MAPS

- . 1 ~ f..% , f~ Q'~
t .n,
a 'g, ~ ~ a ~
~Y ~ ~ i ~3,
V• ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ¢ D ~ ~ ~3
, ~ 'f ,fin ~ . ~ F`. ~ ~ h.~,~} ;f 1 0 . E ~ ~ , 1 ~ ,E . ~ ~
o • . ~r52 ' ' ; ! /i 'S6 4 r .q'S'SZ ` ~ ~ 6 ' ~ ~ ~o
. ~ ~ ~ y d 1 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~5 ~ ~.0
~ o 2 o 1 s ~ ~'r~ s x ~ ~
o ~r, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a~
0q ~ 0 tt~ ` ~ ~i t~ " ~ ~ 6 /i t~, r, ~ , a ~ r, I ~

'o•~~~ °o I ~ ~3, - o ~ ~ -
~q . . ~ 1 o ~ r/, ~ A
o°° Q ~ - ~ y 9~. c' _ ~ G
~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ Fix s / ~ c
~2 1 1 .,r. - ~iL P k ~ = 9
~2'w'. _ ~ 0 5 ~ to ~ o' x ~ C' 9 o m w p ~
~ / : ~ ~ O ' ~ 0 ~ • / 0 0~ ti o s
196 ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A
A ~ ~ ~ i, -a C ~
, . a ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ 1 F
a+ E E
} J
a . ~ ~ . ~ _y ;u ~ ~a P, , N N ~i : _ ~,_._~3_.~_.~. ~
G c ~ ~ 'A ~ ~ ~ + -0 r N i ~ ~
:r p r ~ . ~ a? ~ ~ ~ ,
~a ~ ~ c 6' A ~ w N N Q ~ _ o+ k .9ti
,a,. ~ J! .Q ~ - 4'r ~r ~ :;~:a ~ ' t
k ~ ~ * t t11 ~ S F ' rl . , ~ c~ w w
~ ~ : , x RED , . S ~ c? F ~ ~ h m ~ t cr ~S ~r~r . , ~ ~ .p N F 'Q ~
• 5? 6'~ , S ~ N ~ ~ G S A N ~ '9 ~ R N ~
8s. ~ ~ O ~ v , -
S y ~ i1? t A R i .c S, ~ co °
k ~ y F Spy ~ 6G 9.92, F 2
'A ~ Fri ,t . d , ~ • ,
r 'q r, J+ 0 W ~ b .t. , ~ I'4 .0 `cW A ~ A a ~F 2
~ .t ~ .
`r ~ ~ o ~ . ~ t~'~, ~ } tD r o ~ cp ~~.x. ~ ,a >''9~1 to ~ ~ 0 o x
o` 9 ~ ~ cp wti ,
~ v . O ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ a_ ~r~', ~ p ~ 000 ~ ~ ~ N ~Ck W V ~ ,4'
a ~Y ~ : t , a ,y p F ~ 6 0
r: k ~ ' J _ ~ . ' , 9 i ~ c ~ 4 L ~ ~ ~
T. ~ A
1 ,t~, O~
s ~n W Q Q `
w y i ~ ~
r13r ` ' ~ ~ t~.. 0 ~ r ~ a O F Fv - Q 3~ ~
- , ~ v~ ~ ~ x ~ V1 0 ~ jO~S/ tJ~ !c ~ Rp ~F ~ ~
.'.x 4~~' ~ ' m k ~p ~ ~ 6` w ~ ,
a~ 1 - A •'r ~ S v ~9 ~
~ A ~r,~r, , ~ •~~19.91 L. F s ~ p~
,.r ~ -r 4 ~ r ~ 50~' 1~ ~ N ~6 R ~
}~P~^r ' ~ ~ ~ s'G ~ . r
•
~ ~ , »t;°' 6X6 N t31 _ S
_ -,:REV EV ~ = C1 I~
1. ~ Raw R7W ~ e ~ ~ Q ~ .~~p i N ~ m ~ - ~ ~ y it I
x O A t~ .r 33 yt~}K w }f r ~ ~!ri + S 1, 0 T 9 ~ ~ O n~ s m ~ ~ ~9 ~ _ Q T ~ ~ a ~ a
f~ ~ :O I ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
~ Ft U 1 t0'f , X ~ y i~ ~ + ~ ~ O • \ r ~'V ~ ` / A ~ ~ _
1:. ~ 1,. , V-. I ~ n ~ \ V~ I I i 'G ~ 0 ~ ~ ' F. J ~o ~ ~
r ' ~ ~ W i~ a ~ ~ II x
~ ~ A - ~ ~ ~9 ~ u ~ -
,1 ~ ~ t ~ ~ o i i 0 ,I~.
,~k .rf ,y - ~
Q ~ ni
S ~ h1 j~ F~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ _ ~ w- x~
~ W- P; ~ / ~ y ~ W - m ~ . ~ ~ < ~ ~3
cn = G
D / r ~ r 'A;. . l 0. 0 _ 1
~ + ~ ~ W
I - ~ (•w, ~
,v+ _ ~ , ~ ; ~ 9i fay ~ti ~ - ~ t -K-
~ / z • , b
y ~ •9 ~ 03 P ~ _ ;
o• ~ m ~ ~ I , ` ~ „~=n ;~s I ~,3~,~ y1'm err
"p; i'.
~ S ~ ~ I~~ 4
f7 m ~ - ~.k r 1 ~
C ~ ~ ~t o~ ~ ~
~m ' -w ~ v N ~ ~ .A ~ i , ~ ~ I ' o
--I ~ ~ to i
O ~ X ro x .A N .D r } ~ o~ ~R 4 O x O ~ ,
.A C') ~ ~ 0? O .a n S , ~ , 4 O I ~
~ ~ ~ OD ~ ~n ~
~ + D~ i n~ ~ x ~ ld ~ .o ~ r •5L 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ I 1
~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ A= ~ , .r r ^ ~ c I I
~ ? --i ~ o 7
F ~ r • _ i ~ ~ ~
z , ~ j 1 i ! j
~
~ - 1 - : - ~ i _ ~
~ 0 ~ _ i~ _ i --I ~ ~
TpE "n i - ,
C ~ f~ 1 , a ~ ~ Z - - ~
'9 , o ' I A
' ~ t ~ ~ 1~° _ ~ ,r~ `c;W
v - ~ . ~ 1 ~ p 1 -
- . ~ o, r
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ` , i ' ~ ~
r"~ : 00 - ~ . ~ ~ ~n, ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ } N ti , ~ = ~ ~
X95. / d , ~ ~ 1 o <a ~ a ~ ~ •
y , N z o o ~ ~ - z I ~ j ~3 ~ L
U - ~ , l N
A ~ ~ ~ • e ~ ' ~ s.~ ,
~ , ,;'r ~ ' p 1. ~ D v 1 a
~ ~ - = i ! ~ z : ~ N
~ ~ ~ l ~ r ~ t ~
~ r
1 E 1 1
i
~ t I ' ~ /
k ;s r ~ ~ ~ F -
i 1 i ~ I~ ~ 1
~ .
~ ',I ~ i ~ , ~
,M ~ / . ~ 1
~ i ~ ~r~ / / -
• - ~ _ ~ /
/ r . ~ ~ _ a £.£9 ~ .p ; s, r„ ~ / ~ 1 ~ 1
S f , a, W ' ,L' ~ ~iti~ ~ ` ,~f ~ U1 ~ es 4 ,•z~s9 a:~,e ~ O ~ I ~1\~
. ~ -k ~ / ~ ~ i
~ _ I, ~ ~ i ~ 1 / ~ ~ ~ I
~ , / / ~
b ~ ~ a
~ i
< ~ ~R~~ r, • - b k ;n i~ 0? ,ry , / / ~
, ~ VY ~ / ~ /
1 ~ / p p
a: ~ ~ ~
' ter. t-~ , ~ ~ / i, .
~ ti ~ / ~ * m~~ b~

V" `
Boa -c~R~,, c ~4 ` `y ~ x- ~ ,1 q r ~ t / R R
I ~ ~ y~o~ ~ / , .~C
* O ~1
O ~ ~ % ~ n I ~ is . ~
o~ - w ,o ~ , ~ S
~ k / o~ ~ M ~ C
a r ~ , ~ ~
i l03' ~ - ~ ~ tr ~ `01 ZU1 v~ ~ 8• - ~ Oz ' I ~ JN_~Y1N ~ ILR~Mi... H . "
' ~
' u~ ~ ~3 i 1 ~ 1
~ a O r X71- m : `
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m
'S m ' = ~ar-f C ~ 7
~ F _ 9
o x ~ ~
o ~4 . RF . , ~ oti a b b 0 Y ~ r ~ ~ ~
y 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r .o ~ ~ ~ ~ A Pp , ,0 pti ~
~ ~ c - ~ ~ ~ / r n
~ ~ ` r, ~ o~
~ ~
•C . oo n ~ 0~
~ ~ ~j , 1 ~~o
p 'p y ~ 90' ~LI,Z0.09 N 1
11~ 3
~I ~ i
~ , ~ m~' c ~ 8 ~ ~ L. ,
n - N ~ ? ~ v IL .
0 . a o .a. _ ~ _ ~ p ~
Z~. ~ r = r k ti ~ ~ a y ' ~
m ~ 0 w ~ ~ ~ I}
0 i ~ 1 _
~ m~~ ~ '~I Z ~ tix ~ si?' ~ 2 1i ~ M
~ A m ~ ~ _ ~ ~ N -TDE ~ N ~Ec rd~
~ ~'S' G a• ~ K
~ cn ~r~'
N ~ ~i _ - r l ~i ;
pF 3 ~ ~ ~ D ? ~ _I 1
: Ffi n 5 ~ z ~ Z I
_ .o~ - ~ z s ~ l', ~ Ih'I 1, I
a , 1 ~I I
o ~ ~ s 9, ~m 7 u~-I I u'I; ' 1
{ ~ Z o- F ,d - . _ ~ ~~,r .Q 9 ~ ~ 1111 i
_ ~ ~ < ` ~ ~ - ~ to ` ~ ~ 'o .r 'I
o~ -o ~ 25 ~ N W I~~
- ~ • PE IY, l'I I
' a D ~ ,.A Q r_ 14`~ I I I I I'~ 14`~ I , I I,~
e
- ii~.1
S - ~ Q'

n• I i
I ~ I _ ~ a- , ~ ~.~~i ~ i, ,
~ ,r ns L t~ ~
~ I ~ , t ~ i, _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I .a
a r~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ L~ I ~ ~ q`. ' ~ i
1 i ~ I C,r
1 `rrti i' h
W ~ ~ i i ~ 1 1
1 t:
1~ ` ~ ~ I o
r~1 ~ ~1 1 1 c
1 r 1 Y _ E t ~ i ~
<i f O I - ~t ~ I
N ~n, ty t21 i ~ ~ ~ I
~ f 0 a s I I - ~ ~ ~ x,25 ~~I}~
41
t S _ 3~•a3 ~Z h' ~ i - S ~ (
~ l 6.56 ~ ~ I
~ ~ s ~n, ~ ,I ~
~ t~3 t~3
•t1'~2' N S 5 36 r`~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ w ~ ~
i ~ ~ -
~bl' 2 ~ ~ 1 f~ ~I ~ I `~1
~r-~- ~ i ~ f
. 4 i '
J ~ ~ I
~ I t, i r j ~
11 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ i
1 ~ ` r rD } ~ :l~ , ~ m ~ _ ~ c,
_ p I ~ - ~ ~ ,f ~ ~ ~ V
3 E. , f 3
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ r, ? ~ L? . i•~ s fir' ro ~ ~
r. ~ , off ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..i
? ~ = ~
T 6' r,; ~J~/ i
T ~ ~ ~ so i .ub ~~rtiru~u~wii i u rlu F.,
~r~ t. ~ ~ ~r _ ~ \
~ - ~ ~ - ~
E y
i L.l t
t~ . , ~ l~ . j 1 '~h ~n
~~1~. ' ~~i l/,; s;( r T,%;
/ ~ r~
i j
i ~ • ~
/ -
~ r ~ i _ ~r
,a ' ~ ,a -o 4:~

o~ o ~ 4.;'~ ~ r,
1 _
+ ~ W `.1 I t W ~:a~
-J ~ ; ` ` ~ ~ ~ ~
w ~
~ ~ / ' t + ~
s ~{y•,r~-r ,h ,i f~ ~ ~
_ S„ ~ _ f18; 01 _ -
o o i
-o
u c~ p !ter E~ - _
o ~~n I
i. P ~ ~l V I
r ~Ji - ~ v , ~ I .x
r ~ '~1 0 n n ~
r t'; ~
7
ij f ~ i ~ I i ~ i
i' J~
~ -.,,w ~pN ~ ~ 1
r ~ ~
I i i 1 `J ~
7 ,
1 ~
' (i O~ W t
1 t ~ ~ 01 1
cP ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ f r ~
`W~ ~ T ~ 4;5~ ~ ~ u, I
G~ z
v~ ! ~ ! a ~ ~ I ~ I • ~ ~ t
i~
~ - _ _
_ 1 1 r' r t '
i~ / ~ t,~ l
Si' ~ ; r f J
l
l~ i
_
o ~ ~l l r-
=y ~6•Z~
r, ! L'
14' r' ~
1'
r~~ ms's/~, x i . ,
~ £ `~1 ~ o, /
to ~ ~S~ : z r,~.:.. / ~
li n 4p 1 `z 9~ ` ~ ~
~~la r, ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ i /
` r • ~
~~~~~i lilt. i~i~ il~~~ ~ .glil•.', ~,.1 ~ c ,6Z
tT i ~ ~ z~ ~,z~ n,-~
r' /
'n ~o I
I~ ~A ~ ~ ~ 62 r " ~
~ i \ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ 2\ • C ~ ~ .~0/y~ 1~
i i 3,ze,as.z- , ~ ~
C~ / i/~ y~C'7 ~ ,DIG / ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~-ti ~ ~ ~t~ I 't~~' M('!~ D
~ / r 5i' \ i'~ i .
'
.gyp ~ L I, ~ / 2~ ~ h / V' ~ ~ I, 4 \ i L . ~ _ Ill r l'~
~ r. ~ c^ -o ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~ I~ ~ I_La~i ~I'~ ' I. ~ ~ i 4
~l k i I l I I I
I'~ ~ ~ f ~I~~ I Y i I I' i / ~ ~ ~ I L. ~ I
A I I~ ~ I 4 ~
~ i ~ ,9 O ~ m ~ ~ . ~ II yy~~ '
~ M ~I r A I' c~ yY I Iti
~ ~ ~ ~ I I
/ ~ ~ ~O ~ a m °j
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b i~i it
FC ~ ~ M ~ O 14 ~ 1 l I' l ~ r" I I
~Y 's ~ ~ I _ 1
lq ~ ~ - ~ ~ 5 ~ I II .II ~ ' ~I~
~ • ~ [ti 1 i ~•l;, I IINN ~ I o ~ J I I h M1
y 1~ I III .ou
~ ~ I ILI L~.J 'Ld ' 1 t
~ i ~ ~ ~~1 V
~ T _
i' ` ~ M~
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ / i ~M ww / i VI /
` ~ \ A . 6. ~ A ~ i
9 ~ \ /I I ; ~ l~ i i V / i '
~ ~ '0 X i~ i ~ \`v' .p
1~' 4 7 ~ / 1 / \ . ca
~ l r of ,4
~ ~ ~ i ti FCC ~ U~ l L~ j~ ; ;
/ - - , ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ i (M` l~ rv
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ lY
i m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~~3
r l , F~3
o \ i `y ~ F • Q! ((rr,, ~ , ~l~
Jam, o B~Cr ~ f J( lyl lJi ~ V ~
_ tea. / r
.y ~ y " ~ ~ ! ~ `
a
~ ~ ,r+~ ~ i ~ . ti ti~
x E .~Gi
1~
.
~ ~ ,
r
~ i
~ i
~ i ~ ~ i,
< i ~ ~ , r ,~i I ~
, " ~ t i
,i,~ i ~ 1- 1 I `
lr~ ~ i r ~

/ ; . .Q ;.y'-~... j ~:J: ~ r i , ~1 ~ I
y ti ~ ' , , , ~ J1 r ~
i / ~ ~ ~ / ~
~ : i l 1 ~ ~ ! ~ 1 i ~ V~ ~ I ~ I~ I I'
i i ~ ~ ~)3 ..z ~ ~ ~ ~ w CG'S r r ~ r ~ ~ ~ 9p,p E I
I
F q~ - ~li II~~I ~ L~ f I
I .5... ~ ~ I ' ''i , ICI I i'
'.i!~.

,mss. 99\
v
6•, .1c?
f 540.14 S
?' (I . R?
. ?. S ? r ri ,t f, .1
- :w.\ _ :f is ?i •"1 ,?•a _

1
-L RE`
?o
W/o ?_ho?rtnea chaM?e..
N
46+8J,90 \\
isF 1 'C1r Sj \\ \ -Ys - POT 10+21.91
\ \ \
NT36, 1 C ` ` ` ` ` ? Q o s t , \ I C r S F D
as
A! it
LLI
- -
U W \
a N \ S17?
s 32'46'SW E ?,` N S l 9 N 9324 ?e?} ?
Jae °°n. n"
W o 0 `?
01
f
• ? ? ? yFs O M ?
i
O
P 98
\ tMC1lAND I. \? 'er? \ ?orrc c?c _<..
722
(A ___ VD RAjt
(n Z3
'R 3
Irv
_-L-REV. 94+79.91 9?3cl %
3 ? r
W/O r? ...wFltr /;? tA? PROP? / f .
? ?p ?; l arc: h Ly[?/
Q? K
ERT
Op 1 6`\
` eP
?1 w \ \ Sly / 5
Ile.
?Z31 ¢lopas \. S \ \ \\C.:l \ \ 1
GFt
/. PI= 50+50.95 .- .
t \ ; _
28'3T4&96. \ Zt.
s / _ys- PT 12+14.45\ _
110= 6'45'00.00' ND ? -;•>
L= 124.19' - _`-
Ro=
SA- 10'07'30.00' " \ ..e? . /
Ls= 300M" \ \ en =
\ ``
Ts= --367.57'-.
F ?e
e= 0.06 ,T/FT
X
. F
F
f21 . • .. 16?
00 -
V 361 uic
- _ Q -?
- O ?
W ?
1 Z _-
c
? ?, T$ \\ "p01D? v \ ?? -L- REV. POS 47+83.07: ` C?
46+83,40 \\ \ ` -Y' - POT 10+21.91
w \
\ \ as p0
w
Lot
,
_ ,
OP.
4r F
304 Cato -
,? pA 7 R3 `
00- S es -L-REV. sY 44+79.2!/ k&T
2 etepo q
"?°
--- -- \ / { y Mks
C -Ys - PT 12+74.45
-L-REV
PI= 50+50.95. \ -? ..
A = 283T45.96' f n
Do= 6'45'00.00' / 1
124.14'
L-
Ro= 848.83',
l` SA '10007'30.00' ` r
Ls= 300:00' / KI
?; 367.5T. .. ?
Ts_ 0.06FVFT `. ?? /
•f
IN, ?.
OG ??x ?x??' •0 i?ep Qr` \ -L-REY. ST
0001,/- , /' ? ¢ / -, ?? - - , ?,?• ? QO Vic; 9y2 ,L' ? ? -- --- -?
iop
• .` , $ _ `?..; '? -.? • , `.. _ '?? ? O w/o ei?aMnet c.hos. e.. ?.
:. /,1 1 t slope s S 71
Ann
401V 6
`• A ' ? .e ,C+r ? 'j W ` ? ? 0' 1 1,. ?,i ? Slep<.,b?a?4s ._
• r ?? •?t+ r r? s?, 5 t s r s 1 p1r G?1.?••11t.? ?!„?.. ..
F
O
I
R
L
T.

t US 74, From I-40 to SR 3136
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project STPNHF-74(1)
State Project 8.1841702
T.I.P. Project R-2306

1

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f)
U.S. Department of Transportation

1
1
1

1
1
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and
49 U.S.C. 303
Approved:
95
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
It-elll C?.
g 4f
Date Nicholas G f, O.E.
?r Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
US 74 FROM 1-40 TO SR 3136
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT F-44-1-(3)
STATE PROJECT 8.1841701
T.I.P. PROJECT R-2306
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f)
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared by Vaughn & MeltQ,V•„Consulting Engineers
CAR
e 9? ?Ssivy??/2'
??*a?.f Q. C'?? 5-31- 9S ? 2 ? ?a? ? '• p Michael A. Calhoun, P.E. SEAL
- 16267 Z
- ??'FN61NE?? '• ?;'
,,••??••A..CP ,
For North Carolina Department of Transportation .....
.A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Uni
Consultant Engineering Unit
2
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Project Manager
1
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Construction work will be performed in such a manner as to insure sufficient
passage of traffic at all times, especially emergency vehicles.

1

* The extension of all culverts on this project will be designed and constructed in
accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain impact requirements, so that there is no
increase in floodplain elevation greater than one foot. There will not be any
significant longitudinal encroachments in the floodplain.
* Every effort will be made to protect the standing trees outside the construction
limits.
* Primary and secondary water quality impacts will be minimized through use of Best
Management Practices as set forth by NCDOT.
* The design of and mitigation for, all channel changes will be closely coordinated
with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and other interested state and federal agencies, in order to insure minimal
impacts to the water quality and aquatic resources of the affected streams. New
channels will be designed and impacts mitigated in accordance with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's "Guidelines for Mountain Stream
Relocations in North Carolina".
* To accommodate bicycle traffic on the new roadway, the 64-foot, face to face
cross-section will be painted for 13-foot outside lanes and 11-foot inside lanes.
Drainage grates will be bicycle compatible.
* A retaining wall will be constructed near the beginning of the project that will keep
the construction limits from impacting the Whitson Mill Archaeological Site, which
is eligible for the National Register of Historical Places. This retaining wall will also
negate the construction of a channel change on Gashes Creek at this location.
* Avoidance of the Whitson Mill Site during construction will be assured by an
NCDOT archaeologist meeting with the construction contractor at the site to assist
with exact location for placement of an erosion fence and hay. The fence and hay
will be placed to protect the site from any type of earth moving activity or impact
related to construction of US 74. Any changes in the plans in the vicinity of this
site will be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office.
* The application of a soil-nail retaining wall will be utilized to reduce the amount of
taking from the James M. Baker House and Cottages Historic Site that is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. A woven wire fence will be installed
along the top of the wall.

?I
t

I
* Overhead utilities will be removed from the B. K. Miller historic property and placed
on the opposite side of US 74.
* The guard rail at the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road will be of the rustic
type with corrosion-resistant, weathering steel and wooden posts.
* To limit the effect of the three temporary construction easements within the B. K.
Miller property, NCDOT will use railroad ties or other wooden materials for the two-
foot retaining wall, limit the slope along Hemphill Road to avoid the mature
boxwoods, and work with the State Historic Preservation Officer and property
owner to develop and implement a landscaping plan for the property along US 74
and at the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road, if practicable. To determine
if landscaping is practicable, the parties will consider the efficacy of additional
landscaping, potential threats to the viability of the existing hemlocks and
vegetative buffer, safety/sight distances, and cost.
* Mature azaleas at the southern end of the Miller property (not necessarily within
the boundaries of the -historic area) which will be damaged or destroyed by
construction shall be removed and delivered to Mrs. Bocook (owner of the B. K.
Miller property) for replanting within the historic property. In accepting the plants,
Mrs. Bocook understands they may not survive transplanting and will hold FHWA,
NCDOT, and its contractors blameless should the plants not survive.
* Gashes Creek in the vicinity of the B. K. Miller property will be relocated in an open
channel. A soil-nail retaining wall will be used to limit impacts to the adjacent
mountain side. The new stream channel will be designed to replicate the existing
channel in terms of channel width and substrate as much as practicable. The
design and mitigation plans for the rechannelization will be in accordance with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's "Guidelines for Mountain Stream
Relocations in North Carolina" and will be coordinated with the WRC, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and other agencies as appropriate.
* The Kerr House, a historical site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
is located on the south side of US 74. To avoid any taking from this historic site,
the widening of the project in the vicinity of the Kerr House will be done on the
north side of existing US 74.
* The driveway from the Dr. C.M. McCracken House, a historic site eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, will be relocated so that it connects with Fox
Run Drive rather than US 74. No additional landscaping is required.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
Environmental Commitments
Page
1. Type of Action ................................................4
2. Additional Information ........................................... 4
3. Description Of Action ........................................... 5
4. Recommended Alternate ......................................... 5
5. Alternates in Vicinity of B.K. Miller Property and Gashes Creek .............. 5
6. Environmental Impacts ......................................... 24
7. Wetlands Finding ............................................. 26
8. Floodplain Finding ............................................ 27
9. Actions Required by Others ...................................... 27
10. Comments .................................................28
A. Agency Comments ....................................... 28
B. Public Comments ........................................ 38
11. Revisions To Environmental Assessment ........................... 39
12. Basis For Finding Of No Significant Impact .......................... 40
Addendum to Historic Structures Report and EA ......................... 42
Programmatic 4(f) ............................................... 52
APPENDIX (Reviewing Agency letters) ................................. 60
3

' FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
- PROGRAMMATIC 4(f)
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
and
' Federal Highway Administration
' 1. TYPE OF ACTION
' This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding Of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and Programmatic 4(0 Document.
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding Of No Significant Impact is based on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) prepared for the portion of US 74 between 1-40 and SR 3136 southeast
' of Asheville (T.I.P. Project No. R-2306) approved January 19, 1994. This EA has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. Further, it
' provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment and Programmatic
4(f)•
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and assessment:,
Mr. Nicholas L Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
' 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
L Telephone: [phone]
4

1
3. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve approximately 6.7
miles of existing US 74 between 1-40 and SR 3136 southeast of Asheville in Buncombe
County, North Carolina.
4. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
' The preferred alternative with recommended improvements consists of widening the
existing road to a five-lane 64-foot curb and gutter facility combining both northside and
southside widening. A four-lane section is required through the underpass at the Blue
' Ridge Parkway where lateral clearance is limited. Two sections of the road will be on new
alignment. The first of these is at Minehole Gap where no alternative along the existing
road could be constructed under traffic. For this reason the alignment was shifted
enough so that the existing road could be used for maintenance of traffic during
construction. The second section is near the end of the project where a 50 MPH design
speed could not be met and an appropriate alignment was developed at this location.
Right-of-way width of the proposed project will be 100 feet, 50 feet left and right of the
'
centerline of the new facility. Construction easements will be required in areas where
construction exceeds the right-of-way.
The project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
' Program (R-2306) with right-of-way acquisitions and construction scheduled to begin
during Federal Fiscal Year 1995.
' The TIP includes- a total estimated cost of the project as follows:
Right-of-Way (including utilities) $8,200,000.00
Construction $14.400.000.00
' Total $22,600,000.00
5. ALTERNATES IN THE VICINITY OF THE B. K. MILLER PROPERTY AND GASHES
' CREEK
Considerable controversy has arisen over the alignment of the project in the vicinity of the
B. K. Miller property and Gashes Creek. The B. K. Miller house and property has been
determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and thus offered
protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Immediately
across existing US 74 from the Miller property lies one of the few relatively undisturbed
portions of Gashes Creek, a tributary to the Swannanoa River, which is designated a
Hatchery Supported Designated Mountain Trout Water by the N. C. Wildlife Resources
' Commission. The creek is afforded protection under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
The currently recommended alternate proposes to stay off of the historic property and
5

' rechannel approximately 800 feet of Gashes Creek. The creek will be relocated in an
open channel with a naturalized bottom and revegetated banks. The adjacent hillside will
be held back by means of a soil-nail retaining wall, which minimizes the disturbance
further up the slope. Several of the review agencies voiced objections to this proposal
and requested that additional alternates be studied. The following section summarizes
' the results of the study.
The Resources
' Four important resources can be found along the 0.58 mile section of US 74
restudied as part of this analysis. They are the B. K. Miller House, the James M. Baker
House and Cottages, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and Gashes Creek. The road cannot be
improved through this area without effecting some or all of these resources to varying
degrees. The following is a brief description of the resources.
The B. K. Miller House sits on a 2.4 acre lot at the intersection of US 74 and
Hemphill Road. It is a two-story pole log structure built in 1935 by B. K. Miller. The
house faces the road but is on visible from the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road.
A row of hemlocks mixed with a variety o ardwood trees extends along the property
frontage serving to screen the house from US 74. The well shaded lot has numerous
landscape features including a small duck pond in front of the house. See figure 1.
1
The B. K. Miller House is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as an
' unusual and intact example of an uncommon architectural style. It is considered one of
the finest pole log structures in Buncombe County. Although the property is eligible for
the architectural style of the structure, the eligible boundary includes the entire 2.4 acre
lot, which comprises the setting. Any impact to the setting would constitute an effect on
the historic property.
Subsequent to the distribution of the Environment Assessment, the James M.
Baker House and Cottages were determined to be eligible for the National Register. The
property is located on an elevated site above US 74 and across Hemphill Road from the
B. K. Miller property. A detailed description of the property is included in the "Addendum
to Historic Structures Report"-found on page 42 of this document.
The Baker house and cottages are considered eligible as a historic district under
Criterion C for its architectural and landscape design. The historic boundary has yet to
be determined but the district would include at a minimum the Baker House and Cottage
' #1 overlooking US 74 as well as the other remaining cottages and landscape features
further back from the road. A portion of the former Baker property is now owned by the
National Park Service. Several overgrown and deteriorated rubblework terrace walls
remain on the Park Service property. These terrace walls would be included in the
district.
' The Blue Ridge Parkway is the third historic resource in the vicinity of the study
alternates. An interchange with the Parkway and US 74 occurs approximately 1200 feet
north of the Hemphill Road intersection. Property belonging to the National Park Service
is found on both sides of US 74 about 200 feet from that intersection.
6

R
B. K. MILLER HOUSE
t

?i
Tr- 1
FIGURE I
VIEW FROM FRONT OF B. K. MILLER HOUSE

The Blue Ridge Parkway is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A as
an example of one of the first efforts to use a scenic byway to encourage tourism in a
region, and under, Criterion C as an excellent example of a purposefully built scenic
byway. It is afforded separate protection under Section 4(f) as a publicly owned park.
The original conveyance of property for the Parkway from the State of North
Carolina to the United States reserved the right to reconstruct or widen US 74. In
addition, the design and construction of the Parkway bridge over US 74 anticipated the
' future widening of the highway. The Environmental Assessment documents the
coordination with the National Park Service and their conditional acceptance of the initial
widening proposal. Changes in the proposed alignment on the Park Service property
' could alter the impacts to the property and therefore require additional coordination with
the National Park Service.
' ,,p hes Creek is the remaining resource in the vicinity. The creek is a tributary to
the Swannanoa River, which is designated as a Hatchery Supported Mountain Trout
Water by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. The subject, section of creek and the
portion that extends through the Park Service property are the least degraded and still
maintain fish and wildlife habitat value.
Across from the B. K. Miller property the creek runs immediately adjacent to the
roadway. Its current channel is probably the result of previous improvements to US 74.
The eastern edge of the creek is the roadway shoulder and steep side slope, dropping
' off about six or seven feet from the pavement elevation to the normal flow water surface.
The western edge of the creek provides the more natural setting with the steep slopes
of the adjacent hillside heavily covered with mixed hardwoods and large rhododendron.
Branches from the surrounding trees partially overhang the creek providing vegetative
cover, shading, and habitat for some terrestrial species. See figures 2 and 3.
t Upstream, Gashes Creek originates in Cedar Mountain Lake near Minehole Gap,
approximately two miles from the Hemphill Road area. It osely parallels US 74 through
most of its course and is crossed by the road twia wgiy extensive commercial,
' residential, and agricultural development lnes.its banks, in some cases encroaching into
the stream channel. Few natural areas remain upstream of the study area. Most of
L banksides have been converted to parking lots, residential lawns, or agricultural fields.
Downstream from the study area, Gashes Creek is in a relatively natural setting for
approximately 3,600 feet as it passes through Park Service property and under the Blue
Ridge Parkway. The creek's tree-lined banks are broken only where it passes under
Avondale Road, the north and south ramps to the Parkway, US 74, and the Parkway
itself. Frahm: the end of this segment, the creek passes under the US 74/1-40 interchange
in a 1,600-foot long culvert. Coming out of the culvert the creek runs through a
developed industrial area before converging with the Swannanoa River approximately
three quarters of a mile further downstream.
A microinvertebrate survey of the subject section of Gashes Creek was conducted
by the NC Division of Environmental Management in May of 1994. The results of the
8
i

GASHES CREEK LOOKING NORTH FROM DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HEMPHILL ROAD
--?aa 1w
s?j ift }
Y D+ t
t? M str -0
GASHES CREEK LOOKING SOUTH
FROM DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HEMPHILL ROAD
GASHES CREEK LOOKING SOUTH
FROM EDGE OF PARK SERVICE PROPERTY FIGURE 2

J

1

GASHES CREEK LOOKING NORTH FROM FERNWOOD CIRCLE
GASHES CREEK LOOKING SOUTH FROM FERNWOOD CIRCLE FIGURE 3
GASHES CREEK
LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS FERNWOOD CIRCLE
GASHES CREEK
LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS FERNWOOD CIRCLE

' survey, a copy of which is included in this document, indicated a good/fair
bioclassification based on the microinvertebrate communities in the stream. In addition,
' the NC Wildlife Resources Commission conducted a fisheries survey along this section
of the creek. No written results were prepared, however, the sample yielded 10 to 12 non
game species of fish including adult and juvenile red-breast sunfish. No trout species
were identified. Together these factors indicate that this section of Gashes Creek exhibits
relatively high water quality and provides suitable habitat for non-game, cold water fish
species.
The Alternates
Alternate 1 is the recommended alternate. See Figures 4 and 4-A. It widens the
' roadway to the west staying off of the B. K. Miller property but not the James M. Baker
property. It would involve a channel change in Gashes Creek approximately 800 feet in
length. The creek would be relocated in an open channel and the adjacent hillside would
' be retained by means of a soil-nail wall measuring approximately 360 feet in length and
42 feet high at its highest point.
r No additional right-of-way would be needed but three small temporary construction
easements would be required on the Miller property. Additional right-of-way would be
needed at the Baker site. A strip of property measuring approximately 20 feet wide near
the intersection of Hemphill Road increasing to a maximum 38 feet wide on the Park
Service property would be required. To minimize impacts to the historic property a soil-
nail retaining wall would be constructed. The wall would be slightly more than 660 feet
in length and approximately 35 feet high at the highest point. Portions of the rubblework
terrace walls on the Park Service property would be removed. Permanent easements
' would be needed for the area covering the soil nails on both the Baker and Park Service
properties.

t

t

The rechannelization would cause both short and long term impacts to the creek.
Short term impacts would include the immediate loss of habitat for some terrestrial and
aquatic species and the effects of erosion and sedimentation during construction. Long
term impacts include the loss of the mature forested canopy that helps regulate water
temperature and the inability of some species to reestablish themselves in the manmade
channel.
To minimize impacts to the creek, the relocated channel would be designed to
replicate the existing channel as much as possible. Best Management Practices would
be used to minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts. Mitigation would include as
appropriate riffle structures, gabion deflectors, riprap banks, and a benched, variable
width stream channel with large boulders where necessary. Extensive streamside
plantings would be used to reestablish the adjacent canopy. The channel design and
mitigation plan would be coordinated with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U.
S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interested agencies.
The cost of improving this 0.58 mile section of US 74 is $3.4 million. Construction
costs total $2.75 million and include the soil nail walls and all mitigation. Right-of-way
costs total $622,500 and include one business and 10 residential relocations. There
11

17-
I
I

•oi\

BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROPERTY
I
I I ? .o \ 1L.
Alternative No.I
SCALE: I' = 100'
LEGEND
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
C] PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
C? EXISTING ROADWAY
D EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C1 EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
U PROPOSED ROADWAY
C? PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GLITTER
f? LAKES, RIVERS, STREAMS AND PONDS
CD BUILDINGS
?I II?
I
II I
I ?I
a'
?b1
I?
roaAr
0
/
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROPERTY
Preliminary Plans
Do Not Use For Construction
Do Not Use For R/W Acquisition
JAMES M. BAKER PROPERTY
ax
\ e,
I ?
(3 1,
r
r

/
/
r IGURE 4

?v
v

,4
1 ,
Ci
Z
`o
0
'a
0
a,
I r,i
I?
l
II
Alternative No.I
SCALL 1° : 100'

li
"k HEMFHILL ROAD
Preliminary Plans
Do Not Use For Construction
Do Not Use For R/W Acquisition
B. K. MILLER HOUSE

'"41--
I
lz?Nl
I
• s :i
M Op
b 1

LL(JLNU
O EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
C PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
EXISTING ROADWAY
EXIST ING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C? EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
C? PROPOSED ROA.D\AIA\/
C? PROPOSED STRUCTURES ISLANDS AND
CURB AND GUTTER
C? LAKES. RIVERS, STREAMS AND PONDS
C? BUILDINGS
?r
0 o
I :I
10
L ?pa
r

FIGURE 4A
yyb^
r°

I

would be no adverse effect on any of the historic properties. A Section 401 Water Quality
Certification and a Section 404 Permit would be required.
' Alternate 2 adds the new lanes to the west, staying entirely off of both the Miller
and Baker properties. See Figures 5 and 5-A. The rechannelization of Gashes Creek
under this alternate would be approximately 1,200 feet long. The soil-nail retaining wall
r adjacent to the new channel would be lengthened to approximately 680 feet. Both the
rechannelization and the retaining wall would extend onto Park Service property.
This alternate eliminates impacts to both the B. K. Miller and James Baker historic
properties. No right-of-way or easements would be required on the Miller property. A
temporary construction easement would be needed on the Baker property to tie Nil Girl
Drive back into Hemphill Road. The greatest impacts of this alternative would be on
Gashes Creek. Compared to Alternate 1, the rechannelization would be increased from
800 to 1200 feet, extending 360 feet onto Park Service property disturbing valuable natural
areas.
As with Alternate 1, this alternate would provide the relocated Gashes Creek in an
open channel. Design and mitigation would be similar to Alternate 1 and would be
coordinated with the interested agencies.
I
t

11

t
IIr7
LJ

Alternate 2 would cost $3.5 million for the 0.58 mile section. Construction costs,
including the retaining wall and all mitigation would be $2.9 million. Right-of-way costs
would be $582,500 and would include one business and 10 residential relocations. There
would be no adverse effects on any of the B. K. Miller and James Baker historic
properties. Additional coordination with the Park Service might be necessary due to the
greater impacts on its lands. A Section 404 Permit and a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification would be required.
Alternate 3 widens US, 74 on the east-side leaving Gashes Creek undisturbed in
its existing location. See Figures 6 and 6-A. This alignment would require property from
both the Miller and Baker historic properties. On the Miller site, the hemlock hedge would
be completely removed and some fill material would be placed in the duck pond. A soil-
nail retaining wall would be used at the Baker property. The wall would be 720 feet long
and 40 feet high at the highest point.
Slightly more than one acre of the 2.4 acre Miller property would be needed for
right-of-way. Additional construction and drainage easements totaling nearly one-quarter
acre would be required. The hemlock hedge would be removed as the nearside curbline
would be brought within 120 feet from the Miller house (the existing edge of pavement is
±183 feet from the house). Geogrid slope minimization would reduce the sideslope
requirement from a 2:1 to a 1:1 ratio. Despite this effort, some fill would be placed in the
western edge of the duck pond. Extensive tree planting and landscaping would be
incorporated to rebuild the visual screen along the property frontage. A retaining wall
could be considered at an additional expense to further reduce slope encroachments.
Such a wall had been previously suggested but rejected due to visual impacts.
14
I {? ?1
ULJ<_ RiDJE PARKWAY P 'l_`\:JPE17Y
JAMES M. BAKER PROPERTY
jO awK
13
.. \` ............................`1 ° \ ° I \
A
.. 11 r
------------
u. ?
I?`'-?YI-7
----------------
?°???
/ BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROPERTY
- ! ? fi ? I In - Y I
1
1
1
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
SCALED 1' • 100'
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR R/b ACOUISTTION

LEGEND
C? EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
C PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
I= EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
Cl EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
C? PROPOSED ROADWAY
C? PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GUTTER
C? LAKES, RIVERS, STREAMS AND PONDS
i?- IiUIL'JIIVGS
°4 O
"
FIGURE 5
I
I
I
I
ali
I?

v
m'/

UJ
z
J
c.?
Q
o r
Q
J

LEGEND
D EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
O EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C? EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
C? PROPOSED ROADWAY
Cl PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GUTTER
C? LAKiS ?iL STREAMS AND PONDS
[-? RII II DINGS
HEMPHILL ROAD B. K. MILLER HOUSE
m ?
m" r
m O 0
0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
SCALEo 1° • 100'
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR R/'d ACOUISITION

m
e
0 \
0
,
.? G ?? •\\ DO J
0
- /rte
m+0' \
. MI ?I / a
fi,'"'' d ate„
rte' as w"
0
F IGURE 5A
r

r
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROPERTY JAMES M. BAKER PROPERTY
3 1 ai

i

ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
SCALE, I° • lea'
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
d

LEUENU
Cl EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CJ PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CJ CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
D EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C? EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACE[
O PROPOSED RO,/)DWAY
D PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, ANC
CURB AND GUTTER
C] LAKES. RNERS, STREAMS AND PONDS
t--1 pi iii niNirc
FIGURE 6

v
wtt[ a ?arsu ?(?
0
r
?a
01.
?QB C
0
b
II
1
W

I
CO j
LL ROAD
O
0
D
0
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GUTTER
LAKES, E;IVEFS,STREAMS AND PONDS
BUILDINGS
HEiPHi
E-' K. MILLER HOUSE
1
a
Q
e
of /?

K u .ps
\t a wo
0
r.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
00 NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
I
r
0+0.0'0 ?\
0 u 0 , e
? j 0 I
0 ? ? II 0 S
° I e o ,
i ° a e \
o ro ;
o=o °.o.0?.e.o•o'0 ?9.o•e?o o I ? \?? ? cti,sao?
v
= = j ,fir- _ = ""•'--_`?. ? ? ?? ? ? o°°,...,,o,o"o..
moo. v - ? ?-- - v ?, o
,Q 1
I I 1 0"09
o \
L
I l:' m
a
9
r y
1 •I

LEGEND

ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
SCALE, I' • 100'

\ yB® I
e \\ o
B '0
- ------------------- ek 0. I m °< `a 1 y
g C v / \ .?Q ° p X11
nu K e
ot,
\ \ ? \ g V? FAA ? ? \ ? C { ?'
?,a===
` .
` \\ / $d \• `l ,`\ -0,0
1% (D
ill LL Z-

a°
0
e G o ??, IIr ap
9 I 1? ?a; d n?

v
fill
l? a
of fO
?',' 0 I 1
O
0 0
FIGURE 6A
OIJ
0

The impacts on the Baker and Park Service properties would be similar and only
slightly greater than those in Alternate 1. The soil-nail wall would be approximately 700
feet long and 39 feet high at the highest point. This compares to 660 feet and 35 feet for
Alternate 1. The wall would be about 78 feet from the cottage house compared to 83 feet
for Alternate 1. As with the preferred Alternate, some of the rubble-work terrace walls
along the old driveway on the Park Service property would be lost.
The total cost for Alternate 3 would be $2.7 million. Construction costs including
the soil-nail wall, mitigation, and landscaping would be $2.3 million. Right-of-way costs
would total $417,000 including one business and one residential relocation. This
alternative would have an adverse effect on the B. K. Miller property, but no adverse
effects on the James Baker property or the Blue Ridge Parkway. A Section 404 permit
and a Water Quality Certificate would be required.
r Alternate 4 was the recommended alternate in the Environmental Assessment. See
Figures 7 and 7-A. It would have the same roadway alignment as Alternate 1, widening
to the west and staying off the Miller property but not the Baker property. Gashes Creek
would be routed through a 925-foot long box culvert running parallel with and partially
under the new roadway.
This alternate would have no impact on the Miller property with the exception of
three small, temporary construction easements. The impacts to the Baker site would be
similar to those of Alternate 1. Some property would be required and a soil-nail retaining
wall would be constructed. Permanent easements would be needed for the area covering
the soil-nails. The greatest impacts of this Alternate would be on Gashes Creek. Routing
the creek through the lengthy culvert would have the greatest impact on wildlife
' resources, both terrestrial and aquatic, perhaps prohibiting the movement of certain
species either up or downstream.
Mitigation measures would be used to minimize impacts. The culvert bottom would
be constructed of natural materials to replicate the existing channel. Large boulders and
other diversionary measures would be used to create a natural flow effect in the water.
The design and mitigation for the- rechannelization would be coordinated with the
interested agencies.
This alternate has a total cost of $2.6 million. The $1.95 million for construction
includes the culvert, the soil-nail wall at the Baker property, and any necessary mitigation.
Right-of-way costs of $642,500 includes one business and 10 residential relocations.
There would be no adverse effect on any of the historic properties. A 401 certificate and
a 404 permit would be required.
' The Recommendation
FHWA and NCDOT select Alternate 1 as the preferred alternative. This alternate
avoids the B. K. Miller House and would have no adverse effect on it or the other two
nearby historic properties: the James Baker House and Cottages and the Blue Ridge
Parkway. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has concurred with this
conclusion and a copy of that correspondence is attached. Programmatic 4(f) statements
19
i
' a 6
0.?
6r
I I [I `_ \[?[Ox_?
M 9/Y
?i."r9c
a
yp
01 0! C
o, a =?
p• 8
`o
\\ ?43p v v
? ` xax 0:
\ 1 w0
e* o
o"
ar ?
0
o ?
p p p ??,p•d•p'O?p?

SLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROPERTY
LEGEND
D EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
C] PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
0 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
C? EXISTING ROADWAY
EXIST ING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C? EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
C? PROPOSED ROADWAY
D PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GUTTER
D LAKES, RIVERS, STREAMS AND PONDS
D BUILDINGS
v ?
0
Alternative No. 4
Scale: r = 100'
Preliminary Plans
Do Not Use For Constructlon
Do Not Use For R/W Acqulstlon
6 D
0
A u
a
JAMES M. BAKER PROPERTY

e?y
i
FIGURE 7
C \1
1

m o? w
r r Ir ??<

,' e o
?I
I
i

1
' W
z
U
Q
C
6 r
\? \ I I
l/e
1 /I V ?I
A??
F
1
i
u
V
1 ?
U
I
? •I
3
I.
i
LEGEN
B. K. MILLER HOUSE
HEMPHILL ROAD
e A 1 ? ?
0
'e
V
' O EXISTING RIGHT OF
CD PROPOSED RIGHT OF Wyr
O CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS
EXISTING ROADWAY
EXIST ING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
C] EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
PROPOSED ROADWAY
C7 PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLANDS, AND
CURB AND GUTTER
L3 LAKES. Rl?i R?STREAMS AND PONDS
0 BUILDINGS

IN \
/
J
OD ?'Il til

? c - it v
Alternative No° 4
Scale: I' = 100'
Preliminary Plans
Do Not Use For Constructlon
Do Not Use For R/W Acqulstion
D\
7 q
'lf??,
" , o l
0 1
! mo Qe 1
n ? % o*o•.o?a ?p ?1D
n l -^6?o. q'o• m. ?•m
'w.. o
/ B
C
/ e0
FIGURE 7A

e
7P
01?
O
t
t

1
1

t

1
1
t

i?

1
have been prepared for these three historic properties and are included in this document.
Alternate 1- does impact Gashes Creek. It will require an 800-foot long
rechannelization and will remove or impact that much natural habitat. However, FHWA
and NCDOT believe extraordinary measures are being proposed to minimize and mitigate
those impacts. The creek will be relocated in an open channel with a naturalized bottom
and revegetated banks. A large soil-nail retaining wall will be used to minimize impacts
to the adjacent hillside and reduce erosion and sedimentation effects. Thoughtful design
and construction of the channel should allow it to regain much of its previous value and
attraction to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Water quality will no doubt be effected during
construction, but Best Management Practices will be employed to limit those effects. The
long term water quality is more likely to be effected by land use pressures upstream than
by the construction of this alternative.
This alternate does involve nine more relocations than the alternate that avoids the
creek. Those relocations are associated with the mobile home park located on Fernwood
Circle across from the B. K. Miller House. Although the relocation of older trailers such
as these can be more difficult, the Relocation Assistance Program will help those affected
individuals find suitable housing elsewhere. It may be necessary to use Last Resort
Housing.
The cost of the preferred alternate is higher than the alternate that avoids the
creek. However, the least expensive alternate is the one that was the preferred alternate
in the Environmental Assessment. It ran the creek through a 925-foot long box culvert.
The additional cost of the now preferred alternate is the mitigation required to keep the
creek in an open channel.
The decision of the preferred alternate relies heavily on section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act (codified as Section 303 in Title 49 U.S.C.). This law
requires that projects approved by FHWA may use the land of a historic site only if there
is no feasible and prudent alternative. This aftemate will require land from the Baker
property and the Blue Ridge Parkway; however, the effects of these takings have been
determined to be not adverse. It is the finding of the FHWA, NCDOT, and the SHPO that
an alternate that uses land from the B. K. Miller property and removes or impacts the
hemlock hedge along the property frontage will have an adverse effect on that property;.
The hemlock hedge and other landscape features are integral parts of the setting for this
property. The row of trees provides a visual and spatial buffer between the house and
the roadway. Their removal would have a detrimental effect on the property. Under
these circumstances, the use of land from the B. K. Miller property would be prohibited
under section 4(0 if a feasible and prudent alternate exists. FHWA and NCDOT believe
such an alternate exists and have selected it as the preferred alternate.
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines prohibit the placement of fill material in the waters of
the United States for non-water dependent activities if a practicable alternative exists.
Having weighed the impacts to the various resources and having determined that a
feasible and prudent alternative exists to the use of property protected under section 4(0,
FHWA and NCDOT contend that no practicable alternative exists to the rechannelization
22

of the subject section of Gashes Creek. The preferred alternate includes extensive
measures to minimize harm, including placing the creek in an open, naturalized channel.
Moreover, FHWA and NCDOT will continue to coordinate with interested agencies in the
refinement of mitigation plans.
The alternates and their impacts are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATES IN
VICINITY OF B.K. MILLER PROPERTY
AND GASHES CREEK
r ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
r
Construction $2,750,000 $2,900,000 $2,300,000
$1,950,000
Right?x 622.500 582.500 417.000 642.500
' TOTAL $3,372,500 $3,482,500 $2,717,000 $2,592,500
RELOCATIONS
Residential 10 10 1 10
Business 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 11 11 2 11
1
EFFECTS ON
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
B.K. Miller No Adverse No Adverse Adverse No Adverse
James M. Baker No Adverse No Adverse No Adverse No Adverse
Blue Ridge Pky. No Adverse Uncertain* No Adverse No Adverse

IMPACTS ON
GASHES CREEK Yes Yes No Yes

*Additional coordination required with State Historic Preservation Officer and
Service to determine effects National Park
.
23
t
1 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The preferred alignment will not:
* Adversely impact any schools.
Divide any communities because most of the improvements utilize the existing roadway
corridor.
Specifically benefit, harm, or disproportionately impact any social group including the
elderly, handicapped, non-drivers, minority or ethnic.
* Have any adverse affects on archaeological sites or historic properties.
* Affect any recreational facilities.
* Be inconsistent with the Asheville zoning maps and the Asheville City Plan 2010.
Adversely affect air quality conditions in the area.
Positive impacts on the area include:
* Improvements to the vertical and horizontal alignment will greatly increase stopping site
distance.
* The additional lanes will provide for traffic needs in the design year of 2010 at an
acceptable level of service .
* Safer movement of traffic through the use of continual left turn lanes.
1 Improved intersections will reduce congestion and accidents.
* The area economy will be bolstered by promoting new business opportunities and
expansions of existing businesses.
* The use by emergency vehicles such as fire, police and ambulances, as well as use by
' school buses, will be greatly facilitated by the construction of the additional lanes.
Negative impacts associated with the proposed improvements include:
Relocation of forty families and seventeen businesses.
The average noise level increase is less than 7 DBA, however, no site will have a
substantial increase of 15 dBA or greater.
The erosion and siltation of local streams. Implementation of the NCDOT erosion control
' 24
1
1

t
t
Ll

I

measures will minimize the erosion and siltation of local streams.
* Delay and -inconvenience to motorist during construction of the project. Staged
construction with appropriate traffic control will minimize these inconveniences.
* Three construction easements will be required from the B.K. Miller Historic Site.
Mitigation plans were developed to alleviate the impact to the disturbed areas.
* A small strip taking will be required from the Dr. Cisero M. McCracken House Historical
Site. Mitiaation measures were developed to reduce impacts to this site.
* Strip takings will also be required from the Baker site, another site eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation measures were developed to reduce
the impact to this site.
* Three channel changes, two approximately 200 feet, and one approximately 900 feet in
length, will be required. These channel changes are discussed below.
One channel change approximately 200 feet in length, will be required on Gashes Creek in the
vicinity of the Blue Ridge Parkway overpass. Various schemes, including the use of retaining
walls, were studied in an attempt to find a way to widen US 74 under the Blue Ridge Parkway
without having to channel change Gashes Creek. In fact, one retaining wall is proposed that will
negate the construction of one channel change near the beginning of the project; however, the
horizontal distance of 84.81 feet between bridge piers on the Blue Ridge Parkway overpass
make it impossible to find any alternative that will not require a channel change without rebuilding
the Blue Ridge Parkway overpass itself, which is not feasible.
Another channel change, approximately 200-300 feet in length, is planned in the extreme
headwaters of Gap Creek where the creek is no more than a vee bottom drainage ditch on a
very steep gradient. The only time water is present in Gap Creek at this location is during and
immediately following rainfall.
Mitigation will be developed for these-two-short -channe[ changes that will eliminate impacts in
the short and long term.
A channel change of Gashes Creek will be required to avoid the B. K. Miller site which is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and which is protected under Section 4(f) of the
Federal Department of Transportation Act. Studies showed that a feasible and prudent
alternative existed that would avoid impacts to this site even though the avoidance alternative
would require a channel change of approximately 800 feet in length. Extensive mitigation
measures will be utilized during the design and construction phase of this channel change
including the construction of a soil-nail retaining wall, a unique method of construction. The
channel change will be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission's "Guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocations in North Carolina". Pool-
riffle ratios will be maintained in the channel change and mitigation such as riffle structures,
gabion deflectors, riprap banks, extensive stream side plantings, and a benched variable width
stream channel with large boulders where necessary, will be utilized. NCDOT will work closely
25

I

J

1

1
1

with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission in designing and constructing the new channel.
Other state agencies, as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, will be consulted during the
design and construction process.
The project was coordinated with the US Soil Conservation Service(SCS) as required by the
Farmland Protection Policy Act and the SCS responded that they do not have the information
required to complete form AD-1006. Farmland impacts associated with this project are
anticipated to be insignificant.
There are no designated rare or unique natural areas identified within the project area by the NC
Natural Heritage Program. There are no water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted
under the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No.90-542, 82 Sta. 906; codified
and amended at 16 U.S.C.1217-1287(1982) or under the NC Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of
1971 (G.S. 1 13A-30). Because rare or unique resources were not identified within the study area
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The project will impact tributaries to Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters Cane Creek and
the Swannanoa River. Other than the channel changes previously discussed, impacts to these
tributaries are expected to be minimal, primarily because culverts are being extended rather than
new ones built. Appropriate erosion control measures will be designed and implemented to
insure that impacts are minimal.
Because of the urbanized characteristics of the project corridor, the proposed widening of US
74 will not have a large impact upon plant communities along the corridor. The greatest impact
will occur where the project crosses Blue Ridge Parkway land and at Mine Hole Gap.
Approximately five acres will be impacted in the vicinity of the Blue Ridge Parkway and
approximately fifteen acres will be impacted near Mine Hole Gap. Except for these two areas,
most of the acreage required for the widening is from old fields, lawns, businesses and front
yards.
Loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of development regardless of the
alternative chosen. However, proposed improvements are not expected to result in substantial
adverse impacts to local wildlife populations:- Infringement on- contiguous natural systems will not
effect sensitive natural areas, nor result in a substantial loss or displacement of known plant or
animal populations.
There is no evidence to suggest that either federal or state listed species will be impacted by the
project. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program records indicated no documented sitings
of such species in the project vicinity, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred.
Despite intensive searches for listed species along the entire length of the corridor, none of the
species that are federally protected or under federal review were found in the area.
7. WETLANDS FINDINGS
Three very small areas of delineated wetlands were found to exist in the project corridor. They
are all located between the Blue Ridge Parkway and the intersection of Avondale Road. The
areas are approximately 0.03 acres, 0.1 acre, and 0.1 acre in size.
26

r
J
J
J
I

11

It is not anticipated at this time that any of the wetlands will be directly impacted by construction
of the project. However because of the proximity of the wetlands to construction activities, the
NCDOT will employ the use of "Best Management Practices" (reduced side slopes, prohibit
staging areas in lowland sites, minimize wetland canopy removal, and limit fill placement, etc.)
in an effort to minimize impact to these wetland pockets. A stringent sediment erosion control
plan will also be implemented during project construction to minimize impacts.
The surface waters of the channel changes are wetlands and will be addressed as such. A
Wetlands Permit will be required for some of the channel changes.
S. FLOOD PLAIN FINDINGS
The project lies within the drainage areas of Gashes Creek, a tributary of the Swannanoa River,
and Gap Creek, a tributary of Cane Creek.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, the proposed project was
evaluated with respect to potential impacts on regulated floodplains/floodways.
Since existing structures will be extended and utilized for the widening project, they will be
analyzed to limit the headwater increase to less than one-foot or to the level required to protect
upstream structures from being flooded, whichever is lower. For non-FEMA floodplains, the
controlling headwater will be either the limit to protect structures from being flooded, or will be
designed to limit headwater increases to a maximum of one-foot, whichever is lower. Under the
conditions described, the proposed project will not constitute significant encroachment to the
floodplain.
9. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHERS
A Section 404 permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Although the
project will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands, the proposed rechanneling of portions of
Gashes and Gap Creeks will necessitate placing fill in the waters of the United States, an activity
regulated by the Corps of Engineers.
Buncombe County is one of twenty-five North Carolina Counties that contain trout waters. As
a condition for obtaining a permit in one of those counties, the Corps requires that the permit
application be reviewed by the NC WiIdlffe Resources Commission to determine if the project will
have any impacts on trout streams.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate will be required from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
A permit may be required from the Tennessee Valley Authority in accordance with Section 26a
of the TVA Act.
27

1

1
1

1
1

10. COMMENTS
A. Agency Comments
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from a number of agencies..
The substantive comments and responses are listed below.
1. US Fish and Wildlife Service Comment:
Page 7 under Existing Dr in q Structures:
" The NCDOT lists 11 structures; however, our field inspection observed 13 existing structures
along the 6.7 miles long alignment. The Service found three crossings each of Gashes Creek,
tributaries to Gashes Creek, Gap Creek, tributaries of Gap Creek, and one crossing of Cane
Creek for a total of 13 crossings. The environmental assessment should be revised to reflect
the correct number of crossings."
Response:
The discussion in the EA does not include pipes less than 54 inches in diameter. Apparently the
two extra structures noted by the US Fish and Wildlife representative in the field fell into this
category. Cane Creek is not crossed by the project.
2. US Fish and Wildlife Service Comment:
Page 21 3rd Paragraph: "While the environmental assessment notes the presence of large
hemlock trees on the B.K. Miller Historic Site Property" the house faces U.S. 74 and is visible
from that road although it is shielded from view by 15 trees ranging in size from 4" to 32" in
diameter," it neglects to add that these same trees have been topped to serve a power line.
Additionally, the Service believes that statements such as "the structure sits on a heavily shaded
lot containing 2.4 acres with lovely landscaping treatments, including a duck pond" are very
subjective and not appropriate in an environmental document. While an alignment shift towards
the B.K. Miller site would take out the hemlocks, and possibly the duck pond, these resources
are not scarce on the landscape level (and -duck ponds are manmadel) and are replaceable.
Indeed, new landscaping could be provided to buffer the house from the road."
Response:
Even though two of the hemlock trees have been topped to serve a power line this has no
bearing on the historical setting of the historical site. The statement concerning landscaping
treatments is appropriate for use in an environmental document when it is used in relation to
' describing a historic site and its setting. The setting is an important feature that contributes to
making this property eligible for the National Register.
' Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act requires that the use of property listed on
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places be avoided if there is a feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land. NCDOT and FHWA have concluded that such an avoidance
' alternative exists. See Section 5 on Discussion of Alternatives to see how this conclusion was
28

reached. The alternative will involve widening the road to the opposite side and impacting an
800-foot section of Gashes Creek, a tributary to the trout stream, the Swannanoa River. Gashes
Creek, although currently exhibiting a relatively high water quality level, is degraded due to
intense and intensifying development along its banks. Just downstream of the B.K. Miller
property, the creek is routed through a quarter-mile long culvert under 1-40.
3. US Fish and Wildlife Service Comment:
Page 23. 2nd para_gra h: 'The Service believes the following statement to be misleading: "The
decision to choose the option with the parallel culvert was made for economic, engineering, and
environmental reasons." The Service prefers the option that avoids Gashes Creek and shifts
toward the B.K. Miller site. While the Service does agree that the option that relocates Gashes
Creek further into the mountainside is both cost and environmentally prohibitive, we believe the
document gives a false impression that the Service, and other resource agencies, are satisfied
with the selection of an alignment that impacts Gashes Creek."
Response:
Since approval of the EA, the NCDOT has restudied project design concepts in the vicinity of the
B.K. Miller House and Gashes Creek. Based upon these studies and the application of a unique
construction technique for building retaining walls, a decision has been made to revert to an
open channel change in lieu of a 925-foot box culvert. The unique construction technique
involves the building of an soil-nail retaining wall which will greatly reduce the amount of
excavation required from the hillside adjacent to Gashes Creek. Furthermore, it is believed that
an open channel is easier to mitigate for continued use by aquatic life than enclosing the creek
in a box culvert of extraordinary length.
The NCDOT will work closely with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other interested state and federal agencies during design of the channel change and
appropriate mitigation measures to be incorporated therein.
4. US Fish and Wildlife Service Comment:
Page 66. 3rd paragraph_: "The environmental assessment does not specify
exactly where the 200 to 300 foot channel change of headwaters of Gap Creek is located. We
assume that this channel change will take place near the southern end of Old Minehole Gap. The
Service also noted the possible need for channel changes at both northern and southern ends
of Old Charlotte Highway (SR2771)."
Response:
The channel change on Gap Creek will be required as part of constructing new access to the
"Brannon Property," a platted undeveloped subdivision located north of the project on top of
Minehole Gap. The channel change is not required as part of construction of the main line.
The section of the project at the northern and southern ends of Old Charlotte Highway (SR2771)
is under final design. During final design it was found necessary to relocate short sections of
29

' Gashes Creek near both intersections of the Old Charlotte Highway. These channel changes will
be coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and others as necessary.
' 5. Department of the Army. Wilmington District Corps. of Engineers Comment:
' We are in agreement with your selection of Alternate 1 as the preferred alternative; however,
we question the need to culvert 925 feet of Gashes Creek across from the B.K. Miller historic
house. It appears that a practicable alternative, although it would require making a 4(f) evaluation
necessary, would be to shift the alignment to the north toward the house site, thereby eliminating
the need to impact Gashes Creek at this location."
' Response:
See the responses under paragraphs 2 and 3 above relative to similar questions from the US
' Fish and Wildlife Service. Also see Section 5 regarding the discussion of alternates in the vicinity
of the B. K. Miller property and Gashes Creek.
' 6. Department of The Army. Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Comment:
"An individual permit will be required pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
as amended, for the required discharges of dredged and/or fill material into the waters or
wetlands associated with channel changes, culvert extensions, and bank stabilization activities."
' Response:
Section 404 permit applications will be submitted to the corps during the final design and
' construction plan preparation phase of the project.
' 7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Region 4. Atlanta Office Comment:
"The EPA recognizes the potential for construction to greatly impact surface streams unless the
' NCDOT is totally committed to ensuring effective BMPs. Noise will similarly be a major
annoyance to the residents particularly during construction and in the future as more traffic flow
creates increased congestion. However, EPA does not have any objections to this
transportation project."
Response:
' NCDOT is committed to use BMPs and will coordinate with the appropriate review agencies, as
needed, to ensure their effective implementation.
' 8. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
' "Page 15. Section B.3.- TVA would like to go on record as supporting comments provided by
the North Carolina Department of Transportations Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic in
30
1

Curtis B. Yates March 29 memorandum to you."
' Response:
The project will be constructed utilizing a 64-foot face to face curb and gutter cross section and
' the traffic lanes will be painted for 13-foot outside lanes and 11-foot inside lanes. By utilizing
drainage grates designed for compatibility with bicycle use, this will allow for shared use of the
wider outside lanes and the 2-foot gutter sections by bicycles and other vehicle traffic.
9. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
" Page L Section 2- The documents should include as an "Action required by other Federal
Agencies "that TVA must review the proposed modification to waterways under its section 26a
authority."
' Response:
' The plans will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority for review and permitting under
it's section 26a authority.
' 10. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
"Page 13, Section B- A clearer definition for accident rate is needed (units are not given)."
Response:
' The accident rate is the number of accidents per million vehicle miles on the study section and
is so noted below the accident summary table.
' 11. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
' "Page 15, Section B- Figure 4A uses a four-lane road to illustrate a typical section considered
for severe slopes, yet the text: indicated the only location that will be four-laned is at the Blue
Ridge Parkway."
Response:

A four-lane section was considered over Minehole Gap but was rejected because it
compromised safety and capacity of the facility.
12. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
" Page 19. Section .2 -TVA 26a permits need to be included in the discussion on the Permits
Required.",
31

Response:
' Please see response to item 7 above.
' 13. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
"Page 67. Section 2- Regarding flood risk analysis, headwater increases on non-FEMA streams
should be limited to a maximum of 1-foot."
Response:
The extensions to the box culverts will be designed to limit headwater increases to a maximum
of 1-foot.
' 14. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
' Page 20, chapter I - For the alternatives discussed, TVA concurs that overall impacts of
widening US 74 generally are minimized when compared to construction on new road
alignments. However, for all options including the recommended option, there appear to be
' rather substantial alterations required to Gap and Gashes Creek. Although it is a small stream,
we particularly note the culvert enclosure of Gashes Creek 925-foot run. We trust the
commitments and the EA are adequate and satisfactory to the NC Wildlife Resources
' Commission to mitigate adverse impacts to the trout resources of Gashes Creek."
Response:
Please see responses in items 2 and 3 above relative to similar concerns of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service.
1
15. Tennessee Valley Authority Comment:
' "Page 64. Section C.f. - As noted in the EA; both Gap Creek and Gashes Creek are tributaries
to streams considered Designated Public Trout Waters by the State of North Carolina. With the
' above exception regarding the 925 foot culvert and the conditions listed below, the
environmental commitments listed in the EA are adequate for protecting aquatic resources in
these streams.
TVA will recommend the following conditions in the 26a permits for the project. These conditions
would supplement commitments c, d, and a of section 7, "Environmental Commitment" of the
EA Summary (Page iii).
1. The US 74 highway culverts on Gap Creek and Gashes Creek are to be structured
' so as to create hydraulic conditions which will allow creation/maintenance of natural
substrate; and which will create/maintain velocities and flow patterns which offer refuge
' 32

r

?rl

7

f'.
for fish and other aquatic life, and allow passage of trout and other species under normal
and low flow conditions.
2. Best Management Practices are employed to prevent erosion and stream siltation
during culvert construction and modification. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Cofferdams being installed between construction areas and the stream prior to any
construction activity, and all water that accumulates behind the dam be clarified
before being returned to the stream.
b. The culverts be constructed in phases, such that the portion of the stream flow
being diverted can be handled without creating erosion/sedimentation and without
impeding fish passage.
C. Removal of vegetation be held to a minimum.
d. Use cofferdams around any material stockpile areas.
e. Stabilize disturbed areas with vegetation as soon as possible. In slow germination
periods, disturbed areas should be temporarily stabilized with a fabric in addition
to seeding.
f. Keep equipment off the immediate streambank as much as possible.
h. Avoid contact of curing concrete with the streamflow.
L Remove, redistribute, and stabilize all sediment which accumulates behind
cofferdams."
Response:
After the completion of a study of various alternatives in the vicinity of the B. K. Miller house, an
open channel was selected in lieu of the 925 foot culvert. See the discussion on alternatives in
Section 5.
NCDOT will use Best Management Practices during the design and construction of all culvert
extensions. Some or all of the=listed-Best Management Practices will be utilized at each culvert
extension. The number to be utilized at each site will depend upon the unique situation at that
site.
The design and mitigation plan for each culvert site will be coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, TVA and other interested agencies.
16. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission INCWRCI
' Comment:
111) Gashes Creek- The NCDOT proposes to place Gashes Creek in a 925-foot culvert parallel
to and partially underneath the new roadway across from Hemphill Road and the B.K. Miller Site
to avoid impacts to the grounds around this property. According to NCDOT, part of the 'lovely
33

' landscaping treatments, including a duck pond" at this site would be impacted if Gashes Creek
is not converted or relocated. Although we realize the importance of preserving historical sites,
' we object to culverting a large section of stream to protect a duck pond and hemlocks that have
been topped to accommodate power lines. It is our opinion that this issue is not thoroughly
discussed in the EA. Other alternatives should be examined, including constructing only a 3-or-4
' lane roadway in this area or providing new landscaping for the B.K. Miller Site to compensate
the loss of trees and the duck pond if necessary."
' Response:
The construction of a three or four-lane facility throughout this area would not meet project
objectives of providing a safe efficient highway for highway users.
The highest design year traffic volumes for the studied section of U.S. 74 occurs in the vicinity
of the B. K. Miller house. The average daily traffic in this area is expected to exceed 30,000
vehicles per day by the year 2010.
17
L
?7

Two lanes east and west bound are necessary to handle this kind of traffic volume. The center
turn lane (5th lane) is necessary to provide left turning traffic a means of exiting the mainstream
traffic. The center lane will also reduce the number of traffic accidents that would occur if it was
not available for the turning movement.
In regard to the 925-foot culvert, please see the responses noted in items 2 and 3 above relative
to a similar U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comment.
17. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Comment:
"2) Existing Drainage Structures- The NCDOT lists 11 existing draining structures on page 7 of
the EA; however, I observed 13 during my site visit. Two that do not seem to be listed include
tributaries to Gashes Creek just northwest of Rosehill Road (SR3121) and another just southeast
of Emma Grove Road (SR3127). Also, structures d and a on page 7 seem to be reversed if the
list is supposed to start at the beginning of the project and progress to the end. I count three
crossing each of Gashes Creek, Gap Creek; Aributaries to Gap Creek, and one crossing of Cane
Creek for a total of 13 which, agrees with the information presented on page 64 of the EA. The
list on page 7 should be modified to include all 13 structures and the stream being crossed at
each structure."
i Response:

Please see the response in item 1 above to a similar concern of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The information contained in the list on page 7 is otherwise correct.
18. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Comment:
"3) Channel Changes - Three channel changes are described on pages 65-66, including 200
34

0

feet of Gashes Creek near the Blue Ridge Parkway overpass, the 925-foot culvert proposed for
Gashes Creek near the B.K. Miller site, and 200-300 feet of the headwaters of Gap Creek. We
assume this third channel change will take place near the southern end of Old Minehole Gap
Road; however, the NCDOT should indicate in the EA exactly where this third channel change
will be. Observations in the field indicated that other channel changes may be necessary at both
the northern and southern ends of Old Charlotte Highway (SR2771). If the NCDOT proposes
channel changes in these areas, they should be included in the EA."
Response:

Please see the response listed in item 4 above relative to a similar concern of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The information contained in the list on page 7 of the EA is otherwise correct.
19. Division of Environmental Managements Comment:
"Since the highway will be widened in water supply areas, DEM requests that type A sediment
and erosion control measures be implemented. Curb and gutter quickly conveys water to
streams. In the event of a spill, the contaminants could enter a water supply stream before
emergency support staff could contain the spill. Therefore, DEM requests that the type A
sediment basins be converted into hazardous spill catch basins after project completion."
Respgnse:
Please see letter dated 4-13-94 from which states that Gashes Creek is not a water supply
stream. However, Best Management Practices will be used to control erosion, sedimentation,
and to prevent pollutants contained in highway run-off from hazardous spills from entering
waterways. Best Management Practices may consist of grassed swales, silt fences, silt basins,
and rock check dams as appropriate. Throughout the entire project, the unpaved shoulders and
earth slopes will be planted with grass.
20. Division of Environmental Management Comment:
'The 401 water quality certification could be denied if impacts to wetlands and waters are not
avoided to the maximum extent practicable."
Response:
Every effort will be made during the final design phase to insure that no impacts to the wetlands
occur and to hold impacts to the streams to a minimum.
21. Division of Environmental Management Comments:
"DEM requests that DOT examine design alternatives that would not impact Gashes Creek. DOT
' has already identified alternatives that would cut into the nearby mountain and relocate the
stream. However, this alternative will have a negative impact on water quality and aquatic Iffe in
35

Gashes Creek. Can DOT construct (to ASSHTO STANDARDS) the widening of US 74 to the
north side instead of the south-side? How would the cost compare with DOT proposed widening
assuming that the-mature hemlock trees could be replaced?
Response:
Please see the responses to items 2 and 3 above that relates to similar comments from the US
Fish and Wildlife Service.
22. Division of Land Resources Comment:
' "If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water Zone (HOW), as classified by
the Division of Environmental Management, increased design standards for sediment and
erosion control will apply."
' Rest:
So noted.
23. Division of Land Resources Comment:
' '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."
Response:
' So noted.
' 24. Division Of Environmental Health Comment:
"if existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation
must be submitted to the Division of the Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section Plan
Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Response:
The relocation of any water lines required during. construction will be submitted to the
appropriate agencies for review and approval.
' 25. North Carolina Department Of Cultural Resources Comment:
'The EA states that the Whitson Mill Site (31 BN470) is potentially eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places but will not be affected by the project. The report also states that
avoidance of the site would be an environmental commitment. We concur with the EA, but

36

request notification of any change of plans, particularly regarding changes to the stream or
stream banks, in the vicinity of the National Register eligible site."
Response:

So noted. NCDOT will notify the SHPO of any change in the plans near this site.
26. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Comment:
"On May 4, 1994, members of the Historic Preservation Office met with representatives of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to discuss proposed changes to the above project. In an effort to eliminate potential
hazards to the children attending Fairview Elementary School, NCDOT proposes shifting the
widening of US 74 toward the north and away from the school. Because this change results in
a taking of land from the National Register - eligible Dr. Cicero M. McCracken House, we re-
evaluated the effect of the project upon the Dr. C.M. McCracken House.
Please note we are returning the determination of effect concurrence form provided to us at the
meeting since the concurrence forms are currently being revised. Instead, we are providing this
letter to record our concurrence.
' Based upon the preliminary documentation provided at the meeting and our conversation with
the owners of the Dr. C.M. McCracken House, we concur with FHWA's determination that the
' project will have no adverse effect upon the historic property if the following condition is carried
out:
' In consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and owners of the Dr.
C.M. McCracken House, NCDOT shall relocate the drive to the house so that it connects with
Fox Run Drive rather than US 74. We understand that NCDOT will meet with the owners of the
' Dr. C.M. McCracken House in the near future to discuss carrying out this measure."
Response:
So noted.
' 27. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Comment:
' "We have reviewed the addendum to the historic structure survey report prepared by Clay Griffin
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We understand that the Baker House and
Cottages were inadvertently omitted from the historic structures survey report prepared by Jayne
Henderson Fiegel in 1990.
Based upon the information provided in the report, we do not concur with the Federal Highway
' Administrations (FHWA) determination that the Baker House and Cottages are not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places."

37

' Response:

FHWA concurs that the Baker House and Cottages are eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. Accordingly, the section of road adjacent to the site is being redesigned to
incorporate the least amount of taking possible. This will involve the application of a unique
method of retaining wall construction called a soil-nail retaining wall. The use of this wall and
other mitigation measures will alleviate the impact to this historic site and will be closely
coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office to insure that no adverse impact occurs
at the site. (See Programmatic 4(0 for mitigation details)
B. Public Comments:
A Public Hearing on the Location and Design of this project was held March 24, 1994 at
Reynolds Middle School in Buncombe County North Carolina. Numerous people spoke for the
record at the public hearing and/or submitted written comments relative to the project. Their
comments can be categorized into the following summarized topics:
1. Need for the project:
Several citizens question the need for constructing the project.
Response:
This project has been in the T.I.P. since November 1987. The Environmental Assessment looked
at all aspects of the current and projected conditions and concluded that there is a legitimate
need for the proposed improvements.
2. Extending the Five-lane Section to Cane Creek Road (SR 3136)
Several people requested that instead of transitioning from a five-lane section to a two-lane
section at the junction of Cane Creek Road (SR 3136), three lanes be maintained to the
intersection with Cane Creek Road which would provide for a right turn lane at this intersection.
Response:
A right turn lane will be provided at the intersection.
3. Bicycle Lanes
Several people requested that bicycle lanes be constructed as part of the project.
Response:
After careful consideration of the available options, and consultation with the Federal Highway
38
1

' Administration, the Highway Design and Traffic Engineering Branches of NCDOT, and the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Program, it has been concluded that the only reasonable and feasible option for
' accommodating bicycles along the project is to maintain the proposed 64-foot face to face cross
section, but to paint the traffic lanes for 13-foot outside lanes and 11-foot inside lanes. This will
allow for shared use of the wider outside lanes and the two-foot gutters by bicycles and other
' vehicle traffic. In addition, drainage grates will be designed for bicycle use.
4. impacts To Woodfield Condominium Development.
' Several residents of the Woodfield Condominium Development expressed concern that the
project will be constructed too close to their condominiums and the Woodfield Development.
Response:
' To keep the construction limits as far removed from the condominium complex as possible, a
retaining wall will be utilized.
' 5. Safe At Fairview Elementary School
The Buncombe County Public School System, as well as many concerned citizens expressed
their interest in having the road moved as much as possible to the north of existing US 74 to
provide as much room as possible between school grounds and the proposed project.
Response:
Moving the project widening to the north side of existing US 74 involved a taking from a historic
t site, the Dr. Cicero McCracken House. However with the cooperation off the State Historic
Preservation Officer, a decision was made to widen the project as much as possible on the north
side of the existing road, the extent of which is limited by the Southern Bell Telephone exchange
building. The new alignment is now roughly symmetrical in the vicinity of the school and the
McCracken house. This will enhance the safety of school children while limiting impacts to the
' historic property. This new design will enable the project to have no adverse effect on the
historic property.
6. Personal Propey Damage Comments
Several citizens expressed through oral or written comments their concern about direct impacts
' to their properties along the existing road. All comments of this nature that could be, were
addressed at the public hearing. Other comments of this nature will have to be addressed during
the design or right-of-way phase.
11. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The following revisions to the project have been made since the circulation of the
Environmental Assessment:
1 39

f'.

rl

C?
1

1
1

* A new historic site, The Baker House and Cottages was found and was addressed in an
Addendum to the Historic Structures Survey Report developed as part of the EA for this
project. The- Addendum to the Historic Structures Survey Report discussing the Baker
House and Cottages, is attached to this report and is made a part of the Environmental
Assessment by reference thereto.
* The EA deferred a decision on bicycle usage of the new facility until some date in the
future. However, after careful consideration of the available options and consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration, the Highway Design and Traffic Engineering
Branches of NCDOT and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, NCDOT has concluded
that bicycle usage of the new facility should be permitted immediately. To accomplish this,
the proposed facility will be constructed with a 64-foot face to face cross section. The
traffic lanes on the outside will be painted for 13-foot lanes with inside 11-foot lanes. This
will allow for shared use of the wider outside lanes and the two-foot gutters by bicycles
and other vehicular traffic. All drainage grates will be designed for compatibility with
bicycle use.
* The preferred alternate in the EA required that the five lanes be transitioned to two lanes
at the intersection of Cane Creek Road (SR 3136) at the end of the project. Because of
citizens request at the public hearing, a study was undertaken to determine if the project
could be transitioned from five lanes to three lanes at the intersection of Cane Creek
Road, with the third lane being utilized as a right turning lane onto Cane Creek Road.
The study showed this was feasible without undue impact to the First Citizens Bank, and
the right turn lane will be incorporated into the final plans.
* In the vicinity of the B.K. Miller House, a 925-foot concrete box culvert was proposed in
the EA as part of the preferred alternative. However, because it is extremely difficult to
mitigate adverse impacts to aquatic resources in conjunction with construction of long
reinforced concrete box culverts, and because of the decision to utilize a unique retaining
wall construction method called the soil-nail wall, NCDOT has decided to construct a 900-
foot channel change of Gashes Creek at this location. Mitigation measures can be
designed and implemented much easier in an open cut, and the channel change itself,
if property designed and constructed, will not provide a barrier to the movement of
aquatic resources up and down the stream channel. As already stated in this document,
the design of this channel change and mitigation measures thereto will be closely
coordinated with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and other interested state and
federal agencies.
12. BASIS FOR FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the proposed project as documented in the Environmental Assessment,
revisions, and addendums thereto, and upon comments received from Federal, State and Local
agencies, it is the findings of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
40

' Highway Administration that the project will not have a significant impact upon the human or
natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental
analysis will not be required.

J
L

1

41
1

ADDENDUM TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT
' AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Widening US 74, from 1-40 to SR 3136
Buncombe County, North Carolina
TIP NO. R-2306
JAMES M. BAKER HOUSE AND COTTAGES
' 1. Location. East side of US 74, approximately 0.25 mile south of Blue Ridge Parkway at
the junction of US 74 and Hemphill Road. The property is accessed from Nil Giri Drive.
(See Illustration 3.)
2. Description. The James M. Baker House and Cottages consists of a main house, three
and one-half pole log cottages, a rubblework outbuilding, and fragmented elements of a
designed landscape. The property originally functioned as a farm and comprised
approximately 47 acres with the main house as Mr. and Mrs. Baker's residence and
seven cottages for servants and farmhands. The Bakers had been missionaries to India
before retiring to Asheville.
The Baker House and Cottages are located on an elevated site above US 74. The entry
drive (Nil Giri Drive) passes in front of and below the Tudor Revival style, brick, one-and-
one-half story, main house before curving around to approach it from the rear (see
' Illustrations 4-5). The main house is oriented to the south with a framed view of the
mountains, which is becoming overgrown at present. The main house features a side-
gable roof with false half-timbering in the gable ends over a three-by-one bay block. A
one-story, square-plan portion to the rear is capped by a hipped roof. The entrance is
distinguished by a cross-gable projection with a curved raking cornice over an arched
opening marked by irregular stone quoins. An elliptical arch carried on brick piers
supports the engaged porch roof which extends to the side of the house to provide a
' porte cochere, repeating the brick pier and arch motif. A modern one-story, frame
addition extends across the rear wall of the house with a canopy leading to a detached
' carport. Also standing to the rear of the house, a peculiar rubblework outbuilding features
a lower level set into the slope, brick gable ends, and wooden lintels above the
fenestration. (see Illustration 6)
' Surrounding the main house are the remaining elements of a designed landscape. A
sunken, circular "Chinese" garden is located adjacent to the west side of the house (see
1 Illustrations 7-8). The garden area is defined by two concentric, low, rubblework walls
accessed by a series of stone steps or through the "pagoda" gate, a representational
pagoda form constructed of wood and supported on rubblework piers. A variety of
ornamental species are planted between the concentric walls and a centrally located
' 42

L

circular rubblework planter contains dwarf Japanese maple. Two iron lanterns also lend
to the "Chinese" character of the garden.
A series of low, rubblework terrace walls extending from the house down the slope toward
US 74 remain in a fragmentary condition. Several portions of the walls are readily visible
and other sections are overgrown. The complete system of terraces and terrace walls has
been obscured by subsequent deterioration and uncontrolled growth (see Illustrations 9-
10).
Beyond the Chinese garden to the west of the main house is one of the remaining one-
story pole log cottages, Cottage #1 (see Illustrations 11-12). (The other two and one-half
cottages are located a short distance from the house at the end of a winding gravel road.)
During the 1930's seven pole log cottages were built for the Baker's servants and
farmhands. The cottage near the main house appears to be perhaps the earliest of the
extant cottages and features a rubblework foundation, below-grade garage set into the
sloping site; an engaged corner porch, shingled gable ends, and interior brick chimney,
exposed rafters, and six-over-one double-hung windows. A boxy, unfinished, two-story,
frame addition is attached to the east end of the cottage. Several low rubblework walls
and a set of curving stone steps define the area immediately surrounding the cottages
(see Illustration 13). The other cottages possess similar characteristics but differ in their
overall design. These cottages feature L- or T-shaped plans, attached porches, casement
windows, false half-timbering in the gable ends, and exterior rubblework chimneys. The
location of the three destroyed cottages is uncertain.
The Bakers farmed the 47 acre property during their years. The National Park Service
acquired a portion of the land for the construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway which
passes to the north of the property. Additionally, two private owners were allowed to
purchase part of the Baker tract and erect modern dwellings. Two parallel rows of white
pines north of the main house and parallel rows of hardwoods to the northeast probably
relate to an earlier, yet undetermined, landscape pattern.
3. Historical Background. The Rev. James M. Baker (1866-1952), a native of Syracuse, New
York, spent 35 years in India as a missionary. Baker served as both an educator and
pastor at the American Baptist Mission in Ongole, in the southeastern part of India and
near the Bay of Bengal. Baker's wife, Susan, also conducted mission work in Ongole, and
together they visited numerous Asian and European nations.
The Bakers returned to the United States in 1929 and toured the country lecturing on
social and economic conditions in India. The Bakers were drawn to Asheville for their
retirement based on knowledge of John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s gift for the establishment of
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Rockefeller was a personal friend) and a visit
to the area as part of their extensive travels. Baker purchased 47 acres along the
Asheville-Charlotte Highway (US 74) in 1932 where he built his house and seven cottages
and operated a farm. While in Asheville, Baker authored a book, Contending the Grace
43

i

11
in India. 1901-1929, about his experiences as a missionary. The Bakers were members
of First Baptist Church in Asheville but only Mrs. Baker took a particularly active role in
the church. -Following the Baker's deaths the house and cottages passed to their
daughter. (Source: "Baker, Retired Missionary To India, Dies in 85th Year," Asheville
Citizen, March 24, 1952).
Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell Freeman, the second owners after the Baker's daughter, presently
occupy the main house, and their son, Mark Freeman, presently occupies Cottage #1
near US 74 with his family. The Freemans are natives of Fairview, North Carolina. The
other two remaining cottages and modern dwellings are owned by other families.
44

Our,

t
r'

TREE$

44Ar?ON ?l
A
IA;rA J 8e
vv
?AROWooG ? ? f ,?: \
mooembJ DWELL, t 5 f`v ?f
v?•ic?uaG-
-' ii

O,k4e. 4OU4 F-
CAP

TREtS
TPLEP-S
vx"Cy
? ?? NoU?,E
i
.,AtvlcZ Yvt. 5,A- LE HouSE
A,ti1D GoT'('AGES
?. \ 'e, tTE, PLLt? - rJor TO
15• lL. Mt1u_E?-
NoLUSE.
Illustration 3.
\,, ram

Buncombe County
TIP No. R-2306

IS

All,
-
21

ass . rl..

Illustration 4. James M. Baker House.
ta+; -

_x Z

...'.`l .lam'
.
3r
t
?
?
'
?t ?
r `
_? __ ?? •G.t?Y./
c ?" icy
y

r } ,"",r ,? x:
qq

Illustration 5. James M. Baker House. View of rear of house.

Buncombe County
TIP No. R-2306

Illustration 6. Rubblework outbuilding, James M.
Baker House.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Buncombe County
TIP No. R-2306

3.= Mme"' 3?R, - ?{

i
?,

Y
71

'£ ? .
?.4?,a ?
L? _' •'fi yam ' .1L?:.??
? "- ? ' ? ` ???` ? '
.
1

_
.r'
,?
?
?
y J ?? a
!
r
"h

?
.
R
c .. •
- li
r `
'
'G°1?? 7r
rte' ?

,
?•. : ,f. ???ykt??1? ???I`_,xr?',+i•_?^t'A ?-'?^iy -rt. h L ????i-r?,.K?t ."`yg,S'{L:

Illustration 7. Chinese garden, James M. Baker House.

Illustration 8. Chinese garden, James M. Baker House.

Buncombe County
TIP No. R-2306
Illustration 9. Rubblework walls used as landscaping elements, James M.
Baker House.

Illustration 10. Rubblework terrace wall.
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?:

?.?.
????
l
. ;., .?

__ ..
ea?

r
??
r??
?? ^ ?L
• '?
::
??
???;r;
_??? ? -?
m
0
U
r-I
r-I
C
O
.?
N
+?
rl
rl
H

Buncombe County
TIP No. R-2306

Illustration 12. Cottage #1.
Illustration 13. Stone steps, Cottage #1.
1
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
' WITH HISTORIC SITES
' F. A. PROJECT F-44-1(3)
STATE PROJECT 8.1841701
' T. I. P. NO. R-2306
DESCRIPTION:
SITE 1: James M. Baker House and Cottages. Located on Nil
' Giri Drive near the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road.
Buncombe County, North Carolina
' SITE 2: Blue Ridge Parkway. Located on both sides of US 74,
southeast of the I-40 interchange.
' SITE 3: Dr. C. M. McCracken House. Located on US 74 at the
intersection of Fox Run Drive across from Fairview Elementary
School.
' SITE 4: B. K. Miller House. Located at the intersection of US
74 and Hemphill Road.
' The following checklist applies to each of the properties.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the
existing highway facility on essentially X
' the same alignment?
X
' 2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the X a
existing highway?
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, X
structures, or objects?
' S. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are
important to preserve in place rather
-

'
X
than to recover for archaeological F
1
research?
' 6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) a
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
' b. If the project is determined to have

' "no adverse effect" on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the

F
X
' determination of "no adverse effect'. *7
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed
X
?
mitigation?
' 8. Does the project require the preparation F-I X
of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
' PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
' to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No

' X
1. Do nothing
' Does the "do nothing" alternative: a
X
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?

or (b) correct existing safety hazards?

F-I X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
' and (d) create a cost or impact of F-I X
extraordinary measure?

2. Improve the hiAhwav without usinit the X

' adjacent historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,

etc., or traffic management measures
X ?
' been evaluated?
' (b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
' impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
' or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
' safety problems
11
' or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
' or (v) a project which does not.meet
the need
I or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude

Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location X ?
' without usinu the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would
' result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
'
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts

or iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
' difficulties

and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
' difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
' MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No

' 1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the
X
historic integrity of the site.
' 2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed
to, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by
the FHWA, the SHPO, and as appropriate, X
' the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
' described as follows:
SITE 1. James M. Baker House and Cottages:
' A project alignment was chosen that avoids impacts to the
property as much as practicle.
A soil-nail retaining wall will be used to minimize cut slope
' impacts and reduce the amount of property required.

' The fence to be installed along the top of the wall will be
compatable with the property and its setting.
' Construction disturbance at the intersection of Nil Giri
Drive and Hemphill Road will be kept to a minimum.
' SITE 2: Blue Ridge Parkway:
A retaining wall will be used to protect and avoid the
' Whitson Mill archaeological site located on the National Park
Service property.
' A four-lane typical section will be used in the vicinity of
the interchange to avoid impacts to the existing Blue Ridge
Parkway overpass.
'
NCDOT will repair any damages to the bridge or other Parkway
property caused by the construction or maintenance of US 74
and maintain retaining walls, culverts, and other
' appurtenances to US 74 on Parkway land
A soil-nail retaining wall will be used to minimize impacts
' from the cut slope along the eastside of US 74 near the James
M. Baker property.
' SITE 3: Dr. C. M. McCracken House:
The existing driveway serving the house will be relocated to
' connect with Fox Run Drive rather than US 74
SITE 4: B. K. Miller House:
' A project alignment was chosen that avoids impacts to the
property with the exception of three small temporary
construction easements.
' To limit the effect of the easements, FHWA and NCDOT will use
railroad ties or other wooden materials for the two-foot
retaining wall, minimize the side slope along Hemphill Road
' to avoid mature boxwoods, and work with the SHPO and the
property owner to develop and implement a landscaping plan
for the property along US 74 near the Hemphill Road
' intersection.
The overhead utilities will be removed from the property and
' placed on the other side of US 74.
The guardrail at the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road
will be of the rustic type -- made of corrosion-resistant,
' weathering steel and wooden posts.
Mature azaleas within the construction easement at the
' southern end of the property that will be damaged or
destroyed will be removed and delivered to the property owner
for replanting elsewhere on the historic property.

' Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
' COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
' a.
c.
d.
' e.
State Historic Preservation Officer X
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation _X
Property owners _X
Local/State/Federal Agencies _X
US Coast Guard _
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project. There
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the
historic sites.
' The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed
with local and state agencies.
Approved:
D to Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
G 8 9? u h?l?.c.
Date ?Or 'vision Administrator, FHWA

w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bette Ray McCain, Secretary
' January 27, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
' Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
27601-1442
Ralei
h
C
N
g
,
.
.
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Widening US 74 from 1-40 in Asheville to SR 3136
in Fairview, Buncombe County, Federal Aid No. F-
44-1(3), State Project No. 8.1841701, TIP No. R-
2306, ER 95-8064
' Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1994, requesting our concurrence in a
finding of No Adverse Effect for the above referenced project. To more fully
discuss the project's effect on historic properties and conditions which would
allow us to concur in your finding, we met with representatives of the Federal
' Highway Administration (FHwA), the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), and Mrs. Kitsey Bocook, owner of the B. K. Miller House, on January 6,
1995. The results of that meeting are outlined below.
Blue Ridge Parkway. Although not included in your letter of December 14, 1994,
all parties recognized this National Register-eligible property is within the
' undertaking's area of potential effect, and we agreed it would not be adversely
affected by the project.
Dr. C. M. McCracken House. We agreed the undertaking will not adversely affect
this historic property if the current driveway is relocated to connect the property
with Fox Run Drive rather than US 74. No additional landscaping is
recommended.
James M. Baker House and Cottages. We concurred with your finding of no
adverse effect on this historic property if a soil-nail retaining wall is used along US
74 to reduce the amount of property required for the project; a fence which is
' compatible with the property and its setting is installed along the top of the wall;
and construction disturbance at the intersection of Hemphill Road, the historic
property's driveway, and US 74 is kept to a minimum.
' B. K. Miller House. We concurred there will be no adverse effect upon the historic
property if the following conditions are met:
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
C
' Nicholas L. Graf
January 27, 1995, Page 2
' * Overhead utilities will be removed from the property and placed on the
opposite side of US 74.
' * The guard rail at the intersection of US 74 and Hemphill Road will be of the
rustic type with corrosion-resistant, weathering steel and wooden posts.
' * To limit the effect of the three temporary construction easements within the
historic property, FHwA and NCDOT will use railroad ties or other wooden
materials for the two-foot retaining wall, limit the slope along Hemphill Road
to avoid the mature boxwoods, and work with the State Historic
' Preservation Office and property owner to develop and implement a
landscaping plan for the property along US 74 and at the intersection of US
74 and Hemphill Road, if practicable. To determine if landscaping is
practicable, the parties will consider the efficacy of additional landscaping,
potential threats to the viability of the existing hemlocks and vegetative
buffer, safety/sight distances, and cost.
* Mature azaleas: at the southern end of the Miller property (not necessarily
within the boundaries of the historic area) which will be damaged or
destroyed by construction shall be removed and delivered to Mrs. Bocook
for replanting within the historic property. In accepting the plants, Mrs.
Bocook understands they may not survive transplanting and will hold FHwA,
NCDOT, and its contractors blameless should the plants not survive.
u

We want to express our appreciation for the cooperation shown by all parties to
develop means to protect the historic properties, especially the introduction of the
soil-nail wall technology. We look forward to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's concurrence with your finding of No Adverse Effect, implementation
of the undertaking, and further consultation on landscaping at the B. K. Miller
House.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
S' cerely,
a Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
1
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
77,
"r
a; cc APR 281995
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809 ^-
' Washington, DC 20004
APR 2 6 1995
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf - -" -
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration,
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Widening of US 74 -?- --- ',// ' ---.?
' (I-40 Asheville to SR 3136 Fairview)
Buncombe County, North Carolina
EE 1-1 ,-
Dear Mr. Graf ---+-- --~- -- - -
' On April 18, 1995, the Council received your determination, supported by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no adverse
effect upon properties listed on and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic
Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not
required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act other than to implement the undertaking as proposed and consistent with any
conditions you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
t Thank you for your cooperation.
t Sincerely,
MaryAnn Naber
Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Office of Review
[j
J

i

11
APPENDIX
60

1'J

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E
Planning and Environmenta
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina

J

1? 11 I1<?o
Dear Mr. Vick:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville-Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
April 21, 1994
Manager
Branch
of Transportation
21611-5201
TAKE??
PRIDE IN
AMERKA¦?¦
.CE/L?
z APR 2 5 1994
HrGC
HVs
Subject: Environmental Assessment for US 74, From 1-40 to SR 3136,
Buncombe CeuntY, ?lorth Carolina, TIP No. R-2306
In your letter of larch 18. 1994 (received March 21, 1994), you requested
our review of the subject project. The following comments are provided
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 061-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
GENERAL COMMENTS
The proposed project involves widening 6.7 miles of US 74 to a multi-lane
facility from I-40 to SR 3136 in Fairview. The road will be widened
along the existing alignment except in two places; the road will shift
north around Minehole Gap and will shift south near SR 3136. This
project will involve 13 stream crossings. Culvert extensions will be
necessary on Gap Creek, Gashes Creek and a tributary to Cane Creek.
Three channel changes are proposed--one on Gap Creek and two on Gashes
Creek. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servirp (ServirPl, biologist conducted a
site inspection on April 8, 1994.
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential adverse impacts
to aquatic resources resulting from the proposed project. Gashes Creek
supports nongame fish species and trout and is a tributary to the
Swannanoa River, which is designated by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission as Hatchery Supported Designated Mountain Trout
Water at its confluence with Gashes Creek. Gap,Creek also supports
nongame fish species and is a tributary to Cane Creek, which is
designated as Hatchery Supported Designated Mountain Trout Water. Both
Gashes and Gap Creeks are somewhat degraded from sedimentation from
surrounding development; however, they still have fish and wildlife
habitat value.
United States Department of the Interior

A meeting was held on December 17, 1992, to specifically discuss
alternative alignments near the B.K. Miller historic site and Gashes
Creek. At that meeting, the Service stated its preference for
Alternative A, which involves shifting the alignment toward the B.K.
r Miller historic site and avoiding the need to relocate a portion of
Gashes Creek. However, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration stressed their preference
to avoid the Section 4(f) property and to shift the alignment towards
Gashes Creek. This would require a 900 foot channel change.
The Service, along with the other resource agencies attendant at the
meeting, requested that the NCOOT prepare a mitigation plan along with
cost estimates for the stream. A cost comparison between Alternatives A
(historic site) and B (channel change) was provided to the Service at the
meeting with an estimated $1,008,000 and 51,068,000 for the alternatives,
respectively. This cost comparison did not include any stream
enhancement measures (i.e., revegetation, placement of large boulders,
etc.), which may increase the cost even more for Alternative B. In our
January 20, 1993, letter to Mr. Joe Westbrook of the NCDOT, the Service
requested that the following issues be addressed in the environmental
assessment: (1) a cost comparison of the two alternatives (Alternative A
and B) considering that Alternative B will require rerouting the creek
onto a very steep slope; (2) erosion control measures to insure- that the
' existing creek is not impacted during channel construction and
realignment; (3) design details for the new channel; including how it
will replicate the existing channel; and (4) stream
restoration/enhancement measures that will be taken. The Service does
' not believe the environmental assessment adequately addressed these
issues.
' SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 7 under Existing Drainage Structures: The NCDOT lists 11
' structures; however, our field inspection observed 13 existing
structures along the 6.7 miles long alignment. The Service
found three crossings each of Gashes Creek, tributaries to
Gashes Creek, Gap Creek, tributaries of Gap Creek, and one
' crossing of Cane Creek for a total of 13 crossings. The
environmental assessment should be revised to reflect the
correct number of crossings.
Page 21, 3rd paragraph: While the environmental assessment
notes the presence of large hemlock trees on the B.K. Miller
Historic Site property "the house faces U.S. 74 and is visible
from that road although it is shielded from view by 15 trees
ranging in size from 4" to 32" in diameter," it neglects to add
that these same trees have been topped to serve a power line.
Additionally, the Service believes that statements such as "the
structure sits on a heavily shaded lot containing 2.4 acres
with lovely landscaping treatments, including a duck pond" are
very subjective and not appropriate in an environmental
document. While an alignment shift towards the B.K. Miller
site would take out the hemlocks, and possibly the duck pond,
' these resources are not scarce on the landscape level (and duck

ponds are manmade!) and are replaceable. Indeed, new
' landscaping could be provided to buffer the house from the
road.
Page 23. 2nd paragraph: The Service believes the following
statement to be misleading: "The decision to choose the option
with the parallel culvert was made for economic, engineering,
and environmental reasons." The Service prefers the option
that avoids Gashes Creek and shifts towards the B.K. Miller
site. While the Service does agree that the option that
relocates Gashes Creek further into the mountainside is both
' cost and environmentally prohibitive, we believe the document
gives a false impression that the Service, and other resource
agencies, are satisfied with the selection of an alignment that
' impacts Gashes Creek.
Pape 66. 3rd oaraaraoh: The environmental assessment does not
specify exactly where the 200 to 300 foot channel change of the
headwaters of Gap Creek is located. We assume that this
channel change will take place near the southern end of Old
Minehole Gap. The Service also noted the possible need for
channel changes at both northern and southern ends of Old
Chariotte Highway (SR 2771).
' SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Service believes the above mentioned issues, particularly regarding
' adverse impacts to Gashes Creek, should be addressed before we can concur
with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you,have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls, of
our staff, at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-90-058.
' Sincerely.,
Rri an P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
J

i
1
1
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
INREPLY%FFSTO April 21, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
cE?y
APR 2 6 1994
'L
DtVtS1C,V OF
HIGHWAYS
???'aontrvt?i
This is in response to your letter of March 18, 1994, on the "Federal
Environmental Assessment for US 74, From I-40 to SR 3136, Buncombe County,
Federal Aid Project F-44-1(3), State Project 8.1841701, T.I.P. Project R-2306"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199402123).
' This project area is located outside of the planning jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. With respect to flood
plains, this area lies within the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley
Authority. We understand that you have also sent them a copy of your Federal
Environmental Assessment (FEA). Therefore, we will defer comments on flood
plain matters to them.
' The area does fall within our District Regulatory Branch jurisdiction
with respect to wetlands. The Regulatory Branch has reviewed your FEA and
has the following comments.
' The FEA thoroughly discusses potential impacts associated with the
various alternatives considered. We are in agreement with your selection of
' Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative; however, we question the need to
culvert 925 feet of Gashes Creek across from the B.K. Miller historic house.
It appears that a practicable alternative, although it would require making a
4(f) evaluation necessary, would be to shift the alignment to the north toward
the house site, thereby eliminating the need to impact Gashes Creek at this
location. Gashes Creek still supports a small trout population and has been
adversely impacted by development to the point that additional large scale
' impacts could eliminate the remaining populations. .
An individual permit will be required pursuant to Section 404 of the
' Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, for the required discharges of dredged
and/or fill material into waters or wetlands associated with channel changes,
culvert extensions, and bank stabilization activities.
1

¦ We encourage the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to
continue to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States during
' the design phase of the project. The NCDOT's mitigation plans for all
unavoidable impacts should be submitted simultaneously with your Section 404
permit application.
' We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the FEA. Any further
questions should be directed to Mr. David Baker in our Asheville Regulatory
Office at [phone].
Sincerely,

I
Copy Furnished (with copy of
' incoming correspondence
without enclosure):
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
' Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
' 400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
1

1
?tEO S7+r
?S
J?

1

1
vi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
MAY 0 2 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
V O
MAY ? ? ?!!/
' DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS'
'N?rRON??
This is in response to the request for comments on the
Environmental Assessment for proposed improvements to US Highway 74
in Buncombe County (T.I.P. No. R-2306). The EPA has reviewed this
document and is commenting pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
US 74 south of Asheville is proposed to be widened to a five-
lane roadway for a distance of 6.7 miles, except for the underpass at
the Blue Ridge Parkway where it would be a four-lane. The
improvements are being proposed because the present level--of service
is below standards and the corridor is one of the fastest growing
areas of suburban Asheville. In addition to the proposed
alternative, four other build alternatives and the no-build option
were evaluated. All of the build alternatives are five-lane options
along the present alignment, varying only the side of the roadway
expanded. The selected alternative is a compilation of the best
alignments to avoid structures and amount of cut and fill. We
believe the analysis was reasonable but would like to have seen
included a three-lane option for comparison of level of service and
' impacts.
Project Impacts
' Perhaps the greatest impact of the proposed project would be the
expected 40 residential and 17 business dislocations. This impact
however, was fully considered in the alternatives analysis and the
preferred alignment was selected to minimize the dislocations.
Also considered was the potential impacts to historic structures
along the corridor. Twenty-one structures were evaluated and five
found to be eligible for inclusion in the Federal Register of
Historic Places. None would be impacted by the proposed project.
Printed on Recycled Paper
1
-2-
Except for the area of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the project
corridor is greatly impacted by the presence of Man. Accordingly, we
would not expect impacts to terrestrial wildlife to increase
greatly. There are three very small wetland communities within the'
' corridor and proximal to construction areas. It is important that
effective nonpoint source sedimentation control BMPs be successfully
implemented during construction to maintain the wetlands. We are
' pleased to note that these controls are planned. Likewise, a
sedimentation and erosion control plan is critical at the crossings
of Gashes and Gap Creeks.
' There is one aspect of the project that could greatly impact
water resources. This is the rerouting of Gashes Creek at the Blue
Ridge Parkway underpass. Normally we are critical of such changes
' but considering the alternative of reconstructing the old stone
Parkway overpass, we agree with the creek rerouting. With the
likelihood of severe stormwater runoff flows in this area, we see
' this rerouting as a problem requiring careful attention during
construction. Project design needs to include features to retard
roadway operational runoff and confine roadway debris.

F',
1

i

The noise impact analysis resulted in numerous receptors
predicted to be impacted above the threshold for abatement action.
We believe some additional traffic management will be appropriate in
the future particularly if more traffic queuing is envisioned. The
EA did not estimate the noise levels of construction activities.
This should have been done since so many sensitive receptors will be
close to the construction.
Summary
The EPA recognizes the potential for construction to greatly
impact surface streams unless the NCDOT is totally committed to
ensuring effective BMPs. Noise will similarly be a major annoyance
to the residents particularly during construction and in the future
as more traffic flow creates increased congestion. However, EPA does
not have any objections to this transportation project.
Thank you for providing the EA for our review. If clarification
if needed on these comments, please contact me or Mr. Ted Bisterfeld
on my staff at 404/347-3776.
Sincerely,

Hez J. Mueller, Chief
En ironmental Policy Section
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
1 APR 2 1 1994
2
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 west Summit Hill Orive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 C? H'GHW- * YSF Q
ROZM
April 15, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR US 74, FROM I-40 TO SR 3136,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, FEDERAL AID PROJECT F-44-1(3), STATE PROJECT 8.1841701,
T.I.P.-PROJECT R-2306
Based on TVA's review of the subject environmental assessment provided
with your March 18 letter to M. Paul Schmierbach, our comments are
enclosed. If you should have any questions, please call me at
615/632-6693.
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Manager
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
Enclosure
ENCLOSURE
' 1. Page 15, Section B.3. - TVA would like to go on record as supporting
comments provided by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic in Curtis
B. Yates March 29 memorandum to you.
"
2. Page i, Section 2 - The document should include as an
Action
Required by other Federal Agencies" that TVA must review the
' proposed modifications to waterways under its Section 26a authority.
3. Page 13, Section B - A clearer definition for accident rate is

' needed (units are not given).
4. Page 15, Section B - Figure 4A uses a-four-lane road to illustrate a
typical section considered for severe slopes, yet the text indicates
the only location that will be four-laned is at the Blue Ridge
underpass.
' 5. Page 19, Section 8 - TVA 26a permits need to. be included in the
discussion under Permits Required.
' 6. Page 67, Section 2 - Regarding flood risk analysis, headwater
increases on non-FEMA streams should be limited to a maximum of one
foot.
7. Page 20, Chapter IV - For the alternatives discussed, TVA concurs
that overall impacts of widening US 74 generally are minimized when
compared to construction of new road alignments. However, for all
options including the recommended option, there appear to be rather
' substantial alterations required to Gap and Gashes Creek. Although
it is a small stream, we particularly note the culvert enclosure of
Gashes Creek for a 925 foot run. We trust the commitments in the EA
' are adequate and satisfactory to the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission to mitigate adverse impacts to the trout resources of
Gashes Creek.
8. Page 51, Site 1 - Blue Ridge Parkway -On line 6 in the second
paragraph, "concept" should be "concept".
9. Page 64, Section C.f. - As noted in the EA, both Gap Creek and
Gashes Creek are tributaries to streams considered resignsted Public
Trout Waters by the State of North Carolina. With the above
' exception regarding the 925 foot culvert and the conditions listed
below, the environmental commitments listed in the EA are adequate
for protecting aquatic resources in these streams. ,
' TVA will recommend the following conditions in the 26a permits for
the project. These conditions would supplement commitments c, d,
' and a of section 7, "Environmental Commitments" of the EA Summary
e iii)
(Pa
.
g
1. The US 74 highway culverts on Gap Creek and Gashes Creek
' are to be structured so as to create hydraulic conditions which
will allow creation/maintenance of natural substrate; and which
will create/maintain velocities and flow patterns which offer
refuge for fish and other aquatic life, and allow passage of
' trout and other species under normal and low flow conditions.

2-

2. Best Management Practices are employed to prevent erosion and
str eam siltation during culvert construction and modification.
' The se include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Cofferdams being installed between construction areas and the
' stream prior to any construction activity, and all water that
accumulates behind the dam be clarified before being returned
to the stream.
b. The culverts be constructed in phases, such that the portion of
' the streamflow being diverted can be handled without creating
erosion/sedimentation and without impeding fish passage.
C. Removal of vegetation be held to a minimum.
' d. Use cofferdams around any material stockpile areas.
e. Stabilize disturbed areas with vegetation as soon as possible.
In slow germination periods, disturbed areas should be
temporarily stabilized with a fabric in.addition to seeding.
' f. Keep equipment out of the stream to the degree possible.
g. Keep equipment off the immediate streambank as much as possible.
' h.
i. Avoid contact of curing concrete with the streamflow.
Remove, redistribute and stabilize all sediment which
accumulates behind cofferdams.
N- 1922

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E2
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Director
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
'
Habitat Conservation Program C?? C
' DATE: April 12, 1994
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0683, Environmental
' Assessment for widening US 74 from I-40 to SR 3136,
Buncombe County, TIP #R--2306.
' This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for
widening US 74 between I-40 and SR 3136 in Buncombe County. I
' conducted a site visit on April 8, 1994. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as- amended; 16 U.S.C.
' 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy-Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCOOT)
' proposes to widen 6.7 miles of US 74 between I-40 and SR 3136 to
a 5-lane curb and gutter section. The roadway will be widened
along the existing alignment except in two places. The roadway
' will shift to the north around Minehole Gap and to the south near
SR 313A. Approximately 162 acres of right-of-way will be
required; 27 acres of which are forested. Existing culverts on
' Gap Creek, Gashes Creek, their tributaries, and a tributary to
Cane Creek will be extended. Three channel changes are proposed,
one on Gap Creek and two on Gashes Creek.
' The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is
most concerned about the project's potential to impact aquatic
resources. Gashes Creek is a tributary to the Swannanoa River,
' which is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water (DPMTW) at the confluence with Gashes Creek. Although
somewhat degraded from sedimentation, Gashes Creek supports
' nongame fish species and trout to a lesser degree. Gap Creek is
a tributary to Cane Creek, which is also Hatchery Supported

TIP JR-2306 Page 2 April 12, 1994
' DPMTW. Gap Creek has also been degraded from sedimentation, but
may serve as a trout nursery stream for Cane Creek.
' Before the NCWRC can concur with a Finding of No Significant
Impact, the NCDOT should address the following issues:
' 1) Gashes Creek - The NCDOT proposes to place Gashes Creek in a
925-foot culvert parallel to and partially underneath the
new roadway across from Hemphill Road and the B. K. Miller
' Site to avoid impacts to the grounds around this property.
According to the NCDOT, part of the "lovely landscaping
treatments, including a duck pond" at this site would be
' impacted if Gashes Creek is not culverted or relocated.
Although we realize the importance of preserving historic
sites, we object to culverting a large section of stream to
' protect a duck pond and hemlocks that have been topped to
accommodate power lines. It is our opinion that this issue
was not thoroughly addressed in the EA. Other alternatives
should be examined, including constructing only a 3 or 4-
lane roadway in this area or providing new landscaping for
the B. K. Miller Site to compensate for loss of trees and
the duck pond if necessary. We maintain that there are
' upland alternatives to culverting this stream that should be
addressed.
' 2) Existina Drainage Structures - The NCDOT lists it existing
drainage structures on page 7 of the EA; however, I observed
13 during my site visit. Two that do not seem to be listed
include tributaries to Gashes Creek just northwest of Rose
' Hill Road (SR 3121) and another just southeast of Emma Grove
Road (SR 3127). Also, structures d and a on page 7 seem to
be reversed if the list is supposed to start at the
' beginning of the project and progress to the end. I counted
three crossings each of Gashes Creek, tributaries to Gashes
Creek, Gap Creek, tributaries to Gap Creek, and one crossing
' of Cane Creek for a total of 13, which agrees with the
information presented on page 64 of the EA. The list on
page 7 should be modified to include all 13 structures and
the stream being crossed at each structure.
' 3) Channel Changes - Three channel changes are described on
pages 65-66, including 200 feet of Gashes Creek near the
' Blue Ridge Parkway overpass, the 925-foot culvert proposed
for Gashes Creek near the B. K. Miller Sita, and 200-300
feet of the headwaters of Gap Creek. We assume this third
' channel change will take place near the'southern end of Old
Minehole Gap Road; however, the NCDOT should indicate in the
EA exactly where this third channel change will be.
Observations in the field indicated that other channel
' changes may be necessary at both northern and southern ends
of Old Charlotte Highway (SR 2771). If the NCDOT proposes
channel changes in these areas, they should be included in
' the EA.

' Page 3 April 12, 1994
TIP #R-2306
' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Micky Clemmona, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
'
' Mr. David Yow, NCWRC
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
' Division of Environmental Management

' .Jcmes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

April 4, 1994
Xkffll_?VA
E=-= ?NR
i MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee j
Through: John Dorne U
Monica Swi hart
From: Eric Galamb?!
'
' 'R 3
S 1- ^
ubie
Suncomie Cou,mv
' State Proiec. OCT No. 3..341 01 TIP R-2306
EH NR n 94-0683. DEM IvA40 n i 0565
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.23 acres of wetlands and,,significant (925
' feet) stream rechannelizaticn.
DOT should follow DOT's Stream Relocation/Channelization Guidelines. OEM is still
evaluating the channelization of Gashes Creek and therefore is not able to give an
endorsement of the document.
Since the highway will be widened in water supply areas, OEM requests that type A
sediment and erosion control measures be implemented. Curb and gutter quickly
conveys water to streams. In the event of a spill, the contaminants could enter a
water supply stream before emergency support staff could contain the spill.
' Therefore, OEM requests that the type A sediment basins be converted into
hazardous spill catch basins after project completion.
' The 401 Water Quality Certification could be denied if impacts to wetlands and waters
are not avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
' us74bun.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Rd Wgh. North Carolina 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
`' ' M EQual Copxfu+dy Affirmative Action Employer 50%recyciew 10X. Post{onemK PMr

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 13, 1994
Memorandum
To: Tom Kendig
NC DOT
Through: John Dorne>?
From: Eric Galamb Ll
Nola
Agft*?A??
ED FE F1
Subject: Design Consideration, US 74 from 1-40 to SR
Buncombe County, TIP-.1-R-2306
DEM has reviewed the sub-ject pro'ect. DOT ._as identified
alternatives that would avoid Jimpactinc the B.K. Miller property.
These alternatives would adversely impac? Gashes Creek. The
document incorrectly states ghat Gashes reek is a Water Supply
stream. Gashes Creek is a class "C" stream.
DEM requests that DOT examine design alternatives that would
not impact Gashes Creek. DOT has already identified alternatives
that would cut into the nearby mountain and relocate the stream.
However, this alternative would have a negative impact on water
quality and aquatic life in Gashes Creek. Can DOT construct (to
ASSHTO standards) the widening of US 74 to the north-side instead
of the south-side? How would the costs compare with DOT proposed
widening assuming that the mature hemlock trees would be
replaced?
Thank you for this consideration. Please submit the design
information to me. Should you have any questions, please contact
me at 733-1786.
Us74desn.ltr
' cc: Forrest Westall, ARO
Central Files

' P.O. Box 29535. Rdeigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

.?.? ... 4
?y? ?. :. :?1 V iV V`?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
JaMes G. Martin. Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMME MTS Charier H. Gardner
W &Vil W. Cobey. jr, Secretary Director
Project Number: County: ?-
Project Name:
' Geodetic Survev
' This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior•to construction at P.O. Box* 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
' geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
y =::is project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
' other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
' No comment -
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
' control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
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 withina High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
' erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
' Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
' Reviewer Date
DLPART\1L'•NT Of
AND NATURAL RESSOU!"MS
DIVISION OF EN VIRO MINTAL HEALTH

7
L

U

u

11

Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Pro)CU Number
Q?
Q (4,
County
T.rpe of Project Ck D
Project Name
plns and
The applicant should be advised that
ntal Health prior,tothe system
sr

U i
f En:
o
nme
improvements must be approved by the D
initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.)-
h
e
of a contract or t
Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
h
e
For information, contact t
This project will be classified as a non-community public water p reformation comoiy
appl Cit'
For more
i
n rements.
stare and federal drinking water monitoring requ
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone]•
ucted as proposed, we will recor...mend closure of feet of adjacent
t
i
r
s cons
1
If this project
?, r i
to the harvest or r shellfish. For information regarding the shellfis sanitation pro a,r ,-
waters
at (919) 726-68z./.
licant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation 3ranc
the a
pp
m,
r .. breedi_ ; ?re?le= =.

.
roposed nor th is project _aati produces .- -^osquito
(
)
l
i
U p
s
area
sposa
The spoil d
For ii format.,on concering appropriate mosquito c=zroi ::ensures, the appiica:. snq?:c.
_ '26-S°70
°19)
'
.
:. Pest Management Section at
contact the Public Heaic
The applicant should be advised that prior to the :e--aovai or demolition of diiaoidaze=
order to prevent t e
U structures, an extensive rodent control program may oe necessary, in
to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent contQc.
t
d
s
en
migration of the ro
artment or the Public He_:tn Pest Management Section at (,1
h de
l
l h
p
t
ea
contact the loca
733-0407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding t?ei=
1CAC 18A
15A N
d
i
e
t
U -
re
reauirements for septic tank installations (as requ
.
-he
; .e wast
e disposal methods11 con
nk and other on ` `
i
c ta
For information concerning sept
tion at [phone].
S
ec
On-Site Wastewater
advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanita7.
ld b
h
--?
e
ou
The applicant s
r
U facilities required for this protect.
If existing Water lines will be relocated duringE? e`: nm
l HealthnPublic h 1a eatSucc i
enta
relocation must be submitted to the Division off
1330 Sc. Mar% s Screet, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-_.?
Branch
i
R
l
,
ew
ev
an
Section, P
12
Reviewer Section/Branch
OF
.HM 3198 (Revised 8/93) L
/J/?(L
Date

C

F'
L

J
?I

sum a
M I
•? it ?.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Seat ary
April 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.F., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
0a?_
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director
SUBJECT: US 74 from 1-40 interchange at Asheville to SR 3136,
Buncombe County, R-2306, 8.1841701, F-44-1(3),
94-E-4220-0683
We have received the Environmental Assessment concerning the above project
from the State Clearinghouse.
The EA states that the Whitson's Mill site (31 BN470) is potentially eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places but will not be affected by the
project. The report also states that avoidance of the site will be an environmental
commitment. We concur with the EA but request notification of any change of
plans, particularly regarding changes to the stream or streambanks, in the vicinity
of the National Register-eligible site.
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our comments regarding historic
architectural resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
' concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' DB:slw?
cc: VState Clearinghouse
Nicholas L. Graf
T. Padgett
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - R-Woh. Nosh Cuu6na 27601-2807
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1 James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
' Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 11, 1994
' Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator /J
Federal Highway Administration
' Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-14421 1 31944
' Re: Widening US 74 between 1-40 and SR 3136,
Buncombe County, R-2306, F-44-1(3), ,? ??..?; ..•
8.1841701, ER 94-8917
Dear Mr. Graf:
' On May 4, 1994, members of the Historic Preservation Office met with
representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to discuss proposed changes to
the above project. In an effort to eliminate potential hazards to the children
' attending Fairview Elementary School, NCDOT proposes shifting the widening of
US 74 toward the north and away from the school. Because this change results in
a taking of land from the National Register-eligible Dr. Cicero M. McCracken
' House, we reevaluated the effect of the project upon the Dr. C. M. McCracken
House.
Please note we are returning the determination of effect concurrence form
' provided to us at the meeting since the concurrence forms are currently being
revised. Instead, we are providing this letter to record our concurrence.
Based upon the preliminary documentation provided at the meeting and our
conversations with the owners of the Dr. C. M. McCracken House, we concur
with FHwA's determination that the project will have no adverse effect upon the
' historic property if the following condition is carried out:
In consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
and owners of the Dr. C. M. McCracken House, NCDOT shall relocate the
drive to the house so it connects with Fox Run Drive rather than US 74.
We understand that NCDOT will meet with the owners of the Dr. C. M.
' McCracken House in the near future to discuss carrying out this measure.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
' Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
10% Earl Junes Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601=1807
Nicholas L. Graf
' July 11, 1994, Page 2
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' oSiincly,
avirook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
' DB:slw
' Enclosure
cc: ("urF. Vick
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, NC
B. Church
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, NC
' Mr. and Mrs. Julian McCracken
1384 Charlotte Highway
Fairview, NC 28730
' Maggie O'Connor
Historic Resources Commission of Asheville
and Buncombe County
' P.O. Box 7148
Asheville, NC 28802
1?

' '\'

?%Art
Q
/ e v
AUG 1 8 1994
DIVISION OF
HIGFIWAYS /
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Junes B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
August 16, 1994
' Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
' 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Widening US 74 from 1-40 in Asheville to SR 3136
in Fairview, Buncombe County, R-2306,
8.1841701, F-44-1(3), ER 95-7077
' Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 13, i 994, concerning the above project.
' We have reviewed the addendum to the historic structures survey report prepared
by Clay Griffith for the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We
understand that the Baker House and Cottages were inadvertently omitted from
the historic structures survey report prepared by Jayne Henderson Fiegel in 1990.
Based upon the information provided in the report, we do not concur with the
' Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA) determination that the Baker House and
Cottages are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Instead, we believe that the property comprises a relatively intact historic district
' and is eligible under Criterion C for its architectural and landscape design. The
main house, rubblework outbuilding, and cottages well represent building styles
popular in Buncombe County during the early twentieth century.

17,

While the main house and the three-and-one-half cottages are not individually
distinctive for their architecture, the structures and the landscaping elements
"achieve significance as a whole within their historic context." The district readily
"conveys a visual sense of the overall historic environment and the arrangement of
historically and functionally related properties" (National Register Bulletin 15).
Although the site has become somewhat overgrown and portions of the series of
rubblework walls have deteriorated, the landscape design is still evident, as are the
materials expressing the character of that design. Indeed, the landscaping may be
a rare remaining example given that Asheville has lost most of its gardens
landscaped following the Biltmore movement. We believe that the district retains
its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.
' 109 East Joo= Street - Raleigh, North Gtviina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
' August 16, 1994, Page 2
Further, we believe that additional documentation may show that the property is
' eligible under Criterion A for its association with the missionary movement in the
early twentieth century, and/or Criterion B for its association with the Reverend
James M. Baker. The missionary movement in the early twentieth century made a
' significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and the Reverend
Baker began his mission in India at the forefront of that movement. He continued
his work in India for thirty-five years as the movement expanded. Once he
' returned to the United States in 1929, he continued his work by touring the
country lecturing on the conditions in India. When he retired to Asheville in 1932,
he authored Contending the Grace in India, 1901-1929, which describes his
experiences as a missionary and represents a continuation of his work while at his
' property in Asheville. Thus, the property may represent a continuation of the
Reverend Baker's significant missionary work, as well as a culmination of his
' career in India.
To draw appropriate historical boundaries for the district, a tax parcel map and
aerial photograph would be helpful. Given that the National Park Service (NPS)
' acquired a portion of the property for the Blue Ridge Parkway, further investigation
may show that landscaping elements and/or archaeological evidence of the three
other cottages may exist on NPS property. For purposes of this project and based
' upon the site plan sketch in the report, it appears that the southern boundary
follo\,vs the north side of US 74 until it turns north to include NilGari Drive. We are
unable to delineate the western boundary based upon the site plan sketch.
' Please note that if FHwA disagrees with our determination, it may request a formal
Determination of Eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register pursuant to 36
CFR 800.4c(4).
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
' Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Eariey,
' environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' Sincerely,
IDd Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw

u

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMO
June 20, 1994
A IL
[D EHNR
TO: Roy Shelton, FHWA
Frank Vick, NC DOT
Rene Gedhill-Earley, Cultural Resources
Bob Johnson, COE- Asheville
David Cox, NC WRC
FROM: John Dorne ci??
RE: DEM macrobenthic survey of Gashes Creek
As promised at last weeks DOT/COE monthly meeting,
please find enclosed DEM's report on the macrobenthic
community in Gashes Creek, Buncombe County. As the
attached memo shows, the stream has a good diversity of
macrobenthos and is rated as Good-Fair condition.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
gashes.mem
cc: Ken Eagleson
Forrest Westall, ARO
Greg Thorpe

' P.O. Box 29535, Weigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equd Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
• Division of Environmental Management
Biological Assessment Group
June 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM _
' To: John Dorney
g ?=4
Through: Ken Eagleson
Ji `?,
' mmie Overto
Trish Finn Mac on 1?
From: Neil Medlin pk
' Subject: Gashes Creek, French Broad 040302, Buncombe County
BACKGROUND
Per your request, the Biological Assessment Group conducted a macroinvertebrate
' survey on Gashes Creek. Gashes Creek runs along US Hwy. 74 for much of the stream's
length. North Carolina DOT is planning to culvert and bury about 900 linear feet of the
creek as part of the widening of US Hwy. 74 from I-40 to SR 2775. This activity will
require a 401 Certification from DEM, and the macroinvertebrate information was
' requesters to help the Wetlands Group determine compliance with water quality standards
(primarily the Anddegradation Standard). In addition to the macroinvertebrate study, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) plans to conduct a fisheries
' survey in the creek.
SAMPLING LOCATION (Table 1, Figure 1)
' The proposed culvert on Gashes Creek would run between SR 3071 (Avondale Road)
and Fernwood Circle. Macroinvertebrates were collected at SR 3071.
Table 1. Station description, Gashes Creek Survey, Buncombe Co., May, 1994
Depth (m)
Average 0.2
' Maximum 0.4
Width (m) 6
Canopy (%) 95
' Aufwuchs Moderate
Bank Erosion Slight
Substrate (%)
' Boulder 30
Rubble 20
Gravel 20
Sand 25
Silt 5

Figure 1. Survey site, Gashes Creek, May, 1994,
Buncombe County
7
I__!

0

1
0
1
1 E=ODS
The macroinvertebrate sample on Gashes Creek was collected using DEM's standard
qualitative sampling method. The standard method uses a wide variety of collection
techniques to inventory the aquatic fauna: kicks, sweeps, rock and log washes, a sand
sample, a leafpack, and visual collections (ten samples total). The primary output for this
sampling method is a taxa list with an indication of relative abundance (Rare, Common,
Abundant) for each taxon.
The metrics that can be used with this type of qualitative sample to evaluate water
quality are EPT taxa richness (taxa richness for the most intolerant groups), EPT
abundance, and total taxa richness calculations. Unstressed streams and rivers have many
species, while polluted areas have fewer species. Water quality assessments also may use
the abundance of "pollution indicator" groups. This type of information is summarized by
the North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI). The NCBI values for each site are based on
relative tolerance values for the taxa found at the site. Both the tolerance values for
individual species and the NCBI vary from 0 to 10, with higher numbers indicating more
tolerant species or more stressed conditions. The NCBI is used with the EPT taxa richness
to assign bioclassifications for standard qualitative samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Table 2, Appendix 1)
Gashes Creek was assigned a Good-Fair bioclassification at the sampling location.
Total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness were both somewhat low at the Gashes Creek
location. The EPT value is in contrast to the spring peak for EPT taxa richness typically
observed in mountain streams. The reduced EPT taxa richness did not appear to be due to
stresses associated with instream enrichment. This hypothesis is supported by the lack of
or relatively low abundance of Oligochaeta and Chironomidae taxa usually associated with
enrichment. The macroinvertebrate community at the sampling location is exposed to a
variety of nonpoint stresses, including sedimentation, and runoff from Hwy. 74 and
Table 2. Taxa richness of macroinvertebrates and summary statistics, Gashes Creek,
Buncombe County, May 1994.
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Odonata
Megaloptera
Diptera: Chironomidae
Misc. Diptera
Oligochaeta
Crustacea
Mollusca
Other
R 3071
10
4
6
5
9
7
2
2
2
Total Taxa Richness
EPT Taxa Richness
(seasonally adjusted)
EPT Abundance
Biotic Index
(seasonally adjusted)
Bioclassification
61
20
18
115
4.62
5.12
Good-Fair

' development in the area. The runoff could potentially be toxic and stress the fauna. In
addition to the EPT taxa richness, the Biotic Index value of 4.62 (5.12 after seasonal
adjustment) also indicated a slightly stressed macroinvertebrate community.
SUMMARY
The results from the sample collected in Gashes Creek indicated a Good Fair
bioclassification based on the macroinvertebrate community in the stream. Although
Gashes Creek is not a pristine stream, the Good-Fair bioclassification and the presence of
61 total taxa, including some intolerant taxa Qannella jig, Stenonema Fudicum, Remenus
bilobatus• Neophylax oligius• DoloFhilodes spp., Glossosoma spp.), clearly show that the
' stream does support aquatic life consistent with its classified use (C). Based on current
305(b) guidelines and.this information this creek would be listed as support threatened
It is requested that a copy of the fisheries information from the NCWRC survey be sent
to Vince Schneider of the Intensive Survey Group when the work has been completed.
1
cc: Forrest Westall, ARO
Greg Thorpe

J

1
E

APPENDIX 1. TAXA LIST WITH RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, GASHES CREEK SURVEY,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, MAY 1994. (A=ABUNDANT, C--COMMON, R=RARE)
GASHES CR
SR 3071
Taxon
EPHEMEROPTERA
BAETIS FLAVISTRIGA
BAETISCA CAROLINA
CENTROPTILUM SPP
DANNELLA LITA
EPHEMERELLA CATAWBA
PARALEPTOPHLEBIA SPP
PSEUDOCLOEON SPP
STENONEMA PUDICUM
•STENACRON CAROLINA
STENACRON PALLIDUM
PLECOPTERA
ACRONEUFJA ABNORMIS
ALLOCAPNIA SPP
' ISOPERLA HOLOCHLORA
REMENUS BILOBATUS
TRICHOPTERA
CHEUMATOPSYCHE SPP
DOLOPHMODES SPP
GLOSSOSOMA SPP
' HYDROPSYCHE BETTENI
NEOPHYLAX MITCHELLI
NEOPHYLAX OLIGIUS
' COLEOPTERA
HELICHUS SP
ODONATA
' ARGIA SPP
BOYERIA VINOSA
CALOPTERYX SPP
' CORDULEGASTER SPP
GOMPHUS SPP
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE
BRILLIA SPP
BRUNDINIELLA EUMORPHA
ORTHOCLADIUS OBUMBRATUS GR : GO SP10
' CARDIOCLADIUS SPP
CHIRONOMUS SPP
CONCHAPELOPIA GROUP
CORYNONEURA SPP
' CRYPTOCHIRONOMUS FULVUS
TVETENIA BAVARICA GR (E SP1)
EUKIEFFERIELLA CLARIPENNIS GR (E SPI 1)
' ODONTONIESA FULVA
POLYPEDILUM CONVICTUM
POLYPEDILUM FALLAX
PARA IETRIOCNBMUS LUNDBECKI
' PARATANYTARSUS SPP
R
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
C
C
C
R
A
R
R
A
R
C
C
C
C
C
R
A
R
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
APPENDIX 1. TAXA LIST WITH RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, GASHES CREEK SURVEY,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, MAY 1994.
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE (cons)
PARATENDIPES SPP C
PHAENOPSECTRA SP4 A
POTTHASTIA GAEDI R
I ENEMANIELLA SPP A
MISC. DIPTERA
ANTOCHA SPP R
DIXA SPP C
EPHYDRA SPP R
ERIOPTERA SPP R
PALPOMYIA (COMPLEX) R
.PSYCHODA SPP R
SIMULIUM SPP A
OLIGOCHAETA
LIM[NODRMUS HOFFMEISTERI C
LUMBRICULIDAE R
NAIS SPP A
CRUSTACEA
ASELLUSSPP R
ASTACIDAE A
GASTROPODA
ELIMIA SP A
FERRISSIA SPP A
OTHER
CURA FOREMANII R
HYDRACARINA R

1
1

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
Mr. Frank Vick, P.E.
NC Dept. of Transportation
Manager, Planning and Environmental
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
A IN 1.9; WA
C) FE F=1
' Subject: US 74 Widening From 1-40 to SR 3136
Buncombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1841701, TIP #R-2306
' The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has reviewed several proposals
from DOT that would either impact the B.K. Miller property or relocate Gashes Creek
as a result of the widening project. DEM acknowledges the difficulty in resolving
' historic and environmental conflicts and appreciates the effort DOT has expended in
this matter.
' DEM was informed on October 20, 1994 that the property adjacent to the B.K. Miller
property is historic and will require a Section 4(f) document. It is DEM's
understanding that the Miller property is historic due to the architectural nature of the
' building and not the physical setting itself. The Miller house would remain standing
and habitable should the widening occur on the Miller property. Several power-line
topped hemlock and white pine trees would be taken but there would be no additional
residential relocatees nor would Gashes Creek be impacted if the widening occurred
' on the Miller property.
DEM surveyed Gashes Creek in May 1994. A memorandum was written to document
' the site visit. This information has been provided to you and FHWA. Gashes Creek is
tributary to a trout stream. The creek has a tree canopy that helps lower water
temperatures, and increase dissolved oxygen. The vegetation acts to stabilize the
' stream banks to reduce erosion. The macrobenthos is diverse enough to rate the
creek good-fair and includes pollution intolerant taxa. The substrate has very little silt
and equal amounts of boulder, rubble, gravel and sand. This substrate composition
' would be very difficult for DOT to reproduce and the macrobenthos would experience
a significant recolonization lag time.
1
1
I P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pacer

' Mr. Frank Vick
November 30, 1994
' Page 2
DOT' s October 20, 1994 proposal is significantly better than the first proposal to
' culvert 925 feet of Gashes Creek. However, we believe that DOT has a practicable
alternative that does not impact the creek. Based on a thorough review of the
proposed alternatives, please be aware that DEM would proceed toward denial of the
' 401 Water Quality Certification should DOT submit an application for the proposed
project which significantly impacts water quality in Gashes Creek.
' Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to John Dorney in DEM's
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.

1
cc: Bob Johnson, Asheville COE
' Asheville DEM Office
John Dorney
Central Files
Tom Kendig, DOT
Lisa Zywicki
' us74bun.ltr
Sincerely,
vl? 446,,_
Steve W. Tedder
Chief, Water Quality Section

11

Mr. Tom Kendig
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr.-Kendig:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
November 28, 1994
of Transportation
27611-5201
TAKE_
=
PMM
' Subject: Recommended Alternative for US 74 from I-40 to SR 3136,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-2306

L
u

In your November 7, 1994, memorandum, you requested our comments on the
subject alternative. The following comments are provided in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e).
In your memorandum, you describe the latest proposal for addressing
agency concerns regarding a section of Gashes Creek near Hemphill.. Road
and the B.K. Miller historic site. The proposal involves shifting the
road alignment towards Gashes Creek which will require rechanneling the
creek (in an open channel) and constructing a retaining wall to minimize
impacts to the creek and adjacent hillside. Mitigation measures include
riprapping and revegetating the relocated creek. This proposal will
completely avoid impacts to the B.K. Miller historic site.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has provided comments on
this project during the early scoping process to Ms. C.D. Sharer, P.E. of
Greiner, Inc. on December 19, 1990; to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) on August 1, 1990; to Mr. Michael A. Calhoun of
Vaughn & Melton on August 23, 1993: and to Mr. Joe Westbrook of the NCDOT
on January 20, 1990. We reviewed and provided comments on the
environmental assessment on April 24, 1994. The Service attended three
meetings (November 7, 1990, December 17, 1992, and July 18, 1994)
specifically to discuss project alternatives with regards to proposed
impacts to the section of Gashes Creek near Hemphill Road.
The Service has clearly stated, throughout this process, that an
alignment.which involves relocating the section of Gashes Creek near
Hemphill Road is not preferred. As we, and other resource agencies, have
highlighted, this section of Gashes Creek is the least degraded section
and still has fish and wildlife habitat value. Gashes Creek supports
nongame fish species and trout and is a tributary to the Swannanoa River,
which is designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
as Hatchery Supported Designated Mountain Trout Water at its confluence
United States Department of the Interior

with Gashes Creek. Additionally, the section of Gashes Creek near
Hemphill Road has a relatively stable substrate and an adjacent mature
' forested canopy that provides shading to the creek--two important aquatic
resource habitat values (especially for cold-water fish species).
t While we appreciate NCDOT's willingness to drop the earlier alternative
that involved culverting this 900 plus foot section of Gashes Creek, we
believe that the latest proposal will still result in habitat losses. As
stated in our letter of December 19, 1990, the Service believes "that the
' proposed stream channel changes associated with this project would be
contrary to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency's
404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specifications of Disposal Sites for Dredged or
Fill Material (Federal Register (249):85344-85357, December 24, 1980)
that prohibit wetland filling for nonwater -dependent activities when a
practicable alternative exists." The purpose of this project is nonwater
dependent, and in our opinion, a practicable alternative is available--
shifting the alignment towards the B.K. Miller Historic site.
While we understand NCDOT's concern for compliance with the Section 4(f)
t Department of Transportation Act that protects natural registry sites
such as the B.K. Miller house, we believe that any noise and visual
impacts associated with an alignment shift towards the B.K. Miller home
' can be mitigated through landscaping. In our opinion, the additional
noise pollution and visual impacts from a four-lane road will affect the
historic setting regardless of whether it is shifted on one side of the
' road or the other.
If this recent proposal is adopted, we request that the following
additional information regarding the mitigation plan be provided: (1) a
' cost comparison of the two alternatives (i.e., a shift towards the
B.K. Miller site versus the recent proposal that impacts the creek), and
(2) erosion control measures to ensure that the existing creek is not
' impacted during channel construction. Finally, we recommend that you
refer to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's "Guidelines
for Mountain Stream Relocations in North Carolina" (please keep in mind
that these guidelines are in the process of being revised and that the
' most up-to-date version should be consulted) to include additional
mitigative measures for this project.
' We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls, of
our staff, at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-90-058.
Si nce?'l y ,
Brian P. Cole
' Field Supervisor
cc:
' Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
' Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
December 9, 1994
' Mr. Tom Kendig
Division of Highways
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
' SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) supplemental comments on construction
' alternatives to avoid impacts on the B. K. Miller
property, US 74 widening from I-40 to SR 3136,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, TIP Project No.
R-2306.
' Dear Mr. Kendig:
This letter responds to your November 7, 1994 request
for our review of an alignment alternative to avoid
construction impacts on the subject property. The proposed
' alignment would avoid placing an extensive culvert in Gashes
Creek but would involve relocation of a segment of the
stream into an artificial open channel. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has been involved in several
phases of review on this project, and we have discussed
construction alternatives with the NCDOT, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the owner of the B. K. Miller
property, and other review agencies. Field investigations
have been conducted to assess the quality of aquatic habitat
and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in
' accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
' The newly proposed alignment involves construction of
an artificial channel for a segment of Gashes Creek, which
would be diverted to allow the highway facility to
completely avoid direct physical taking of the Miller
property. A soil-nail retaining wall would be used to
1
T Kendig re. US 74 Page 2 December 9, 1994
' attemp t to minimize impacts on forest habitat on the south
side of Gashes Creek.
' We appreciate your efforts to develop an innovative
mitigation plan to compensate for the loss of the existing
channel segment. The proposed open channel relocation, in
conjunction with NCDOT acquisition and protection of nearby
riparian habitat, may provide a foundation for compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable loss of the affected stream
channel segment. However, we maintain that the relocation
of the stream channel can be avoided by widening the highway
onto the margin of the Miller property.
' Because the Miller property receives protection as a
cultural resource under FHWA "4f" procedures, a formal
' review process will be required to evaluate construction
alternatives if the property is negatively affected. Any
practicable construction alternative that avoids Gashes
' Creek would require removal of a row of hemlock trees on the
Miller property boundary near the existing highway. It is
possible that noise levels would be slightly higher than
those expected from a multilane highway with an intervening
' hedge.
Gashes Creek is a tributary to the Swannanoa River
' which is managed by the NCWRC as Hatchery Supported Public
Mountain Trout Waters. It has historically supported trout
and other gamefish, and recent NCWRC survey of the impacted
reach yielded adult and juvenile redbreast sunfish, as well
' as several nongame fish species.
While the NCWRC recognizes that Gashes Creek has been
' impacted by development and agricultural practices in the
watershed, we feel that the historic setting of the Miller
property has been similarly degraded. With the exception of
' the loss of the hemlock hedge, the impacts of highway
widening will occur on the property regardless of the
alignment chosen. In the same manner that the proposed
channel relocation would mitigate loss of the stream
' segment, highway design modifications could mitigate the
loss of the hemlock hedge and resulting noise level
elevation. One alternative would be to construct an earthen
t berm between the new highway lanes and the Miller house and
plant hemlock trees on the crest of the berm. Noise levels
under this alternative would likely be lower at the Miller
House than those from a slightly more distant highway with
only vegetation as a noise barrier.
It is likely that agencies authorizing wetland fill for
' this project will require evaluation of avoidance
alternatives to the stream relocation at Gashes Creek,
including those which impact the Miller property. The NCWRC
' concurs that the avoidance issue must be resolved before a

t I,
T. Kendig re. US 74 Page 3 December 9, 1994
compensatory mitigation plan can be accepted, and we
encourage the NCDOT to immediately pursue formal evaluation
' procedures under appropriate "4f" guidelines. Given the
lack of mutually acceptable avoidance alternatives and the
compromised nature of all involved resources, we feel that
' such a review will be required to assess the relative
severity of natural and cultural resource impacts and
determine which avoidance alternative will produce the least
' overall impact on public resources. Construction costs of
alternatives should also be considered.
Inclusion of a formal "4f" evaluation of the B. K.
Miller property in the upcoming Finding of No Significant
Impact would address our informational needs regarding
avoidance alternatives and facilitate resolution of
' subsequent permitting issues. To proceed without such an
evaluation would allow production of the environmental
document but would not resolve the conflicts over alignment
alternatives, leading to additional delays in obtaining
' required permits.
Thank you for the ongoing opportunity to provide input
' in the planning stages for this project. The NCWRC remains
committed to development of workable procedures for
evaluating relative quality of natural and cultural
' resources in situations such as this one where avoidance
alternatives are limited. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
David L. Yow
District 9 Habitat Biologist
' cc: Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn.
Micky Clemmons, District
Robert Johnson, Corps of
' Janice Nicholls, U. S. F
John Dorney, Division of
Region Habitat Biologist
9 Fisheries Biologist
Engineers, Asheville Office
ish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Management

' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 18, 1995
MI REPLY REFER TO
' Regulatory Branch
Action ID 199402123
' NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Tom Kendig
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Kendig:
Reference your request for our comments on the recommended alternative
1
for the US Highway 74 widening from I-40 to SR 3136 in Asheville, Buncombe
County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-2306). Theroofosal specifically addresses
the issue of the project's impacts on a segment near
Road and the B.K. Miller historic site.
As previously conveyed in scoping comments and a July 18, 1994 on-site
meeting, any alternative which involves the culverting or relocation of Gashes
Creek is not preferred. This segment of Gashes Creek, and vit's ariedssociated
' riparian habitat, is relatively undisturbed and supports fish
population, a good diversity of m enthos, and is tributary to the
Swannanoa River which is a Designated Mountain rout Water.
avoids impacts to the B.K.
' NCDOT's preferred alteative
heavily impacted over
Miller property. The setting ting
the years by the relocation of Highway 74, increases in traffic counts and associated noise levels, topping of trees for utiity line maintenance along
the highway, and the general growth and development of the surrounding area.
Shifting the alignment onto the B.K. Miller property, which would impact
the vicablelalternative. Construction costs would be less, and at the same
' pme ac
time outhernchillsideewould bbecachie ed. Y the hardwood on
thin a
the
personnel concur that a vegetimiv?tbnff?tureltreesrandtshlrubseandlplanting
reasonable period of time by importing
them with a tree-spade.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on our recommended Baker at
alternative. If you have any further questions, please
[phone]. Sincerely,
' e Wri
ie Regul ory Branch
r
i
1
1

1
1

E

1

1

1
Division of Water Quality
November 26, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Frank Vick
Planning andEnvironmental anch
From: John Dorn'
Division of 4ter Qua y
Subject: US 74 - Gashes Creek mitigation
Buncombe County
DWQ #961016
As a followup to our meeting with your staff on 7 November, we would like to clarify the current status of
this project and clearly state what is needed from DOT in order to allow DWQ to issue a 401 Certification for
this project. The DWQ will require stream mitigation at a 1:1 length ratio in addition to the revised, on-site
restoration of Gashes Creek. On 7 November 1996, Eric Galamb, Mike Parker and myself attended a field
meeting in Asheville with several DOT staff as well as Corps of Engineers and N.C. Wildlife Resources
personnel to visit several potential stream restoration sites. The purpose of this memo is to provide DOT more
details regarding this stream mitigation requirement to assist you in developing an acceptable mitigation
package.
DOT will need to identify 1100 linear feet of stream to enhance or restore all uses. As discussed in the
field, we would prefer that two or three large suitable sites be located rather than a dozen or so smaller sites.
Also DOT will need to be able to assure us that whatever restoration work is undertaken will remain. In that
regard, fee simple purchase or a conservation easement will be needed to provide that assurance. DOT should
investigate other opportunities within the Gashes Creek watershed first. Should these not be suitable sites for
DOT, then DOT should identify streams within the Swannanoa River watershed that are experiencing non-
point source pollution that may be causing the impairment of uses. Streams targeted by the nonpoint source
team through the basinwide process would be excellent candidate streams.
We urge DOT to identify streams in need of restoration measures such as streambank stabilization,
restoration of wooded buffers, creating of adjacent wetlands, dechannelization, and instream measures such as
vortex weirs. Of the sites we visited, the sites on Gashes Creek at the Texaco and Amoco stations as well as
Ross Creek on Swannanoa River Road are suitable candidate streams. The DOT maintenance facility is not a
suitable location because there will not be sufficient width between the road and stabilized streambank to plant
trees. Finally the installation of weirs in the Swannanoa River itself is not acceptable mitigation for the
impacts to Gashes Creek since the uses provided by these stream systems are very different and similar uses
need to be replaced.
Once you have identified viable and available stream restoration sites, please contact, Mr. Mike Parker of
our Asheville Regional Office so we can confirm their suitability. As discussed with field, NRCS staff may be
useful in identifying potential stream restoration sites.
Please call me or Eric Galamb at 733-1786 if you have any questions concerning this project.
cc: Archie Harkins, Hydraulics Unit
Tom Kendig, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mike Parker, Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Enc<Galana >;6
Jill Hickey; Attorney General's Office
Bob Johnson, Asheville Field Office COE
Central Files
Preston Howard, DWQ
Steve Tedder, DWQ
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section
JUL-24-1996 11:20 FROM
post-it' Fax Note 7671 °atO - ?. pages
To r i c W1 lo
From t '
co.mapt Ca•
Phone # Phone #
Fax « Fax #
TO
iE Newsletter
39959 P. 01
Novembe
........... _17CQQT Gets a Taste of Soil Nailing
by
Gary Taylor
North Carolina Department of Transportation
ed steel bars called 'nails' into a vertical
il .'ry
soil Nailing consasts of Installing closely-span .
or slopped excavation face as construction proceeds from the 'tap down'. Soil has
compressive and shear strength, but not tensile strength. Therefore, the nails are used
to provide tensile reinforcement to the soil. This is a similar concept to MSE walls except
soil nailing reinforces in-situ soil rather than .111. Top down construction means that
excavation proceeds in short lifts, and each lift Is stabilized (nailed) before proceeding
with the next excavation lift. Shotorete facing is commonly used to provide localized
stability, and CIP concrete, precast panels, or shotcrete are used for permanent facing.
Nails are commonly installed by grouting into pre-drilled holes. Other methods of
installation are driven, explosive injection, post-grouted driven, and jet nailing.
The concept of soli nailing is not new to the bootechnical engineering community, but its
use in the United States has been limited, for the most part, to-the private sector and
usually for temporary structures, One reason soil nailing has boon slow to catch on in
the US has been the lack of a universally accepted design methodology. The Gd. man$
had their method, and the French -had one they liked, and all agreed that soil nailing
worked and it was cost effective. Then, in 1991, the French completed an extensive
research project and published design and construction recommendations for soil
nailing- This research was the catalyst for a subsequent FFIWA sponsored
demonstration project (IMP-103) which is near completion and will result in a
comprehensive design and construction gufdeltnes for US soil nailing.
Permanent 2nd temporary applications of soil nailing include stabilization of natural and
roan made slopes, renovation of failing retaining walls, temporary shorting for
excavations, abutment walls to facilitate widening beneath existing bridges, and highway
cut walls. Right of Way is deemed necessary for tho nail. limits, and this is the main
limitation to highway appiications; however, there are cases where soil trailing is
desirable to minimize disturbance to the natural terrain behind a wail in which case Right
of Way costs may be minimal.
As a result of a value engineering proposal (VEP), the North Carolina Department of
Transportation recently had the opportunity to build a soil nail retaining wall on the new I-
40JUa 220 Interchange in Greensboro. The soil nail wall was to be constructed in lieu of
the anchored drilled shaft wall that was in the contract. A.wall was needed to support
loop's' above a 2;1 slope above ramp'DS' and was 280' long with a maximum height of
21' and farce area of 4300 sf_ The wall was designed and constructed by Earth support
Systems, Inc., a specialty contractor with significant experience in soil nailing, for Smith-
Rowe. Inc., the structure subcontractor for the project. A vertical wail was constructed
with nails that were #8 Grade 76 epoxy coated bars 10' to 17' long and spaced b'
horizontally and vertically. A 3' temporary shotcrete facing and 8' CIP concrete
permanent facing were employed.
Acceptance of the VEP was beneficial to the department in many ways. It provided time
savings over the contract wall which was Important because the project had anti inflexible
completion: deadlina, The cost of the soil nail was $72 per of which was a savings of
553.394.'''The bigoest benefit, however, may be that it provided hands on experience
with a new and promising technology to DOT construction and design engineers. The
Department Is currently designing, In-h9use, a 35' high soil nail retaining wall for an
Asheville project and there are other potential sites that have been identified for the near'
future-

TOTAL P.01
--------------
i1foo ?rl

?6__ /? kJ?-j
?;sa ? o?k
-?? ??dh ?z?r
-? ri,u?
shma ? r ,??
w???

r
?s ?? , ???
__???%? S
.`
a ?
-- ------ -cam-- ------ -- _----_

'*. ? ? , ?.
i _,_ ,,?
9 ?'? .? i _
? ?„