19970923 Ver 1_Complete File_19971027

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
Post Office Box 25021
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
[D EHNFI
November 3, 1997
Henderson County
DWQ Project # 970923
ADDMONAL COMMONS
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
fill in 0.26 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of new connector road at Naples, as you
described in your application dated October 23, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This
certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when it is issued by the Corps of
Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Bridge deck drainage shall not drain directly into streams as committed in the FONSI.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
P,,ton ?Howard, Jr. Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
9709231tr
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
October 23, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dear Sir:
RFCE???a
oc' 1199
ENV jRONMFNrALSCjFNG
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Henderson County, New connector from US 25 to Naples Road
(SR 1534). State Project No. 8.1950602, TIP Project I-2001. Federal Aid
Project No. STP-25(2).
Attached for your information is the application packet for the subject project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a two-
lane facility on new location from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534), a distance of
0.8 miles.
Construction of the new facility will take place on new location between US 25
and Naples Road. The proposed facility is a two-lane, 24-foot roadway with 8-foot total
usable shoulders, including 2-foot paved shoulders. A bridge will be constructed to carry
the proposed roadway over the Norfolk Southern Railway. The bridge will be
constructed at the location of a railway culvert over an unnamed tributary to Mud Creek,
allowing the new bridge to span the railway and the unnamed tributary without requiring
in-stream construction. Approximately 0.26 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be
impacted.
Enclosed please find the project site map, the preconstruction notification form,
and drawings for the above referenced project. The NCDOT anticipates that these
activities will be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, we are N

also requesting a 401 General Water Quality Certification # 3103 (for NWP 14) from the
NC Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. H. Webb, III, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Proposals and Contracts
Mr. F. D. Martin, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
R DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
-` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Figure 1
PROPOSED CONNECTOR
FROM US 25.
h TO NAPLES ROAD (SR 1534) '
t' HENDERSON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. I. 2001
r
• -LRE - .
' Pt Sto I 2441 Pr St{
5? • 8u3 061 fRrl A:
SOLE -Y- POT Sto.l0-00.000 R Z446 !, E-
SE 0,4,00 ,.. • ? ??`?'c.•, tit ? ? r m
?.
-LREV- POT Sta.12.79B66
-r- POT sro.10.97560 7% _
41
/ cf0o .`;, `TAMMY BRANK$
'apt tiomrW \ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF OB 644 PG 157 1 '
cl TRANSPORTATION OZSEO I F ,-
•q /-5?/y? ,
-oo
s DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS % l?1 s 1`
ORMANS/ PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH ` ?- `. -4 '-•? '???f"?_. r ?
HENDERSON COUNTY _ _ - } \'?k f \
NEW CONNECTOR US 25 TO SR 1534 -1 zoo??
1-2001 - d' _ "r•
FIGURE
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. I-2001
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Henderson NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Naples
,1 1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): See Document
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Unnamed Tributary to Mud Creek
RIVER BASIN: French Broad
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT,
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN: _
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:

• 2
r.
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
.29
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: .26 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: .26
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Highway construction with road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
K 3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
This is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The two other
alternatives examined cross three unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek as well
as impacting wetlands. The proposed alignment only crosses one tributary
that will be bridged by an over pass over Norfolk Southern Railway.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: August 11, 1993
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: July 8, 1994
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO H (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVLENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Urban residential and
Commercial
IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
/o -'? - 7
D TE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
.?tP?Mf N1 0g)"
h
O p
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 3, 1995
TAKE
mmwnm?
PRIDE IN o
mn a
AMERICA e?
•? Or
® v
? C E I
Q`
0--?UMAR 7 0 1995
z2 ...
2 DIVISICN OF?
HIGHWAYS ?vQ
//RO,\
Branch
of Transportation

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Pv_.."
Planning and Environmental
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
P 0 Box 25201
No1e I-20041 (SR 1534),
Subject: ?dergon o Copntp?s NorthnCarolinauS T.I.P. 25 tNaples
He
In your letter of August 11, 1993, you requested our comments on the
subject document. The following comments are provided in accordance with
the Fish
Species Actamended 73, asUamended6(1667e),
Section d7Wildlife EndangeredCoordination
and
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the
construction of a two lane roadway on new location from US 25 to Naples
Road (SR 1534) in Henderson County. The project length is approximately
0.6 mile long. This project will result in the filling of approximately
0.53 acre of emergent freshwater wetlands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is familiar with the project
area, which is primarily within an urban/residential area, and we believe
that this project will not result in significant environmental impacts.
The Service concurs with the "no effect" determinatjon made regarding
this project and potential impacts to federally listed endangered and
threatened species. In view of this, we believe that requirements of
Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
United States Department of the Interior
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
s of
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholl
our staff at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-94-062.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752

c
C, E V?
.r y ter. 1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc j1U6 4 1994
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor .J • .
Betty Bay McCain, Secretary /{It
Division o Ins and_? tory
William S. Price, r., Director
August 5, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road,
Henderson County, 1-2001, 8.1950602, STP-
25(2), ER 95-7050 -
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1994, concerning the above project.
On March 31, 1994, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
Historic Preservation Office representatives met to discuss the above project. We
reviewed photographs of eight properties over fifty years of age in the area of
potential effect. Based upon the information provided at the meeting, we agreed
that NCDOT did not need to further evaluate the following properties sirice they do
not appear eligible for the National Register:
1. Log Building
2. Jarvis House
3. Black House
4. House (Duraline Store)
5. Barns (2)
6. House (Melba's Florist)
7. Williamson House
We also agreed the Williamson Cemetery should be further evaluated in the
historic architectural resources survey report.
_ r
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807
North Carolina Department of Cultural Re
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 22, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: New connector from US 25 to Naples Road (SR
1534), STP-25(2), 1-2001, 8.1950602, Henderson
County, ER 94-7920, ER 95-7064
Dear Mr. Graf:
-JUL 2 7 -1994
2 DIVISION Or-
ce 2c? F IGHWAYSx•
NVIRONN?
Division or Archives and Hintory
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
One historic period cemetery (31HN135) and a historic homestead were located
during the survey. Neither has been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the
National Register since they are located outside of the area of potential, effect.
The cemetery may, however, need further investigation if the alignments of
Alternatives 1 or 2 are shifted to the north. The homestead will need additional
investigation if Alternative 3 is realigned to the north. Finally, one section of the
area of potential effect for Alternatives 1 and 2 was not surveyed. If either of
these alternatives are selected, an archaeological survey of this section should be
conducted.
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.
Sincerely,
? V
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw,
cc: H. F. Vick Vick
T. Padgett

109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

Nicholas L. Graf
August 5, 1994, Page 2
We have reviewed the historic architectural resources report preps ed by Clay
Griffith, architectural historian for NCDOT, Based upon the information provided,
we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination that the
Williamson Cemetery is not eligible for the National Register. The cemetery does
not meet the exceptions specified in Criterion Consideration D of the National Park
Service's guidelines regarding the registration of cemeteries.
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,
avid Brook
-6ty"ODeputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/; '
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, 'Av
Health and Natural Resources ??.
Division of Environmental Management "?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary E H N 1?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric GalambZ;K
Subject: FONSI for Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road
Henderson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1950602, TIP #1-2001
EHNR # 96-0356, DEM # 11118
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 document states that up to 0.52 acres of waters including wetlands will
be impacted.
DEM does not have concerns for this project if the environmental commitments are
implemented. DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not
preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
naples.fon
cc: Asheville COE
Clarence Coleman, DOT
Monica Swihart
FAXED
DEC 15 1995
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Le%W-21Ws and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
?ba?? ?on?s I ?favl
Date:
ti k_ 1I I '?_
Caw T??z- o?(
I ?P?O V I _ 1 ? r?
? Project located in 7th floor library
`???b
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: C?,?D?O?- D??v 7'D a1
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
El Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation Other (specify)
El Wilmington El Others Environmental Management RFCNEjVt=D
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
NOV 2 1 1995
FNVIFZONMENTAL jC?c_NCr';;
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
DS 104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
.n
Naples
Proposed Connector, from US 25
to Naples Road (SR 1534)
Henderson County
Federal Aid Project STP-25(2)
State Project No. 8.1950602
T.I.P. No. I-2001
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 23 U.S.C. 128(A)
Approved: (T7?v
s
a? H. Franklin Vick, P. ., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date 1,;2 Nicho as Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Naples
Proposed Connector, from US 25
to Naples Road (SR 1534)
Henderson County
Federal Aid Project STP-25(2)
State Project No. 8.1950602
T.I.P. No. I-2001
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
October, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Clarence W. Coleman, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
C
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head ,
;' ?? ??ESSIpN ti9
r'
SEAL
t
iB. Davis P. E. ? 6944 :
CJ
Assistant Branch Manager N?-?``?? J?;?
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
The type and level of wetland mitigation will be determined in
compliance with the Clean Water Act once the type of permit is clear.
If Recommended Alternate 3 is shifted to the north, an archaeological
survey will be performed in that area.
NCDOT will ensure that bridge runoff not drain directly into streams.
All stream relocations will adhere to NCDOT's Stream/Channelization
guidelines.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Type of Action F-1
II. Description of the Proposed Action F-1
III. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment F-2
IV. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment F-2
V. Public Hearing F-5
VI. Revisions and Additions to the
Environmental Assessment F-5
VII. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact F-6
Appendix
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation in
Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative
action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct a two-lane roadway from US 25 to Naples
Road (SR 1534) with a grade separation spanning the Norfolk Southern
Railway in Henderson County. The project will improve access to Park
Ridge Hospital from I-26. The project is included in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is scheduled for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1998. The
total estimated cost in the TIP is $2,290,000. This estimate includes
$1,800,000 for construction and $490,000 for right-of-way acquisition.
The total project length is 0.465 mile.
The proposed improvements are those recommended in the Environmental
Assessment (Alternative 3), which provide a two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot)
roadway with two-foot paved shoulders. The recommended cross-section for
the bridge is a 9.75-meter (32-foot) clear structure width. This includes
a 7.2-meter (24-foot) and 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved shoulders. The total
length of the bridge is 86 meters (282 feet). A 50-meter (160-foot)
right-of-way width is recommended for the proposed improvements. The
proposed improvement will also require the installation of a new signal at
the US -25/Proposed Connector intersection.
F-2
The total cost estimate of the project is $2,250,000, including
$600,000 for right-of-way and $1,650,000 for construction. As stated
earlier, the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.)
appropriates a total funding $2,290,000 for the project. Therefore, the
estimated project is $40,000 less than the T.I.P. funding. This is a
federal aid project.
III. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) were circulated to the
federal, state, and local agencies listed below. Agencies from which
written comments were received are denoted by and asterisk (*).
Additionally, the EA was made available to the public.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency - Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
*N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of
Archives and History
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources
Town of Fletcher
Henderson County Board of Commissioners
IV. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The following is a summary of the comments received which required a
response.
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1.) Comment:
"Henderson County is within the planning jurisdiction of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or development involving
the flood pains. At this time, the Nashville District does not have any
projects that would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Dennis
Williams should be contacted at [phone] for further information and
comments from the Nashville District. Flood plain concerns normally
addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process. A 26a permit is
required for all construction or development involving streams or flood
plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at (615)
632-6115 should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting
process. The projects should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance with all local
ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain
regulations or developments should be referred to the local building
official."
F-3
Response:
Appropriate personnel will be contacted for information on the TVA
26a permitting process and NCDOT will make every effort to meet the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
B. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
1.) Comment:
"There are some discrepancies in the document. On page 26, "No
jurisdictional wetlands are found within Study Corridor U." Further on
the same page, "...approximately 0.21 hectare (0.52 acre) of freshwater
marsh may be impacted by Study Corridor U..". If no wetlands are located
in corridor N3, DEM recommends that this corridor be the preferred
corridor."
Response:
The Environmental Assessment incorrectly stated that Recommended
Corridor N3 impacted approximately 0.21 hectare (0.52 acre) of freshwater
marsh. It is anticipated that Corridor N3 will not impact any freshwater
marsh.
2.) Comment:
"The topographic map for study area N3 shows that Mud creek will be
impacted. Mud Creek is classified as a water supply. DEM requests that
hazardous spill basins be installed at all water supply stream crossings.
The BMP for the protection of surface waters requires DOT to install
hazardous spill basins in water supply critical areas. Other stream
crossings may be outside of the critical area but DEM still believes that
hazardous spill catch basins at these locations will provide extra
protection at minimal cost. Bridge deck runoff should not drain directly
into the bodies of water. All stream relocations should adhere to DOT's
Stream/Channelization guidelines. DEM requests that DOT utilize HQW soil
and erosion control measures to protect the water supply."
Response:
No water supply critical areas will be impacted by the project.
NCDOT will ensure that bridge deck runoff not drain directly into streams.
All stream relocations will adhere to DOT's Stream/Channelization
guidelines. Since Mud Creek is classified as WS IV and the project does
not affect any designated trout waters, NCDOT will utilize normal Best
Management Practices.
C. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
1.) Comment:
"If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction,
plans for the water line relocation should be submitted to the Division of
Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Plan Review Branch,
1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina."
F-4
Response:
If existing water lines are relocated during construction of the
proposed project, then plans for the water line relocation will be
submitted to the Division of Environmental Heath, Public Water Supply.
2.) Comment:
"Public transportation and other measures should be incorporated into
the planning process for improving transportation in the region. By
minimizing the number of single occupied vehicles, congestion will be
reduced as will the need for another major road improvement in 10-20
years."
Response:
Public Transportation was listed as an alternative in the
Environmental Assessment. Currently, Henderson County does not have a
public transportation system. The development of a public transportation
system is not considered to be a prudent alternative to the construction
of a facility that will improve access to Park Ridge Hospital from I-26
via US 25.
3.) Comment:
"If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply."
Response:
The NCDOT will adhere to increased design standards for sediment and
erosion control if any portion of the project is located within a High
Quality Water Zone.
4.) 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:
NCDOT will prepare the erosion and sedimentation control plan for
this project under the erosion control program delegation to the Division
of Highway from the North Carolina Sedmentation Control Commission.
F-5
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the Environmental Assessment a public
hearing was held on April 14, 1995 in the Fletcher Middle School
Cafeteria. Approximately 100 citizens attended the hearing, including
representatives of NCDOT. People who supported the project stressed the
need for improved access from the interstate. However, those who
disapproved of the project stated, Park Ridge Hospital is a non-profit
organization and government money should not be used to pay for improving
access to the Hospital. All other comments and questions were
satisfactorily addressed at the hearing with the exception of one major
topic of concern addressed below.
Comment:
An interchange should be constructed at the Brookside Camp Road grade
separation over I-26. This would benefit the community, not just Park
Ridge Hospital.
Response:
Constructing an interchange at Brookside Camp Road (SR 1528) is not
considered a prudent alternative because of the close proximity of the
weigh station on I-26 just north of the Brookside Camp Road overpass.
The weigh station would not allow enough area for the construction of an
off ramp to access I-26 in the east direction. Moving the weigh station
further east would increase costs significantly.
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Recommended Alignment
There have been no revisions to the the recommended alignment that
was in the Environmental Assessment and subsequently shown at the Public
Hearing.
B. Length of Project
In the EA, the length of project was incorrectly stated in to be 1.29
kilometers (0.8 mile). The correct length of the project to 0.75
kilometers (0.465 mile).
C. Length of Bridge
In the EA, the length of the proposed bridge of Norfolk Southern
Railway was stated to be 76 meters (250 Feet). The length of the bridge
has been revised to 86 meters (282 feet).
D. Right-of-Way
The proposed right-of-way width in the Environmental Assessment was
30 meters (100 feet) and 60 meters (200 feet) in the vicinity of the
bridge. Presently, 48 meters (160 feet) of right-of-way is proposed for
the project including in the vicinity of the proposed bridge over the
Norfolk Southern Railway.
F-6
E. Cost Estimates
The estimated project cost presented in the Environmental Assessment
was $2,088,000, which includes $1,650,000 for construction and $488,000
for right-of-way acquisition. The right-of-way cost of the project has
been revised to $600,000, which increases the total cost of the project to
$2,250,000.
F. Permits
The Environmental Assessment did not address the requirement of a
permit from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). A TVA Section 26a
permit is required for the construction of this project.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The comments received on the Environmental Assessment did not reveal
any significant impacts resulting from the proposed connector. As stated
in the EA, the recommended improvements would result in the the relocation
of 1 residence. It was determined that the project will not result in the
fragmentation of any established neighborhoods.
Based upon study of the proposed project as presented in the EA, and
upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the
finding of the N. C. Department of Transportation that this project will
not have a significant impact upon the human environment. The proposed
project will not have a significant adverse impact on natural, ecological,
cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance.
The project will not have significant adverse impact on air, noise, or
water quality in Henderson County. The project will provide a more safe
and efficient route to Park Ridge Hospital. In addition the project will
eliminate the existing at-grade crossing of Norfolk Southern Railway
located on Naples Road (SR 1534).
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental
analysis will not be required and for all these reasons it has been
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this
project.
CC/tp

APPENDIX
C??e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
?• REPLYTO March 20, 1995
ATTENTION OF
Planning and Environmental Branch
50"
1?? NYIYYY
C E /\
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:
,MAR 2 4 1995
z
0 H CN1CN
OF
P?oF?
This is in response to your letter of January 17, 1995,
requesting comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for
Naples, Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534),
Henderson County, State Project No. 8.1950602, Federal Aid No.
STP-25(2), TIP No. I-2001", (Regulatory Action I.D. No.
199404668).
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes, Acting Chief
Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosure
.1%-.f
AIN
Pnnled on W Ric ed P3pu
March 20, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Naples, Proposed Connector from US 25 to
Naples Road (SR 1534), Henderson County, State Project No. 8.1950602, Federal
Aid No. STP-25(2), TIP No. I-2001", (Regulatory Action I.D. No. 199404668)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]

Henderson County is within the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Nashville District and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) with respect to any construction or development involving the flood
plains. At this time, the Nashville District does not have any projects that
would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Dennis Williams should be
contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the
Nashville District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the
TVA Section 26a permitting process. A 26a permit is required for all
construction or development involving streams or flood plains in the Tennessee
River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at [phone] should be
contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting process. The projects
should be designed to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance
Program and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific questions
pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be
referred to the local building official.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Office
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
We do not have any further comments beyond those provided by letter dated
September 30, 1994, a copy of which is contained in the Appendix of the
Environmental Assessment. Any questions related to Department of the Army
permits may be directed to Mr. Chapin.

?OENr of r
"
PP '' -.' F,??

nited States Department of the

nterior ==
TAKE

PRIDE PRIDE IN

ummm
AMERICAn
Q
9
N O
_ a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

• M4'?CH 3. Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
C ® a
E {/
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 Q. ?O

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E-
Planning and Environmental
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
P 0 Box 25201
March 3, 1995
C 'Y?v
MAR 0 6 1995
2
DIVISICNI OF
C? HIGHWAYS <.)
Branch
of Transportation

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject ?oergon o Coontp?s North connector, Carolina. T25 SItP NNolei Road (SR 1534),
He
In your letter of August 11. 1993, you requested our comments on the
subject document. The following comments are provided in accordance with
19773, asUamended6(1667e),
the Fish d7Wildlife EndangeredCoordination
Species Actamended
and Section
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the
construction of a two lane roadway on new location from US 25 to Naples
Road (SR 1534) in Henderson County. The project length is approximately
0.8 mile long. This project will result in the filling of approximately
0.53 acre of emergent freshwater wetlands.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is familiar with the project
area, which is primarily within an urban/residential area, and we believe
that this project will not result in significant environmental impacts.
The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination made regarding
this project and potential impacts to federally listed endangered and
threatened species. In view of this, we believe that requirements of
Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not
considered
determined (3) a new bpethesactionsted or critical
habitat
provide these
q appreciate
contact Ms. JanicefNiyou cchollseofny
questt?ionslregardingopportunity
our staff at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-94-062.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
` Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752

FM2C8
02-28-95
MAILED TO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
G E I vF
Q` 16
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAR 0 1 1995
FROM
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANK VICK
PLANNING E ENV- BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
MRS. CHRYS BAGG Z DIVISION OF
DIRECTOR cp HIGHWAYS
N C STATE CLEARING NNfE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EA FOR PROPOSED CONNECTOR FROM US 25 TO NAPLES ROAD_(SR 153 )
IN HENCERSCN COUNTY TIP #I-2001
SAI NO 95E42200523 PROGRAM TITLE - EA
THE ABCVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGION B

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative. and
Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 17, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA), Proposed
connector from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534),
Henderson County, North Carolina, TIP No. I-2001,
Policy Development Project No. 95-0523.
This memorandum responds to your request for our
comments on the subject environmental document. Staff
biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed project, and
our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves construction of 0.8 miles of
two-lane roadway in an area of extensive residential and
commercial development. No wetlands are impacted by the
proposed alignment.
The NCWRC concurs with the findings of the EA and
offers no modifications to this project. Because Henderson
County is a "trout water county", we will review any general
or nationwide 404 permits required for the proposed road
work. We do not anticipate recommending project
modifications during the permit review process because no
95-0523 Memo Page 2 February 17, 1995
trout waters or other significant aquatic resources are
involved.
Thank you for the opportunity.to provide input in the
--- - - early -planning stages for this project. If I can further---------
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
Janice Nicholls, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ®.
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED F H
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary (?.??
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
ti
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Project Review Coordinator
RE: #95-0523 Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road,
Henderson County
DATE: February 27, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the subject proposal. This department ask that
careful consideration be given to the attached suggestions provided
by the Division of Environmental Management.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
,;i ; rE8 2 1 y,,,,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal OFportunity Affirmative Action Employer E011. recycled/ 10 o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project umber: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS ??
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
buestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(statulory time
PERMITS
Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment
? lacilities, sewer system extensions. d sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters
?I Water Use Permit
?I Well Construction Permit
Dredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in Compliance with 15A
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS limit)
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual (90 days)
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90.120 days
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility granted alter NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

30 days
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary I (NrA)
J7 days
Complete application must be received and permit issued (15 days/
prior 10 the installation of a well.
Application copy must be serves on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
owner On-site inspection. Pre application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 oaysl
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
ti0 days
NIA (90 days)
NIA
60 days
(90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimenlatro
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
da s before be innrn activity. A lee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 davst
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
?"l Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? Nonh Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
(NIA)
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground cleanng activities are involved. Inspections
"
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn Is planned.
90.120 days
? Oil Refining Facilities' NIA (NIA)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C, qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
? Dam Salety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR aoprov•
A
d f
s)
(60 da
n
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. y
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing lee based on a
cercenta a or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Continued on reverse

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonothon S. Howes. Secretary
-- - -? A. Preston Houidrd, Jr., P.E.. Director
February 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Domey
Monica SWh
1
From: Erio Galambg
$ubject EA for Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road
Henderson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1950602, TIP 41-2001
EHNR # 95-0523, DEM # 10854
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 document states that up
to 0.52 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
There are some discrepancies within the document- On page 26, "No jurisdictional wetlands
are found within St1Jdy Condor 03" Further on the same page, '...approximately 021 ha
(0.52 acres) of freshwater marsh may be impacted by Study Corridor 43-N. If no wetlands are
located in corridor #3, OEM recommends that this corridor be the preferred corridor.
The topographic map for StUdly area #t3 shows that Mud Creek will be impacted Mud Creek is
classified as a water supply- DEM requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at
all water supply stream crossings. The BMP for the protection of surface waters requires DOT
to install hazardous spill catch basins in water supply critical areas. Other stream crossings
may be outside of the critical area but DEM still believes that hazardous spill catch basins at
these locations will provide extra protection at minimal cost. Bridge deck runoff should not
drain directly Into the bodies of water. Ali stream relocations should adhere to DOTS Stream
Relocation/ Channelization guidelines. DEM requests that DOT utilize HOW soil and erosion
control measures to protect the water supply.
DOT Is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in
DENTs Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
naples.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Clarence Coleman, DOT
P.O. Box 29635, Rdeigh. North Cororno 27626-0M3 Telophone 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Eaud OpGcrhmfhr Affirmaii m Action Employer SQL recycwdf 1 M pow-conarnor pcPor
l•n Q.l (\'r' rl Cy I: :'U)CC:I'
U
The applic:ln.c should he. Cl,risetl Chic Mans and Spcci[icacions per ait wacer sysce
1 t , Er.?'Cronnle:?cal 1-lea::!1 or:or co.the aware
i_ inlprove:11en1S must L•e ap);oy c,lc J:' sloe o?
5 - 1 .'300 cc. se•o.
of a C011Cr1Cl' or the iniciaCiar. or eollSCnlc:c:cli (as rcq^1:-cc' by l,. _ [?CP.C
For informacioll, contact c'-le 1'ulc!ic \Y/:ce: supply 3e_c1on, (919, 733 2 00•
This'pro)ecc will be dzsSifiea as ;. non coi,:^lunicy ouctlc watel• Suopl y'+c:d mC1SC Comply vic'_:
r-? I cn1C01'I:1'? r!QUlfC:1For wore 1n'crnlacioll C'hC a0i7llt ::r
l_ .! state Ana fcact. dl ll,.Ill %'lC ! i::G
_ ra `.
Should contACC ChC Pubi1C V??C_: ?uppl?' C10CL, ?• 1 • • / ?3 L_ _ ..
r r •
If this projccc is consc:acted as c'roaosed'::•,'/ill rcccnr_u !d cosure of _ lee='or ad)aee ='•
?1 r- r?CSC 0. ,CFGr In?Grnla !Gn yard!n? :!1C •S?:CII.!Sil S:iilCallOn pCC?
-- v. c :s co cne ha.. . S-
111, the icolic:.nu shou!C C-_ nC. c-_ zne_ Snc l :S', S:•r.!c .c: Dn Brant ac (9 iS} .72 6 -JL/.
r- -, L t7' SU011 C1LSD Osil ^l'000se- CJC Cnl: ?rC?)CC= ?lam QCOdlli: C110SC11!C^ brCC`:!7Q vrcble -
l_-! 1-or inrormaCion conCC_"i !n° 1coroQ!lsCe tIiOSQI+!CO •:i)nCl'Ol ti,CvSLCCS, t:1e ?pf7l1C111C Si C
contact the Public Y:calca Pcs: itilan:.gc„ let Section : (919) %-6-597 .
hay -'•ior co the rcmovai or c?r_leution o eil::oi?a.=
1 The applleaill• should be ?.d?ise e'
C0:?Crol 4CJ'l: ^ i:l: be- C1 CCSSC! ?' ! Cr_r:' Co' prCven. t n
J ScRJC:`.:l•cS, 2n C::iC:1Si`/C :'OLD':: r
C: _
L he Ori 17.CiC?:? CO::CC: 77. li?° rc.de ?i.CC? i1 ,
'o acicn o( c1?c rod;^c. cc
n1loC i 1 a L J nC Ol' i'C 1?U"iic Fz=lCl: Pest Mar.: -pt:llcn: CIOCl' :t l
COtll'aCt C?.z LOCa he C C Cc
/ 33-6-s0/ .
TRe, zpulicanc should be ad?'szd . co czcac: chc ! -?c7,1 hc,lc:-? dcpz:-,.1cn _garuin; -
?•. "• lv. - _
:`1G^CS fGC ^. C:' :1!1:{ :^_l_11.:C:^r,c \ j lh•'\Il1C _ UnuCC :?'t NC 1,300
t ^r^.f; CAn iii `1 nC.^.'C n' $Il'?. v/ascz C^.C'.CCVCls, CURI..
'i. Should :^ C^.C S i!'`.' ..
f,;? ?OI1C, 1 ell:. lV? et lC lll'1'l do :?mil :tlld:'.:. :The-
' 1.. .. .? I:aCllll':::5 l'CChll:•Cd 1C)I' C^I.i ?1fU't:;
?l. .::1' VJ :11.':,• ll,,,., r,t,.. .!L?1.1: .. Ill:!i L, _ coils[ l ---'1 (•(:lGL1:..!l11'l Ii:U }.•t I):•. S1: i)!i..l•? _ '• ,. i,Q?l ,;: ?:-I1 .I•'G 1111C i 1 ?
1(CC':Oll, :rC:C'a ??.
I
=`': _ sCC61
OQ?1?C:111C.1, aCC

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Section
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
- Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0522
Henderson County
February 3, 1995
Public transportation (i.e., busing) and other measures (i.e., staggered work hours, car and van pooling) should be
incorporated into the planning process for improving transportation in the region. By minimizing the number of
single occupied vehicles, congestion will be reduced as will the need for another major road improvement in 10-
20 years.
Secondary impacts (i.e., development generated from the project and adverse effects of this development) should
be addressed in the evaluation.
??OaCA?L
Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, Nor h Carolina 27626-0536 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ IM post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROTECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charier H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., secretary Director
Project Number: ??? SZ 3 county:
Project Name: v ?z3
Geodetic Survey
t,This project will impact _
Survey should be•contacted
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 (919)
geodetic monument is a vio
geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
733-3836. Intentional destruction of a
lation of N.C. General Statute A2-4.
This 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 projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality (later
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].
1,?, lJ? 2/?j>s
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 Meigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AlFrmadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E,") F H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
Monica Swih
From: Eric Galamk?
Subject: EA for Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road
Henderson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1950602, TIP #1-2001
EHNR # 95-0523, DEM # 10854
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 document states that up
to 0.52 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
There are some discrepancies within the document. On page 26, "No jurisdictional wetlands
are found within Study Corridor #3." Further on the same page, "...approximately 0.21 ha
(0.52 acres) of freshwater marsh may be impacted by Study Corridor #3..". If no wetlands are
located in corridor #3, DEM recommends that this corridor be the preferred corridor.
The topographic map for study area #3 shows that Mud Creek will be impacted. Mud Creek is
classified as a water supply. DEM requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at
all water supply stream crossings. The BMP for the protection of surface waters requires DOT
to install hazardous spill catch basins in water supply critical areas. Other stream crossings
may be outside of the critical area but DEM still believes that hazardous spill catch basins at
these locations will provide extra protection at minimal cost. Bridge deck runoff should not
drain directly into the bodies of water. All stream relocations should adhere to DOT's Stream
Relocation/ Channelization guidelines. DEM requests that DOT utilize HQW soil and erosion
control measures to protect the water supply.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in
DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
naples.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Clarence Coleman, DOT
R0. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
RECEIVED
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural kResourceT0 3 1995
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 1t
Project Review Form EWRON gRNAjNCHCIE
Project Number: County:
LL A
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
'T?114A? ?tW*&'w V-/ ? K,- &Aid
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: a4 -Q?j'd 'a )
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ? All RIO Areas SWater ? Marine Fisheries
Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
Fayetteville
ater
? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville roundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

ton
? Washin Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
g ? Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: in-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS 104

STATE oi: NoRTI I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMLS B. I IuN?1. 1 R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
G('vi RN"R P.O. 1UX 25201. RALEIC;H, N.C. 27611-5201
January 17, 1995
Mr. David Cox
DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
Archdale Building
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Cox:
R. SAMI)P.I. HUNT I I I
SPC.RC IARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Naples, Proposed Connector
from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534), Henderson County, State
Project No. 8.1950602, Federal Aid No. STP-25(2), TIP No. I-2001
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by March 3, 1995. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
?a
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Proposed Connector
US 25 to Naples Road
Henderson County, North Carolina
(I-2001)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
by
4--
Environmental Services, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
June 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description .................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ......................................... 1
1.3 Methodology ...................................... 1
1.4 Project Area ....................................... 3
1.5 Physiography and Soils ................................ 3
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Waters Impacted .................................... 5
2. 1.1 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality .............. 5
2.1.2 Stream Characteristics ............................ 5
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ...................... 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities ................................... 7
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities ..................... 8
3.3 Wildlife ......................................... 9
3.3.1 Terrestrial ................................... 9
3.3.2 Aquatic ..................................... 9
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife .......................... 10
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................ 11
4.1.1 Permits .................................... 11
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................. 12
4.2 Protected Species ................................... 12
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ........................ 12
4.2.2 State Protected Species .......................... 13
5.0 REFERENCES
Proposed Connector From US 25 To Naples Road
TIP NO.: I-2001
Henderson County, N.C.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Descri ption
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes a new connector between
US 25 and Naples Road (SR 1534), Henderson County, NC (Figure 1). Construction will include
a two-lane facility on new location to improve access to the I-26/US 25 interchange for Park Ridge
Hospital. Three corridors are under consideration for the proposed new connector.
Corridor #1 begins at US 25, approximately 457 meters (m) (1500 feet) (ft) north of the I-26/US 25
interchange, extends northeast to SR 1536, then south to SR 1535 terminating 106 m (350 ft) south
of the SR 1535/SR 1534 intersection. Corridor #1A begins at US 25, approximately 335 m (1100
ft) north of the I-26/1JS 25 interchange, proceed northeast to the railroad crossing at SR 1536, then
south to SR 1535 terminating 106 m (350 ft) south of the SR 1535/SR 1534 intersection. Corridor
#2 begins at US 25, approximately 457 m (1500 ft) south of the I-261US 25 interchange, proceed
east to SR 1534 terminating 106 m (350 ft) south of the SR 1535/SR 1534 intersection.
Total project length for the longest corridor is approximately 1.9 kilometers (km) (1.2 miles); the
shortest corridor is approximately 1.3 km (0.8 miles).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the immediate area
of potential project impact. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of biological features within the study corridor including descriptions of vegetation,
wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodoloev
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Fruitland and Skyland,
N.C.), National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Henderson
County (USDA 1980), and December 1992 aerial photography [scale: 1 inch = 200 ft ] furnished
by NCDOT.
CIE E? all ? 4.'ti 1 (I-/
v w.l •
Orb .1" \ e. r N
He 0 n; ? ? ? ? •'C ?F?yr t „I,, 'rP• b•._ . ? ?'? ??
Brick-w4 • k-? 4
"OAO
Park ?b 1 - • ,.iY' S. ,
-t et
Mlle
off-
\aple ' ? ? 1531) k?'
N ?' • .411) Naples Cb- \) ?,•
,steal P rG 1. /^ ?•
StudYCorridor #1
Mlrs
Study Corridor #I A • • • ' 2
Study Corridor #2
SCALE 1 24 "100 1' -
RV 44
1000 U :"luu :UUiI :f+. av,r? b(,??(. rCiX; ?FF?-_ LY
1 _
E:. L -r-::-i.-[
CONTOUR INTEPVAI 70 FEET
Site Location Map Figure I
Proposed Connector, US 25 to Naples Road
ENVIRONMENTAL (TIP No. I-2001) June 1994
SERVICES, INC.
Henderson County, NC
ER94-010
The site was visited on 24 and 25 May 1994. Communities likely to be impacted by the proposed
new alignments were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 30 m (100 ft) in width. Impact calculations were based on
an assumption that construction impacts would be confined within the 30 m wide corridor limits.
Special concerns were evaluated including potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and
water quality protection in area streams.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following US Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980,
Potter et al. 1980, Hamel 1992, Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area streams
and tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, 1991, 1993). Ecological
classifications based on recreational fishing potential were determined by utilizing Fish (1968).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data
A listing of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Henderson County was
requested and received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of field
studies. In addition, NCNHP records documenting presence of federal or state listed species were
consulted before commencing this investigation.
1.4 Pr4Ject Area
The proposed project occurs near the rural community of Naples, Henderson County, approximately
8.4 km (5.2 miles) northeast of downtown Hendersonville (Figure 1). Residential homes are located
adjacent to existing roadways. Portions of the proposed new corridor will cross commercial,
industrial, pasture, and forested lands. Residential development in the vicinity of the proposed
project is characterized by scattered homes.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
Henderson County is situated in the southeastern Blue Ridge Mountains physiographic province.
Topography is characterized by mountain ranges, isolated peaks, large rolling valleys, and stream
flood plains, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range
from approximately 732 m (2400 ft) along an upland ridge to 622 m (2040 ft) along Mud Creek
(USGS Fruitland quadrangle). The project site is in the Chauga Belt underlain by igneous rocks,
consisting mainly of monzonitic to granodiorite rocks (DNR 1985).
3
Soils in the project area are dominated by Hayesville loam on 7 to 25 % slopes, Cordorous loam and
Delanco loam on 0 to 2 % slopes, Tate fine sandy loam on 7 to 15% slopes, and Bradson gravelly
loam on 7 to 15 % slopes.
Hayesville loam soils on 7 to 25% slopes are well-drained and found on broad, rolling foot ridges
to smooth ridges at lower elevations. Almost all areas of this soil have been cleared and are used
for crops or pasture. Some areas are used as building sites and farmsteads. This soil has moderate
potential for urban uses. The limitation of slope can be reduced or modified by special planning and
design.
Cordorous soils are moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils typically found within
floodplain systems. In addition, this soil is subject to frequent flooding and has low potential for
most urban uses. The Cordorous map unit is classified as having hydric soil inclusions in
depressional areas. Soil classifications are determined by the National Technical Committee Qf
Hydric 5gila (NTCHS).
Delanco loam soils on 0 to 2% slopes, are moderately well drained and found on low stream
terraces. This soil map unit is classified as having hydric soil inclusions in depressional areas
(NTCHS) and is subject to occasional, very brief flooding in those areas. Most of these areas have
been cleared for crops and pastures. This soil has low potential for most urban uses.
Tate fine sandy loam on 7 to 15% slopes are well drained soils and found on smooth foot slopes and
in lower coves. Most of these areas have been cleared and are used for crops; a few areas are used
for pasture. This soil has moderate potential for most urban uses. The limitation of slope can be
reduced or modified by special planning and design. Erosion is a hazard where ground cover is
removed.
Bradson gravelly loam soils on 7 to 15% slopes are well drained on smooth, high stream terraces.
Most of these areas have been cleared and are used for crops; a few areas are used for pasture. This
soil has moderate potential for most urban uses. The limitation of slope can be reduced or modified
by special planning and design. Erosion is a hazard where ground cover is removed.
4
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Waters Impacted
East of SR 1536 and west of SR 1535, two of the study corridors (#1 and #IA) cross three
small, unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek (Figure 1). The first tributary is located
approximately 365 in (1200 ft) west of SR 1535 and flows through a wooded area. The second
tributary is located approximately 548 m (1800 ft) west of SR 1535 and flows through the same
wooded area as the first. The third tributary is located approximately 335 in (1100 ft) east of
SR 1536 and flows through an urban disturbed area. Northeast of the US 25, Study Corridor
#2 crosses an unnamed tributary located adjacent to Norfolk Southern Railway. This is the same
tributary which is crossed by Study Corridors #1 and # 1 A. Mud Creek flows northwest to the
French Broad River.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classifications and Water Ouabi
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
A best usage classification of WS-IV has been assigned to Mud Creek from Byers Creek to the
French Broad River (DEM 1993). The designation WS-IV denotes that appropriate uses are as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point source
discharges of treated waste water are permitted pursuant to State regulations. Local programs
to control nonpoint source and storm water discharge of pollution are required. WS-IV waters
are also suitable for all Class C uses. The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within the project area. There are no point source discharges within the project area
(DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989, 1991). Species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. There are
two BMAN sampling stations on Mud Creek. Station #2 is at the crossing of SR 1505, and
Station #4 is above the waste water treatment plant for Hendersonville. Both stations are
approximately 8.8 km (5.5 miles) upstream of the project area. Sampling at both locations in
1985 indicated poor water quality (DEM 1989).
2.1.2 Stream Characteristics
The first unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located west of SR 1535, is approximately 45
centimeters (cm) (18 inches) wide, 5-10 cm (2-4 inches) deep, and meanders through a forested
area within well-defined banks approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) high. Stream flow is slow and clear
over a substrate of sand and gravel.
The second unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located west of SR 1535, is approximately 60 cm
(24 in) wide, 5 cm (2 in) deep, and meanders through a forested area within well defined banks
approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) high. The stream flow is slow and clear over a substrate of sand and
gravel.
The third unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located east of SR 1536, is approximately 24 cm
(24 inches) wide and 5 cm (2 cm) deep, and the moderately sloped creek channel is
approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) below the natural grade. Stream flow is slow and clear over a
substrate of sand, gravel, and large rocks.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can be minimized by the use of best
management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control
measures during construction.
Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements.
Culverts at crossings of unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek will maintain continued flow and
protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from highway surfaces will be partially mitigated by
providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of ditching whenever possible.
6

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities
Four plant communities were identified within the study corridors: pine-mixed hardwood, mesic
hardwood, freshwater marsh, and urban/disturbed. Some of the plant communities have been
modified from their natural state due to growth maintenance occurring along road and railway
margins. Urbanization within the study corridors has further altered natural communities with
the introduction and cultivation of exotic plant species. Specific communities exhibited variation
dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, slope aspect).
The plant communities are described below.
Pine-Mixed Hardwood Forest
Pine-mixed hardwood forest occurs mainly in one large tract located east of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad and west of SR 1535. The overstory trees consist of Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory species (Carya spp.), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), and white oak (Q. alba). Midstory and shrub species include sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The
herbaceous layer includes vines such as greenbrier (Smilax glauca), rosebay (Rhododendron
maximum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Other herbaceous plants include ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), and Virginia heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica).
Mesic Hardwood Forest
Mesic hardwood forest cover is found along creek slopes. The canopy is dominated by red
maple, yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar maple (Acer saccharinum) and to a lesser
extent, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), river birch (Betula nigra), and ash (Fraxinus sp.).. The
understory consists of seedling trees, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and bushy dogwood
(Cornus alternifolia). The shrub layer is composed of arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), grape
(Vitis sp.), greenbrier, and multifloral rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbs include wild ginger
(Asarum canadense), Christmas fern, and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes vegetation in roadside margins; railway margins;
pastures; and industrial, commercial, and residential yards. These areas contain some species
common to those in adjoining communities, but because of mowing and maintenance procedures,
seasonal grasses and herbs predominate amidst scattered trees and shrubs. Common tree species
include red maple, yellow poplar, black cherry, sugar maple, and redbud (Cercis canadensis).
Shrub species include willow (Salix spp.) and various yard ornamentals. The herbaceous growth
is dominated by orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), fescue (Festuca elatior), and clover
(Trifolium spp. )
7
Freshwater Marsh
This community type is found in man-made topographic lows which were once farm ponds.
These areas are still hydrated by upland runoff. There are two areas identified as being of this
community type. The first area is located approximately 213 m (700 ft) northeast of the I-26/
Norfolk Southern Rail Road overpass. The second is located approximately 30 m (100 ft) west
of SR 1536/Norfolk Southern Railroad intersection. Wetland hydrology is maintained by upland
runoff. Dominant species include scattered willows, false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), cattail
(Typha sp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.).
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are proportional to the relative abundance of each plant
community in each of the study corridor alignments. A summary of potential plant community
impacts by corridor alignment is presented below.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities*
---------------------------------------------------
PLANT COMMUNITY
CORRIDOR #1
Pine-Mixed Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed
Fresh Marsh
----------------------------
CORRIDOR TOTAL
CORRIDOR #IA
Pine-Mixed Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed
Fresh Marsh
--------------------------
CORRIDOR TOTAL
----------------------------
CORRIDOR #2
Pine-Mixed Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed
Fresh Marsh
-------------------------------
CORRIDOR TOTAL
*Based on 30.4 m (100 ft) construction limits
ESTIMATED IMPACT
hectares acres
1.21 2.98
0.21 0.53
4.58 11.94
0.09 0.23
6.09 15.68
1.21 2.98
0.33 0.82
4.32 10.67
0.21
------------------------ 0.52
------------------
6.07 14.99
8
0.40 0.99
0.37 0.92
3.25 8.03
0.00 0.00
4.02 9.94
Most impacts occur in urban disturbed areas for all corridors studied. Corridor #lA has the
most forested and wetland impacts for all corridors studied. Corridor #2 has the least amount
of impacts for all corridors.
3.3 Wildlife
3.3.1 Terrestrial
In spite of surrounding urbanization and resultant habitat loss and fragmentation, a diversity of
plant communities provides wildlife with the basic necessities of food, water, and cover. Tracks
of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and small rodents were
observed in the study corridor. Other expected mammals include gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana).
Several species of reptiles and amphibians are expected to occur in the woodlands and
creeksides. American toad (Bufo americanus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
would persist here.
A diversity of avian species were observed. Permanent residents included red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Summer
residents included American robin (Turdus migratorius), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), gray catbird
(Dumetella corolinensis), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens).
3.3.2 Aquatic
The unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek are too small to support game fish; however, small fish
such as minnows (Phenacobias spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.), and shiners (Notropis spp.) are
expected in these streams. Amphibians such as eastern newts (Notophthalmas viridescens),
spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), and chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.); and reptiles
such as northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus), are also
expected to inhabit streamside habitats.
9
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed project does not pose a significant threat to wildlife. Some resident terrestrial
species such as passerine birds, squirrels, eastern cottontail, and raccoon adapt readily to short-
term, minor changes. Some temporary displacement in feeding areas or cover may occur due
to construction, but a new equilibrium will occur after project completion. Mud Creek will not
be directly impacted; therefore, long term loss of aquatic habitat is not expected.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed project will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Culverts at crossings of unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek will maintain stream flow and allow
for continued viability of aquatic organisms.
10
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA
1987).
Jurisdictional areas within the study corridors are palustrine in nature as defined by Cowardin
et al. (1979). Based on this three parameter approach, there are minimal jurisdictional wetlands
within Study Corridors #1 and #IA. No jurisdictional wetlands are found within Study Corridor
#2. Soils adjacent to the unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek fail to show hydric characteristics.
The following jurisdictional system has been identified.
Palustrine emergent, persistent (PEM)
Approximately 0.09 hectares (ha) (0.23 acres) of freshwater marsh may be impacted by Study
Corridor #1, and approximately 0.21 ha (0.52 acres) of freshwater marsh may be impacted by
Study Corridor #IA. This community consists of remnants of farm pond impoundments.
Characteristic vegetation of this community is described under the heading of freshwater marsh
in the Plant Community section above. There are two areas identified as being of this
community type. The first area is located approximately 213 in (700 ft) northeast of the I-26/
Norfolk Southern Rail Road overpass. The second is located approximately 30 in (100 ft) west
of SR 1536/Norfolk Southern Railroad intersection. Wetland hydrology is maintained by upland
runoff.
4. 1.1 Permits
Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are expected to apply for project-related impacts to surface
waters/wetlands. NWPs which may be available for use include NWP #26 for above headwater
impacts, or NWP #14 for minor road crossings. In Henderson County, all NWPs require
notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers and concurrence from the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a
nationwide or general permit. NWP #26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are greater
than 0.13 ha (0.33 acre). NWP #14 requires notification if special aquatic sites (wetlands) are
affected.
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, utilization of best
management practices (BMPs) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.). Candidate species (C) do
not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The following
federally protected and candidate species are listed by the USFWS for Henderson County as of April
02, 1994:
FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Federal Status Common Name Habitat NC Status
Myotis subulatus leibii
Neotomalloridana haemitoreia
Clemmys muhlenbergh
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Aneides aeneus
Cambanis reburrus
Lasmigona holstonia
Speyeria diana
Isoola medeoloides
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesh
Sagittaria fasciculata
Sisyrinchium dichotomum
Helonias bullata
Narthecium americanum
Hexasrylis contracta
Hexasrylis rhombiformis
Juglans nigra
Lilium grayi
C Eastern small-footed bat No SC
C Eastern woodrat No SC
C Bog turtle Yes T
C Hellbender No SC
C Green salamander No E
C French Broad stream
crayfish Yes W
C Tennessee heelsplitter No E
C Diana fritillary
butterfly Yes SR
E Small whorled pogonia Yes E
E Mountain sweet pitcher-
plant No E-SC
E Bunched arrowhead No E
E White irisette No E
T Swamp pink No T-SC
C Bog asphodel Yes
C Mountain heartleaf No E
C French Broad heartleaf No C
C Butternut No W5
C Gray's lily Yes T-SC
12

Marshallia grandi,Jlora C Barbara's buttons No C
Monotropsis ordorata C Sweet pinesap Yes C
Plantathera integrilabia C White fringeless orchid No E
Saxiaga caroliniana C Gray's saxifrage No C
Senecio millejolium C Divided leaf ragwort No T
Silene ovata C Mountain catchfly Yes C
Carex schweinitzii C Schweinitz's sedge No C
Juncus caesariensis C New Jersey rush No C
Small Whorled Pogonia - This plant is a terrestrial herb in the orchid family (ORCHDACEAE)
endemic to several counties in the upper piedmont of North Carolina. Distinguishing characteristics
include drooping, pale green leaves at the top of slender stems, and small green and purple flowers
during the blooming season. Blooming period for this species is May-June. This species is found
on wooded slopes and along streams (Radford et al. 1968).
Potential habitat for this species occurs in mesic hardwood forest adjacent to the unnamed tributaries
that traverse the project area. A visual search was conducted in the potential habitat employing a
system of overlapping transects. No individuals or populations of this species were observed. Based
on field investigations and a review of available information, the proposed project is not expected
to impact this species.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant - This pitcher plant is a perennial herb with hollow leaves usually
partially filled with moisture. This species is found in mountain bogs (Radford et al. 1968). Habitat
does not exist for this species within the project area. Based on field investigations and a review
of available information, the proposed project is not expected to impact this species.
Bunched Arrowhead - This species is an emersed/submersed perennial herb in the
ALISMATACEAE family. Bunched arrowhead is found in mountain swamps and bogs (Radford
et al. 1968). Leaf blades are relatively broad and emersed. Flowering occurs from May to July.
Habitat does not exist for this species within the project area. Based on field investigations and a
review of available information, the proposed project is not expected to impact this species.
White Irisette - This irisette is a small perennial herb in the iris family (UMACEAE) endemic to
three counties (Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford) in the upper piedmont of North Carolina. This
species is found in dry to mesic woods, usually over mafic rock at 400-1000 m (Weakly 1993).
Habitat does not exist for this species within the project area. Based on field investigations and a
review of available information, the proposed project is not expected to impact this species.
Swamp Pink - This plant is a small perennial herb in the lily family (LILIACEAE), endemic to
several counties in the upper piedmont of North Carolina. The plant has evergreen leaves in a basal
rosette and pink to lavender flowers which bloom April to June. This species is found in mountain
bogs (Radford et al. 1968). Habitat for this species does not exist within the project area. Based on
field investigations and a review of available information, the proposed project is not expected to
impact this species.
13

4.2.2 State Protected Species
Mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and plant species with the state status of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). Significantly Rare (SR) species are not afforded legal protection.
NCNHP records indicate that no known populations of state listed species occur within 5 km (3
miles) of the project site.
Based on field observations and a review of available information, proposed improvements are not
expected to affect any state or federally listed species.
14

5.0 REFERENCES
Cooper, J. E., S. S. Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg. 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants
and Animals of North Carolina Report to the North Carolina State Museum of Natural
History, Raleigh NC.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, MS.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1988. Rpt. 89-08, NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin. NC Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North
Carolina. Report no. 88-02 (305B). Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: BMAN Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, DEM Water
Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNR). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. N.C. Geological Survey.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P. B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.
LeGrand, H. E. Jr. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison IIl. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
15
IP
Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the EPA and the
DOE Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section
404 (b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC. 6 p.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. UNC Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. UNC Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Henderson County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Raleigh NC.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working draft of
November 1993. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Raleigh, NC.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C, Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
16
t
1. M
a I se-•/f wsn Psuv Ch[P G•1? `? , i? ) 1 't',
0 f ?.
n i? l
7-4), '13
?? h tl t
14"
%
r. -
T- 41
• ?` ? ' rim- ` \ -/ _?l r?.l-`-•. \ ? /'? v , I
of a \ .? ?,j \ V
7N
ts# _ ..
)L Nap?
0 a ------ ?-- Wetlands fl .?,
•? \\,/ :\J -?) 1? _ 1 . \?d
Nanles DA"
- ? .?? ?'- -1,?ed+?. ?-? .. .? ? of / ?i- • ? -•\ (?/ t ? ? `mot-•
Mirw 216
fiv 44
(? 1\ 1, ?` 1•? . / N 2060 i-- _ 1 r• "\\ . a?j?.'
25
X_ \ Mile 7
.• / '.?
-' « -• ''• ' ( ,? 9 0 000 F E % l I Mr• T13 I-IENOE450N.
• 1 iwr[w.ow-G[041'.K I.4 •uw.l .. w•.•Ow. -G,N,•-lrl 82'°30' 364 MOON t/IN NO E 0 1 M,.
E. rrENOERSOVV,LLE a " M,
ROAD CLASSIFICATION (TVA 193-NE)Mapped and edited by Tennessee Valley Authcr ty
Published by the Geological Survey
•Imary highway, Light duty road. hard or w"
and surface improved surface _-_.--?•- Control by NOSINOAA, USGS, and TVA
e ndary highway. Revised by TVA in 19b5 by phol )grammptnc me•r.u:s u•.,ng a
1, surface .?•..?--- Unimproved road - - aerial pnotographs taken 1964 end t.y refeie-ce to TVA 'ISGS ho
quadrangle dated 1942 MAP field ct-cked ! 1 i ?A, 116`
Interstate Route ? U S Route ! State Route
Polycon c protection. 1927 North Amery an Ja!jm
10 Wj foot gr,d based on Norlh Car J -a
I
,eclanguwdr coo,dindte Srst1'm ,W(' AND
Ir'"ver"' Mar Al 'r l.Na,'•N •'
SKYLAND N. C. If m•t?1 univerld!
1 Reasr,'u,'S •.I vv" in ?urt,ir
35N2•D5•TF-024 To 17, shown r blue
To Owe on OW pndKted NO" A,rewrtan OMum 1983 ;,r .g?, .?t ', ?•,.,v n I ? .+'•
-
Naples
Proposed Connector from US 25
to Naples Road (SR 1534)
Henderson County
State Project No. 8.1950602
Federal Aid No. STP-25(2)
TIP No. I-2001
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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:
Kz) Y??
1
a e Franklin Vic P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
i/ 2
Da a 1118r" I
s ra , P. E.
/Pf//Z Div' ion Administrator, FHWA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
VI. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF
THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Relocation of Individuals and Families. . . . . . . 9
E. Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
F. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
G. Air Quality Analysis . . . it
H. Highway Traffic Noise/ConstructionNoise Analysis . . 14
1. Characteristics of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Ambient Noise Levels . . . . . . 16
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 16
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Do Nothing Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Construction Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
I. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
J. Hazardous Waste
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
R
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
The type and level of wetland mitigation will be determined in
compliance with the Clean Water Act once the type of permit is clear.
If Recommended Alternate 3 is shifted to the north, an archaeological
survey will be performed in that area.
C?i
Naples
Proposed Connector from US 25
to Naples Road (SR 1534)
Henderson County
State Project No. 8.1950602
Federal Aid No. STP-25(2)
TIP No. I-2001
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT , Division of Highways, proposes to construct
two-lane roadway from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534) in Henderson
County. The recommended cross-section for the new facility is a
two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot) shoulder section with 0.6 meter
(2-foot) paved shoulders within a 2.4 meter (8-foot) total usable
shoulder width. The total length of the proposed project is 1.29
kilometers (0.8 miles). The estimated cost in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program is $2,790,000. The current total
cost is estimated to be $2,088,000.
2. Summer of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive-overall impact on the area by improving traffic circulation
and traffic safety in Naples. It will improve the accessibility to
Park Ridge Hospital from I-26 via US 25 and enhance the area's
economic growth by increasing accessibility to the region. The
proposed project alignment will require the relocation of one family.
No recreation facilities or historic sites eligible for the National
Register will be involved. There may be some erosion and siltation
during construction but strict adherence to erosion control measures
will minimize the damage. Long-term impacts to water quality are not
expected as a result of the proposed improvements. Construction of
the proposed project will impact approximately 4.02 hectares (9.94
acres) of woodlands. Future noise levels are expected to increase
from a range of +0 to 14 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the construction of a new
connector (See Figure 2 in Appendix), three corridor alignments were
considered for the proposed improvement; however, no alternatives to
the two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot), roadway were considered. This
two-lane cross-section was recommended because it provides adequate
capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes and
provides sufficient width for motorists. The three alignments
considered for the proposed project are as follows.
Alternate 1 - This Alternative originates at US 25, approximately
400 meters (1310 feet) north of the I-26/US 25 interchange. From
this point, the alignment traverses in a northeast direction for
approximately 370 meters (1210 feet) crossing the railroad tracks.
The alignment then curves to the southeast and continues southward
printarily on new location. The proposed connector terminates at the
intersection of Naples Road (SR 1534) and Twin Springs Road
(SR 1535). It is recommended that Old Hendersonville Road (SR 1536)
tie into the proposed connector forming a "T" intersection. It is
recommended this intersection be stop sign controlled.
Alternate 2 - The proposed connector, in this alternative, commences
at US 25, approximately 340 meters (1115 feet) north of the
I-26/US 25 interchange. The proposed roadway then travels in a
northeast heading and crosses the railroad tracks at the point where
the Norfolk Southern Railway and Old Hendersonville Road intersect.
The alignment then curves to the southeast and continues southward on
new location until it ties in with Twin Springs Road (SR 1535) near
the intersection of Twin Springs Road and Naples Road (SR 1534).
Alternate 3 (Recommended) - This alternative commences at US 25,
approximately 380 meters (1250 feet) south of the I-26/US 25
interchange. The proposed roadway then traverses to the southeast
for a distance of approximately 250 meters (820 feet) where it shifts
in a southward direction before curving to the northeast to
eventually tie into Naples Road (SR 1534).
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State and local agencies were
consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received and considered during the
preparation of this assessment:
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and
History
N. C. State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
5. Actions Required b Other Agencies - North Carolina Department of
Transportation is cognizant that both wetlands and surface water
impacts are anticipated from the construction of the proposed
project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
consult with the appropriate agencies in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. (48 Stat. 401). Also, due to project
related impacts to surface waters/wetlands, NCDOT, will apply to the
Army Corps of Engineers for a Nationwide Permits #14 and #26. The
NCDOT will submit applications to the Corps of Engineers for these
permits after the final design for the project is completed. In
order to mitigate the wetland loss caused by this highway
improvement, best Management Practices such as sedimentation control
measures will be utilized during construction to reduce erosion and
sedimentation. Also, eliminating the use of curb and gutter sections
and restoring native vegetation to areas adjacent to disturbed
wetlands will reduce the impact of the project. A 401 Water Quality
Certification will be required prior to construction.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Naples
Proposed Connector from US 25
to Naples Road (SR 1534)
Henderson County
State Project No. 8.1950602
Federal Aid No. STP-25(2)
TIP No. I-2001
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to construct a two-lane roadway on new location from
US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534) in Henderson County (see Figures 1 and 2).
The total project length is approximately 1.29 kilometers (0.8 miles).
The recommended typical cross-section is a two-lane, 7.2 meter (24-foot)
roadway with 2.4 meter (8-foot) total usable shoulders, including
0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. The proposed right-of-way width is 30
meters (100 feet) with no proposed access control. Additionally, the
project will require the construction of a new bridge to carry the
proposed roadway over the Norfolk Southern Railway. The recommended cross
section for the bridge is a 9.75-meter (32-foot) clear structure width.
The total bridge length is approximately 76.2 meters (250 feet). A 7.01
meter (23-foot) minimum vertical clearance is proposed. This project is
included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with
the right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1996 and construction to begin in FFY 1997. The estimated project
cost in the 1995-2001 TIP is $2,790,000. The project is currently
estimated to cost $2,088,000.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to Park
Ridge Hospital from I-26. Park Ridge Hospital is a non-profit institution
located in the Naples Area adjacent to Naples Road (SR 1534). The
Hospital requested the project.
The proposed project is needed to provide better emergency vehicle
access from I-26 and US 25. Currently, the most direct access to the
Hospital from US 25 is Naples Road. Naples Road consists of a two-lane,
6.7 meter (22-foot) pavement with 1.8 meters (6-foot) usable shoulders.
Although the roadway provides direct access to the Hospital from US 25,
Naples Road intersects the Norfolk Southern Railroad track at grade just
east of US 25. This railroad track carries 8 trains per day. There are
recorded cases of trains delaying emergency vehicles and medical staff
traveling to and from the Hospital. Therefore, a grade separation over
the railroad is mandatory to provide improved access to the Hospital.
2
B. Economic Develooment
Minimal development is anticipated adjacent to the proposed project.
However, the proposed improvement will aid in the economic development of
the area by improving the accessibility to US 25 and I-26. This will
reduce transportation costs by decreasing travel times to areas
surrounding Naples.
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Projected 1994 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) along this project
are estimated to be 3200 vehicles per day (vpd). In the year 2017, the
expected volumes are for the proposed project is expected to be 7000 vpd
(See Appendix, Figure 3A). Upon completion of construction, it is
anticipated that intersections along the proposed project will operate at
a level of service (LOS) C or better. Level of Service C describes
operation as approaching capacity and is characterized as stable flow with
tolerable delays at critical sections during peak periods. In the year
2017, the level of service at these intersections is expected to remain at
LOS C.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Streets
The recommended project alignment will involve the following existing
streets:
1) US 25
2) Old Asheville Road
3) Naples Road (SR 1534)
B. Existing Cross Section
Existing roads along the project alignment have the following typical
sections:
1) US 25 - Two-lane, 6.7 meter (22-foot) shoulder section with
2.4 meter (8-foot) unpaved shoulders
2) Old Asheville Road - 5.5 meter (18-foot) unpaved shoulder
section
3) Naples Road - 6.7 meter (18-foot) shoulder section with 6-foot
unpaved shoulders
C. Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way width along streets involved with the project
is as follows:
1) US 25 - 18 meters to 24.4 meters (60 to 80 feet)
2) Old Asheville Road - 15.2 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet)
3) Naples Road - 18 meters (60 feet)
3
D. Bridges
There are no existing bridges along the proposed project alignment.
E. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along US 25 and Naples Road is 56.45 km/h
(35 mph). There is no posted speed limit on Old Asheville Road.
F. Access Control
The existing intersecting streets along the project alignment have no
control of access except in the vicinity of the bridge on Naples Road that
crosses I-26.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
All roads intersecting the proposed connector are at grade and stop
sign controlled.
H. Utilities
The following utilities are located within the project corridor:
water (City of Hendersonville), electricity (Duke Power), phone (Southern
Bell). Utility impacts are expected to be low.
I. Project Terminals
The western project terminus is at US 25 approximately 380 meters
(1250 feet) south of the I-26/US 25 interchange. At this location US 25 is
a two-lane, 6.0 meter (20-foot) shoulder section with 2.4 meter (8-foot)
usable shoulders. At the eastern project terminus, Naples Road (SR 1534),
is a two-lane, 6.0 meter (20-foot) roadway with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved
shoulders.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Length of Project
The total proposed project length is approximately 1.29 meters (0.8
miles).
B. Design Speed Proposed
The proposed design speed is a minimum of 64 km/h (40 mph). Design
speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway which
influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility
desired along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the
recommended or posted speed.
4
C. Cross Section
The recommended typical cross section is a two-lane, 7.2 meter
(24-foot) roadway with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders within 2.4 meter
(8-foot) usable shoulders. The proposed bridge is estimated to be 76.2
meters (250 feet) long, with a 9.75 meter (32-foot) clear structure width
which includes a 7.2 meter (24-foot) roadway with 1.2 meter (4-foot) paved
shoulders.
D. Right-of-Way
It is recommended
meters (100 feet) of
separation over Norfolk
approximately 60 meters
required.
E. Access Control
that the proposed improvement be constructed on 30
right-of-way. In the vicinity of the grade
Southern Railway, right-of-way will increase to
(200 feet) in order to contain the amount of fill
No control of access is proposed along the project except in the
vicinity of the bridge.
F. Grade Separation Over Railway
The project will provide a grade separated crossing over the Norfolk
Southern Railway east of existing US 25. The railroad track currently
carries 8 trains per day, which can delay emergency vehicles and medical
staff on their way to and from Park Ridge Hospital. These potential
delays are significant in this case due to the lack of a reasonable
alternative route to the Hospital. A grade separation between the
railroad track and Naples Road (SR 1534) would solve this problem, but is
not feasible. This is due to the close proximity of US 25 to the track,
and adjacent land development. The cost of the proposed grade separation
is estimated to be $448,000. This structure will have a 9.75 meter
(32-foot) clear structure width section which includes a 7.2 meter
(24-foot) roadway with 1.2 meter (4-foot) paved shoulders. A 7.01 meter
(23-foot) minimum clearance is required. The total bridge length is
76 meters (250 feet).
Estimated current average daily traffic volumes on Naples Road
(SR 1534) is 3,600 vehicles per day (vpd) The traffic volumes are
estimated to increase to approximately 7,000 vpd by 2017. This would
result in a train exposure index of 56,000 which warrants a grade
separation at this crossing.
G. Parkinq
Parking will neither be provided for nor permitted along the project.
H. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not proposed as part of this project.
5
I. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
J. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the NCDOT Highway Landscape Planting Policy,
funding for landscaping is included in the construction cost estimate for
this project; however, no special landscaping is proposed.
K. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along US 25 is 56.45 km/h (35 mph) at the
western project terminus. The existing speed limit along Naples Road near
the eastern project terminus is 72.58 km/h (45 mph). The speed limits on
US 25 and Naples Road are expected to remain the same after completion of
the project. The proposed speed limit of the new connector is 56.45 km/h
(35 mph).
L. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
A new traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of the proposed
connector and US 25. All other intersections with the new connector will
be at grade and stop sign controlled.
M.
Estimate of Costs
Construction $1,600,000*
Right-of-Way 488,000**
Total Cost $2,088,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies.
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A.
Alternatives
Three corridor alternatives were evaluated for the proposed project
(See Appendix, Figure 2). A summary of all alternatives is as follows:
1. Alternate 1 - This alignment originates at US 25, approxi-
mately 400 meters (1310 feet) north of the I-26/US 25
interchange. From this point, the proposed connector extends
northeast for approximately 370 meters (1210 feet) crossing the
railroad tracks. The alignment then curves to the southeast and
continues southward primarily on new location. The proposed
connector terminates at the intersection of Naples Road (SR
1534) and Twin Springs Road (SR 1535). It is recommended that
Old Hendersonville Road (SR 1536) tie into the proposed facility
forming a T intersection. The intersection of the proposed
connector and Old Hendersonville Road is proposed to be stop
6
sign controlled. This alternative proposes to construct a 7.2
meter (24-foot) two-lane shoulder section with 0.6 meter
(2-foot) paved shoulders. The estimated cost of this
improvement is as follows:
Construction $2,400,000
Right of Way $2,600,000
Total 5,000,000
This alternative would require the relocation of two
residences and two businesses. Including right-of-way and
construction costs, this alternatives costs $2,912,000 more than
this recommended alternative. For these reasons, the
alternative is rejected.
2. Alternate 2 - This alignment commences at US 25, approximately
340 meters (1115 feet) north of the 1-26/US 25 interchange. The
proposed roadway then travels in northeast direction and crosses
the railroad tracks where the Norfolk Southern Railway and Old
Hendersonville Road intersect. The alignment then curves to the
southeast and continues southward on new location. The proposed
typical cross-section is a 7.2 meter (24-foot), two-lane
shoulder section with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. This
alternative would require the relocation of five residences and
no businesses. Includi n right of way and construction costs,
this alternative costs 1,045,000 more than the recommended
alternative; therefore, this alternative is rejected. The
estimated cost of this improvement is as follows:
Construction $1,950,000
Right of Way $1,183,000
Total $3,133,000
3. Alternate 3 (Recommended) - This alternative commences at
US 25, approximately 380 (1250 feet) south of the I-26/US 25
interchange. The proposed roadway then traverses to the
northeast and then in a southward direction before curving to
the northeast to tie in with Naples Road (SR 1534). The
proposed typical cross-section is a two-lane, 7.2 meters
(24-foot) roadway, with 0.6 meter (2-foot) paved shoulders.
Alternative 3 is recommended because it reduced noise impacts,
the number of relocatees, and is shorter in length than
Alternatives 1 and 2. This alternative will require the
relocation of one residence and no businesses. The estimated
cost of this improvement is as follows:
Construction $1,650,000
Right-of-Way 488 000
Total $22, 8b
B. Public Transportation
Henderson County does not have a public transportation system at the
present time. The privately owned automobile is the major form of
transportation for residents. The development of a public transportation
system is not considered to be a prudent alternative to the construction
of a facility that will improve access to Park Ridge Hospital from I-26
via US 25.
C. No Build Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered, but rejected since the
project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this area.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed roadway is located within the Henderson County planning
and zoning jurisdiction. The County primary land use policy document is
in its Com rehensive Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1993. The county
adopted an enforces a zoning o inance and subdivision regulations,
though only certain portions of the county are "zoned."
B. Existing Land Use
The project area is sparsely developed, with several single family
residences located in the vicinity of Naples Road (SR 1534) and Twin
Springs Road (SR 1535). Other homes and small farms accessed from Twin
Springs Road.
C. Future Land Use
Henderson County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan was devised to
evaluate the county's land development trends and provide strategies to
guide future growth during the following ten years. According to the
Plan, the area of proposed improvement is on the edge of the County's
urban service area. This area provides a boundary which defines the area
of the county which will receive urban services (such as trash collection,
routine police patrolling, and public utilities) during the ten years
following the Plan's adoption.
The Plan also identifies areas for development opportunities within
the county. The area of the proposed roadway, including the US 25/I-26
interchange is identified as a "focus area" where industrial development
may occur. This development may be spurred by the construction of the BMW
automobile manufacturing plan in South Carolina. It should be noted that
the "focus area" designation is supplemented in another portion of the
plan where generalized future land use patterns are discussed. In the
section, the plan indicates that most of the project area is expected to
support development of residential land uses. Exceptions include a
relatively small area designated for industrial uses which includes the
Boren Brick Plant, and a second site on the west side of I-26, just north
of the I-26/US 25 interchange.
It should be noted that the proposed roadway is not an element of the
transportation plan included in the County's comprehensive plan and the
need for such a connector was not identified.
8
As previously stated, the county has a zoning ordinance, though it
does not regulate the land use throughout the entire county. The land in
the proposed roadway immediate vicinity is not zoned.
D. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires that all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which has been developed or has been committed to urban
development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of
the Act. The location of the proposed new roadway is within Henderson
County's urban services area, as defined in the County's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Furthermore, the project's general vicinity is within a
focus area committed to industrial development. The project's general
area is expected to support residential development. Therefore, further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is not required for this
project.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Henderson County. Henderson
County is in the western section of the state and is bounded by the state
of South Carolina and Transylvania, Haywood, Buncombe, McDowell,
Rutherford, and Polk Counties. The population of Henderson County,
according to the 1990 Census Report is 69,285. It has a population
density (persons per square mile) of 185.33. In terms of racial
composition there are 66,158 whites residing in the county compared to
3,127 nonwhites.
There is a house near the site where Alternate 1 begins. The lower
southeastern edge of Boren Brick Plant will probably be acquired to
construct this proposed alternative. A few meters southeast of Old
Hendersonville Road (SR 1536), Alternate 1 appears to run between three
dwellings. Alternate 1 will require the relocation of two residences and
two businesses.
Alternate 2 will require the relocation of five residences and no
businesses where it crosses over proposed Alternative 1 as it turns to the
southeast. It will probably have the same impact at Twin Springs Road as
Alternate 1.
Alternate 3 (recommended) begins on the south side of existing
I-26/US 25 Interchange. Alternate 3 will require the relocation of one
residence and no businesses.
B. Economic Factors
The North Carolina Employment Commission gave a Preliminary Data
Report for June 1994. This report, indicated that Henderson County had a
total Labor Force of 32,150. Out of this total, 31,140 persons were gain-
fully employed. This left an unemployment total of 1,010 or 3.1 percent.
9
The proposed new connector from US 25 to SR 1534 on new location will
improve the accessibility to and from Park Ridge Hospital. This means
that service vehicles, emergency vehicles, doctors and staff will find it
more convenient getting to and from Park Ridge Hospital. In addition,
with the construction of the proposed new connector, there may be
opportunities for new commercial and residential units to be constructed
in the vicinity. Hospital expansion may also be viable because of the
proposed new connector.
C. Public Facilities
Park Ridge Hospital is located east of the proposed I-26/US 25
Interchange and the north side of I-26. It appears to be the only public
facility in the general vicinity.
D. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
It appears that the proposed project will require one residential
relocatee if it is constructed.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with the information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or
rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving
Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving
expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force and
owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up
to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible to qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program
is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least on relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations or relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule
its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
10
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaces persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses bib-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive and explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing,
either private or public, or (3) Moving existing owner occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed
in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed of compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.
The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the dis lacees
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing con be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
11
E. Social Impacts
The proposed new connector, US 25 to SR 1534 will have some positive
social impacts on the neighborhood and community. First of all the
proposed new construction will improve the accessibility of the Park Ridge
Hospital for everyone. Secondly, emergency vehicles will be able to
reduce the time it takes them to reach the hospital facilities.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, and it will
not interfere with services and facilities.
F. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. It is also subject to
compliance with Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act
of 19966, as amended.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted, and he reported that based upon the
information provided by the N.C. Department of Transportation
Architectural Historian who surveyed the area, no properties were eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places (See letter in Appendix).
An archaeological survey conducted by the NCDOT Archeologist located
one historic period cemetery (31HN135) and a historic homestead. Neither
were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register since
they are located outside the area of potential effect. However, if any of
the alignments change and either of the two sites be located in the area
of potential effect, further investigation will be required (See letter in
appendix). Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for
posting in the National Register of Historic Places in the area of
potential effect of this undertaking, no further compliance with either
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 or with
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is
required.
G. Air ualit Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
12
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur ( 6 to 12 miles) 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the
source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere,
and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of
this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles,
California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
13
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the CAL3QHC
model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 1997 and the
design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor
# 36 of Alternative # 3 (Recommended), at a distance of 50' from the
proposed centerline of the new connector. The "build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1997
and 2017 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1997 2017
R-36 2.1 2.3
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al and
A2 for input data and output.
14
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Asheville Regional Office, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Henderson County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect
on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated
by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
H. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
Connector from US 25 to SR 1534 in Henderson County on noise levels in the
immediate project area (Figure N1). This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common.
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
15
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the
frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000
Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are
often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels
will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become irate
if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter
into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise is
offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the
daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in
the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises, while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate
many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory
noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to
highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed
rapidly over the past few years.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are
not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC)
16
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways.
These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the
aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary
of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of
a steady noise level with the same energy content.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases (See Figure N2 in Appendix). The existing
Leq noise level along US 25 as measured at 15 meters (50 feet) from
the roadway measured 70.2 dBA. Additionally, three background
readings were taken ranging from 52.5 to 65.0 dBA. The ambient
measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Figure N2 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the
most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within .5 and
1.5 dBA of the measured noise levels for the two locations where
noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number
of variables which describe different cars driving at different
speeds through a continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway
traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes a two lane highway connecting US 25 to SR 1534. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the
17
model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed
to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in
this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2017. A land use is
considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to
sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to
select receptor locations such as 8, 15, 301, 601, 120, 240 (25, 50,
100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet) from the center of the near
traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The locations
of these receptors were determined by the changes in projected
traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed
project. The result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points
along the project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for
each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4 for all three alternatives. Information included
in these tables consists of listings of all receptors in close
proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels,
and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category and
each alternative that are predicted to become impacted by future
traffic noise under Title 23 CFR Part 772 is shown in Table N5. These
are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic
noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Other information
included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise
level contours. This information should assist local authorities in
exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands
adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from 0 to +14 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
18
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category.
a. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. The
location of the three alternatives being considered for this
project have been sited to minimize project cost and
environmental impacts.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their negative effect on the capacity and level-of-service on
the proposed roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct
access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
19
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in this case.
6. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the traffic currently using the
network of roads in the project area should double, the future
traffic noise levels would only increase approximately 3 dBA. This
small increase in the present noise level would be barely noticeable
to the people working and living in the area.
7. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the
relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title
23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no
additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
20
I. Ecological Analysis
1. Biotic Resources
Four plant communities were identified within the study
corridors: pine-mixed hardwood, mesic hardwood, freshwater marsh, and
urban/disturbed. Some of the plant communities have been modified
from their natural state due to growth maintenance occurring along
road and railway margins. Urbanization within the study corridors has
further altered natural communities with the introduction and
cultivation of exotic plant species. Specific communities exhibited
variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the
site (soils, topography, slope aspect). The plant communities are
described below.
a. Plant Communities
Pine-mixed hardwood forest occurs mainly in one large tract
located east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and west of
SR 1535. The overstory trees consist of Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory species (Carya
spp.), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and white oak (Q.
alba). Midstory and shrub species include sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and black cherry
(Prunus serotina). The herbaceous layer includes vines such as
greenbrier (Smilax glauca), rosebay (Rhododendron maximum),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). Other herbaceous plants include ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), and Virginia heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica).
Mesic hardwood forest cover is found along creek slopes.
The canopy is dominated by red maple, yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar maple (Acer saccharinum) and to
a lesser extent, hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), river birch (Betula
nigra), and ash (Fraxinus sp.). The understory consists of
seedling trees, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and bushy
dogwood (Cornus alternifolia). The shrub layer is composed of
arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), grape (Vitis sp.), greenbrier,
and multifloral rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbs include wild
ginger (Asarum canadense), Christmas fern, and southern lady
fern (Athyrium asplenioides).
This community classification includes vegetation in
roadside margins; railway margins; pastures; and industrial,
commercial, and residential yards. These areas contain some
species common to those in adjoining communities, but because of
mowing and maintenance procedures, seasonal grasses and herbs
predominate amidst scattered trees and shrubs. Common tree
species include red maple, yellow poplar, black cherry, sugar
maple, and redbud (Cercis canadensis). Shrub species include
willow (Salix spp.) and various yard ornamentals. The herbaceous
growth is dominated by orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata),
fescue (Festuca elatior), and clover (Trifolium spp.)
21
This community type is found in man-made topographic lows
which were once farm ponds. These areas are still hydrated by
upland runoff. There are two areas identified as being of this
community type. The first area is located approximately 213 m
(700 ft) northeast of the I-26/ Norfolk Southern Rail Road
overpass. The second is located approximately 30 m (100 ft)
west of SR 1536/Norfolk Southern Railroad intersection. Wetland
hydrology is maintained by upland runoff. Dominant species
include scattered willows, false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
cattail (Typha sp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and sedges (Carex
spp.).
Impacts on plant communities are proportional to the
relative abundance of each plant community in each of the study
corridor alignments. A summary of potential plant community
impacts by corridor alignment is presented below.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities*
PLANT COMMUNITY
CORRIDOR #1
Pine-Mixed Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed
Fresh Marsh
ESTIMATED IMPACT
hectares acres
1.21 2.98
0.21 0.53
4.58 11.94
0.09 0.23
CORRIDOR TOTAL
CORRIDOR #2
Pine-Mixed Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Urban/Disturbed
Fresh Marsh
6.09 15.68
1.21 2.98
0.33 0.82
4.32 10.67
0.21 0.52
CORRIDOR TOTAL
6.07 14.99
CORRIDOR #3 (Recommended)
Pine-Mixed Hardwood 0.40 0.99
Mesic Hardwood 0.37 0.92
Urban/Disturbed 3.25 8.03
Fresh Marsh 0.00 0.00
CORRIDOR TOTAL
4.02 9.94
*Based on 30 m (100 ft) construction limits
22
Most impacts occur in urban disturbed areas for all
corridors studied. Corridor #2 has the most forested and
wetland impacts for all corridors studied. Corridor #3
(Recommended) has the least amount of impacts for all corridors.
b. Wildlife Communities
In spite of surrounding urbanization and resultant habitat
loss and fragmentation, a diversity of plant communities
provides wildlife with the basic necessities of food, water, and
cover. Tracks of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), and small rodents were observed in the
study corridor. Other expected mammals include gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Several species of reptiles and amphibians are expected to
occur in the woodlands and creeksides. American toad (Bufo
americanus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) would persist here.
A diversity of avian species were observed. Permanent
residents included red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Summer
residents included American robin (Turdus migratorius), song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus
crinitis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), gray catbird
(Dumetella corolinensis), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus),
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and yellow-breasted
chat (Icteria virens).
The unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek are too small to
support game fish; however, small fish such as minnows
(Phenacobias spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.), and shiners
(Notropis spp.) are expected in these streams. Amphibians such
as eastern newts (Notophthalmas viridescens), spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), and chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.); and
reptiles such as northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and
stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus), are also expected to inhabit
streamside habitats.
The proposed project does not pose a significant threat to
wildlife. Some resident terrestrial species such as passerine
birds, squirrels, eastern cottontail, and raccoon adapt readily
to short-term, minor changes. Some temporary displacement in
23
feeding areas or cover may occur due to construction, but a new
equilibrium will occur after project completion. Mud Creek will
not be directly impacted; therefore, long term loss of aquatic
habitat is not expected.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural
communities, the proposed project will not result in significant
loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal
populations. Culverts at crossings of unnamed tributaries to
Mud Creek will maintain stream flow and allow for continued
viability of aquatic organisms.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Henderson County is situated in the southeastern Blue Ridge
Mountains physiographic province. Topography is characterized
by mountain ranges, isolated peaks, large rolling valleys, and
stream flood plains, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage.
Elevations in the immediate project area range from
approximately 732 m (2400 ft) along an upland ridge to 622 m
(2040 ft) along Mud Creek (USGS Fruitland quadrangle). The
project site is in the Chauga Belt underlain by igneous rocks,
consisting mainly of monzonitic to granodiorite rocks (DNR
1985).
Soils in the project area are dominated by Hayesville loam
on 7 to 25 % slopes, Cordorous loam and Delanco loam on 0 to 2
slopes, Tate fine sandy loam on 7 to 15% slopes, and Bradson
gravelly loam on 7 to 15 % slopes.
Hayesville loam soils on 7 to 25% slopes are well-drained
and found on broad, rolling foot ridges to smooth ridges at
lower elevations. Almost all areas of this soil have been
cleared and are used for crops or pasture. Some areas are used
as building sites and farmsteads. This soil has moderate
potential for urban uses. The limitation of slope can be
reduced or modified by special planning and design.
Cordorous soils are moderately well drained to somewhat
poorly drained soils typically found within floodplain systems.
In addition, this soil is subject to frequent flooding and has
low potential for most urban uses. The Cordorous map unit is
classified as having hydric soil inclusions in depressional
areas. Soil classifications are determined by the National
Technical Committee of Hydric Soils (NTCHS).
Delanco loam soils on 0 to 2% slopes, are moderately well
drained and found on low stream terraces. This soil map unit is
classified as having hydric soil inclusions in depressional
areas (NTCHS) and is subject to occasional, very brief flooding
in those areas. Most of these areas have been cleared for crops
and pastures. This soil has low potential for most urban uses.
24
Tate fine sandy loam on 7 to 15% slopes are well drained
soils and found on smooth foot slopes and in lower coves. Most
of these areas have been cleared and are used for crops; a few
areas are used for pasture. This soil has moderate potential
for most urban uses. The limitation of slope can be reduced or
modified by special planning and design. Erosion is a hazard
where ground cover is removed.
Bradson gravelly loam soils on 7 to 15% slopes are well
drained on smooth, high stream terraces. Most of these areas
have been cleared and are used for crops; a few areas are used
for pasture. This soil has moderate potential for most urban
uses. The limitation of slope can-be reduced or modified by
special planning and design. Erosion is a hazard where ground
cover is removed.
b. Water Resources
East of Old Hendersonville Road (SR 1536) and west of Twin
Springs Road (SR 1535), two of the study corridors (#1 and #2)
cross three small, unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek. The first
tributary is located approximately 365 m (1200 ft) west of Twin
Springs Road (SR 1535) and flows through a wooded area. The
second tributary is located approximately 548 m (1800 ft) west
of Twin Springs Road SR 1535 and flows through the same wooded
area as the first. The third tributary is located approximately
335 m (1100 ft) east of SR 1536 and flows through an urban
disturbed area. Northeast of the US 25, Study Corridor #2
crosses an unnamed tributary located adjacent to Norfolk
Southern Railway. This is the same tributary which is crossed
by Study Corridors #1 and #2. Mud Creek flows northwest to the
French Broad River.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of
North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage
of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM
1993) A best usage classification of WS-IV has been assigned
to Mud Creek from Byers Creek to the French Broad River (DEM
1993). The designation WS-IV denotes that appropriate uses are
as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds. Point source discharges of treated waste
water are permitted pursuant to State regulations. Local
programs to control nonpoint source and storm water discharge of
pollution are required. WS-IV waters are also suitable for all
Class C uses. The designation C denotes that appropriate uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within the project area.
There are no point source discharges within the project area
(DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long-term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
25
1989, 1991). Species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. There are two BMAN sampling
stations on Mud Creek. Station #2 is at the crossing of Lyda
Road (SR 1505), and Station #4 is above the waste water
treatment plant for Hendersonville. Both stations are
approximately 8.8 km (5.5 miles) upstream of the project area.
Sampling at both locations in 1985 indicated poor water quality
(DEM 1989).
The first unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located west of
SR 1535, is approximately 45 centimeters (cm) (18 inches) wide,
5-10 cm (2-4 inches) deep, and meanders through a forested area
within well-defined banks approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) high.
Stream flow is slow and clear over a substrate of sand and
gravel.
The second unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located west of
Twin Springs Road (SR 1535), is approximately 60 cm (24 in)
wide, 5 cm (2 in) deep, and meanders through a forested area
within well defined banks approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) high. The
stream flow is slow and clear over a substrate of sand and
gravel.
The third unnamed tributary of Mud Creek, located east of
Old Hendersonville Road (SR 1536), is approximately 24 cm (24
inches) wide and 5 cm (2 cm) deep, and the moderately sloped
creek channel is approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) below the natural
grade. Stream flow is slow and clear over a substrate of sand,
gravel, and large rocks.
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from
construction-related activities which may increase sedimentation
and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best
management practices, including implementation of stringent
erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction.
Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a
result of proposed improvements. Culverts at crossings of
unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek will maintain continued flow
and protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from highway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching whenever possible.
The proposed project will not raise the floodplains of these
streams more than 30.5 cm (1 foot).
3. Special Topics
1. Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Ld
Jurisdictional areas within the study corridors are
palustrine in nature as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). Based
on this three parameter approach, there are minimal
jurisdictional wetlands within Study Corridors #1 and #2. No
jurisdictional wetlands are found within Study Corridor #3.
Soils adjacent to the unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek fail to
show hydric characteristics. The following jurisdictional
system has been identified.
a. Summary of Impacts
Approximately 0.09 hectares (ha) (0.23 acres) of
freshwater marsh may be impacted by Study Corridor #1, and
approximately 0.21 ha (0.52 acres) of freshwater marsh may
be impacted by Study Corridor #3 (Recommended). This
community consists of remnants of farm pond impoundments.
Characteristic vegetation of this community is described
under the heading of freshwater marsh in the Plant
Community section above. There are two areas identified as
being of this community type. The first area is located
approximately 213 m (700 ft) northeast of the I-26/ Norfolk
Southern Rail Road overpass. The second is located
approximately 30 m (100 ft) west of SR 1536/Norfolk
Southern Railroad intersection. Wetland hydrology is
maintained by upland runoff.
b. Permits
Nationwide Permits (NWPs) are expected to apply for
project-related impacts to surface waters/wetlands. NWPs
which may be available for use include NWP #26 for above
headwater impacts, or NWP #14 for minor road crossings. In
Henderson County, all NWPs require notification to the US
Army Corps of Engineers and concurrence from the NC
Wildlife Resource Commission.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required
from DEM before issuance of a nationwide or general permit.
NWP #26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are
greater than 0.13 ha (0.33 acre). NWP #14 requires
notification if special aquatic sites (wetlands) are
affected.
C. Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit
program usually do not require compensatory mitigation
based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, utilization of best
management practices (BMPs) is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts.
27
4. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Candidate species
(C) do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
due to potential vulnerability. The following federally
protected and candidate species are listed by the USFWS for
Henderson County as of April 02, 1994:
FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Federal Common Name Habitat NC Status
Status
Myotis subulatus
leibii C Eastern small-footed bat No SC SC
Neotoma floridana
haemitoreia C Eastern woodrat No SC
Clemmys muhlenbergii C Bog turtle Yes T
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis C Hellbender No SC
Aneides aeneus C Green salamander No E
Cambarus reburrus C French Broad stream
crayfish Yes W
Lasmigona holstonia C Tennessee heelsplitter No E
Speyeria diana C Diana fritillary
butterfly Yes SR
Isotria medeoloides E Small whorled pogonia Yes E
Sarracenia rubra var.
jonesii E Mountain sweet pitcher-
plant No E-SC
Sagittaria fasciculata E Bunched arrowhead No E
Sisyrinchium
dichotomum E White irisette No E
Helonias bullata T Swamp pink No T-SC
Narthecium americanum C Bog asphodel Yes
Hexastylis contracta C Mountain heartleaf No E
Hexastylis
rhombiformis C French Broad heartleaf No C
Juglans nigra C Butternut No W5
Lilium grayi C Gray's lily Yes T-SC
Marshallia grandiflora C Barbara's buttons No C
Monotropsis ordorata C Sweet pinesap Yes C
Plantathera
integrilabia C White fringeless orchid No E
Saxifraga caroliniana C Gray's saxifrage No C
Senecio millefolium C Divided leaf ragwort No T
Silene ovata C Mountain catchfly Yes C
Carex schweinitzii C Schweinitz's sedge No C
Juncus caesariensis C New Jersey rush No C
28
Small Whorled Pogonia - This plant is a terrestrial herb in
the orchid family (ORCHIDACEAE) endemic to several counties in
the upper piedmont of North Carolina. Distinguishing
characteristics include drooping, pale green leaves at the top
of slender stems, and small green and purple flowers during the
blooming season. Blooming period for this species is May-June.
This species is found on wooded slopes and along streams
(Radford et al. 1968).
Potential habitat for this species occurs in mesic hardwood
forest adjacent to the unnamed tributaries that traverse the
project area. A visual search was conducted in the potential
habitat employing a system of overlapping transects. No
individuals or populations of this species were observed. Based
on field investigations and a review of available information,
the proposed project is not expected to impact this species.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant - This pitcher plant is a
perennial herb with hollow leaves usually partially filled with
moisture. This species is found in mountain bogs (Radford.et
al. 1968). Habitat does not exist for this species within the
project area. Based on field investigations and a review of
available information, the proposed project is not expected to
impact this species.
Bunched Arrowhead - This species is an emersed/submersed
perennial herb in the ALISMATACEAE family. Bunched arrowhead is
found in mountain swamps and bogs (Radford et al.1968). Leaf
blades are relatively broad and emersed. Flowering occurs from
May to July. Habitat does not exist for this species within the
project area. Based on field investigations and a review of
available information, the proposed project is not expected to
impact this species.
White Irisette - This irisette is a small perennial herb in
the iris family (IRIDACEAE) endemic to three counties
(Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford) in the upper piedmont of North
Carolina. This species is found in dry to mesic woods, usually
over mafic rock at 400-1000 m (Weakly 1993). Habitat does not
exist for this species within the project area. Based on field
investigations and a review of available information, the
proposed project is not expected to impact this species.
Swamp Pink - This plant is a small perennial herb in the
lily family (LILIACEAE), endemic to several counties in the
upper piedmont of North Carolina. The plant has evergreen
leaves in a basal rosette and pink to lavender flowers which
bloom April to June. This species is found in mountain bogs
(Radford et al. 1968). Habitat for this species does not exist
within the project area. Based on field investigations and a
review of available information, the proposed project is not
expected to impact this species.
29
2. State Protected Species
Mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and plant species with the
state status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). Significantly Rare
(SR) species are not afforded legal protection.
NCNHP records indicate that no known populations of state listed
species occur within 5 km (3 miles) of the project site.
Based on field observations and a review of available
information, proposed improvements are not expected to affect any
state or federally listed species.
J. Hazardous Waste
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if
any hazards such as underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites,
dumps, land fills, or other similar sites which may impact construction of
the project, cause delays or create liabilities. As a result of this
study, this project was considered to have low risks for hazardous wastes.
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was
requested from appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in preparing
this Environmental Assessment. Listed below are the agencies which were
contacted.
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources,
History
*N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Geological Survey
*Henderson County Board of Supervisors
*Town of Fletcher
*Park Ridge Hospital
and Natural Resources
Administration
Division of Archives and
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
Citizen's Informational Workshop
A citizen's informational workshop was held on February 24, 1994 at
the Fletcher Elementary School Media Center. The workshop allowed
citizens to express their comments and/or suggestions about the project.
Approximately 80 people attended this workshop. Those supporting the
30
proposed project cited the delays that the at-grade crossing at Naples
Road (SR 1534) has with the Norfolk Southern Railway. Those opposing the
proposed project stated that state and federal funds should not be spent
to improve access to Park Ridge Hospital, a non-profit organization. For
the record, support for the project outweighed the opposition.
CC/plr
a at Cove
64
I
w
H
ar
I a
Fruitland
Mount
No
of
e
\ .•
/1 '
dnayvoll
;!r'
O N /
?21SEta. • t 2 Flamm
de )ck
,
twos* e Flat R*aM
a
2
i
Zucoma
1
y...r F.I. S, r,..n 2 S
`tla Rover Tuaedo r y
J? 7 ' I

•.? N1-116
13as
26 2s
0
? 'PO 7j N
u?
0
S
20,49
is
'ROPO
X363
?D ROADWAY
`r0 , ?.
•.? 1 S.I,T J??
1 4
• ?o
PROJECT N°P""
35 LIMITS
1459 , 'PO
1413
0
1006
N r ISS6
s
c
1334
iodb
1334
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PROPOSED CONNECTOR
FROM US 25
TO NAPLES ROAD (SR 1534)
HENDERSON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. I - 2001
Figure 1
1

m m
0 G)
M Z
t
} r fr

I
_

i
o4

r`
co
m m
O
O
_
C-
M Z
n r f0 1

`'x
m ` ?-

r
Tr? ?

RI f.. rP• ''`11
?n
U x

R-,
i
'
Rl _ i •:.

i:
? ? .• Vii=
? ?!' ?a >. '
-
it ? ?
1 ,.?"}
Gl

H ? ? ? T
I _

„s4??"
I,? FF. y.? hF?
?Ir.. ?, ity ?,? .,
'?. i '? y: :??
t"?-. ?? .. ,.
,,,
Ay t .
NEW CONNECTOR FROM US 25 TO SR 1534
ESTIMATED 1994 ADT'S IN 100'S
(WITH CONNECTOR IN PLACE)
142
US-25
71 71
122 38
y
37 5 66
?21
5
53 \14 ,
i 32
X18/ 50
r
0
29??.. \Xl\ (2
2 7 7? 9 123
1-2001
HENDERSON COUNTY
JULY, 1994
FIGURE 3A
82 /
P
//82
6s/ (16 16 149 149
e _1 16
? ..............
r%6. `"_
66 -1 18 CONNECTOR•
66 t 6
66 .1 16. ?.8
.
6
4' 6 S81534
NAPLES RD.
66 149 l 149
72 # 72 298
144
SR 1006
40
20 \ 1 ? 20
22 ? ) } 22
12
8) ?
?12
14
14? q
26 26
52
1-26
320
y
1-:2001
HEN6ERSON COUNTY
JULY, 1994
NEW CONNECTOR FROM US 25 TO SR 1534
ESTIMATED 2020 ADT'S IN 100'S
(WITH CONNECTOR IN PLACE)
306
1-26 US-25
688 153 1153
344 \\\314
?? 11 142
262 ?y\ 84
82 \\ +, 45
\ 11
110
?- : 73
34
? 108
20 622<r
54
161 20 260
181
145 /181
6?-c 6 37 316 316
?.........•..
145 1 37 CONNECTOR
146 { 36, ?36
`146 1t 10
J
145 ?-1 1
(? '{^ 10 1 p X
SR 1534
R r, p NAPLES RD.
145 318 316
155 1 155 632
310
FIGURE 38
SR 1006
76
38 1 ? 38
46 46
24
14
14 L
32 2 4
32"
113
NEW CONNECTOR, FROM US 25 TO SR 1534
ESTIMATED 2017 ADTS IN 100'S
US 25 (WITHOUT CONNECTOR)
290
145 l 1 145
1-26
650
325
7Z
I-2001
HENDERSON COUNTY
: JANUARY, 1994'
FIGURE 3C
\29
\3
Q
52?
NOT TO SC11LE
608

I--200 1
HENDERSON COUNTY
JULY 1 1%./94
ESTIMATED ADT'S IN HUNDREDS
FOR PROPOSED CONNECTOR FROM US-25 TO SR-15--4

EST. ADT'S IN 100s j
ii LOCATiuN - r - ---- ! TTST % 4DUAL % ; DHV `/.
_ 1994 - - - - -
•} US-.•5 N 1 i i ?
i; OF I-26 142 i 7'r 0 6 4 1i

11-?6 W. OF 1
1 t t

US---m ! T^t 1 i

- - 688 1 b
1
! lo
r- _--_..-- . - - - --.__-.._-
11 US-?J S. ! t ! }
1
OF SR 1534 i _ _1_44__ '3 10 i 2 4 10
S- R 15 3T 4 44 92 10

PROPOSED t
CONNECTOR 74 i 1 <.?
DIF: :! lj
?C1 `i
60 +i
!f
!t
60 - ;;
6c) ii
60
60
FIGURE 30
1-2001
HENDERSON COUNTY
JANUARY, 1994

ESTIMATED ADT'S AND TRUCK PERCENTAGES
FOR US-25 TO SR 1534 (W/OUT CONNECTOR)
1993 1997 2017 % °° % %
ROUTE
ADTS IN HUNDREDS TTST DUAL DHV DIR
US 25 N 142 160 290 2 4 10 60
OF 1-26 '
1-26 W. 320 360 650 12 6 10 60
OF US 25
US 25 S.
144
i 60
286 2 4 10 60
OF SR 1534
SR 1534 36 40 70 2 3 10 60
SR 1006 52 58 104 2 4 10 60
FIGURE 3E
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: New Connector Henderson County RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1997, 35-MPH
DATE: 07/19/1994 TIME: 10:36:16.84
SITE G METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 805.7 1609. 360. AG 160. 20.1 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 160. 20.1 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-36, 501L CL, BUS -13.4 .0 1.8
JOB: New Connector Henderson County
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.1
0
RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1997, 35-MPH
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: New Connector Henderson County RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2017, 35-MPH
DATE: 07/19/1994 TIME: 10:36:47.60
SITE G METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
Limn ura--nirA?iw
VD .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM'
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VFH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 290. 14.8 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 290. 14.8 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-36, 5011, CL, BUS -13.4 .0 1.8
JOB: New Connector Henderson County
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.3
5
RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2017, 35-MPH
FIGURE N1
PROJECT LOCATION
US 25 Connector
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
TIP # I-2001 State Project # 8.1950602
163
?I
1536
ALT. 2
1006
25 •
BEGIN
2049
1556
on
.tee, 9 535
1366
?, 0 END 4
ALT. 3 ?o ' • • ° folk
O 1534 1534
"o i
Naples
.35
44
J59
o C
? n
47 1417 1533
.17
? ? 299!
73 zo7s o
d
.60
.04 2002 v?
L ?. 1367 ? .

FIGURE N2
AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SITES
New Connector
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson Countv
TIP # I-2001 State Project # 8.1950602

.? 1536
• ALT.,2
26 25 "0 -?: A
BEGIN
20-49 C
5
mow, p B rrs
1366
2 ???? o o END s34
ALT.3 r -
•?? 15 3
1534 •?'?
Naples , «o
1.17 --.47 1417
15J3
10060
ALT.' 1 1
lOQ6
•1534
1
26 ¦
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
30
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
New Connector,
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project 1 8.1950602, TIP 8 I-2001
SITE
LOCATION
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. US 25, .17 Mile North of I-26 Paved 70
2. US 25, .25 Mile North of SR 1534 Paved 70
3. Background A, Intersection of SR 1536, Grassy 52
and Norfolk Southern Railway
4. Background B, Intersection SR 1534, Grassy 65
and SR 1535
5. Background C, .22 Mile North of SR 1534 Grassy 52
and SR 1535 Intersection
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4 1/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
New Connector, Alternative Al
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project M 8.1550602 TIP N I-2001
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

1 Business C US 25 140 L 65 -L- LINE 130 L 56.4 66.7 67 + 2
2 Residence B " 100 L 68 " 250 L 50.4 69.6 * 69 + 1
7 Business C SR 1536 345 R 56 " 50 L - - 62 + 6
8 Residence B " 380 L 52 " 75 L - - 60 + 8
11 Residence B 240 L 52 45 R ----- --------------R/W--------------
12 Residence B " 260 L 52 " 60 R - - 62 " + 10
13 Residence B " 120 L 52 " 210 R - - 52 0
14 Residence B 130 L 52 " 215 R - - 52 0
15 Residence B 140 L 52 200 R - - 52 0
19 Residence B " 330 L 52 " 20 R ----- --------------R/W--------------
20 Residence B 575 L 52 " 180 L - - 53 + 1
21 Residence B " 410 L 52 " 0 L ----- --------------R/W
22 Residence B 360 L 52 " 45 R ----- --------------R/W--------------
24 Residence B " 735 L 52 " 210 L - - 52 0
25 Business C I-26 180 L 71 " 0 L ----- --------------R/W--------------
26 Residence B SR 1535 500 R 59 230 L 51.3 62.4 62 + 3
27 Residence B 230 R 68 " 0 R ----- --------------R/W--------------
28 Residence B " 40 L 52 " 410 L 45.2 52.8 53 + 1
29 Residence B " 270 L 52 395 L 45.6 52.8 53 + 1
30 Residence B 75 R 65 " 20 R ------------------- R/W_--------------
31 Business C '• 90 L 65 " 90 L 59.3 66.5 67 + 2
an T. 65 " 90 L 59.3 65.9 " 66 + 1
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
2/3
New Connector, Alternative A2
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project M 8.1950602 TIP / I-2001
AMBIENT NEAREST NOI SE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

1 Business C US 25 140 L 65 -L- LINE 515 L 42.2 66.7 66 + 1
3 Residence B " 320 L 57 " 20 R ----- --------------R/W--- ------- ----
4 Residence B " 325 L 56 " 120 R 57.1 57.9 60 + 4
5 Residence B " 450 L 53 200 R 52.7 54.1 56 + 3
6 Residence B 585 L 49 300 R 48.5 50.6 52 + 3
8 Residence B SR 1536 380 L 52 15 L ----- --------- -----R/W--- ------- ----
10 Residence B 610 L 52 150 L - - 55 + 3
11 Residence B 240 L 52 " 110 R - - 57 + 5
12 Residence B " 260 L 52 200 R - - 52 0
18 Residence B 565 L 52 " 60 L - - 62 * + 10
19 Residence B 330 L 52 120 R - - 57 + 5
20 Residence B " 575 L 52 " 90 L - - 59 + 7
21 Residence B " 410 L 52 " 30 R ----- --------- -----R/W--- -----------
22 Residence B " 360 L 52 " 100 R - - 58 + 6
24 Residence B " 735 L 52 " 150 L - - 55 + 3
25 Business C 1-26 180 L 71 " 80 L 60.1 74.2 * 74 + 3
26 Residence a SR 1535 500 R 59 " 110 L 57.9 62.4 63 + 4
27 Residence B " 230 R 68 50 R 63.0 70.3 * 71 + 3
28 Residence a " 40 L 52 " 295 L 48.7 52.8 54 + 2
29 Residence B 270 L 52 " 380 L 46.0 52.8 53 + 1
30 Residence B " 75 R 61 " 70 R 61.0 75.2 * 75 * + 14
31 Business C 90 L 59 90 L 59.3 66.5 67 + a
32 Residence B 90 L 59 90 L 59.3 65.9 * 66 + 7
33 Residence B 225 L 52 " 220 L 51.8 61.0 61 + 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 3/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
New Connector, Alternative /3
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project 1 8.1950602 TIP / I-2001
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE : LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

34 Residence B SR-1534 85 R 52 -L- LINE 85 R - - 60 + 8
35 Residence B 130 R 52 " 80 R - - 61 + 9
36 Residence B " 210 R 52 " 50 L - - 63 • + 11
37 Business C US 25 320 L 55 " 0 L ------- ------------R/w--- -----------
38 Business C 315 L 55 " 210 L 53.3 57.1 58 + 3
39 Business C " 180 L 61 " 190 L 54.2 63.1 63 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
New Connector
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project N 8.1950602 TIP N I-2001
' Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impac ted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. Alternative N 1 62 58 52 <31' <31' 0 3 0 0 0
2. Alternative N 2 62 58 52 <31' <31, 0 4 1 0 0
3. Alternative N 3 63 59 53 <31' <31' 0 1 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
New Connector
From US 25 to SR 1534, Henderson County
State Project A 8.1950602 TIP N I-2001
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Substantial Impacts Due
Section Noise Level to Both
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >-25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. Alternative / 1 4 8 2 1 0 0 0 1 0
2. Alternative f 2 1 11 7 2 0 0 0 2 1
3. Alternative 4 3 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
. sw_ c
•? alw ?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ,
FROM: David Brook i W
Dep uty State ric reservation Of /icer
SUBJECT: Proposed connector from US 25 to SR 1534 (Naples
Road), Henderson County, 1-2001, 8.1950602, STP-
25(2), 94-E-4220-0711
lAPR Q t9 ??4
kip-. CN n? _: if
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Henderson County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
Thus, we recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation survey the area of potential effect and report the
findings to us. Please submit photographs of structures over fifty years of age
keyed to a map. Also include a brief statement about the structures' history and
explain which National Register criteria it does or does not meet.
We previously recommended that an archaeological survey be conducted in
association with the proposed project. Our recommendation remains the same at
this time.
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.
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
s T t`' .
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 22, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: New connector from US 25 to Naples Road (SR
1534), STP-25(2), 1-2001, 8.1950602, Henderson
County, ER 94-7920, ER 95-7064
Dear Mr. Graf:
Q? _ v
-JUL 2 7 -1994
X22 DIVISION OF
e HIGHWAYS
FNViRorlrn??
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
One- historic period cemetery (31 HN135) and a historic homestead were located
during the survey. Neither has been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the
National Register since they are located outside of the area of potential effect.
The cemetery may, however, need further investigation if the alignments of
Alternatives 1 or 2 are shifted to the north. The homestead will need additional
investigation if Alternative 3 is realigned to the north. Finally, one section of the
area of potential effect for Alternatives 1 and 2 was not surveyed. If either of
these alternatives are selected, an archaeological survey of this section should be
conducted.
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw ,
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
V?
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
1
North Carolina Department of Cultural 1
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 5, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Proposed Connector from US 25 to Naples Road,
Henderson County, 1-2001, 8.1950602, STP-
25(2), ER 95-7050
?GE1 VF
WUs 0 9 1994

Division oM
William S.
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1994, concerning the above project.
On March 31, 1994, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
Historic Preservation Office representatives met to discuss the above project. We
reviewed photographs of eight properties over fifty years of age in the area of
potential effect. Based upon the information provided at the meeting, we agreed
that NCDOT did not need to further evaluate the following properties since they do
not appear eligible for the National Register:
1. Log Building
2. Jarvis House
3. Black House
4. House (Duraline Store)
5. Barns (2).
6. House (Melba's Florist)
7, Williamson House
We also agreed the Williamson Cemetery should be further evaluated in the
historic architectural resources survey report.

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807
Nicholas L. Graf
August 5, 1994, Page 2
We have reviewed the historic architectural resources report prepared by Clay
Griffith, architectural historian for NCDOT. Based upon the information provided,
we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination that the
Williamson Cemetery is not eligible for the National Register. The cemetery does
not meet the exceptions specified in Criterion Consideration D of the National Park
Service's guidelines regarding the registration of cemeteries.
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._
Sincerely, &J-L-U -&Lt
_6/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 30, 1994
Action ID. 199404668, Pre-Application
Q CEI\
O
OCT 0 6 1994
L V
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
N?RONME?
Mr. Frank Vick
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
C Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your March 16, 1994 request for Department of the Army (DA)
comments needed to aid you in the preparation of a federally funded Environmental
Assessment for Proposed Connector, U.S. 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534), T.I.P. No.
I-2001, State Project No. 8.1950602, Federal Aid No. STP-25(2), Henderson County,
North Carolina. Recently, Mr. Clarence Coleman of your staff, made another
request for our comments on this project.
On September 14, 1994, Mr. Steve Chapin of my staff, inspected the property
within the proposed alignment. The alignment lies almost entirely within upland
hardwood and pine forest and within some residential development. The canopy in
the upland forest is dominated by tulip poplar, Virginia pine, southern red oak,
white oak, and chestnut oak. There will be a very minor impact to waters of the
U.S. including the channels of several unnamed headwater tributaries to Mud Creek
and wetlands adjacent to these tributaries. Since the streams are steep banked,
the wetlands are limited and only occur in very narrow strips along the channels.
It is anticipated that Nationwide Permit Number 26 will apply to the project and
that impacts to waters of the U.S. will total approximately one-tenth of an acre.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Chapin at our Asheville
Regulatory Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
e Wrig
hie Regulatory Branch
R E L- O C A T I ON R E :R OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1950602 COUNTY Henderson Alternate 1 of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I-2001 F.A. PROJECT: STP-1001(8)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: From US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M
35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0
NBusinesses 2 •, 0 2 2? Emps VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners i Tenants For Sale For Rent
:Non-Profit 0 p 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0
- ANcLJER ALL QUESTIONS 1 20-40M 1 1S0-2S0" 8 1150-250
0 ?20-40MI 1
?YES•NOJ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
1 40-70M 1 1250-400 ?
0 140-70M1 12 250-400 9 1
X 1. Will special relocation 70-1001 0 400-600 070-100 22 400-600 2
?
j X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP; 0 ,600 UP 0 100 UPI 4 600 UP 1 '1
P A
--
?,X ?L affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL 2 L,::l 047 5

X

----N
?
--x
X

-

X
-1 be available after project
4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a
1 housing shortage
y 6. Source for available hous-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
4. a. One-story metal building (100'x200'), Duraline
Imaging, 30 employees, computer ribbons
manufactorer.
b. Two-story brick building (30'x60'), 3,600 SF,
1S employees, Park Ridge Hospital Patient

X ing (list)
7. Will additional housing Financial Service, 2 minorities.
6. Beverly-Hanks & Associates, Hendersonville, NC
y
- eeded
b 693-84713 Cathy Wilkie Realty, Hendersonville, NC
--
X programs
e n
8. Should Last Resort Housing 697-85773 Oates Realty, 693-6471, Janis Moore;
be considered Debbie Reemes Realty World, 696-8008; Regal Homes,
?? X? i 9. Are there large, disabled,
families
et
'
ld
l w Tedd Pearce, 891-3993.
c.
e
er
y,
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN Indicated that adequate business and decent, safe
X 10. Will public housing be and sanitary housing properties would be available
roject
d
d f for the above displacees
or p
nee
e .
X 11. Is public housing avail-
bl As necessary in accordance with State law.
8
X a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad- .
11. Housing Authority of the City of Hendersonville.
equate DDS housing available
eriod
ation
lo
d
i 12. Same as No. 6.
6
Same as No
14
;^r-± '
X p
ur
c
ng re
13. Will there be a problem of .
.
.
Housing within financial

X means
14. Are suitable business sites gEp i 3 1994
(list source)
bl
il
ava
e
a
15. Number months estimated to
?omp I etELOCATION 10 mos.
n
N.C. CaT. CF %N':'3 SinT10N
1KIrIV, ?k
el ati n g nt at Approved Uae
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R E L O C A T I ON
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJECT: 8.1950602
1. 0. NO.: I-2001
R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY Henderson Alternate 2 of 3 Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: STP-1001(8)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: From US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
'ype of Minor-
iisplacee Owners Tenants Total ities
0-15M
15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
,ndividuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'amities 5 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 0
3usinesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
'arms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Jon-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0
F $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
1 20-40M 2 150-250 0 20-40M 8 150-250 1
rES? NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M _
3 250-400 _ 0 40-70M: 12 250-400
1 1
X 1. Will special relocation 1 70-100 0 400-600, 0 h70-1001 400-800
22 2

X
X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be .
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
100 UP

TOTAL ; 14
0 1600 LF

, 5
0 100 UP
--d
0 1 1
600 UP
47 _ -!
1
u 5 1

d
r be available after project
X 4. Will any business be dis REMARKS (Respond by Number)

G placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
6. Beverly-Hanks & Associates, Hendersonville, NC,
? etc
i
ities
l 693-8471; Cathy Wilkie Realty, Hendersonville, NC,
-- -- .
nor
,
, emp
oyees, m
q
-- X
- S. Will relocation cause a q
h
u
ho
e
ta
i 697-6577; Oates Realty, 693-64711 Janie Moore;
Debbie Reemes Realty World, 696-8008; Regal Homes,
? r
g
o
s
ng s
X 6. Source for available hous- Tedd Pearce, 891-3993.
(li
t)
i As necessary in accordance with State law.
S
X ns
s
7. Will additional housing .
11. Housing Authority of the City of Hendersonville.
ded
b 6
Same as No
Q 12
- e nee
programs .
.
.
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
ed
id
b
er
e cons
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
families
ld
l
t
y, e
c.
e
er

X ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
- needed for project
X 11. Is public housing avail-
bl
e
a
X 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
eriod
elocation
d
i
p
ur
ng r
X 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites
ble (list source)
il
ava
a
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION 12 mos.
Rd I ocati n gent to
'arm 15.4 Revised 5/9

Approve Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy= Area Relocation File
R E L O C A T ION R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation.
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1950602 COUNTY Henderson Alternate 3 of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I-2001 F.A. PROJECT: STP-1001(8)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: From US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 LP
?Iindividuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fam i I i es 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
n
ll?usinesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
!Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants M For Sale M For Rent
Non-Profit 0 M 0 0 1 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0 0-20M? 1 0-150 4 0
y ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 1 20-40MI 8 150-250 1
YES N0 EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M. 0 250-400. 0 40-70M, 12 X 250-400 q 1 -
? X 1. Will special relocation 70-1001 0 1 400-600, 0 1 70-100 22 400-600 ` 2
i
b '--
X e necessary
serv
ces
2. Will schools or churches be
affected b
displacement 100 UP, 0 600 LP 0 01 0 LP 4 1

r 600 LIP 1d
` ?
X y
3. Will business services still
roject
be available after TOTAL 1 r
47 -? 5
y X p
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
1 placed. If so, indicate size 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
type, estimated number of 6. Beverly-Hanks & Associates, Hendersonville, NC,
l
iti
t
i 693-8471; C
th
Wilki
lt
H
ill
R
d
NC
1 emp
oyees, m
nor
es, e
c. y
ersonv
e,
a
e
ea
y,
en
,
X S. Will relocation cause a 697-8577; Oates Realty, 693-8471, Janie Moore
h
h
i
t bbi
l H
D
R
R
lt
W
ld
696-8008; R
ous
or
ng s
age eemes
ega
e
e
ea
y
or
,
omes,
X N 6. Source for available hous- Tedd Pearce, 891-3993.
i
(li
) ith St
8
A
i
t
l
d

JX ns
st
7. Will additional housing aw.
.
s necessary
n accor
ance w
a
e
11. Housing Authority of the City of Hendersonville.
b
d
d 12
S
N
6
"-- -- programs
e nee
e .
ame as
o.
.
1 X P 1 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d
y ?X e cons
ere
u 9. Are there large, disabled,
1 f
ili
'
ld
l
t
am
es
e
er
y, e
c.
A---T-- ? ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
a X 10. Will public housing be
roject
needed for
i X p
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
X 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
ti
i
d
d
i
l
ur
on per
o
ng re
oca
X 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

1N/A means
N14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
(li
)
ava
st source
a
e
15. Number months estimated to
comp to RELOCATION 6 mos.
// lri?kl
e
e ocatian Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
Aw
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
A S; '
74 : 0
?EHNR
April 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart''ater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0724; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Connector, US 25 to Npales Road, TIP No. I-2001
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be'utilized? 'DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
April 15, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10573er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP ?IDATE
/ ZzA93
TO:
1 ?'FG C-=,l G r-n 6 REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
DEd `OUP Z Grp'
FROM:
w REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
KE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? I
PORT
V
S
IGAT
A
R
N
E
T
E
ND
E
COMMENTS:
occ /
rorm

??. STATE
lit
SFA-LE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MAR 18 1994
WETLf',C ,
WATER"
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF H161 [WAYS
6MIfRNOR 1'.0. WX25201, RAITIUI I, N.C. 27611-5201
March 16, 1994
R. SAMU11. HUNT I
S1 CRI'I ARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Proposed Connector, US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534),
T.I.P. No. I-2001, State Project No. 8.1950602, Federal
Aid No. STP-25(2), Henderson County
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun a proposed connector from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534). The project
is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and
construction in fiscal year 1996.
The project proposes to construct a two-lane roadway on new location
from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534). The recommended typical cross-section
is a 2-lane, 24-foot roadway with 8-foot usable shoulders (including 2-foot
paved shoulders). The recommended right-of-way width is 100 feet, with no
access control. The improvements would also include the construction of a
new bridge to carry the proposed connector over the Norfolk Southern Railroad
track. The proposed bridge is estimated to be 250 feet long, with a 32-foot
clear roadway width. The project length is 1.2 miles.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by April 22, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Clarence Coleman, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919)
733-7842.
HFV/plr
Attachment
9

Mills Al-1111 el?
River
It
?H
L.
yemos¦e al Rdch 7
? Zirconia{ //
tle River
00
/
1536
1365 1 A 1006
26 J 25? / / .. ?Q?
o A / ?I
?, U QS?O
o0
G
204Y Z
\. 1556
- i 68
PROJECT 1_535
LIMITS ' 366
3r p v/ 1.534
1006
.0 1533 1534 ?j
1p 1534
Naples 1669
a? cr c
1459
1445
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
14_1__7 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PROPOSED CONNECTOR
FROM US 25
TO NAPLES ROAD (SR 1534)
HENDERSON COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. 1- 2001
t
13at Cave
'letcher 6A It
rw lland
wntai'\"' Sd fah
Home "?dneyvdle
S-10 1N
t ?
3 Fl /
3 R
.a ;;.. srArE ,
STATE OF N01U_1 I CAROLINA
1lJI .:?.
i
mAR 1 51994
WETLAND: '.
_ WATER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuN-1 JR. DIVISION 01: HIGI IWAYS
CAM KNOR 1'.O. 14OX 25201, RAI-1.101 I, N.C. 27011-5201
March 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Proposed Connector, US 25 to Naples
T.I.P. No. I-2001, State Project No.
Aid No. STP-25(2), Henderson County
R. SAMIIEI. HUNK I I I
SICKI I'ARY
Road (SR 1534),
8.1950602, Federal
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to I-2001. The project is included
in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1996.
The project proposes to construct a two-lane roadway on new location
from US 25 to Naples Road (SR 1534). The recommended typical cross-section
is a 2-lane, 24-foot roadway with 8-foot usable shoulders (including 2-foot
paved shoulders). The recommended right-of-way width is 100 feet, with no
access control. The improvements would also include the construction of a
new bridge to carry the proposed connector over the Norfolk Southern Railroad
track. The proposed bridge is estimated to be 250 feet long, with a 32-foot
clear roadway width. The project length is 1.2 miles.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by April 8, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the preparation
of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Clarence Coleman, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at (919)
733-7842.
HFV/plr
Attachment

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CONNECTOR
FROM US 25 TO SR 1534 IN THE VICINITY OF NAPLES
Project 8.1950602 I-2001 Henderson County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on
Thursday, February 24, 1994 at the Fletcher Elementary School
Media Center located at the intersection of US 25 and Cane
Creek Road in Fletcher. This will be an informal open house
workshop held between the hourn of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Those wishing to attend may do so at their convenience during
these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present
information, answer questions, and receive comments during
the early design stages of the proposed new connector from
US 25 to SR 1534. This proposed roadway would provide
improved access to Park Ridge Hospital from I-26 by utilizing
the I-26/US 25 interchange.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Mr. Clarence Coleman, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary
aids, and services for any qualified disabled person
interested in attending the workshop. To request this
assistance you may call Mr. Coleman at the above number
D-q later than seven days prior to the date of the workshop.
"l
WETLANfJS '.o,
WATER QUALITY Skh,
11 &
d M STATF ?
y 'A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
MN 2
k
WET GROUP
Wa SECrn^a
R. SAMUEL. HUNT I II
SGCRE:rARY
November 19, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch tle
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for New Connector, US 25 to
SR 1534 in Naples, Henderson County, State Project
8.1950602, I-2001
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for December 14, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Clarence Coleman, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. /
CC/plr ?- .-; 1 2?
Attachment

„ n ??-,
//U Amr

Eqnov
4w, vt'

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date October 22, 1993
Revision Date Project Development
Stage Programming
Planning FY 94-95 Design FY 94-
96
TIP # I-2001
Project # 8.1950602
F.A. Project # STP-25(2)
Division 14
County Henderson
Route New Route
Functional Classification N/A
Length 1.2 miles
Purpose of Project: To improve access to Park Ridge Hospital
from I-26.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: The proposed project is to improve the access
to Park Ridge Hospital by constructing a two-lane roadway on new
location from US 25 to SR 1534.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: This project is a
federal aid funded project and is to be prepared as a Federal
Environmental Assessment (EA) followed up by a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment - April
94 completion
Finding Of No Significant Impact - Sept 95 completion
Type of funding:
Federally funded
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
, or ( o)
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility:
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: Two-lane shoulder section
Interchanges Grade Separations 1 Stream Crossings 2
Typical Section of Roadway: Two-lane, 24-foot roadway with 8-
foot usable shoulers (including 2-foot paved shoulders).
Traffic: Current 2,600 Design Year 5,000 % Trucks
N/A
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 60 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( X ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 311 , 040
- - Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 236,125
_
_ Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 72,905
_
_
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 142,800
- - Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
X
New Bridge x $ 384,000
_ _
Widen Bridge X $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size Length . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,500
- - Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X
- - Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23,800
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $ 35,000
_
_ Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals : New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 14,280
Markers _X
Page 3
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
r
Delineators . $
Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc.. $ 277,550
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 1,520,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
230,000
Subtotal: $ 1,750,000
_ Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
X New Right of Way Needed: Width 100' Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: C. W. Coleman Date: October 14, 1993
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4

t Cove
d^/ * Fletcher i• 64
-- 't =• j 28 2 Mountain Fruitland 6 hle?
Mills F6 , 9 7 ,Home
11 191 dnerville
?HHOr:e e 4 S O N
Elo -
?I Fl ?.
!fS VIIIQ 7 R i/
?K 7
enrose el Rock
Zi<<onie 2
Ye River 2 e
r0
1536
1365 4
26 25 .. 'A 1006
T .. os(
o 0?
C O?
2049 AZ
O
Q) .6,9 1556
1535 a
1366
Q? Ob •07 1534
v'J 1533 ' 1.006
1p 1534 1534
Naples
1669
.35
1_ bh O P
1459
1445
z
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1417 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN'T'AL
BRANCH
NEW CONNECTOR
FROM US 25 TO SR 1534, AT NAPLES
HENDERSON COUNTY
1- 2001
FEASIBILITY STUDY,
Improved Access
From Park Ridge Hospital to I-26
Henderson County
I-2001
Prepared by
Program Development Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Mohammed B. Mu tafa
Highway Planning Engineer
Whitmel H. Webb, III, P.E. Date
Head of Feasibility Studies
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Improved Access
From Park Ridge Hospital to I-26
Henderson County
I-2001
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
This is a feasibility study for improving access to Park
Ridge Hospital by constructing a two-lane roadway from US 25 to
SR 1534, a distance of 1.2 miles (see Figure 1). The recommended
typical cross-section is a two-lane, 24-foot pavement with 8-foot
shoulders (including 2-foot paved shoulders), on a 100-foot wide
right-of-way. The estimated cost of this project is $3,300,000
($1,500,000 for right-of-way, and $1,800,000 for construction).
This study is not a detailed planning/environmental
investigation. A feasibility study presents recommended typical
cross sections, general alignments, and estimated cost of the
improvement. The study also attempts to provide an early
identification of potential environmental, permitting, or other
issues which deserve consideration in the planning and
construction stages.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
This project was requested by Park Ridge Hospital, a
non-profit institution located in the Naples area of Henderson
County (see Figure 1).
The recommended improvements are needed to improve emergency
vehicle access from I-26 and US 25 to the Hospital's emergency
room. Currently, the most direct access to the Hospital is via
SR 1534 (see Figure 2). SR 1534 consists of a two-lane, 22-foot
pavement with 6-foot usable shoulders. Although the roadway
provides direct access to the Hospital from US 25, SR 1534
intersects the Southern Railroad track at grade just east of US
25. This railroad track carries 8 trains per day, which can
delay emergency vehicles and medical staff on their way to, or
from the Hospital. These potential delays are significant in
this case due to the current lack of a reasonable alternative
route to the Hospital. A grade separation between the railroad
track and SR 1534 would solve this problem, but is not feasible.
This is due to the close proximity of US 25 to the track, and
adjacent land development.

Estimated current average daily traffic volume (ADT) on SR
1534 is 2,600 vehicles per day (vpd). The traffic volume is
estimated to increase to approximately 5,000 vpd by 2013. This
would result in a train exposure index of 40,000 which would
warrant a grade separation at this crossing.
Improved access to Park Ridge Hospital has been the subject
of two previous studies:
1) Environmental Assessment I-2001, State project
8.1950601, Federal-Aid project IR-26-1(36)13. This
study was completed in June 1985, and proposed the
construction of an interchange on I-26 at, or just
south of SR 1534. That interchange would have offered
direct access between I-26 and the Hospital. The
FHWA did not grant the new access point on I-26 for
the interchange. The project was deleted from the
T.I.P. in 1987 due to opposition from adjacent land
owners.
2) Feasibility Study I-2001, approved in April 1990.
This study recommended improving access between I-26
and the Hospital through widening and resurfacing
SR 1534.
The previous studies have not offered an acceptable solution
to the railroad crossing delays at SR 1534. Therefore, this study
was conducted to find a reasonable and feasible improvement that
would improve access to the Hospital and reduce delays to
emergency vehicles.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that a 2-lane roadway be constructed on a
new location from US 25 to SR 1534 (see Figure 2). The
recommended typical cross-section is a 2-lane, 24-foot roadway
with 8-foot usable shoulders (including 2-foot paved shoulders).
The recommended right-of-way width is 100 feet, without access
control. The improvements would also include the construction of
a new bridge to carry the proposed roadway over the Southern
Railroad track. The proposed bridge is estimated to be 250 feet
long, with a 32-foot clear roadway width. The recommended
corridor begins at US 25, approximately 450 feet north of the
I-26\US 25 interchange. From that point, the corridor extends
approximately 1800 feet in a northeast heading, crossing over the
railroad tracks. The corridor then curves to the southeast and
continues primarily on a new location. It terminates at the
intersection of SR 1534 and SR 1535. It is recommended that SR
1536 be tied into the proposed new road as a "T" intersection,
and be stop sign controlled.
2
The recommended new road would improve access between the
Hospital, US 25, and I-26. The improvements will also eliminate
railroad crossing delays to Hospital traffic. It should be noted
that an interchange at I-26 to provide direct access to the
Hospital (as proposed in the I-2001 Environmental Assessment, is
not recommended under current FHWA guidelines which call for a
2-mile minimum separation between interchanges in rural areas.
An interchange constructed at the current SR 1534 grade
separation would be only 0.7 mile south of the I-26\US 25
interchange.
Estimated cost of this project is as follows:
Right-of-way $1,500,000
Roadway Construction $ 450,000
Bridge over Railroad $1,350,000
Total $3,300,000
Except for the proximity of the railroad, medium utility
conflicts are anticipated.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
It is estimated that this project would require the
relocation of 5 residences, and 2 businesses. An environmental
screening was not conducted for this study.
3
R2,
,
-? I? ?' Vii,. ??I•. ;.
?./
4 •? 1 r,, •??,
W
? Z C9 ?I
N N p L6 i(
O -j 0 IL z
0 N -
N Z to cv -
?a ? }
it ?;4?\?• ? ?Itll ""rt?\ / / ? f 1? ??):_'?? ???%•?''l lr•? i 1 r?i• 'l '? _ _ \ l •. :-
???'?1 W ?. I••%'`` •,- ?` I` .\,,i: _ •??;/ .:n ? ?". ' ,,J•• ? r 1• •• ' ??`? '• i i ?
i?? l r ? ?V} ?",! ? ?f a •l(_'\.y _'\\\?/11' ,` ;`? ?' / /_, :; .. ^O, rE,- yy • .•
(? ) ?•x-i11 Q 0? ._,'1LJ) 1^`•?? •?• ?O/,i 1 'C. CS?•. .` ?N (1• ?y?.: •1°i •'••
g-q
cc 0
?zoo
,?,?.1(' ..i. ???,• ?-ice,..-?'?_? ? ? _.,, ;?.
1?, 1 1 1 . : y?n? i) _J ?'?s mil "'tea! / ,'• ( ,?.
"61 i
Ad,
} \I \ i •••
? ? ? ? •? ? ? - - ? LIB ?-•?- \ :? ? 11 ? ..]
QW3
h// v
•? f i• \, 1. Y \\
???1 ?/(?? ..? ' / \??,? - ?? ?Z ? \ IG•/gyp _ n
I 4 `•'\J\`?/ ??' // • / ?`?'f.?/?), ?.? •?-• /. 11 Vim/ (?Q? LL
14. Ili,
AA
i y.? \
00
C%j
01 0
/ r ?.'" f f Y O J
>
LL l M
`• Cn Z .
o r Q?
3: U
cr ,
/Ob
• •
Cl)
O L
T- Z
V VV v> p
Li O J U r
z
0 to<0 N
a Z cn
V =QW
w0 W
z c _

v ?
as P
? ! O N
00
( n:; (tea
S \V
OM ,? r J
LL
'a O
. r
.
b f
•
lie ? 5F1 ? LIE
• • ?? 0
4-1 0.
? ,?
?PNIoooq