DEESSIOi -. •'•.
Q 9•
SEAL
ao»s ;w
Richard L. Brewer, P. E. ••'',??a'•?.d'GI NEB; '•?,-`, •
• '••..N •
Project Planning Engineer •'••, ?g1VRENC?.•`?
Q? ItA
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Z' V. La
Richard B. Davis, P. E.
Assistant Branch Manager
I
II.
III.
IV
V.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
SUMMARY OF PERMITTING AND COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Permit Requirements
B. Tennessee Valley Authority Coordination
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................
A. General Description ................................................................
B. Project Status .........................................................................
C. Proposed Revisions to the Project ...........................................
D. Additional Area Highway Projects ...........................................
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .........................................
A. Existing Roadway System ......................................................
B. Traffic Volumes .....................................................................
C. Capacity Analysis .................................................................
D. Safety Issues .........................................................................
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................
A. Construction Alternatives .......................................................
B. "No-Build" Alternative ..........................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section ...........................
B. Right of Way .......................................................................
C. Recommended Highway Design Elements .............................
D. Structures ............................................................................
E. Maintenance of Traffic .........................................................
F. Estimate of Cost ..................................................................
EFFECTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT .............................................
A. Historic and Cultural Resources ...........................................
1. Archaeological Resources ........................................
2. Architectural/Historical Resources ..........................
B. Land Use Planning ..............................................................
1. Existing Land Use ..................................................
2. Existing Zoning ......................................................
3. Future Land Use .....................................................
4. Farmland ................................................................
PAGE
.................. 1
................ 1
................ 1
................ 2
................ 2
2
................ 2
................ 3
................ 4
4
.................. 4
................. 4
5
5
....................... 6
....................... 6
6
7
....................... 7
....................... 7
....................... 7
....................... 7
8
........................ 8
........................ 8
........................ 8
........................ 8
........................ 9
PAGE
C. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 9
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ........................................................... 9
2. Economic Factors ............................................................................. 9
3. Public Facilities ................................................................................ 9
4. Impacts of Relocation of Families and Businesses .............................. 9
5. Social Impacts .................................................................................. 10
D. Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 10
1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 10
a. Purpose .............................................................................. 10
b. Methodology ....................................................................... 10
C. Investigators' Credentials .................................................... 11
2. Physicical Characteristics ................................................................. 11
a. Soils .................................................................................... 11
b. Water Resources .................................................................. 12
b.I Characteristics of Water Resources ......................... 12
b.2 Best Usage Classification ........................................ 12
b.3 Water Quality ......................................................... 12
b.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ................ 13
3. Biotic Resources ............................................................................. 13
a. Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities .................................. 14
a.I Disturbed/Maintained Areas .................................. 14
a.2 Disturbed Streamside Forest .................................. 15
a.3 Mountain Perennial Stream ................................... 15
b. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ........................ 16
4. Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................ 16
a. Waters of the United States ................................................. 17
a. I Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .... 17
a.2 Anticipaed Impacts to Wetlands ............................. 17
a.3 Permits .................................................................... 17
a.4 Mitigation ............................................................... 18
b. Protected and Rare Species ................................................. 19
b.I Federally-Protected Species ................................... 19
b.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ........... 25
E. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ....................................................................... 26
F. Geoenvironmental Impacts ........................................................................... 27
1. Geology ............................................................................... 27
a. Physiography, Relief and Drainage ...................................... 27
b. Geology and Soils ............................................................... . 27
C. Mineral Resources .............................................................. 27
d. Erosion Control ................................................................... 28
e. Groundwater ....................................................................... 28
2. Hazardous Materials Evaluation ...................................................... . 28
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities ........................ 28
b. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties...... 28
VI. CONCLUSIONS
TA
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
BLES
Current and Future Traffic Volumes .......................................
Project Levels of Service ........................................................
Soils in The Project Study Area ..............................................
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .............................
Federally-Protected Species For Buncombe County ...............
Federal Candidate Species From Buncombe County, NC .......
APPENDICES
A-FIGURES
B-LETTERS
PAGE
_._. 28
3
4
..... I 1
16
19
26
SUNWARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
To minimize adverse impacts to water quality, the Division of Highways of the
NCDOT will strictly adhere to its Best Management Practices. Non-point sediment
sources will be identified and efforts made to contro! sediment runoff. An Erosion and
Sedimentation Plan, prepared by the Division of Highways, will be implemented prior to
and during construction.
This project is in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Watershed, and every
effort will be made to comply with TVA requirements. The project site is not in a water
supply watershed; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erasion and t
sedimentation control measurgs. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained, and
perhaps improved, to the extent practicable. It is anticipated that groundwater resources
will not be affected, because little, if any, excavation will be required.
The NCDOT Archaeological Resources Section will conduct a comprehensive
field survey to be completed prior to construction activities associated with this project, as
recommended by the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The written report
will be submitted as an addendum to this document and will complete compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
SUMMARY OF PERMITTING AND COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Permit Requirements
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), a permit will be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Section 401 of
the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Since the proposed project is located in a designated "trout" county, the authorization of a
nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife
Resources Commission. This project ?x..__., roJ'ect wilt a 4A4-Wate?ty Certification from
.
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit [NWP 33
CFR 3305 (A) (26)].
B. Tennessee Valley Authority Coordination
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) stated approval under section 26a of the
TVA act may be required if bridges or culverts across Sweeten Creek are part of the final
design of the interchange. The TVA recommends several mitigation measures such as
Best Management and Best Engineering Practices to prevent the introduction of soil or
any other pollutants into surface or groundwaters.
Culverts (and any culvert extensions) must allow for the creation and maintenance
of natural streambed substrate, or natural substrate and pool areas, throughout the culvert;
and must create/maintain velocities and flow patterns which offer refuge for fish and other
aquatic life, and allow passage of indigenous fish species under all flow conditions. Where
new culverts are planned, or where existing culverts are to be extended, culvert floors
(bottom slabs) must be buried at least one foot below natural streambed grade, and natural
streambed material placed on the culvert floor.
The TVA also requires all natural stream values (including equivalent energy
dissipation, elevations, and velocities; riparian vegetation; riffietpool sequencing; habitat
suitable for fish and other aquatic life) must be provided at all stream modification sites.
This must be accomplished using a combination of rock and bioengineering, and is not
accomplished using solid, homogeneous riprap from bank to bank.
One final requirement of the TVA is a hydraulic analysis of effects of the project
on the base (100-year) flood elevation is needed for section 26a review and approval for
all bridges crossing streams with a drainage area of one square mile or greater.
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
I-40 AND US 25 A (SWEETEN CREEK ROAD)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT I-40-1(85)51
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1909315
T.I.P. NO. I-100
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
This project involves constructing a half-clover interchange at the existing grade-
separation of I-40 and US 25 A (Sweeten Creek Road) in Buncombe County. In addition,
Sweeten Creek Road will be widened to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility within the project
area. Three existing bridges must be widened to accommodate the acceleration and
deceleration lanes needed on I-40. These bridges are the two located on I-40 over
Sweeten Creek Road and the westbound I-40 bridge over Caribou Road.
The vicinity of this project is shown in Figure 1. The 1996-2002 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the construction of this interchange.
Although all right of way has previously been purchased by the NCDOT, right of way
money is available in the TIP for necessary utility improvements. The right of way phase
is scheduled to start in June, 1996. The letting of the construction contract is set for May,
1997. The TIP funding estimate for I-100 is $ 8,850,000, which matches the latest cost
estimates for the project. See Section IV. F. for detailed cost information.
B. Project Status
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the addition of this half-
clover interchange on I-40 at Sweeten Creek Road in 1980. NCDOT wrote an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 1984.
The right of way was purchased at that time to preserve the land for future construction.
The design and right of way requirements are the same as they were presented in the EA
and FONSI in 1984. The unavailability of sufficient funds has delayed the project for over
ten years. Now that the project has regained its schedule in the TIP, this Reevaluation is
being performed to determine if the conditions of the original Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) remain valid.
C. Proposed Revisions to the Project
Two revisions to the design of this project have been made since the EA and
FONSI were signed in 1984. One change is the closure of Crayton Road just east of the
Southern Railway tracks. This measure was requested by many residents of the Crayton
Road neighborhoods to eliminate heavy through traffic through the residential areas, and
the City of Asheville has endorsed and agreed to this action. The second change is the
alignment of Crayton Road west of the railroad tracks. Initially, Crayton Road was
2
planned to be realigned behind the Daniels Graphics/Union Butterfield/Dormer building
and then curve back to intersect US 25A some 1000 feet north of its present intersection.
Now, as shown in Figure 2, Crayton Road will be realigned to the outside of the proposed
I-40 off ramp.
D. Additional Area Highway Projects
As part of TIP Project I-100, Sweeten Creek Road will be widened from Roberts
Road (SR 3079) to about 530 meters (1750 feet) southeast of Blue Ridge Trucking Road
(SR 3230). Another ongoing highway project (TIP No. U-2801) will widen Sweeten
Creek Road from Rock OR Road (SR 3081) to Roberts Road. Right of way negotiations
for U-2801 will begin in July of 1996 and conntruction is set for August of 1998. U-2801
will widen US 25A to a 5-lane section with curb and gutter.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadwav Svstem
US 25 A (Sweeten Creek Road) is a busy two-lane facility serving extensive
industrial, commercial, and surrounding residential development. Numerous businesses
and industries line the roadway, which is designated as an urban minor arterial on the
Asheville Thoroughfare Plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the existing roadway
system as well as the superimposed future roadway configuration.
Meanwhile, Asheville and Biltmore Village, in particular, continue to grow in
permanent population and in tourism. The major road serving Biltmore Village is US 25,
which intersects I40 approximately 1 mile to the west of the proposed Sweeten Creek
Road interchange. US 25, a multi-lane road in this area, is characterized by heavy traffic
throughout the good portion of a day. Large numbers of commuters and visitors have
made US 25 a busy, congested facility.
Without direct access to 140, many heavy trucks and other commercial vehicles
generated by the business and industry along Sweeten Creek Road must use US 25A and
US 25 through the congested Biltmore Village area. By constructing an interchange at
Sweeten Creek Road many purposes will be served. First, the interchange will
accommodate truck traffic by providing convenient, direct access to the business and
industry on Sweeten Creek Road. Secondly, the interchange will give local and tourist
traffic another option when traveling to and through this busy part of Asheville. These
improvements will, in turn, reduce truck traffic and congestion through Biltmore Village,
US 25, and its interchange with 140.
B. Traffic Volumes
Table 1 below shows traffic on the major roads involved with this project for the
years 1993, 1998, and 2020. The 1998 traffic volumes are those that can be anticipated
once the interchange opens, and the 2020 traffic volumes are called the design year
3
volumes, when the interchange may reach its theoretical traffic-carrying capacity. For a
graphical illustration, including turning movements, design hourly volume (DHV)
percentages, and truck percentages, see Figure 3.
TABLE 1
Current and Future Traffic Volumes
ROUTE & TRAFFIC VOLUMES vehic les per day)
LOCATION Current 1993 1998 2020
I-40 (E of US 25A) 29,800 51,100 81,900
I-40 (W of US 25A) 29,800 37,760 58,000
US 25A (N of I-40) 10,400 17,500 26,900
US 25A (S of I-40) 13,400 23,400 38,000
Cra on Rd. of Southern RR 10,400 1,560 2,000
By 2020, traffic volumes on I40 east of the planned interchange are expected to
have increased by 175 % since 1993. On US 25A, a similar increase of over 180% is
anticipated. However, by being divided east of the railroad tracks and only serving local
traffic, volumes on Crayton Road will drop considerably from 1993 to 2020 (-81%).
C. Capacity Analysis
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions
within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A
LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service,
with letter designations from A (best) to F (worst), represent operations for each type of
facility for which analysis procedures are available.
Level of service A, the highest level of service, is characterized by very low delay
in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are unrestricted and turns are
freely made. In level of service B, traffic operations are stable but more vehicles are
stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service C is characterized by stable
operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through more than one red indication.
Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At level of service D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be
substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be
the limit of acceptable delay and represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level
of service F represents over-saturated or jammed conditions which are considered
unacceptable to most drivers.
The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB Special Report 209) was used to determine
the LOS for the years 1998 and 2020 on Sweeten Creek Road at its signalized
intersections with the interchange access ramps. Intersections are key indicators of how
roadway facilities are operating since congestion and delays are often attributed to poor
operating conditions at its intersections. Table 2 below shows the existing and anticipated
levels of service.
4
TABLE 2
Project Levels Of Service
INTERSECTION 1998 2020
US 25A & North Rams C E
US 25A & South Rams C F
For the years 1998 and 2020, the capacity analysis utilized the built-out 5-lane
section on US 25A. The new I40 off ramps have separate lanes for left and right turn
movements on their approaches to US 25A. For the year 2020 analysis, the off ramp on
the north side has dual left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane.
The capacity analysis shows that in 1998 traffic will operate at an acceptable level
of service. By the design year 2020, however, the intersections of US 25A and the ramps
could likely have deteriorated operations. If conditions reach this point, programming
future intersection improvements in the form of additional turn lanes and improved
geometrics may be necessary to offset this anticipated low level of service.
D. Saft Issues
It is projected that the completion of the I-40 and Sweeten Creek Road
interchange will reduce the traffic load on US 25 and the Biltmore Village area. New
access to I-40 will be an attractive means of travel for many residents and tourists.
Freeways have historically proven to be the safest type of highways because of their safer
design standards and limited access. A recent statewide average for the period 1992-1994
shows accident rates on urban primary routes (City arterials and thoroughfares) range
from 265.80 accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (acc/100mvm) on 4-lane divided
facilities to 346.40 acc/100mvm on undivided facilities with four or more lanes. During
this same period, the statewide average accident rate for facilities with full control of
access (freeways) is 143.70 acc/100mvm.
M. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Construction Alternatives
The Environmental Assessment (EA) and FONSI for this project, which were
signed in 1984, discussed only one construction alternative to the recommended plan: a
full diamond interchange. It was not recommended due to its substantially higher cost of
construction, primarily the additional cost of extensive excavation required to construct
ramps on the west side of US 25A. The northwest and southwest quadrants of the
I40/US 25A intersection contain steep hills rising as much as 100 feet above US 25A.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The No-Build Alternative was considered but was determined to be undesirable
since it would preclude development of an essential and high priority element of the
5
Asheville area transportation system. Such action would worsen the present tragic
congestion on US 25 and in the Biltmore Village area. Not building the interchange
would deny the area the economic benefits resulting from improved access to commercial
and industrial areas along US 25A and would hinder the growth of economic development
in the future. For these reasons, the "No-Build" alternative is not practical or feasible and
is not recommended.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IlVIPROVEMENT
A. Recommended Location and Cross-Section
The 1996-2002 TIP calls for the construction of a new interchange at the
intersection of I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek Road). An aerial view of this project
can be seen in Figure 2. The recommended location and configuration of the interchange
is, for the most part, unchanged from the recommended plan in the EA and FONSI signed
in 1984. Changes to the project are discussed in Section II. C. of this document.
The recommended cross section of Sweeten Creek Road consists of 5 lanes. The
project is being designed to provide bicycle lanes on this section of US 25A This cross
section will match the one proposed for TIP Project U-2801B, which is the widening of
US 25A from Rock Hill Road (SR 3081) to Roberts Road (SR 3079). The inner three
lanes are 3.3 meter (11-ft) wide lanes. The two outer lanes are 3.9 meter (13-ft) wide
lanes to facilitate bicycle traffic. Curb and gutter [750 millimeter (2-ft, 6-in)] will be
applied to both sides of the roadway and bicycle-safe stormwater grates are also
recommended. The total width of the new facility will be 18.9 meters (63 feet), measured
from the face of one curb to the other. This cross section will fit between the existing
concrete slopes under the I-40 structure. Sweeten Creek Road will be widened from
Roberts Road (SR 3079) south of I-40 to about 530 meters (1750 feet) southeast of Blue
Ridge Trucking Road (SR 3230). This is a distance of about 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles).
Widening will occur symmetrical to the existing centerline of US 25A.
B. Right of Way
All right of way necessary for this project has been purchased in previous
negotiations. However, right of way funds are available to carry out heavy utilities work
in the interchange area.
C. Recommended Desisn Elements
On US 25A, the design speed of the 5-lane curb and gutter facility is 50 mph. This
will allow speed limits to be set at 45 mph on US 25A in the project area. Special
accommodations for bicycle traffic in the form of 3.9 meter (13 foot) outside lanes are
being designed into this project.
6
Right of way was purchased in the mid-1980's for the recommended cross-section. The
City of Asheville has indicated an interest in sidewalks along Sweeten Creek Road. A cost
estimate has been sent to city officials in anticipation of the drafting of a Municipal
Agreement between Asheville and DOT.
D. Structures
This project will require the rehabilitation and widening of three bridges. The dual
I-40 bridges over US 25A and the I-40 bridge over Caribou Road will need these
widening treatments in order to accommodate the construction of auxiliary lanes for the
on and off ramps of the interchange.
Sweeten Creek, the only major stream crossing affected by this project, is located
just east of US 25A under I-40. The existing drainage structure at this crossing, a double
barrel 10' x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC), extends under both I-40 and
Crayton Road. Based on preliminary hydraulics analysis and recent field review, the
existing culvert was determined to be hydraulically adequate, and it is therefore
recommended that the culvert be retained and extended as needed to accommodate
construction of the proposed interchange. It is not anticipated that any significant channel
realignment nor modification would be needed to accommodate extension of the culvert.
The City of Asheville and Buncombe County are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The project is located in a designated flood hazard zone and
is included in a detailed study, having an established floodplain and floodway. In the
Appendix is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, on which are delineated the
established limits of the 100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of the project.
There are no buildings in the vicinity with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level.
The proposed culvert extension will not have any significant adverse affect on the existing
floodplain or floodway, nor on the associated flood hazard.
A small area of wetlands [0.006ha (0.014 ac)] was observed in the area during
recent field review. Buncombe County is in a region of the state in which trout streams
are prevalent; however, Sweeten Creek is not a designated trout stream and this stream
crossing is located above headwaters; therefore, it is anticipated that an individual
environmental permit will not be required. This project is in the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Watershed, and every effort will be made to comply with TVA
requirements to the extent practicable. The project site is not in a water supply watershed;
therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate
specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control
measures. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained, and perhaps improved, to the
extent practicable. It is anticipated that groundwater resources will not be affected,
because little, if any, excavation will be required.
7
'Hance of Tr?c
Will be maintained on I-40
oject. and LIS 25A
ailf at the Temporary e change will be constructeat an d t tImes duty
ge sites. to detour g the construction
y the use of traffic b Shifts in the traffic traffic when new
arrels and cones, temp stream will be
instituted
?f?st orary
signing, and pavement
verifiedractionconstruction cost estimate was. $ 6
100 The right of The construction '' which matched
way estimate of $200 cost includes en the
end improvements. The T ° 000 in the Tip gineering
s in the amount of als° li sts costs includes work for
1,850,000. S 2, 550, 000. This brings which have occurred in
the total estimate of cost
V. EFFECTS TO THE Eh LM 'ultural Resources
31091Cal Resources
th Carom State historic Preserv
t a comprehensive ation Office
?vities archaeological ?S 'O)
associated survey this project. ?'ey be coin
recommendation. The Division completed prior to
ial Historic Preservation Act ofhighways will These comments are made pursuant to
nation's Regulations for Co ON Section
A) and the Advi
mpliance with Section 06 Council
defied
Historical Resources
s''''ports that it is aware
4nce located within ofn° stu
ctm'es of hi
'r ofhistoric Places. Then storical
8 area that are on or eligible changes have occurred NCDOT Architectural Res for
tential eff in the des' ources
ie EA ect (APE) for historical of the project or
and FONSI of 198 s architectural
VA is required for No additional resources to
historic architectural compliance with
aural resources.
8
B. Land Use Planning
The proposed widening project is located within the City of Asheville municipal
limits. The City maintains an active planning program. Its primary policy guidance
document is its 2010 Asheville City Plan, which was completed in 1987 and updated in
1989. The City is also developing a series of corridor studies, though none of those
completed to date effect the project area. The City enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations based on the comprehensive plan. The City is working to update
its thoroughfare plan, which will also include a bikeway plan.
1. Existing Land Use
The project area supports a wide variety of land uses. Industry and
warehousing are the dominate land uses in the project area. East and west of the
project area, the mixed land uses includes churches, single family residences,
commercial and retail businesses, and additional industrial uses. Many of the
structures are located very close to the existing right-of-way. Parking areas of
many of the businesses as well as some structures will be impacted. R-Jam Sales
and Terry Enterprises are located within the proposed interchange right-of-way.
2. Existing Zoning
According to the Asheville Zoning Map, the project area is zoned HI,
Heavy Industrial on the north side of I-40, east of Caribou Road. The south side
of I-40 is zoned LI, Light Industry. The areas west of Caribou Road and east of
the Southern Railway are zoned for commercial and residential uses.
3. Future Land Use
According to the Asheville City Plan, land use in the northern portion of
the project area is to remain in industrial and commercial uses. The Sweeten
Creek Light Industrial Park is expected to expand into the southwest quadrant of
I-40 and Sweeten Creek Road. More industrial development is expected in the
project area on the south side of I-40.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects
on prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been developed, or
committed to urban development by the local governing body is exempt from the
requirements of the Act. The proposed widening is located in a previously
developed area therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
9
C. Socioeconomic Resources
Neighborhood Characteristics
Buncombe County is located in the western section of the State and is
bounded by McDowell, Henderson, Haywood, Madison, and Yancey counties.
The 1990 Census of Population indicates that Buncombe County has a total
population of 174,821, and the town of Asheville has a population of 61,607. Log
Into North Carolina (LINC) Population Projections indicates that by year 2000,
Buncombe County will have a population of 190,681.
The neighborhood of the proposed action consists of commercial
development, which is shown in Figure 2.
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (preliminary
data for August 1995) indicate that Buncombe County's Civilian Labor Force was
97,500. Out of this total, 93,800 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 3,700 or 3.8 percent.
A few businesses in the neighborhood of the proposed action will be
adversely impacted, but the proposed improvements will probably enhance and
improve the business opportunities in the vicinity for those businesses remaining in
the interchange area. The project will also improve the accessibility and visibility
to the existing businesses along Crayton Road.
3. Public Facilities
There are no public facilities along the sites of the proposed action.
4. Impacts of Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed action will require the relocation of two (2) businesses and
no residences. These businesses were purchased several years ago but have been
allowed to remain operable until the right of way acquisition phase actually begins
(currently scheduled for June, 1996).
5. Social Impacts
The proposed project will not disrupt community cohesion, and neither will
it interfere with community facilities and services. The closure of Crayton Road
will be beneficial for the residential areas to the northeast of the project area.
There are no public facilities in the project area that qualify for protection under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
10
D. Natural Resources
Introduction
a. Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. An attempt will be made to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
b. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in this pre-field investigations of the project study area
include: U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Asheville, NC),
NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project study area (1:2000) and
Natural Resources Conservation Service soils map of Buncombe County.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR
1993) and from the Environmental Base Sensitivity map of Buncombe
County (NC Center for Geographic Information Analysis 1992).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) (1995) list of protected and candidate species and from the
NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignments by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Logan Williams on
July 25, 1995. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more
of the following observational techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations
were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Cowardin et al. 1987).
11
C. Investigators' Credentials
Investigator: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: M.S. Degree Biology, Marshall University,
Huntington, WV
Expertise: Field Botany, Plant Taxonomy, Natural History
2. Physical Characteristics
Buncombe County lies in the Mountain physiographic province. The
topography is characterized by mountains and smaller hills. Swift moving streams
are often found in the valleys. The study area is 628.0 m (2060.0 ft.) above mean
sea level. Soil types and water availability directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
a. Soils
Tate-Urban Land and Evard-Urban Land soils dominate the project
area. The Tate-Urban Land complex consists of Tate soils and urban land
occurring on alluvial fans, terraces, footslopes and benches. Evard-Urban
Land soils occur on lower mountain ridges and side slopes and higher
mountain ridges of the intermountain area (USDA NRCS 1995). Table 3
summarizes the specific soil types which occur in the project study area.
Neither of these soils are included in the national and county lists of hydric
soils (USDA 1987).
TABLE 3
Soils In The Project Study Area
MAP UNIT SPECIFIC MAPPING PERCENT HYDRIC
SYMBOL UNIT SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
TmC Tate-Urban land 2-15 none
complex
EsE Evard-Urban land 15-30 none
complex
Percent slope (USDA NRCS 1995) and hydric classification (UJl)A JLJ IVY I).
b. Water Resources
Water resource information encompasses the resources relationship
to major water systems, physical aspect, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Impacts to water resources are discussed,
along with suggestions to minimize impacts.
12
b. I Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in
the French Broad River Basin. Sweeten Creek (6-78-24) is the
only stream in the project area. Sweeten Creek originates
approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi.) south of the project site and flows
into the Swannanoa River at a point 2.4 km (1.5 mi.) northwest of
the project. At the project site, Sweeten Creek is 3.0 m (10.0 ft.)
wide and 30.5 cm (1.0 ft.) deep. On the survey date, this stream
had very slow flow and no aquatic vegetation was present. The
streambed was made up of rubble and cobble-gravel.
b.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best
usage classification fot,- Class C waters
are suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture." Neither High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
mi.) of the project study area.
b.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMW
is managed by the DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. Sr?"'liecei;e,°AN
rating of poor in October 19STat a sampling station downstream
from the project site.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. No permitted dischargers are located on Sweeten
Creek.
13
b.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
The installation of culverts will cause damage to this portion
of Sweeten Creek. Physical impacts to the Sweeten Creek will be
most obvious at the point of construction. Biological impacts to
the stream are most likely to occur downstream from the area of
disturbance.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions will be taken to minimize these and other
impacts to water resources in the study area. This can be
accomplished by protecting stream bank vegetation, installing silt
fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to
preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes the flora and fauna encountered or expected within the communities
present at the project site. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications. Fauna observed during field
investigations are annotated with an asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and
common names, when applicable, are provided for each plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only.
14
a. Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area. A disturbed / maintained community was found between
SR 25A and Sweeten Creek on the south side of I-40 and in many of the
other disturbed sites throughout this urban area. A Disturbed Streamside
Forest is present along Sweeten Creek south of I-40 within the project
boundary. In addition, a very small wetland is located in the disturbed
roadside ROW along US 25A opposite its intersection with Crayton Road.
Sweeten Creek is a perennial stream flowing north through the project
area.
a.1 Disturbed/Maintained Areas
Disturbed or maintained areas are located throughout the
project area on road shoulders, in vacant fields, parking lots and
surrounding industrial buildings. These areas contain many
herbaceous species common to ruderal environments such as fescue
(Festuca V.), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum),
lance-leaved plantain (Planta¢o lanceolata), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera 'a onica , dandelion (Taraxacum officinale poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), sericea (Lespedeza caaneata), red clover
(Trifolium rap tense), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), chickory
(Cichorum in bus), goldenrod Solid o sp,.p.), Deptford pink
(Dianthus armeria , bull thistle (Cirsium pumilum), woolgrass
Sci us cvuerinus), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), silvergrass
(Miscanthus sinensis). Few woody species have the opportunity to
grow in areas that are continually maintained. Princess tree
(Paulownia tomentosa , mimosa (Albizzia 'ulibrissin , flowering
dogwood Corpus florida) and elderberry Sambucus canadensis
were the only trees and shrubs recorded in these disturbed areas.
Various insects such as the short horned grasshopper
(Family Acrididae) frequent road shoulders as they forage on
vegetation. Few larger animals are likely to use this area for
foraging due to its urban location. Least shrews (Cryptotis parva),
Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), the hispid cotton rat Si odon
ln'spidus) and the eastern cottontail S lvila s floridanus are some
mammal species likely to inhabit the grassy areas of this disturbed
community. Many of the bird species observed or heard in the
Disturbed Streamside Forest (section 3.1.2) may also be found in
disturbed areas. One might also expect to find eastem garter
snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) or black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta)
in this habitat.
15
a.2 Disturbed Streamside Forest
This streamside community is dominated by sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) and
sugar maple (Acer saccharum) in the canopy. Climbing bittersweet
(Celestrus scandens) and grape (Vitis §p) were vining high into the
canopy. Shrubby species encountered include autumn olive
(Elea us umbellata) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Japanese honeysuckle and poison ivy were two other very common
vines. Herbaceous species included white clover (Trifolium
rap tense), horse-nettle (Solanum carohnense), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), touch-me-not (ImQatiens gV nsis),
- t erfoliatum) and
curly dock (Rnmex crispus), beaesgt (E ?a orium. P _
tall goldenrod (Solidaao altissima).
Mammal species that could inhabit this streamside forest
include Virginia opossum (Didelphis viana), Southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), Eastern chipmunk* (Tamias striatus)
and gray squirrel (Sciurus carohnensis). Avian species observed or
heard during the site visit include: rufous-sided towhee* i ilo
ervthrohthalmus), American robin (Turdus mi ag torius), American
crow* Corvus brach?rhynchos), European starling* (Stumus
vulgaris) and song sparrow* (Melospiza melodia). Amphibian
species that may be present along the stream include American toad
(Bufo americanus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog*
(Rana alustris . Garter and black rat snakes could also inhabit tbis
community.
a.3 Mountain Perennial Stream
Sweeten Creek is a tributary of the Swannanoa River and
drains part of southeast Asheville. At the point where Sweeten
Creek crosses SR 1560, the banks of Sweeten Creek are relatively
steep, rising approximately 0.9 m (3.0 ft.) to 1.2 m (4.0 ft.) above
the water surface. 1? Aer quality seemed poor and little aquatic life
Was,,found. . However, a pumpkinseed (Leoomis ibgt, bosus) along
with a dusky salamander (Desmognathus sp.) was found in Sweeten
Creek.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
the ecosystems effected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here as well.
16
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance's of each community at the project site. Project construction
will result in the clearing and degradation of portions of these communities.
Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are
derived using a ROW width of 18.3 m. (60.0 ft).
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting,
feeding and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Although the current
roadside disturbed areas will most likely be destroyed, similar areas will be
created during the interchange construction. Habitat reduction
concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some
species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Impacts to the Mountain Perennial Stream will mainly result from the
interchange construction.
TABLE 4
Anticipated Impacts To Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY INTER CRAYTON US 25A TOTAL
TYPE CHANGE ROAD WIDENING I M PACTS
Disturbed/Maintained 1.23(3.05) 0.27(0.68) 0.33(0.80) 1.83(4.53)
Area
Disturbed Streamside 0.16(0.41) 0.22(0.54) 0.00(0.00) 0.38(0.95)
Forest
Mountain Perennial 0. 14(0.34) 0:00(0.00) 0.00(0.00) 0.14(0.34)
Stream
TOTAL IMPACTS 1.53 3.80 0.49 1.22 0.33(0.80) 1 2.35 5.82
Values are given in hectares (acres).
4. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues: Waters of the United States and Protected and
Rare Species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined Section 33 of the
Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
17
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill material
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344).
a. I Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands
include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. A delineation was not performed during the site visit
bux t US 25A atAhe
intersection of Crayton Road` The dominant hydrophytic plants are
cattail (Typha latifolia). Needle rush (Juncus effusus), spikerush
(Eleocharis 5p.) and smartweeds (Polvuonum spp.) are also present.
A soil color of 5YR 4/2 which is indicative of hydric soils was
observed in this wetland. Two hydrologic indicators of wetlands
present include oxidized-root.,thannels sand water,stmned leaves.
a.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Due to its close proximity to US 25A, widening this portion
of the road to five lanes will destroy a small wetland. This wetland
received a ° . ` rating of 21 and covgs a small area approximately
0.006-ha ,(0v414Fac) in size.
a.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are
anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a Nationwide permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." However, the final permit decision
rests with the COE. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. Since the proposed project is located in a designated
"trout" county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the
COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resources
Commission. This project will require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide
Permit [NWT 33 CFR 3305 (A) (26)].
18
a.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time
and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance. Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate
and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. The widening of 25A in the vicinity of this proposed
interchange will potentially impact one small wetland. This wetland
cannot be avoided due to the steep terrain on the west side of US
25A, which rises 100 feet or more above the road and which would
require extensive excavation.
Minimization. Minimization includes the examination of
appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to
Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. The project will be
designed to minimize wetland loss to the maximum extent
practicable.
Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is
not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all
19
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge
site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
TABLE 5
Federally-Protected ' -Yer Buncombe n
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E* No
Felis concolor
var. cou ar eastern cougar E* No
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern flying
var. coloratus squirrel E No
Geum radiatum spreading avers E No
Gvmnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen E No
Sa ig ttari a fasciculata bunched arrowhead E* No
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. 'off nesii pitcher-plant E* No
Sviraea vireinian a Virginia spiraea T No
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout an or a significant pomon 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).
b. Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man.
Federal law, under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended, requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
b.l Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
20
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section ^ and Section
9 of the ESA. Table 5 lists eight federally-protected species for
Buncombe County as of 28 March 1995. An asterisk (*) indicates
that no specimen has been found in Buncombe County in 20 years.
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Animal Family:
Date Listed:
Distribution in N
(Appalachian elktoe) E
Unionidae
September 3, 1993
C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood,
Macon, Mitchell, Swain,
Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to
8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (Kidney-shaped).
The periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color,
while juveniles have a yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of
the Can 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
Sweeten Creek which flows through the project site is a
tributary of the Swannanoa River which is then a tributary of the
French Broad River. The Appalachian elktoe is not known to
occur in the Swannanoa or French Broad Rivers. Therefore, this
project is not likely to have an effect on the Appalachian elktoe.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) E
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: June 4, 1973
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret,
Haywood, Montgomery,
Onslow, Swain, Yancey.
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
21
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
This project is located in a heavily developed industrial area
within the city of Asheville. There are no large remote wilderness
areas nearby, therefore, this project is not expected to effect the
eastern cougar.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: July 1, 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, McDowell,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania,
Watauga, Yancey.
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 flips and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flyhIg
squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal
with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying
squirrel in the western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee
border. This squirrel is found above 1517 m (5000 ft.) in the
vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous
forests. Both forest types are used to search for food and the
hardwood forest is used for nesting sites.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project is located at 628 m (2060 ft.) elevation which is
well below the elevation this species is typically found at. This
project will not have an impact on the Carolina flying squirrel.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
22
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an
indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers.
Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately
compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than
the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and
Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations of this plant have
been found at elevations of 1535-1540 m (5040-5080 ft.),
1723-1747 m (5680-5760 ft) and 1759 m (5800 ft.). Other habitat
requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic
soils. These soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus,
sandy loam, sand loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers
on rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This species has not been found at elevations as low as the
elevation of the project site [628 m (2060 ft.)]. Project
construction is not likely to impact spreading avens.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) PE
Plant Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell,
Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania,
Yancey.
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its fruiting
bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are
found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock
gnome lichen occurs from July through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to
areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments occur on
high elevation (> 1220 m/4000 ft.) mountain tops 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
23
moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat
of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These
coniferous forests usually he adjacent to the habitat occupied by the
rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the
counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson,
Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower
elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the
counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Rock gnome liclien is another high elevation species found
above 120 m (4000 ft.). The only known populations from lower
elevations occur on cliff faces in areas of high humidity. This highly
developed area does not contain suitable habitat for rock gnome
lichen. Therefore, the construction of this project is not likely to
impact this species.
Sagittaria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: July 25, 1979
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb.
It has spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant. The
erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on it, the
male being above the female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are
present from April to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs
with a slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water, underlain by a
clay layer. In these bogs water temperatures are variable, soil and
water pHs are between 4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant.
These plants occur naturally in shaded sites, but populations also
occur in unshaded areas. These populations have smaller, less
vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as sandy loams below a
muck layer ranging in depth from 25-60 cm (6-12 in.).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bunched arrowhead occurs in gently sloping bogs, none of
which occur within the project site. This project is not likely to
impact this species.
24
Sarracenia rubra var. jonsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect and in
clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet shaped, almost
tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull
green color and reticulately veined with maroon-purple. The inside
of the pitchers is retrorsely haired and usually partia?ly filled with
liquid and decaying insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are
borne singly on erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers
are present during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and
streams in southwestern North carolina and northwestern South
Carolina. The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain
bogs and along streamsides. This habitat is characterized by deep,
poorly drained wetlands with soils that are combinations of loam,
sand, and silt, with a high organic content and medium to highly
acidic pH. Sites are intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant
is an early successional plant that relies on drought, water
fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant occurs in mountain bogs and
along streamsides. There are no bogs located within the project
boundaries however Sweeten Creek does flow through the project
site. A plant by plant survey at the site revealed no mountain
sweet pitcher plants. It is not likely that this project will impact this
species.
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.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from
one to three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grows in dense
clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size, shape,
and degree of serration. They are green above and usually
25
somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers are present
from June to July and occur in branched, flat-topped 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 features of lower reaches. The
scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme
enough to completely remove small, woody species. This species
occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with
various other disturban-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
Sweeten Creek does flow through the project site but it is
not considered a high gradient stream. However, plant by plant
surveys were made along this stream and no Virginia spiraea plants
were found. It is not likely that this project will have an impact on
this species.
b.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 23 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Buncombe County. Federal candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient
data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or
Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State ESA and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species' state and
federal status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species
in the project study area. This list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the
future. The table gives indications as to whether or not specific
habitat likely to support this species was found at the survey site.
26
TABLE 6
Federal Candidate Species From Buncombe County, NC
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABITAT STATUS
Myotis subulatus leibii Eastern small-footed bat Yes Sc
Sorex alp ustris punctulatus Southern water shrew No Sc
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler No SR
Clemmvs muhlenbersii bog turtle No T
Cryptobranchus alleea Hellbender No Sc
niensis
Percina macrocephala* longhead darter Sc
Cambarus reburrus French Broad stream crayfish Yes WC
Ph, ciy odes batesil tawny crescent butterfly No SR
S12evria dana Diana fritillary butterfly Yes SR
Buckley distichophylla piratebush No E
Calamagrrostis cainii Cain's reedgrass No E
Euphorbia u urea Wolf s milk spruge No C
Hexas lis contracts mountain heartleaf No E
Hexa5Vlis rhombiformis French Broad heartleaf No C
Ju ans cinerea butternut Yes W5
Juncus trifidus carolinianus one flowered rush No E
Lilium gra3d Gray's lily No T-SC
vsimachia fraseri*
L Fraser's loosestrife Yes E
_
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap No C
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnately-lobed brown-eyed Yes C
pinnatiloba sunflower
Saxifrasa caroliniana Gray's saxifrage No C
Silene ovata mountain catchfly No C
Senecio millefolium divided-leaf ragwort No T
7 status was assigned from LeGrand et al. (1993) and Weakley (1993). An asterisk (*) indicates that no
specimen has been found in Buncombe County in 20 years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
E. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
This project is located in Buncombe County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. An
air quality project level CO analysis was performed in compliance with the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) using Mobile 5A and CAL3QHC for the years of 2000 and
2020. It was determined that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (1-hour
standard of 35 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9ppm) would not be exceeded.
27
The project proposes the construction of a partial clover interchange on the east
side of US 25A. US 25A and several structures along I-40 will be widened in the
interchange area. Also, Crayton Road will be terminated east of the Southern Railway and
realigned on the westside of the tracks to serve businesses. A "worst case" scenario was
used in dealing with traffic noise predictions in the vicinity of the project. No receptors
are predicted to experience a traffic noise impact by either approaching or exceeding the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or experiencing a substantial traffic noise
increase. Noise levels are expected to increase in the order of 2-4 dBA by the Design
Year of 2020 if the construction occurs. If the project is not constructed, noise levels are
expected to increase in the order of 2-3 dBA by the Design Year of 2020.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done 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 for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
F. GeoenvironmentalImpacts
Geology
a. Physiography, Relief and Drainage
The study corridor is located in the Blue Ridge physiographic
province. The topography is characterized by a central plateau of
moderate relief (the Asheville Plateau), surrounded by mountains.
Elevations along the project corridor generally range from 2010 to 2100
feet above mean sea level. The area is drained by Sweeten Creek which
enters the Swannanoa River.
b. Geology and Soils
The geologic map of North Carolina (1985) depicts the geology in
this area as consisting of the Ashe Metamorphic Suite, characterized by
muscovite-biotite gneiss interlayed and gradational with mica schist, minor
amphilobite, and hornblende gneiss. Alluvial soils overlying the rock are
classified as the Chewacla Silt Loam. Soils within the project corridor are
strongly acidic and low in organic matter. These soils are composed of
AASHTO Soil Classification A-4 and A-2 with minor layers of A-3 and A-
7. Surface runoff is usually slow and the interior drainage is rapid.
Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources of economic significance
known to be present within the vicinity of the proposed corridor.
28
d. Erosion Control
Best Management Practices will be strictly adhered to during
construction of this project to control sediment runoff.
e. Groundwater
The water-holding capacity for the soil is low, but the water table is
generally fairly shallow. Groundwater across the project area generally
occurs at depths of 4 to 8 feet below the ground surface.
2. Hazardous Materials Evaluation
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
The field reconnaissance survey located only one facility that could
have an environmental impact on the project. The former Perry Alexander
Construction Company site located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of US 25A (Sweeten Creek Road) and Crayton Road. For the
last few years, the site has been under remediation and monitored by the
NCDOT Geotechnical Unit as instructed by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). Approximately 450 cubic yards of petroleum
contaminated soils were removed from the property. The NCDOT
Geotechnical Unit has been sampling the groundwater (groundwater
incident #6496) on a quarterly basis as per DEM's mandate.
Contamination levels have been declining throughout the monitoring
program.
Based on the most recent sample results, the NCDOT Geotechnical
Unit does not anticipate the project to be delayed due to environmental
impacts from this property. Prior to construction, the five (5) monitoring
wells at the site will have to be abandoned.
b. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geological Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated
landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits. Based on the field
reconnaissance and records search, no other sites were located which could
potentially impact this project.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
It is anticipated the proposed construction of the I40 interchange at US 25A
(Sweeten Creek Road) and improvements to US 25A and Crayton Road will not result in
significant adverse impacts on the environment. The improvements now proposed for this
29
project are the same as indicated in the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact, signed in 1984. The entire project has been reevaluated and the
original Finding of No Significant Impact remains valid. No further environmental studies
or documentation is required.
RLB/plr
APPENDIX A FIGURES
i

II
BILTMORE
VILL AGE
ism
ti -?. _ _ _ I ?? • ? ^% s ; \? X37'-7
OTEEN
G
1
.II ]•^?? _-• • 1 r? VETS C? 72
70 xaoi • .. -. / 1 I. ADM. ?? • x
FAG
• 1
r
i i
E3 ASHEVILLE
© svi7
a x 2?
POP. 57,681 ......... :;:..::
? t •i` 2P9i
lal
1? to '?+ roof ?0 73# 12
ro P
sa F.u
j .0"s - ? f
C O v xIa7 ? ~
O ,10 \ 1i ?AfONO?.
I i21.! 2t1..°, I
LAxO 701
J ? o?'ay
? KENILWORTH
• ? , ? ??? ? x>7•J? ?
? ! o
S `
` ~ 11
1',!13 Se?4n l.r
A?AD?r
777. 10
PROPOSED
INTERCHANGE
LOCATION
if
a
itl2
A&IWI t ?MMOPM
x Iecin.Fio...?
Pat[

LT
FOREST
POP. 1,298 a111O
el
E
i
5 1
1
1
2z r " ?E
24L -r0
?O
/ 7071
^ti ? 'JG ali
2912 n
N
.o >•1
$Wwq
Von"
Sa.g7
• xsl
272]
? I
-c

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE OF I-40
AND US 25A (SWEETEN CREEK RD)
BUNCOMBE CO., T.I.P. NO. I-100
O feet 4000

.3
a`
n ? a
/ br 4
r ?
r t
F
Wi; 179
Al

_ 'b , d
WW?
H
in
rn
C1
rl
4-
N
N
Q
0
N
?Q 1
V
0
?s
0
o
N
9 51 ' 9.
X5,2
o'
r? s
J
0
0
9
N
0
o
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
M

Z F
•z G
° C
c
` z
< N v O x w

°
Q O
zo3w V
Z
O< ?
s ?, Z
...y?ZV ^ h C
z<>ee n
m N O
? <

ZEOis
n ?Z
O 7 X z
q
z m
O a G

v,
N
?N
O
s
N
O
C-
Q`
Qls*
O?
O
? O
O ?
9
O ?

o?
r

Oq
N
H
O
N
O
N
a)
O
Q
O
N
?Q
O?
0
0
0 5
0
gr v
O
M
n
• op
0
s
N O
S ?
O ?y
9
?? o S
0
9
0
O
O
c}'
0
O
O
o?
kA
0

O
0
r

? > ?
y
a ez
:: _
z a
u
' ^ z
Z z
z < z ? o
o?? ?
- _c
<mC? ?: F3?
VsZZ' .r Z
^ Z
t- ZViyZ

c
? C N
c
3
cd
_cc
ZFG0. 0
M z x
(?
?? G? 5 Z A
v 0. <
L
L
10
43
Q
M
0
in
s
cl
in
o
s?
0
9 cc
O
9
APPENDIX 6 LETTERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
5W A
P.O. BOX 1890 1
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
?-- ATTENTION OF December 6, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID 199600505
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your November 1, 1995 request for our comments on the proposed
Interchange of I-40 and U.S. 25A, Sweeten Creek Road, in Asheville, Buncombe
County, North Carolina (TIP No. I-100).
From the limited information provided for our review, it appears that
the project will likely involve impacts to Sweeten Creek. The project site is
located approximately one mile upstream of the headwaters point on Sweeten
Creek. Therefore, any requests for Department of the Army permits pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for excavation or fill activities
impacting Sweeten Creek will be processed under Nationwide permit No. 26.
NCDOT should attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United
States during the planning and design of the interchange.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed interchange
project. If you have any questions please contact David Baker in our
Asheville office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert W. Johnson
Office Manager

DEC 0 5 1995 ;..
H1G;1`r: y P,
? FNVIRON??
B-1
i
?MgHT OF Th
N O
?4gCH 33 ?Ba
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 13, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Caroiir;a Department of Transportaticn
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
G?V E p'
o`? ?oF co
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping for proposed interchange at I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten
Creek Road), Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina,
T.I.P. No. I-100
In your letter of November 1, 1995, you requested information regarding
potential environmental impacts that could result from the subject
project for your use in the preparation of an environmental document.
The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the conversion of the existing grade separation of I-40 and
US 25A to a half-clover interchange and the construction of access loops
and ramps. Additionally, US 25A will be widened to five lanes within the
interchange area. As you know, the Service provided comments on the
proposed widening of US 25A (T.I.P. No. 2801B), which this project will
tie into, and is familiar with the project area.
The enclosed two pages identify federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Buncombe County that may occur within the
area of influence of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration.
The enclosed pages also contain a list of other species of Federal
concern that are currently under status review by the Service which may
occur in the project impact area. These species are not legally
protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response
to give you advance notification. The presence or absence of these
species in the project impact area should be addressed in any
environmental document prepared for this project.
B-2
Additionally, the Service's review of the environmental document would be
greatly facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any areas,
such as borrow areas, that may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed road improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be filled as a
consequence of the proposed road improvements. Wetlands
affected by the proposed project s Koufid be mapped in accordance
with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be
eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts, etc.) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) A discussion about the extent to which the project will result
in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat,
from direct construction impacts and from secondary development
impacts.
(9) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-96-015.
Sinr y
i
icha Biggins
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosure
B-3
cc:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
6-4
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-96-015
PAGE 1 OF 2
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES:
MAMMALS
Carolina ncIthern flying squirrel (Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus) -
Endangered
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cou uar) - Endangered*
CLAMS
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Endangered*
PLANTS
Mountain sweet pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra var.
joi nesii) - Endangered*
Bunched arrowhead (Sa4ittaria fasciculata) - Endangered*
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) - Endangered
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) - Endangered
Virginia spiraea (S piraea virginiana) - Threatened
OTHER SPECIES OF FEDERAL CONCERN:
MAMMALS
Eastern small-footed bat (Mvotis subulatus leibii)
Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus)
Southern Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma floridana haematoreia)
BIRDS
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemm s muhlenber4ii)
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender (Cryotobranchus alleQaniensis)
FISHES
Longhead darter (Percina macroceohala)*
CRUSTACEANS
French Broad stream crayfish (Cambarus reburrus)
INSECTS
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana)
Eastern beard grass skipper (Atrvone aro os aro4os)
Tawny crescent butterfly (Phvciodes batesi)
B-5
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-96-015
PAGE 2 OF 2
PLANTS
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis)
Butternut (Jualans nigra)
Gray's lily (Lilium r4 avi)
Cain's reedgrass (Calama4rostis cainii)
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana)
Divided leaf ragwort (Senecio millefolium)
Mountain catchfly (Silene ovata)
Fraser's loosestrife (Lvsimachia fraseri)*
Mountain heartleaf (Hexastvlis contracta)
*Indicates no specimen from Buncombe County in at least 20 years.
B-6

t ?
Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 West Summa Hill Drive. Knoxville. Tennessee 37902-1499 G
4
V
November 9, 1995
o? .G ? 1995
N
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager GN G?
Planning and Environmental Branch
'?ti N?GNW ?'
North Car Aa Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 ?& ENVIFI?N
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE OF I-40 AND US 25A (SWEETEN CREEK ROAD), BUNCOMBE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, FEDERAL AID PROJECT I-40-1(85)51, STATE
PROJECT NO. 8.1909315, T.I.P. NO. I-100
TVA has received the scoping notice on the proposed new interchange at
I-40 and US 25A. If bridges or culverts across Sweeten Creek are part
of the firs= design of the interchange, these structures may require
an approve.` -zder section 26a of the TVA Act.
The following are typical conditions that TVA attaches to Section 26a
approvals for new bridges and culverts. The document may wish to
include these as mitigation measures:
1. Best Management and Best Engineering Practices will be used to
prevent the introduction of soil or any other pollutants into
surface or groundwaters, including but not limited to the following:
a. Installing cofferdams and/or silt control structures between
construction areas and the streams prior to any
soil-disturbing demolition/construction activity, and
clarifying all water that is trapped or accumulates behind
these devices to meet water quality criteria before it is
returned to the stream. Cofferdams must be used wherever
construction activity is at below water elevation.
b. Removing demolition product °:d construction by-products from
the site for recycling, if :..-::ticable, or proper disposal
outside of a 100-year floodpiain.
c. Minimizing removal of vegetation.
d. Keeping equipment out of streams (i.e., performing work "in
the dry").
e. Keeping equipment off stream banks to the degree practicable.
B-7
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Page 2
November 9, 1995
f. Using erosion control structures around any material stockpile
areas.
g. Removing, redistributing, and stabilizing (with vegetation)
all sediment which accumulates behind cofferdams and silt
control structures.
h. Using vegetation (versus shot rock or riprap) wherever
practicable and sustainable, to stabilize streambanks and
floodplain areas. These areas will be stabilized as soon as
practicable, using either an appropriate seed mixture that
includes an annual (quick cover) as well as 1 or 2 perennial
legumes and 1 or 2 perennial grasses, or equivalent sod. In
certain periods of the year, this will require initial
planting of a quick cover annual only, to be followed by
subsequent establishment of the perennials. Seed and soil
will be protected as appropriate with erosion control netting
and/or mulch, and provided adequate moisture. Streambank and
floodplain areas will also be permanently stabilized with
native woody plants, to include trees wherever practicable and
sustainable and consistent with other regulatory agency
specifications.
i. Applying clean/shaken riprap or shot rock (where needed at
water/bank interface) over a water permeable/soil impermeable
fabric or geotextile and in such a manner as to avoid stream
sedimentation or disturbance.
j. Avoiding spilling concrete, or other substances or materials,
into the streams.
k. Designing/constructing any instream piers in such a manner as
to discourage river scouring or sediment deposition.
1. Bank, shoreline, and floodplain stabilization will be
permanently maintained in order to prevent erosion, protect
water quality, and preserve aquatic habitat.
M. Culverts are constructed in phases, and adequate streambank
protection measures are employed, such that the diverted
streamflow is handled without creating streambank or streambed
erosion/sedimentation and without preventing fish passage.
2. Culverts (and any culvert extensions) must allow for the creation
and maintenance of natural streambed substrate, or natural
substrate and pool areas, throughout the culvert; and must
create/maintain velocities and flow patterns which offer refuge
for fish and other aquatic life, and allow passage of indigenous
fish species under all flow conditions. Where new culverts are
planned, or where existing culverts are to be extended, culvert
floors (bottom slabs) must be buried at least one foot below
natural streambed grade, and natural streambed material placed on
the culvert floor.
B-8
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Page 3
November 9, 1995
3. All natural stream values (including equivalent energy
dissipation, elevations, and velocities; riparian vegetation;
riffle/pool sequencing; habitat suitable for fish and other
aquatic life) must be provided at all stream modification sites.
This must be accomplished using a combination of rock and
bioengineering, and is not accomplished using solid, homogeneous
r prap €rem bank to bank.
A hydraulic analysis of effects of the project on the base (100-year)
flood elevation will need to be submitted for 26a review and approval
for all bridges crossing streams with a drainage area of one square
mile or greater.
TVA looks forward to reviewing the environmental document prepared for
this project. Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M.
Draper at [phone].
Sincerely,
?r
Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
B-9
TA7Z
v
A?
Owan .+??a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improve interchange of 1-40 and US 25A,
Buncombe County, 1-100, Federal Aid
Project 1-40-1(85)51, State Project
8.1909315, 96-E-4220-0338
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Gil V,?
?Cr

We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We previously recommended that a comprehensive archaeological survey be
conducted prior to construction activities associated with this project. Our
recommendation remains the same at this time.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. Therefore,
we recommend that no architectural survey be conducted for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
reservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
H. F. Vick
B. Church
B-10
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
12-14-95
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N.C- DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN. S ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERCHANGE OF I-40 AND
US 25A (SWEETEN CREEK RD.) TIP #I-100
SAI NO 96E42200338 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
)/ E p
C.C. REGION B
O .;?S?Ga(r::
ENUtR
/ _
G
?' 1 ? X995
?C
B-11
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMO
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee e
Environmental Review Coordinator
,?WA
L74 0
EDEHNR
RE: Scoping - Improvements to Interchange I-40 and Sweeten Creek Road #96-0338
DATE: December 12, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:jr
Attachments

DEC
•.? 2:.j
N.C. STATE CLEA,gr ?!G? ?? rc,?
B-12
I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North 'Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COUNTS
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr.- ::i retary
.Project Number:/ L}j3? County:
ECEIIfED.
DEHNR
MV I4
rces
?D QUALITY SECTION
Director
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
eodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey offic/ee at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
r
T`;.is project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-! disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed....
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
io (/ 11111Z/96-
Reviewer Date
B-13
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 0 1 , [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
MEMORANDUM
C) FE F=1
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 16, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester 15?tz
SUBJECT: DOT EA Re-evaluation of Proposed Interchange of I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek Road) in
Buncombe County
PROJECT: #96-0338 and TIP #I-100
DUE DATE: 12-1-95
It appears this project will impact some woodland. The EA should address the following:
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of forest production as
a result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within the proposed
project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material that is to be
removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy chips. If wood products cannot
be sold, then efforts should made to haul the material off or run through a tub grinder and turned into mulch. This
practice is encouraged to accomplish the following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on the highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public.
d. Reduce smoke particles which can cause more fog to cover the highway when fog may not have formed
otherwise.
If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and
construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction
limits should be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that area.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
B-14
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ??.
Division of Environmental Management •?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary [D E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee,Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FRONT: Monica Swih-art,' Wat-er Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #96-0338; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Interchange of I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek
Road),TIP# I-100, French Broad River Basin 04-03-02
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Wil permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed. DEM recommends that no weep holes be
installed in bridges that drain directly into surface
waters.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts.
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetland: impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
B-15
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
December 7, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
11108.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
B-16
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Jay Robinson, Chairman
Department of Public Instruction
l _ Bob Etheridge, State Superintendent
November 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: State Project No. 8.19093 15, TIP No. I-100
Federal Aid Project No. I40-1(85)51
Enclosed is the response from Buncombe County to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
VV E
4G
v1s, 2
J?vv
tiiNG ? E dV?R???
B-17
301 N. Wilmington Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
An Equal Opportunity/AffiirmativeAction Employer
Buncombc County Public Schools
Transportation Department
74 Washington Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Phone: [phone] -Fax: [phone]
November 13, 1995
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief, School Planning
Public Schools of North Carolina
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERCHANGE OF 140 AND US25A (SWEETEN CREEK
ROAD), BUNCOMBE COUNTY, F.A. PROJECT I40-1(85)51, STATE
PROJECT NO. 8.1909315, T.I.P. NO. I-100
Dear Mr. Knott:
The above captioned subject is highly desirable and much needed.
It will be beneficial to the Buncombe County School System. If
you need any further information, please give me a call.
Kindest regards,
mes R. McCanless
Director of Transportation
cc: Dr. J. Frank Yeager, Superintendent
Buncombe County Schools
B-18
LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL
2 5 H E R I T A G E D R I V E - A S H E V I L L E. NORTH CAROLINA 2 8805
TELEPHONE (704)25 1 • 6 6 2 2 - FAX [phone]
Regional Clearinghouse
N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
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 corr...°ent on this proposed action, complete this form and return it with your
comments to this office by /a 9.5 . Comments received after this date cannot be included in our
response 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 Jean Sluder at 251-6622 as soon as possible. An extension of
the review period may be possible.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application Identifier (below) is a
funding proposal review. Comments should focus on the acceptability or unacceptability of the
project. Projects with an "E" in the identifier are environmental or site reviews. Comments for
these projects should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection process.
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier # 96-•C =a?c%-G33? Regional No.
Commenter's Name Robert E. Shepherd Title Executive Director
Representing Land-of-Sky Regional Council board
(local government) .
Address 25 Heritage Drive
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone [phone] Date November 29. 1995
Comment (or attach): Presented to Council at its meeting on November 29.
No comment was given.
SERVING REGION B: BUNCOMBE. HENDERSON. MADISON S TRANSYL:lANIA COUNTIES
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
B-19
Melba McGee
December 7, 1995
Page 2
RECEIVED
DEC 12 1995
E"ONMENTAL SCIENCES
." I
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
11108.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary r'Z
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
LL,
FROM: Monica Swihart,,Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #96-0338; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Interchange of I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek
Road),TIP# I-100, French Broad River Basin 04-03-02
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current..
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed. DEM recommends that no weep holes be
installed in bridges that drain directly into surface
waters.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts.
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

4aN d ? n?Q
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration `
FROM: . Franklin Vick P. E. Manager
1
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Proposed Interchange of I-40 and US 25A (Sweeten Creek
Road), Buncombe County, F. A. Project I-40-1(85)51, State
Project No. 8.1909315, T.I.P. No. I-100
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways is
reevaluating proposed improvements to I-40 and US 25A in Asheville. The
project is included in the 1996-2002 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1996 and
construction in fiscal year 1997.
This project involves converting the existing grade separation of I-40
and US 25A to a half-clover interchange, constructing access loops and ramps
in the northeast and southeast quadrants. In addition, US 25A will be
widened to a five-lane, 59-foot curb and gutter facility within the
interchange area. Both I-40 bridges over US 25A and the westbound bridge
over Caribou Road will be widened to accommodate the accel/decel lanes.
Crayton Road will be realigned and cut off just east of the Southern Railway
crossing, thereby providing needed access to businesses from US 25A and
eliminating busy truck and automobile traffic through Crayton Road
neighborhoods to the north of the project area.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Reevaluation of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
December 8, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
RECEIVED
NOV 6 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Nomember 1, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning
Richard L. Brewer, P. E., Project Planning
[phone], Extension 212.
HFV/plr
the project, please contact
Engineer, of this Branch at
Attachment
:%3 f

70 740

gjo
ip •
s 149.. tq
`?...
'^;'t;:
1::1 - 694
O ?
70 +
'
ASHEVILLE {
1144
` 25
POP. 57,681

•f? ?? .o7ae

. -111! u
•?O . 0
LAKE n
'v
? s KENILWORTH

BILTMORE
VILLAGE ,
7774 ?%
PROPOSED
INTERCHANGE
LOCATION
im
,,?' :BILTMORE <'>

25
FOREST

r POP. 1,298 5"
,r,µ...
l.?.
Branch

t.\S 3141
?
1 0

a

3461
Ma
1j a :' •:::Y V ;p
{
1 ..
G
46..3•
'tS I
t
k?VErs l
•``•i??'PAC.': •',134. I ?` ! 136° 331
o:':,•'? "'''•?,ir v '1491 1
x \
7 \?2 0 `. ,? .7S 2404
2 II .25 .7 1
?• v,'•:3:::,'?' ntip
• p
aa1 n
.20
{: A
70 1W v
:i?RSnA J 1.? 7 a '
.n...i 2767.1 A e 99,..
\•r. o
::'d 17sa
A&4&W MIIMpPAL 40
6! A 91CMATKWLL 44! 26 i
7 ` to PARK
N
611.6
O
s
z!s
?J
73 f '_
1474 ^ '•16 \ \
J
t' 's
0
e
1 f/ W
15 f ? 6U56@ eBffvot
f `c:,.::.;.,? `• t0 1116. 36
3zr'
_ .19 UA
3
LINE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
(*PBRANCH
FIGURE 1- if UNITY MAP
140 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
AT US 25A
ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
TIP NO. 1-100

RECEIV
DEC 13? 1994
604 ?mvll?olva? sc$?c,d
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for I-40 and US 25A Proposed
Interchange in Asheville, Buncombe County, State
Project No. 8.1909315, TIP No. I-100
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" , as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for January 12, 1995 at 3:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Richard Brewer, Project Planning Engineer,
RLB/pl r O ?C)?7?
Attachment 561iejo 6( - C
of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
at 733-7842.
4 - 7f- 2-?
( A? ,

NO

DESIC-114 Q11441
RECL"iVED FILE
NOV 14 1994
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET Co
E.Si
40
Date 11/10/94
Revision Date ?" -- "
Project Development Stage-,
Programming
Planning X -
Design
TIP # I-100
Project # 8.1909315
F.A. Project # I-40-1(85)51
Division 13
County BUNCOMBE
Route(s) I-40 & US 25A
Functional Classification US 25A - URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL
Length N/A (INTERCHANGE AREA)
Purpose of Project: TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ACCESS FROM I-40 TO
EXISTING AND FUTURE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON
US 25A THEREBY ALLEVIATING THE TRAFFIC BURDEN CARRIED BY US
25 AND OTHER SURROUNDING ROADS.
Description of Project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: CONSTRUCT A HALF-CLOVER INTERCHANGE, WITH
RAMPS IN THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS, WIDEN US 25A
TO A FIVE-LANE CURB AND GUTTER SECTION WITHIN THE INTERCHANGE
AREA; WIDEN THE DUAL I-40 BRIDGES OVER US 25A; RELOCATE
CRAYTON ROAD.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: REEVALUATION
Environmental study scheduler IN PROGRESS - OCTOBER 95
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes ! No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid?

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full X Partial - None
Number of Interchanges 1 Grade Separations 2
Stream Crossings 0
Typical Section:
Existing (US 25A): 2 LANES, 20' W/ GRASS SHOULDERS.
Proposed (US 25A): 5 LANES 64' FACE-TO-FACE CURB & GUTTER
Traffic (ADT): [not vet furnished]
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed (US 25A): 55 MPH
(Interchange - direct ramps): 55 MPH
(Interchange - loop ramps): 45 MPH
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . $
Right of Way (including relocation,
utilities, and acquisition) . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . $
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . $
1995-2001 TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,100, 000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200 , 000
Prior Years Cost . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,550, 000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE . . . . $ 8.850 .000
-Page 2-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement,
which could affect cost or schedule or project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
--Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3 i8 Boo,--
-
Milling & Recyling. . . . . . . . . . . $ ?
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Shoulders
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Earthwork . . . . . , . . . . . .
9S 900. -?
. . . $ J/
_ Subsurface items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
_
Drainage (list any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . .. I
. . .
. . . $
Structures
_
_ Bridge Rehab . . . . . . .
ler
?
)
` . . . $ 75F, g 2 6.
?c
?A
;
.
New Bridge. $ ?1
Remove Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
New Culvert . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50% 2v m.
_ Culvert Extension . . . . . . . .
_ Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . $
, . . $ 28 ?'
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other Misc. . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- Concrete Curb and Gutter. . . . . . . . . . $ /o Z Z2 o.
_ Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
- Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ o o. ?-
Fencing
W.w .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5, bar
Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2v?o, yea,
Signing
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
?or?o, -
. . . $ 14,6
Upgraded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 70{Dno,?
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . $
_ RR Signals
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revi sed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With/without arms . . . . . . . . . . . $
-Page 3-
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Init. Date Init. Date
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engr. Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality DEHNR
(Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineering.)
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or
scoping, note your proposed revisions or comments here:
-Page 5-

va
d v,..Y.h

n
S -
•ab
;;yr

7142 \It 90 h .
.
° ASHEVILLE
2s
r6
r 2! POP. 57,661 : fH^?

A
t'
l
/
7/ ?? .OJ .14
321! h

LAKE' 'J
?+ \
KENILWORTH \
h ` l,3

f 1i
? 2121
v 7
C4:T '.Y OT<
\?t
CI?x
r 70 ??•
illL
ll
8V ,73 .7
7:91,
i
s
2+47
.p
} A&49VKU )A(A*OPAL
A 77QPA{]pM,µ
PAIM

W?;j
s ? 7a
'
"?'`:
?
• ? H•y .tr 7,171, tips ?i ?°
c
.d+?
.?; ?t Sw
?/ xoVrrny 11l 3 ^`
p .?
•
4
.'373.1
;' ..
"! PROPOSED,
E
ERCHANGE
OCATION /
VILLAGE ,::<: ?sf,.°
1712 ` ? ? ' / ,,xx•
long
J ]o>o
c 94 "1
fC?^:,: "'':;'.
:;•:. ... 1. `:. .' :.
_?
-
.
..;; ..rr..;s ?
:::;i2X :' ;i'S
1?
? ' al 13.17
- , '9 :10 13022
S i24Z o U'
c
a'
•`
'.;
`.,.;••{ficic 1s
`\;:v,"`:., .:• S 7242 1
•? = 3051, n, l(=

•...

.
2M- jo
18
18
.
.
12
/'
v.
;:::` '?`•, ...
1971
2412 /
313-

... any
' ::•,V. ,
O
"-' ..•
FOREST.

•::CC}' POP. 1,298 6wne Vi?tes N & 1r
313 N
1!!'
?0 2111

CE

•
P
\ i:':Y
t.,;?.• ,. v xa .37
.40
121 r
34L ^]d `
J
°
34L 33! ?'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
?c`° OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
+> BRANCH
FIGURE i - VICINITY k!AP
!40 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
AT US 25A
ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
TIP NO. 1-100