19980120 Ver 1_Complete File_19980210

NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
T.I.P. No. U-2902
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)
DateY H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date icho L. Gra , . E.
?? ivision Administrator, FHWA
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
T.I.P. No. U-2902
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
November 1996
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Ece
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
>, , 6j
Wils n Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head %V
C
SEAL -
6916
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION .........................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................1
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ...............................2
A. PERMITS AND COORDINATION ....................................................2
B. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMITMENTS ............................3
C. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................3
D. WATER QUALITY .............................................................................4
E. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ......................................................................4
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ............................................................................................4
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ...........................................................5
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........5
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ........................................................................6
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE
PUBLIC HEARING ...............................................................10
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................12
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING ................12
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................12
TABLES
TABLE 1 - 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels ...............................................5
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Revisions to the Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) /
Shelbourne Road Intersection
APPENDIX
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ...........................................A-1
Protected Species Update ......................................................................................A-22
Municipal Agreement for Bridge Number 216 (Over Hominy Creek) .....................A-26
Public Hearing Notice and Handout ....................................................................... A-34
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
T.I.P. No. U-2902
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
1. 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 PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen and relocate
NC 191 (Brevard Road) to a four-lane road with curb and gutter (16.8 m or 56 feet face
to face) from just north of the Interstate 40/NC 191 interchange to just north of the
Interstate 240/Park Road interchange on the western side of Asheville. The intersection
of Fairfax Avenue with the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp will be eliminated, and
Fairfax Avenue will be extended to intersect with NC 191. The westbound Interstate 240
exit ramp will be shifted south to tie into NC 191 across from the Interstate 240
westbound entrance ramp. A new bridge will be constructed to carry proposed NC 191
over Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620). Hominy Creek Road will be
realigned and extended to tie into Shelbourne Road. Shelbourne Road will be extended to
tie into NC 191 at the proposed Fairfax Avenue/NC 191 intersection north of
2
Interstate 240. The project is located in southwest Buncombe County (see Figure 1). The
recommended improvements were shown in Figure 5 in the Environmental Assessment.
Recommended changes to the Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) / Shelbourne Road
intersection are shown in Figure 2 in this report.
The 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for
improving NC 191 by constructing a multi-lane facility (part on new location) and
constructing ramp improvements at the Interstate 240 / Park Road interchange. Right of
way and construction are scheduled to begin in fiscal years 1997 and 1999, respectively.
The TIP includes a total funding of $5,975,000 for the project, which includes $775,000
for the right of way and $5,200,000 for construction. The total estimated cost of the
recommended improvements is $6,275,000, which includes $775,000 for right of way and
$5,500,000 for construction. The estimated project cost exceeds the TIP funding by
$300,000.
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. PERMITS AND COORDINATION
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General Permit No.
198200031, or Nationwide Permit No. 25 and/or 33, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Buncombe County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout waters.
Projects in these counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to issuance of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Permit. Also, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in
a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
As noted in the Environmental Assessment prepared for the subject project,
NCDOT was to evaluate the potential presence of three recently added federally-protected
species (Spotfin chub, Peregrine falcon, and Gray bat) to determine if the species are
present in the project area. This evaluation has been performed and it was determined that
the project will have no effect on these federally-protected species. A brief description of
each species' characteristics, habitat, and biological conclusions are included on pages
A-22 through A-25 in the Appendix.
3
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the
replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval under
Section 26a.
B. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will provide 14-foot (4.2 m)
outside lanes along proposed NC 191 between Interstate 40 and Interstate 240 to
accommodate bicycles. Since a sidewalk is to be provided on both sides of the proposed
Hominy Creek Bridge (sidewalk is required in accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian Policy
where the bridge approaches consist of a curb and gutter section), a standard 42-inch
(107 cm) bridge rail will be provided rather than the 54-inch (137 cm) bicycle rail.
Upon final acceptance of the project by the NCDOT, the Department will convey
the existing Hominy Creek Bridge (number 216), a bridge eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, to the City of Asheville for use as a bicycle and pedestrian
facility. The bridge will serve as a point of interest in the City's Hominy Creek River Park
development. The NCDOT will repair spalled areas of concrete, repair existing
deteriorated bridge rail, and add a bicycle-safe one-bar metal rail on top of each rail (to
provide a rail height of 54 inches, or 137 cm). Part of existing NC 191 south of
Interstate 240 will remain in place to be used as maintenance access. Refer to the
Appendix, pages A-26 through A-33, to see the municipal agreement.
Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the proposed Hominy Creek Bridge.
The NCDOT Pedestrian Policy requires sidewalks on bridges which have curb and gutter
approaches. A 4.5-foot (1.4 m) wide sidewalk exists along the east side of NC 191 north
of Interstate 240 and continues north into Asheville. This sidewalk will be removed
during construction, but it will be replaced and extended to the proposed Fairfax Avenue
Extension to provide a logical terminal.
C. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bridge number 216, which carries NC 191 over Hominy Creek, has been
determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge will
remain in place, and ownership will be conveyed to the City of Asheville for use as a
bicycle and pedestrian facility. NCDOT will repair spalled areas of concrete, repair
existing deteriorated bridge rail, and add a bicycle-safe one-bar metal rail on top of each
rail. Refer to the Appendix, pages A-26 through A-33, to review the municipal
agreement.
4
If plans change and Alternative 2 is no longer the recommended improvement,
Section 106 coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office will be required to
determine possible effects on the Carrier Hydroelectric Plant archaeological site located
north of Interstate 240.
D. WATER QUALITY
NCDOT will try to the maximum extent possible to avoid placing bridge piers into
Hominy Creek. Where practicable, runoff from curb and gutter will not drain directly into
Hominy Creek and will be directed into grassed or vegetated areas as much as possible.
Also, the NCDOT will minimize impacts to Hominy Creek by: (1) maintaining riparian
vegetation along the creek bank wherever possible; (2) revegetating disturbed riparian
areas with native plant species as soon as possible after construction to minimize runoff,
(3) insuring stringent erosion control measures are implemented during construction; and
(4) not allowing wet concrete to contact water entering of flowing in Hominy Creek.
Weep holes (deck drains) are required for bridge deck drainage to avoid hydroplaning and
hence provide safety for the motoring public. The feasibility of eliminating deck drains
directly over water will be studied during the final design phase of the project, and if safety
requirements allow, it will be incorporated in the final design.
E. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A number of horizontal and vertical alignment design exceptions will be required.
In addition, a design exception may be required to retain the Park Road bridge over
Interstate 240 (bridge number 242) due to its narrow width, substandard rails, and
inadequate vertical clearance over Interstate 240.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times, resulting in road user cost savings. Traffic safety will be enhanced.
Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities in the project area will be improved.
Approximately 11.7 acres (4.8 ha) of additional right of way will be required. No
businesses will be relocated as a result of the project. One residence will be relocated. No
wetlands other than surface water wetlands will be impacted by the subject project. The
\ project is zoned; therefore, consideration of farmland impacts is not required based on
guidelines in the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No species afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act will be
affected by the proposed project.
5
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CE's, FONSI's,
ROD'S, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that
noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
It is predicted that approximately 5 receptors will experience traffic noise impacts.
Based on traffic noise analysis, no receptors are anticipated to be impacted by a substantial
increase in future noise levels. The following table shows the predicted maximum extent
of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Table 1 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels
--- - ----- - --- -
Maximum Predicted Maximum
Leq Noise Levels Contour
dBA Distances (meters)
Project Segment 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
NC 191, South of I-240 Interchange 69 65 59 <43' 89'
NC 191, North of I-240 Interchange 68 64 58 <43' 75'
Notes: 1. 50', 100', and 200' distances are measured from the center of the nearest
travel lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of
the proposed roadway.
This information was included in Table N5 on page A-15 of the Appendix to the
Environmental Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdictions.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways on
June 20, 1996 and the FHWA on June 26, 1996. The approved Environmental
Assessment was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review
6
and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency.
Copies of the correspondence received are included in the Appendix (pages A-1 through
A-21) of this document.
*U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Federal Emergency Management Administration
*Tennessee Valley Authority
*N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety - N.C. National Guard
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Water Quality,
Division of Land Resources
*Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County
City of Asheville
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service prefers Alternative 1 over
Alternative 2 due to the lesser degree of environmental impacts and lower total
project cost."
Response: As noted on page 15 of the EA, Alternative 1, though costing less, was
not selected because it does not eliminate the 90-degree turn along NC 191 and
because it would impact a National Register of Historic Places eligible property
(Carrier Hydroelectric Power Plant) along Hominy Creek. In addition, the
recommended improvements under Alternative 2 better prepare the Interstate 240
interchange for the proposed Interstate 26 future improvements scheduled along
existing Interstate 240 under TIP Project I-2513. Under TIP project I-2513,
NCDOT proposes to construct a multi-lane facility with part of it on new location.
Comment: "If Alternative 2 is implemented, the Service encourages
implementation of the following measures in order to minimize impacts to aquatic
resources in Hominy Creek: (1) riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever
possible (i.e., reduce canopy removal near the creek); (2) if any riparian areas are
disturbed, they should be revegetated with native species as soon as possible after
construction to minimize run-off and to lessen the impacts associated with "bare-
banks" (decrease in nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes, sediment
filtration, etc.); (3) stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
7
during all construction activities in order to minimize downstream effects; and
(4) construction should be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
water entering or flowing in the stream. This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills
associated with bridge construction."
Response: Sedimentation and erosion control guidelines (Best Management
Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) shall be implemented during all phases
of project construction. Canopy removal shall be minimized where practicable and
disturbed areas along the creek shall be revegetated as soon as practicable. Wet
concrete shall be placed in a manner so as not to come into contact with water
flowing in the creek or with water draining into the creek.
Comment: "The Service generally discourages the placement of riprap on stream
banks and recommends that the placement of the bridge piers be such that the need
for riprap along the stream banks is eliminated."
Response: The placement of riprap along the stream banks will be minimized
where practicable, but not at the expense of pier protection or design.
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Comment: "Two additional items are provided at this time. We are enclosing, for
your information, a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA's) `procedures for "No Rise" Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways'."
Response: A preliminary hydraulics analysis indicates that little or no increased
flood risk will be associated with the proposed project as a result of the anticipated
floodplain encroachment. All appropriate coordination and certifications
concerning floodplain encroachments and local ordinances will be conducted
during the final design.
Comment: "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."
Response: As noted on page ii of the Environmental Assessment and in Section
III.A. of this document, this project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis
of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and
notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded
to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
8
Tennessee Valley Authority
Comment: "Because this stream is in the Tennessee River watershed, the
document correctly notes that Section 26A approvals are needed from TVA for
the stream crossing."
Response: Comment noted.
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety - N.C. National Guard:
Comment: "Your first choice (Alternative 2) will apparently cause the Asheville
National Guard Armory to lose 25% or more of its parking lot. In September
1998, the 105th Engineer Group HQ will relocate to Asheville, and parking will be
at a premium. We will be glad to support this alternative if NCDOT can acquire
equivalent acreage for our use from adjoining tracts, thereby allowing us to build a
replacement parking lot. Alternative 1 apparently will not impact on our property.
We obviously find this approach to be superior, and strongly encourage you to
follow this course of action.
Response: Although Alternative 1 is less expensive and would minimize impacts
to the National Guard Armory parking lot, Alternative 2 is recommended because
it prepares the NC 191 / Interstate 240 interchange for the proposed Interstate 26
improvements (TIP Project I-2513), it removes a 90 degree turn through a
confusing intersection , and it avoids the National Register eligible Carrier
Hydroelectric Plant archaeological site. During the design phase of the project,
every effort will be made to limit the project impacts to the Armory parking lot.
Representatives from the NCDOT Right of Way office will assess the right of way
impact to the Armory parking lot and offer a fair market price for right of way to
be acquired. These monies can then be used by the Armory to purchase land for
their future parking needs. The NCDOT can not acquire land for other than
transportation uses.
NCDEHNR - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The NCDOT indicates that consideration will be given during the
design phase to avoid the placement of bridge piers in Hominy Creek in
conjunction with constructing a new bridge over this stream. We appreciate this
consideration and anticipate reviewing the future 404 permit application for this
project."
Response: Comment noted. Consideration shall be given during the design phase
to avoid the placement of bridge piers in Hominy Creek.
9
Comment: Our biological staff agrees with the NCDOT that the forested area
between Aston Park Health Care Center and I-240 is relatively undisturbed and
provides habitat for many species of mammals, reptiles, and birds. Consideration
should be given during the design phase to minimize impacts to this area that will
result in habitat fragmentation."
Response: During the design phase, consideration shall be given to minimizing
impacts to this forested area.
Comment: "Hominy Creek supports redbreast sunfish and many species of
nongame fish, although habitat and water quality have been degraded by
sedimentation and various discharges. Stringent erosion controls should be
installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project completion to
minimize additional sedimentation into the stream."
Response: Sedimentation and erosion control guidelines (Best Management
Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) shall be implemented during all phases
of project construction.
NCDEHNR - Division of Water Quality "'c
Comment: "DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the bridge over
Hominy Creek in order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the
body of water. If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be
installed directly over water."
Response: Weep holes (deck drains) are required for bridge deck drainage to
avoid hydroplaning and hence provide safety for the motoring public. The
feasibility of eliminating deck drains directly over water will be studied during the
final design phase of the project, and if safety requirements allow, it will be
incorporated in the final design.
Comment: "The observations of the impacts to Hominy Creek are accurate.
DWQ suggests that for future reports DOT should reference our Basinwide
reports for the bodies of water that may be impacted by road construction. DOT
could accurately report the sources of impact to the water and the reason for the
degradation."
Response: Comments are noted and have been forwarded to appropriate NCDOT
staff.
Comment: "The project is not located near sensitive waters (Hominy Creek has a
NC Surface Water Classification of C) and it doesn't appear that this project will
have significant impacts from the standpoint of stormwater runoff. We would
recommend that DOT review the project to attempt to minimize the potential
10
impacts of stormwater outlets from the new curb and gutter section of the road.
They should try to outlet these flows to vegetated/forested areas, swales, etc. as
much as possible and avoid direct outlets to surface waters."
Response: Sedimentation and erosion control guidelines (Best Management
Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) shall be implemented during all phases
of project construction. Where feasible, stormwater runoff outlets from the curb
and gutter shall be directed to vegetated/forested areas.
Comment: "To the maximum extent practicable DOT should not install the bridge
bents in the creek."
Response: During the design phase of the project, NCDOT will investigate the
feasibility of not installing bridge piers in the creek.
NCDEHNR - Division of Land Resources:
Comment: "The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the erosion control
program delegation to the Division of Highways from the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission."
Response: An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared by the
NCDOT, and sedimentation and erosion control guidelines (Best Management
Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) shall be implemented during all phases
of project construction.
Land of Sky Regional Council:
Comment: "This project will be a big step forward in the traffic problem in this
area."
Response: Comment noted.
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
A formal combined public hearing for the project was held on July 25, 1996 in the
National Guard Armory located on Brevard Road. The news release and the handout for
the hearing are included on pages A-34 through A-43 in the Appendix. Approximately 30
people were present for the formal hearing and the informal question and answer session
held afterwards. The following is a list of comments received during and following the
public hearing, along with NCDOT's responses:
11
Comment: Is the Park Street bridge over Interstate 240 to be widened under this
project?
Response: The Park Street bridge will not be widened, but it will remain in place
to carry relocated NC 191 over Interstate 240.
Comment: Will Fairfax Avenue be dead-ended?
Response: Fairfax Avenue will remain open to traffic and will be extended to
tie directly into NC 191.
Comment: Is there a widening project scheduled for NC 191 south of
Interstate 40?
Response: A Feasibility Study is scheduled for the section of NC 191 located
between Interstate 26 and Interstate 40 in the 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program, Project U-3601. In addition, planning studies are
underway for the widening of NC 191 from north of the Blue Ridge Parkway to
NC 112, Project U-3403.
Comment: Are there plans available for what the city wants to do with the
historical bridge (no. 216) over Hominy Creek?
Response: Ron Fuller, planner for the City of Asheville, gave the phone
number of the Asheville Parks and Recreation Department for information
concerning the Hominy Creek Bridge.
Comment: When is the project scheduled to be completed?
Response: The project is expected to be completed approximately one and a
half years after the contractor is awarded the project. Based on the current letting
date of October 1998, the project is expected to be completed by the summer of
2000.
Comment: Did the NCDOT investigate the possibility of providing noise
walls?
Response: The need for noise walls was investigated (five receptors will be
impacted), but noise walls are not warranted and are not recommended.
Comment: Will access to Aston Park Health Care Center be maintained?
Response: Access to and from Aston Park Health Care Center will be
provided during and after construction.
12
Comment: Will utility service be maintained?
Response: Any relocation or temporary shutoff of utilities will be coordinated
with the utility and affected customers.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Hominy Creek Road will be realigned and extended to tie into Shelbourne Road.
Shelbourne Road will be extended to tie into NC 191 at the proposed Fairfax Avenue/
NC 191 intersection north of Interstate 240. These revisions are shown in Figure 2. This
will be done so the Shelboume Road traffic (9800 vehicles per day in the year 2017) will
have the right of way rather than the Hominy Creek Road traffic (400 vehicles per day in
the year 2017).
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDIN
G
There will be no impacts to wetlands as a result of the project. Construction is
likely to be authorized by provisions of General Permit No. 198200031, or Nationwide
Permit No. 25 and/or 33, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse impact
upon the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an
environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic
resources are expected. No wetlands are impacted, no significant impact on air or water
quality is expected, and no effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species
are anticipated. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt
any communities. In view of the above evaluation, it is has been determined a Finding of
No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental
Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required.
EFL/plr

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMrNT OF
TRANSPROTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRANCH
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2902
M UR6 1
m ? NORTH CAROLINA UEVARTMENT OF
l ' \\ d/c/O TRA.\SPROTATION
C qJ 8-l ter` onisron of IuclMAYS
l \\` ,y.,_ ?,??J $? rRT o-_?? PIANNIG A.\'D E\1lRONNIF'N-M, BlUX01
t
1 \? c 537-547 Revisions to the
?' ''`\ PCr39T )9? -' f 5 Hominy Creek Rd./Shelboume Rd.
B("225 - _-- I
PG 184 Intersection
f 9
F°r * o?o \ \ PG 681.600 jl
i \y CT ?y?R'?o\ HOMER SMITE . 1
yti r r 0C/O CHARLIE SCALE 1 1000 FIGURE 2
16
y? \ t
f i ? t Q /G ?\ \ r+ ?? ? ? 55-20-5
21 03.
X
C?y
C `
l A n / t+? Pro h' r??• 1 ?? rig ti
d` Q a? C, ?a F d
70 nLK WAIT' I NRJ 0-5.5 9g36
/ ,,ro>\ O tee AND Nt O I/ _! p - q? Rn .. q
RB VCS
I / \ vJ? . n _ / 'l I• - r- - 'r . 3: Izoo, cNi
-- - / sc ca / I;q R--
Proposed Realignment and
Extension of Hominy Creek Road
To Shelbourne Road - _ °? SIB` ?o•y'w
P
-x _ - _.10o nz
ca"
C e1
10 t5 Sr
02 - _ l
N /5
TIE fiROP. & To Ex. c&G
f _ F Ili 7 l
k yin ?b ?I ° f' ol° ten_ r_rrc_
50
4 ?.
750
Y T'0 1 dpa-OO.OQ _ - f * I + 11 lI ' Cl ! l
0 11
? -? ----- - _-- -- - -- AAlPAREV- POT S1a.34qg6J79 ?r -LR V- T
I? ^ , IJ R BEGIN GRJ.gq
Z1) .-- - ti- POT S1a-17+82.382 C1 .1 - --
- -L4 -\- - - 1° Mu IN CONST II, 'I {', riE Pml?. csc TO Ex. Ctc
LONC - I ?i?U?.. ,r
i
i
I
TMT - Interstate 240 rt I !, ONI:
CONC - - u Tv o . M > . - _ _
--oN Dnlgcc l ' > I CC) T Ij+55,4fI - yTt.- 3 I MT%
M n I/ -YL - 1 Q7 >Ig = + J05
o \ F V" - pC M_ -LR - ?q
EV
POT Nnr con. 1, l REV- coNC = -POT S/o 17+37191 I J i of ENO G7 D -
I
oNC? -cRorv I _ Imo. - _?
?'? _ \ '1 \' I Ir l r LREV- Prslo.17+'3664 el '?' I
966 u.r - \ I ir1? -1'., 1'0/Yo.to000.000
p .
r.sl a/N - I l ?V "P TIE PROP. C&G TO EX. CdG 1 \?? _ , I
- _. . _? ._ . (.• N l .79E
700 W 600 0/r,
F I ?- ?.l JT - - _-- _ r - - - - QI
_
\ l \ 1- T -F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
175
1N ? ?\ nn I I m I ' cc ??
?^ ? I IS n a 17i / +' y ?
=I l ?? I I I °' P O ct O n 7c.1I
e
M (D -0
(D (n W
07 0 CL
so
? a
I" i" J I O 7 o
M 7os vcP
0 IM
Hominy Creek Road o E
? - ------
w _? p% ?m4p © ?'
?- I - a co q ?. °°? ?X
. /
- c1 i x,'
123' S' El _ cu Ct
/SO Fj . /
(SR 3620) CD
77 a 0?
III ,o, + 9vs o 1 ¢ °? d
I I 6
IOo
C 6 ti
?p 6 , q/
v6r4,p C o
?M I Jyl I I I i "0 , ? ° ,+aa \ '1 I ? Y ``. r C ? ?y_ ? \\C?`•Z
w _ o
?? ''Ilo- I I v I.°? (? E?'jQ GJ o°r \ ?.p t._ ? ?? •p`,? gq ? /-\ r ?I \..//
` I III ?" r ??k \ ,C?
,?? I uQ, I ?, ???to• ? \ / ,off.: ? / ? /I
1 `77 i I I I ?V 1416
/ J?
I 1 I I /I I T P??Sta• 0 \ 1 ?l~1 / c \ n$?)?/ e'9 A'r
II I I I ?? P SIQ.I? +? 0C vS'0 y0
II j? I , 3' P 01.10+ I I ?? G<< 06466
011
°I I I I A /.
l? I I II II I -Y4- C iU+51.Sf3 ( I I C U)
(D
fir l1 I I II II ,?? 1?IIII ?. ?/ i
0- o 0
r. I l y . I I II i ?/ I I x o (n '
C CD
F-j
oa /
11 I ?,I "I II 1 '09 '_ ID
X UI, u?
0 (D
16Z4a1d Ol?o1 r o1`I ?,, I ? I ?1 \ ID
°% I I 11 Nd I ol5
4?59?QI I '; © I o I 1 \ j o
/ I gll z 0
/ /% III I I III"I\J ZO£ L6+OI'o?1S -b (- 1 , C-)
//= I I II° \° 1 11 I co /
,/ ?/?/! !! I I 111= ° 1 , C ..... co \ bgZy.
// III I I I I I 11 11 '"0' °s. [7 I I _° - r \ ZO 0
// III ?I I III ?\ ?1\ 11 IIIII ?g Zo 0
II ?? I of I III 11 11 II ?I ?III? ,
1' I a l I I I 1? ` ? I I I ? G' I x l I? ° \ ZO va
U \ 7
0 R,I =
II o
© It I ?I III ?11 11 0 I I o I fi?
a a
' lip
C.,? ??, III I i II?? a x,11 ?? ?? I III 1 .
,? ' I II I _ I II 111 it ° w I I ??.f
r-n
-0 CD
t a ,o` v~iq Ct II ~? I18 k I \ /
n N
o+ Ia ill fi o I 11:1 \ ?? B9?
o? w(D II N) N) L-4
i fig ?# "a$ I I of 4 i l 15' SlA' W p \' \ 1c„
L (_n
A '4
II } 4 I I X3 'e
?c1 I o /? II \\°
0
----- -- -- 't9.?JB
T
N l9' l5' 51.0' W ccNC
!w? c°NC -L REV- -L REV- „j? o _ o ???
_7& ?? .
1 I? i o I 2 /S' ' %d a /
r I I ? 1 1 ?'? b I ? /
Ln
.I
a
? '3 I
r ?
@F ms m
17
In O1 "CARS'
T 17
I 0 ?`4 N l?'q (n '/
nx
of
I ntA
??,? m T 1 \, r I
moo
A
1• O ?FQ'• ,p?? I
CD US dgpF
CD ?.?
O N y
\ O _n
m
y7 /
WPP??EN7 p
N
7 D
4CH 9 ?8
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 "/_illicoa Strcct
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
,July 30, 1996
Mr. 1-1. l-ranklin Vick, P.1?., Manaocr
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of 1-lighways
North Carolina Department of 1 ransportation
P.U. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
QC, E I V\
O
AUG 0 21996i.
cT
2 t :1ISIC'N C ..
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for NC 191 (Brevard Road) relocation, from north of
Interstate 40 to north of interstate 240, Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina,
TIP No. U-2902
In your letter of July 17, 1996, you requested our review of the subject project. The following
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessmcni, ihiJ piUlcci will ilivvi-vc t1 he I'C!Gcatilon of a Portion
of NC 191 from just north of 1-40 to just north of]-240 for a distance of 0.5 mile. The proposed
improvements will include the construction of a four-lane, undivided road with curb and gutter
on a new location south of the existing alignment. Bridge Number 216 over Hominy Creek will
be removed and replaced with a new bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 430 feet long
and 56 feet wide and will accommodate both motor vehicle and bicycle traffic. The project will
also involve the relocation of the westbound I-240 exit ramp and extensions of both Hominy
Creek Road and Fairfax Avenue to intersect with the newly relocated NC 191. No jursidictional
wetlands will be impacted by this project. The purpose of this project is to improve traffic
operations and safety on this section of NC 191.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prefers Alternative I over Alternative 2 due to the
lesser degree of environmental impacts and lower total project cost. Specifically, Alternative 1
will involve a "fly-over" bridge over Hominy Creek that will likely not involve the placement of

A-1
bridge piers in I Iominy Creek. Additionally, Alternative 2 will impact a relatively undisturbed
forested area near the Aston Park I lealth Care Center.
I f Alternative 2 is implemented, the Service encourages implementation of the following
rneasures in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources in Hominy Creek: (1) riparian
vegetation should be maintained wherever possible (i.e., reduce canopy removal near the creek);
(2) if any riparian areas are disturbed, they should be revegetated with native species as soon as
possible after construction to minimize run-off and to lessen the impacts associated with "bare
banks" (decrease in nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes, sediment filtration, etc.);
(3) stringent erosion control measures should be implemented during all construction activities in
order to minimize downstream effects; and (4) construction should be accomplished so that wet
concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the stream. This will reduce the likelihood
offish kills associated with bridge construction.
The Service appreciates the fact that "consideration will be given to avoiding the placement of
bridge piers for the proposed Hominy Creek bridge into Hominy Creek." As noted in our March
11, 1993 scoping letter, the stream banks adjacent to the existing bridge over Hominy Creek have
been stabilized with riprap and large concrete slabs, which appears to have contributed to bank
erosion downstream (due to increased flow velocity). The Scrvice generally discourages the
placement of'riprap on stream banks and recommends that the placement of the bridge piers be
such that the need for riprap along the stream banks is eliminated.
We have reviewed our files, and our data indicate that no federally listed or proposed threatened
or endangered species would be affected by the proposed action. In view of this we believe the
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 listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action
is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this environmental assessment and request a copy of the
"Finding of No Significant impact." to any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-046.
S' c rely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Garden Street,
Marion, NC 28752
A-2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
4i WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
?nENDONOF September 18, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
6
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways .c,
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
G
o ?qqb ??
S?Q 2 0
& ENV1P
This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1996, requesting comments on the
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation, From
North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240, Asheville, Buncombe County, F. A.
Project No. STP-191(1), State Project No. 8.1843101, TIP No. U-2902" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199301263).
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Sh ford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
A-3
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
A-4
September 18, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation, From
North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240, Asheville, Buncombe County, F. A.
Project No. STP-191(1), State Project No. 8.1843101, TIP No. U-2902" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199301263)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
Our comments on flood plains were given for the scoping phase of this project by
letter dated March 24, 1993, a copy of which is contained in Appendix of the
Environmental Assessment (EA). Two additional items are provided at this time. We
are enclosing, for your information, a copy of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments
in Regulatory Fooodways". The engineering point of contact for the National Flood
Insurance Program in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who may be reached at
[phone].
We would like to note that Buncombe County is within the planning jurisdiction of
the US Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) with respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. As
noted in our previous letter, the Nashville District does not currently have projects that
would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may 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 iiiformation on the TVA 26a permitting process.
We would like to commend your agency on the inclusion of the flood hazard
evaluation in the EA and the coordination with the city of Asheville regarding the impact
of the project on designated floodways.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - David Baker, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
We do not have additional comments at this time beyond those given in our
March 24, 1993 letter. Please contact Mr. Baker if you have any questions related to
Department of the Army permits.
A-5
M "t A,,
LLi ?, Z
?o 0
R-4
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
PROCEDURES FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN REGULATORY FLOODWAYS
1/92
Section 60.3 (d) (3) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading or development permits
involving activities in a regulatory floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on. the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's Flood Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "no-
rise" submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA.
A-6
-2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
Duplicate Effective Model
2. Upon receipt of the step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should run the original
step-backwater model to duplicate the data in
the effective FIS.
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions by
adding new cross-sections (two or more) in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. Floodway
limits should be manually set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the
effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also. remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.
A-7
--2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
Duplicate Effective Model
2.. Upon receipt of the step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should run the original
step-backwater model to duplicate the data in
the effective FIS.
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions by
adding new cross-sections (two or more) in the
vicinity -of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. Floodway
limits should be manually set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the
effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.
A-7
-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year flood elevations, floodway
elevations, or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate 'Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce the same exact results.
The "no-rise" supporting data and 'a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit.'
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. Revised existing conditions step-backwater model.
C. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the additional cross-sections, the
site location with the proposed topographic
modification superimposed onto the maps, and a
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as
A-8
-4-
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
documented and submitted with all supporting data.
f. Copy of effective F1oodWay Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
g. Statement defining source of additional cross-
section topographic data and supporting information.
h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
j. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all input files.
1. Printout of output files from EDIT runs for all
three floodway models.
The engineering "no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate No impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
floodway elevations, or floodway widths at the new cross-sections
and at all existing cross-sections anywhere in the model.
Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usually one mile, depending on hydraulic slope
of the stream) upstream and downstream of the development site to
insure proper "no-rise" certification.
Attached is a sample "no-rise" certification form that can be
completed by a registered professional engineer and supplied to the
community along with the supporting technical data when applying
for a development permit.
A-9
-4-
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
documented and submitted with all supporting data.
f. Copy of effective FloodWay Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
g. Statement defining source of additional cross-
section topographic data and supporting information.
h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
J. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all input files.
1. Printout of output files from EDIT runs for all
three floodway models.
The engineering "no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate No impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
floodway elevations, or floodway widths at the new cross-sections
and at all existing cross-sections anywhere in the model.
Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usually one mile, depending on hydraulic slope
of the stream) upstream and downstream of the development site to
insure proper "no-rise" certification.
Attached is a sample "no-rise" certification form that can be
completed by a registered professional engineer and supplied to the
community along with the supporting technical data when applying
for a development permit.
A-9
ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I am duly qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the State of
It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports
the fact that proposed
will not impact
(Name of Development)
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and
floodway widths on
(Name of Stream)
at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for
dated
(Name of Community)
and will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and
floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
(Date)
(Signature)
(Title)
SEAL:
(Address)
FEMA, NTHD
8/91
A-10
[VIA
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
August 15, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Division of Hiahwavs
P. O. Box 25201 r
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR NC191 (BREVARD ROAD) RELOCATION FROM
NORTH OF INTERSTATE 40 TO NORTH OF INTERSTATE 240, ASHEVILLE, BUNCOMBE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, FEDERAL AID PROJECT STP-191(1), STATE PROJECT
8.1843101, TIP PROJECT U-2902.
TVA has received the EA for the relocation of NC 191. The project
includes a new bridge over Hominy Creek, a tributary to the French
Broad River. Because this stream is in the Tennessee River watershed,
the document correctly notes that Section 26a approvals are needed
from TVA for the stream crossing.
Following preparation of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI),
please send a copy of the FONSI and EA, along with a Section 26a
application, to TVA Morristown Land Management Office, 2611 West
Andrew Johnson Highway, Morristown, Tennessee 37814-3295; telephone
[phone].
In addition, please change the mailing address for NEPA scoping
notices, documents for review, and final doc,-,ments to Jon Loney,
Manager, Environmental Management, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,
WT 8C-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Should you have any questions,
please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or idx9i©tva.gov.
Sincerely,
Jon M. e Ma ger
Environmental anagement
G IV
QUG ? o ?qq6
?y
2 p>VIS?C??` ?tt- d?
HIG, t S Qom,
?? ENVIF;Ov??
A-11
PM1.0 m ,xycw Dap.
,,All • STATE OF NORI H CAROLINA tt? to
?So
DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY,
OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL ? rt
NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD 01
(b
August 14, 1996
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. GERALD A. RUD'4 JR.
OOVERNOR MAJOR GENERAL NCARNO
ADJUTANT GENERAL
RICHARD H. MOORE
SECRETARY
Engineering Office
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Comments for NC 191 Relocation, F.A. Project No.
STP-191(1), State Project No. 8.1843101, TIP No. U-2902
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
We appreciate the chance to respond on the two alternatives listed in the EA for the
Brevard Road Relocation Project in Asheville.
Your first choice (Alternative #2) will apparently cause the Asheville National Guard
Armory to lose 25% or more of its parking lot. In September 1998, the 105th Engineer
Group HQ will relocate to Asheville, and parking will be at a premium. We will be glad to
support this alternative if NCDOT can acquire equivalent acreage for our use from
adjoining tracts, thereby allowing us to build a replacement parking lot.
Alternative #1 apparently will not impact on our property. We obviously find this
approach to be superior, and strongly encourage you to follow this course of action.
If you have any concerns or questions, fee ee to call me at [phone].
Copy Furnished:
w
(c, . /L'9-A
ANNY ASSELL
MAJ, EN, CARNG
Assistant Construction & Facilities G E
Management Officer
CPT Mabry, Asheville Armory
A-12
4105 REEDY CREED ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27607-6410, TELEPHONE [phone], DSN 582-9210
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
AUK ? 1996
DIVISICN e1-
n HIG1-1WA'r'S
I? U NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 PE*pARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
SE` Q I RALEIGH NCRTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
03-30-96
PROJE_Cf oAp,-?"f M?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MA ILE9 TO:
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
WHIT WEBB
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTION BLDG./INTER-OFFIC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FROM:
F SEP 4IS??
I
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT D??T€
MR.S. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED NC 191 RELOCATION TO I-240 INTERCHANGE,
BUNCOMBE COUNTY: TIP #U-2902
SAI NO 97E42200056 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BFFN 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
S10ULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C. C. RE .ION B
A-13
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
00-1.4 0.0-% RA AdObUdMUM
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ®IE_=HN R
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
From: Melba McGee 4v_
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0056 EA/FONSI for NC 191 Relocation, Buncombe County
Date: August 28, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. We ask that careful consideration be given to the concerns provided by the
staff of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of Water Quality.
Your continued efforts for interagency cooperation are greatly appreciated, as well as
beneficial to the permit review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
cc: David Foster
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 1996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 N
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
C
919-715-4148
50% recycled/ 101% post-consumer paper
A-14
her ???•: LHi t ILL HUC?
1. '?. HD.i)(i_ F'.C12
t North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PtJ f F.nvi omnc t, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
l labitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 20, 1996
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 97-0056, EnvirOiullelllal Assessment for NC 191
Relocation, Buncombe County, U-2902.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for relocating NC 191 just north of 1-40 to just north of 1-
240. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 5tat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-6674.) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve NC
191 by relocating a 0.5-mile section to south of its present location. Relocated NC 191 will
interchange with 1-240 al the existing I-240/Park Road interchange. Proposed improvements
include constructing a four-lane, undivided road with curb and gutter on new location. Bridge
#216 over Hominy (_'reck will be removed from motor vehicle service and a new bridge will be
constructed to carry NC 191 over Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620). The
project also includes eliminating the Fairfax Avenue access to the westbound 1-240 exit ramp,
realigning and extending Fairfax Avenue to intersect with NC 191, shifting the westbound I-240
exit rainp to alien it directly across from the westbound 1-240 entrance ramp, and realigning and
extending Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) to tie into existing NC 191 north of 1-240 opposite
realigned and extended Fairfax Avenue.
Land use in the project area is primarily urban. The alternative preferred by the NCDO l'
will impact 3.73 acres of disturbed areas (road shoulder, lawns, agricultural fields) and 2.18 acres
of mixed hardwood forest. Approximately 0.04 acres of stream (Hominy Creek) will be
impacted by the project.
In general, we concur with the findings of the EA. We have the following Comments
regarding this project:
_ A-15
tJCWRC , HCF' , r HLL", LHKE 1 EL : 119-52S -90159 Hug 20 , IDI-I 1 : 2 r Ho . UU -" F ' . U.'
97-0056
Page 2
August 20, 1996
1) Page ii - The NCDOT indicates that consideration will be given during the design phase to
avoid the placement of bridge piers in Hominy Creek in conjunction with constructing a
new bridge over this stream. We appreciate this consideration and anticipate reviewing
the future 404 permit application for this project.
2) re 2 -(fur biological staff agrees with the NCDOT that the forested area between
Aston Park Health Care Center and 1-240 is relatively undisturbed and provides habitat
for many species cal' mammals, reptiles, and birds. Consideration should be given during
the design phase to minimize impacts to this area that will result in habitat fragmentation.
3) Pae 2727 - hominy Creek supports redbreast sunfish and many species of nonganne fish,
although habitat and water quality have been degraded by sedimentation and various
discharges. Stringent erosion controls should be installed where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion to minimize additional sedimentation into the stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls. 1JSFWS, Asheville
A-16
State of North-Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt; Jr.; Govemor
Jonathan.6. Howes, Secretary
?¦ ¦?N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P. E.1, Director
August 27, 1996 ! ;{
MEMORANDUM f??
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne `jl
I
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA`forNO191 elocation
I J
unty
Buncombe Co
State Project DOT No. 8.1843101, TIP # U-2902
EHNR # 97-0056
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activltles which impact waters of the state including wetlands. Thad subject project
does not quantify the lmpa6ts to waters. The document states that wetlands will not
be impacted. The following comments are based on the document review:
, I
A) DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the bridge F yer Hominy
Creek in order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from,entering the body
of water. If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed
directly over wate,. 1
B) The observations of?the impacts to Hominy Creek are accurate. DWQ suggests
that for future reports DOT should reference our Basinwide reports for the
bodies of water that Imay be impacted by road construction. DOT could
accurately report the sources of impact to the water and the reason for the
degradation. ! j
C) The discharges fro?r>; the curb and gutter should not be directly, into Hominy
Creek; These discharges should be to a grassed Swale where pollutant
removal can occur plrlor to entering the body of water. ?Iil
D) To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install thie bridge bents in
the creek. ?'ll
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in`DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch
cc: Asheville COE
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Ed Lewis, DOT I
Charles Bruton, DOT
I
%AR:;6Rlbhtal Sciences Branch - 4401 Reedy Creek Rcad Raleigh, North Carollna 27607
Telephone'919-733-9960 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AManWW Action Emp,oyer I CiQ /16cfdod/10% poi,10"U- pqg
A'-17
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 28, 1996
TO: Melba McGee, DEHNR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
THROUGH: Alan Clark, Supervisor
RE: Comments on EA # 97-0056
DOT - Relocation of NC 191; Hominy Creek
Asheville, Buncombe County; 04-03-02
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed the above EA and offers the following
comment:
The project is not located near sensitive waters (Hominy Creek has a NC Surface
Water Classification of C) and it doesn't appear that this project will have
significant impacts from the standpoint of stormwater runoff. We would
recommend that DOT review the project to attempt to minimize the potential
impacts'of stormwater outlets from the new curb and gutter sections of the road.
They should try to outlet these flows to vegetated/forested areas, swales, etc. as
much as possible and avoid direct outlets to surface waters.
Please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions.
mis:\970056ca.doc
A-18
t'J ?ml
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natur,--l.l
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor
Wlillam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number:
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Project Name:
County:
7- IVED
DEHNR
n1 I.- - 7 10
Resou ces

Geodetic Survey
V This project will impact 2- geodetic survey markers. N. C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more informatio contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
- 9)61
Revi9Ve-'5r_
Date
Erosion and sedimentation control
No comment
11
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 Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the - ------
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer
Date
LAND QUALITY SECTION
Charles H. ner
P.O. Box Z7687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opporrunlry Affirmadve Action Employer
A-19
ALG-27-1996 17::36 FROM LAND OF SKY REG COLNCIL
TO 89197339571 P.02

Regional Clearinghouse
N.C.- Intargovernmantal Review Process
Review and Comment Form
The °ionai Council has received the attached information about a proposal
which Cowl fiction.
If y? aation, contact the applicant directly.
If y R on this proposed action, complete this form and return it with your
comments bComments received after this date cannot be included in our
response t , ease,
Ify onsl time in ordor to obtain more information about tho appiioation or to
formulate s, please call Jean Sluder at 251-6622 as soon as possible. An extension of
the review e possible.
A I '°Wers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application Identifier (below) is a
funding p Comments should focus on the acceptability or unacceptability of the
project. ] a "E" in the identifier are environmental or site reviews. Comments for.
these proj :vs on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection process.
If is received by the above data, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding sal.
State Ap identifier # Regional No. 97
Common . c Name 40',1.9- Title
Representing
(local governcu??nt)
Address _ _ S7 9
Phone 74 'Y 4 419 _Zk_4-__ngz,?
Comment (or attach):
?. 11", 7A _oJZ;_
Date

25 Heritage Drive•Asheville, NC 28806.1998
Telephone 7M2514622•F'x 709-251-6353E-Mails LANDOFSKy gln inmo oa.wln
A-21
- '-•---•• - .. ?.o?..an.a a.ounn?s
?a... 4AR? Y'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT )R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
23 July 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
FROM: Logan WilliamJoEnvironmental Biologist
SUBJECT: Protected Species Update for Spot-fin
Chub, Peregrine falcon and Gray Bat along I-
240 from SR 3413 (South Bear Creek Road)to SR
3556 (Meadow Road)in Asheville, Buncombe
County; TIP No.U-2902; State Project
No.8.1843101; Federal Aid Project No. STP-
191 (1) .
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Manager
REFERENCES: Natural Resources Technical Report, January
10, 1995, prepared by Lane Sauls.
Natural Resources Technical Report Addendum,
November 15, 1995, prepared by Phillip Todd.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs.
1985. Mammals 9.f t1la Carolinas.
Virginia, Md Maryland. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill,N.C.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
A-22
0
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of April 1, 1996, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for Buncombe County
which were not addressed in the original report. A brief
description of each species characteristics and habitat
follows. In addition, a biological conclusion is also
provided for each species.
Falco Pere- . A (Peregrine falcon) Endangered
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/20/84
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back
and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most
easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the
United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for
foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff
ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the
eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in
urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals
and birds, including mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds
as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is
medium sized birds such as pigeons.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on extensive in house and field investigation it
has been concluded that nesting habitat in the form of high
cliff ledges, skyscrapers and bridges will not be impacted
by project construction. This does not preclude the
possibility that the falcon may forage in the vicinity of
the proposed project. However, project construction will
not significantly affect foraging opportunities in the study
area. In addition, a review of the Natural Heritage program
data base of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
documented occurrences for this species in the project area.
Cvnrinella monacha (spot-fin chub) Threatened
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/9/77
A-23
The spot-fin chub is a small minnow that is olive green
above with silversides and the females are whitish below. The
males have a brilliant turquoise blue coloring on their
backs, sides of the head, and mid-lateral part of the body,
fins are tipped with white during peak development. Males
and females are both characterized by a prominent black spot
on the lower part of the caudal fin.
The spot-fin chub now occurs in the Little Tennessee
River drainage system found in Swain and Macon Counties. This
minnow inhabits moderate to large streams, 15-70 meters in
width. These streams should have a good current, clear
water, cool to warm temperatures, and pools alternating with
riffles. Specimens of spot-fin chub have been taken from a
variety of substrates but rarely from significantly silted
substrates. The spot-fin chub feeds on insect larvae. It is
considered to be a "sight feeder" that selects its prey off
of clean substrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The recovery plan for the spot-fin chub states that this
species is known only from the Tennessee River drainage in
the states of North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. It is
extant in only four systems: Little Tennessee, North
Carolina; Duck and Emory Rivers, Tennessee; and North Fork of
Holston River, Tennessee and Virginia. Project construction
will impact waters in the French Broad River Basin where
extensive surveys for this species indicate that it has been
extirpated. In addition, a review of the Natural Heritage
Program rare species data base reveals no records of this
species for the project area. Therefore, it can be concluded
that project construction will not impact the spot-fin chub.
Myotis grisesceL (Gray Bat) Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: 28 April 1976
The gray bat roosts in deep vertical limestone caves
usually within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a water body. The only North
Carolina record is from Asheville in 1968. This individual
is considered a vagrant (Webster et al.)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The gray bat recovery plan states that populations of
this species are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas,
Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. In addition, a few occur
in northwestern Florida, western Illinois, northeastern
Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi, and western Virginia.
The only record for North Carolina is a banded individual
A-24
from Tennessee which was found on October 1968 in Asheville.
Since this record is from outside the known range of the
species, the specimen is assumed to be a vagrant.
The gray bat is an obligate year round cave dweller,
which emerges to feed primarily over large bodies of water.
Project construction will not impact potential roosting
caves, therefore, impacts to roosting will not result from
project construction. This does not preclude the possibility
that a vagrant gray bat may forage in the vicinity of the
proposed project. However, project construction will not
significantly affect foraging opportunities in the study
area. A review of the Natural Heritage program data base of
rare species and unique habitats revealed no documented
occurrences for this species in the project area.
CC. Charles Bruton, Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Gordon Cashin, Permit Supervisor
Tim Savidge, Protected Species Coordinator
File: U-2902
A-25
NORTH CAROLINA
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
4/10/96
MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT
AND
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
PROJECT: U-2902
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of
C? , 19 ub, between the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPOR ATIO , an agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the Department, and the CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Municipality;
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Department has prepared and adopted plans to make
certain street and highway constructions and improvements within the
Municipality under Project U-2902, Buncombe County, said plan
consisting of the relocation of NC 191 to intersect with I-240
including the construction of a multi-lane facility on new location
south of I-240, removal of Bridge #216 from the Department's
transportation system, extension of Fairfax Avenue to NC 191,
extension of Hominy Creek Road north of I-240 to intersect NC 191
opposite the proposed Fairfax Avenue Extension, and relocation of the
I-240 exit ramp located in the northeast quadrant of the I-240
interchange to intersect NC 191 opposite the existing I-240 entrance
ramp located in the northwest quadrant; said project having a right-
of-way width to be shown on the project right of way plans; and,
A-26
-2 -
WHEREAS, the City of Asheville has requested that the
Department leave Bridge #216 (Hominy Creek Bridge) in place
for the future construction of a multi-use bicycle and
pedestrian facility in that vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, the Municipality has agreed to accept
ownership, liability, and maintenance responsibilities for
said bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Department has agreed to transfer
ownership of said bridge to the Municipality in accordance
with the following provisions as hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in
consideration of the promises and undertakings of the other
as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each with
the other, as follows:
1. At the request of the Municipality, the Department
shall, at no cost to the Municipality, transfer ownership of
Bridge #216 (Hominy Creek Bridge) to the Municipality upon
completion of Project U-2902, and after acceptance of said
project by the Department from its contractor. At that time
the Municipality shall assume ownership, all liability and
maintenance responsibilities for said bridge. The
Department shall be indemnified and saved harmless from any
and all claims for damages and liabilities associated with
said bridge upon transfer of ownership to the Municipality
except losses resulting from negligence of the State, its
agents, officers or employees. The bridge shall be for
pedestrian and/or bike use only.
2. The Department reserves the right to periodically
inspect the bridge for structural integrity and proper
maintenance procedures. If, in the opinion of the
Department, the Municipality has not maintained the bridge
in accordance with the occupational Safety and Health
Organization's (OSHA) standards, or is using the
A-27
-3-
bridge for purposes other than pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the
Department shall remove the bridge at the expense of the
Municipality. The Municipality shall reimburse the Department the
entire cost of removal of said bridge. Reimbursement shall be made
in one lump sum payment within sixty (60) days of billing by the
Department.
3. In the event the Municipality fails for any reason to pay
the Department in accordance with the provisions for payment
hereinabove provided, the Municipality hereby authorizes the
Department to withhold so much of the Municipality's share of funds
allocated to said Municipality by the General Statutes of North
Carolina, Section 136-41.1, until such time as the Department has
received payment in full.
4. The Department shall retain ownership of all right of way
and/or property on which Bridge #216 and its approaches are located.
The Department, at no expense to the Municipality, shall provide the
Municipality with an access easement in order for the Municipality to
maintain the bridge and/or provide emergency services. Said access
easement shall be obtained from the Department. The Department shall
not be liable for any claims for damage and/or injury which may
result from the public using said access. Said access shall be
maintained by the Municipality, at no expense to the Department.
5. If the Municipality elects to develop said access easement
and/or right of way into a bicycle and pedestrian park in conjunction
with the bicycle and pedestrian bridge, an encroachment agreement
would need to be obtained from the Department's Division Engineer for
the 13th Division.
A-28
-4-
6. The Municipality, at no expense to the Department, shall
provide and install all route signs, warning signs and informational
signs related to bicycle and pedestrian use of the bridge. Prior to
installation of said signs, the Municipality shall submit the project
signing plans to the Department for review and approval.
7. The Municipality shall be responsible for adhering to all
Federal and State safety regulations, procedures and policies in
dealing with the containment and disposal of lead paint residues.
8. The Municipality shall comply with all established Federal
and State environmental and safety regulations, specifications,
procedures and policies.
9. The Department, prior to relinquishing ownership of said
bridge to the Municipality, shall repair spalls in the concrete
and add pipe rail on top of the existing bridge railings to meet
AASHTO requirements for bicycle railings.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the approval of the project by
the Department is subject to the conditions of this Agreement and
that no expenditure of funds on the part of the Department will be
made until the terms of this Agreement have been complied with on the
part of the Municipality.
A-29
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed, in
duplicate, the day and year heretofore set out, on the part of the
Department and the Municipality by authority duly given, as evidenced
by the attached certified copy of Resolution, Ordinance or Charter
Provision, as the case may be.
L. S.
ATTEST:
IV
CLERK
(MUNICIPAL SEAL)
CITY HEVILLE
f?
BY:
/ MAYOR
This instrument has been pre-
audited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and
Fiscal Control Act.
?' Zt't-k-'t ?' ?L4
Munic' Finance Officer
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY: /-4? -
TATE HI HWAY ADMINISTRATOR
1&/Z?
BY)SS!??ISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL-
A-30
RESOLUTION NO. 96-55
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT U-2902 CONSISTING OF RELOCATION OF N.C.
191, BREVARD ROAD TO THE I-240 INTERCHANGE AND TRANSFERRING
BRIDGE NUMBER 216 OVER HOMINY CREEK TO THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has prepared and
adopted plans to make certain street and highway improvements within the City of
Asheville under Project U-2902, Buncombe County, said plans consisting of the
relocation of N.C. 191 to intersect with I-240; and
WHEREAS, said Department of Transportation and the City of Asheville
propose to enter into an Agreement for the transfer of ownership of Bridge Number
216 (Hominy Creek Bridge), due to be removed as part of the above-mentioned
project, to the City of Asheville for bicycle and pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asheville, at no expense to the Department, shall
assume all liability and maintenance responsibilities for said bridge upon transfer of
ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE THAT:
Project U-2902, Buncombe County, is hereby formally approved by the City Council
of the City of Asheville and that the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Asheville are
hereby empowered to sign and execute the Agreement with the Department of
Transportation.
Read, approved and adopted this 9th day of April , 1996.
AL A P--.#
City Cler ;ay
Approved as to form:
/_ k ?' - ?
City Attorney
A-31
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
ADDENDUM
AND
PROJECT: U-2902
CITY OF ASHEVILLE BUNCOMBE COUNTY
THIS ADDENDUM, made and entered into this the 7-54- day of
19 between the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPO ATIO , an agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the Department, and the CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Municipality;
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality propose to enter
into an agreement for the Municipality to accept ownership, liability
and maintenance of Bridge #216 (Hominy Creek Bridge) upon completion
of Project U-2902 in Asheville; and,
WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality have agreed to add
an addendum to the agreement for Project U-2902 as hereinafter set
forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in consideration of the
promises and undertakings of the other as herein provided, do hereby
covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows:
The Department reserves the right to close the pedestrian
trail and bridge at Hominy Creek during any and all construction and
maintenance activities performed by the Department in the vicinity of
said trail and bridge. Closure of the facility is for the safety and
protection of the general public. Upon completion of the work, the
Department shall approve the re-opening of the facility.
A-32
-2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been executed, in
duplicate, the day and year heretofore set out, on the part of the
Department and the Municipality by authority duly given.
L. S.
ATTEST:
U &U,&-A-Mj BY :
CL8RK
(SEAL)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY: k44=?==
TE HI HWAY ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
S TANT ATTORNEY GEN
A-33

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRE. FARY
July 3, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Garland B. Garrett, Jr.
FROM: W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E. ,?.
Manager
Citizens Participation Unit
SUBJECT: Notice of a Public Hearing on the Proposed Location and Design
for a Segment of NC 191 from North of the Interchange with 1-40
to North of the Interchange with 1-240, Asheville
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2902: The proposed design is a four lane curb and gutter on a 100' right
of way with construction easements.
WAGjr:jp
cc: Mr. Gordon Myers, Board of Transportation Member.
Mr.. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr.,'P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. Bob Pearson, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Pauline Wright
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. Jack Arledge, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
A-34
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND
DESIGN FOR A SEGMENT OF NC 191 FROM NORTH OF THE INTERCHANGE
WITH I-40 TO NORTH OF THE INTERCHANGE WITH 1-240, ASHEVILLE
Project 8.1843101 U-2902 Buncombe County
Personnel of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) will hold the above public hearing on July 25, 1996
at 7:00 PM in the North Carolina National Guard Armory
located on NC 191 between I-40 and I-240.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
project, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and State-Federal Relationship. The
hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions, comments and/or submittal of material pertaining
to the proposed project. Additional material may be submitted
for a period of 15 days from the date of the hearing to: Mr.
W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E., P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC
27611.
The proposed design is a four lane curb and gutter on a 100'
right of way with construction easements. From just north of
the I-40 Interchange NC 191 will be on new location to the I-
240 Interchange. The ramp in the northeast quadrant of the I-
240 interchange will be relocated. Fairfax Avenue will be
removed from the ramp and extended to NC 191. NC 191 on the
north side of I-240 will also be relocated from existing NC
191 to the bridge under I-240.
A map of the proposed location and design of the project and
copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for
public review at the NCDOT Division Office, located on Orange
Street in Asheville. Anyone desiring additional information
on the -public hearing,-may-contact -Mr. -Garrett at' the above
address or 919/250-4092.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the proceedings. To
receive special services, please contact Mr. Garrett at the
above number. Please give adequate notice so arrangements may
be made.
A-35
I
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND
DESIGN FOR A SEGMENT OF NC 191 FROM NORTH OF THE INTERCHANGE
WITH I-40 TO NORTH OF THE INTERCHANGE WITH I-240p ASHEVILLE
Project 8.1843101 U-2902 Buncombe County
Personnel of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) will hold the above public hearing on July 25, 1996
at 7:00 PM in the North Carolina National Guard Armory
located on NC 191 between I-40 and I-240.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
project, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and State-Federal Relationship. The
hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions, comments and/or submittal of material pertaining
to the proposed project. Additional material may be submitted
for a period of 15 days from the date of the hearing to: Mr.
W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E., P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC
27611.
The proposed design is a four lane curb and gutter on a 100'
right of way with construction easements. From just north of
the I-40 Interchange NC 191 will be on new location to the I-
240 Interchange. The ramp in the northeast quadrant of the I-
240 interchange will be relocated. Fairfax Avenue will be
removed from the ramp and extended to NC 191. NC 191 on the
north side of I-240 will also be relocated from existing NC
191 to the bridge under I-240.
A map of the proposed location and design of the project and
copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for
public review at the NCDOT Division Office, located on Orange
Street in Asheville. Anyone desiring additional information
on the public hearing may contact Mr. Garrett at the above
address or 919/250-4092.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the proceedings. To
receive special services, please contact Mr. Garrett at the
.above number. Please give adequate notice so arrangements may
be made.

A-35

COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 25, 1996
A-36
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project will provide more efficient and safer
traffic operation, and improved access to this area.
PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of
Transportation's procedure for making you, the public, a part
of the planning process. The Department is soliciting your
views on the proposed location and design for the project.
The department's views are set forth in the Environmental
Assessment. Copies of this document are available for public
review-at the NC DOT Division Office on Orange Street,
Asheville.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are urged to
participate by making your comments and/or questions a part
of the Official Public Hearing Transcript. This may be done
by having them recorded tonight, writing them on the
comment sheet and leaving it in the designated location, or
submitting them in writing during the 15 days following the
Public Hearing.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E., NC DOT, P. O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611.
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings.
It is important, however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL
INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OFHOasDIVsuch, are ERGENT THEY MAY
BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, place at public hearings. Also, public hearings are not to be
used as POPULAR REFERENDUMS to determine what action will be
taken by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT
All input received through the public hearing process will be
made available to the Board of Transportation, Administrative
and Engineering Staffs of the Division of Highways and the
Federal Highway Administration for their review and
consideration prior to any decisions being made on the
project.
A-37
y w
STATE-FEDERAL
This proposed project is a Federal - Aid Highway Project and
thus will be constructed under the State - Federal Aid
Highway Program.* Financing of this project will be 80%
Federal Funds and 20% State Funds. The Board of
Transportation is responsible for the selection and
scheduling of projects on the Federal Aid system, their
location, design and construction. The Board if responsible
for 100% of the cost of maintenance of the project after
construction. The Federal Highway Administration is
responsible of the review and approval of the aforementioned
activities to insure that each Federal Aid Project is
designed, constructed and maintained to Federal Aid
Standards.
PROJECT INFORMATION
LENGTH:
TYPICAL SECTION:
RIGHT OF WAY:
RELOCATEES:
ESTIMATED COST:
Right of Way:
Construction:
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE:
Right of Way:
Construction:
0.6 Miles
4 Lane Curb and Gutter
100 Feet with easements
2-Residence
$ 775,000.00
$ 5,200,000.00
October 1998
* When projects are located within corporate limits the local
corporate governments may be required to share in the
project cost. The percentage of sharing will be agreed upon
and set out in a municipal agreement.
S6 r-r-
q-38
DO

0
N
• ? N
W 2
Z ?
? J _ I y?j J
J
N
Z 0-)
m
?
p
(D CV U
O N N
0
N
LLI U U
z O ,--?
a
CL Z\, U
L(11? ?
dY zo
N W J
cc w .MEOW
J
W N Y
mi -u
u W J
? W
Q N u
m
? N
O N
W
O
li.
L LJ
co
? Y
W
L.LJ
cr-
U
Z U
cr- ?-
z
0
Z-0
0
U L LJ
Ld >
0
U
EL
A-39

A-40
NORTH CAROTINA Dr?ART.%T,-NT OF
TMNSPROTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
INCH
BLIN'COMBE COUNMIT
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2902
Identified in Local Area
Thoroughfare Plan
Included in Local. Area's
TIP Request
Feasibility Study is Conducted
Funding Established in TIP
Project Plans and Environmental
Documents are Prepared
Right of Way Plans are Prepared.
. Right of Way Acquisition;
Final Design Plans are Prepared
Construction
A-41
Mid is a typical example for a rtafor project. The actual process and public rwoAement oGporiuntries are esraWatied at an appropriate kret for each project based m is canplexity.
and nay very in accordance with federal and sere kpal requaments.) • - indkates t k&i public participation opport mww (varies depending upon specific prq*a)
1. Develop Lr CW-A M Tltpspiylhfare Ply - Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
Study Initiation
- Conduct initial field trip
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff
• - Conduct goals and objectives survey
• - Establish local steering committee (upon local request)
Data Collection
- Collect socio-economic data (land use, population,
traffic volumes and employment data)
- Collect transportation network data
- Research environmental and cultural concerns
• - Receive input from various local area sources (needs,
problems, concerns, etc.)
• - Local area develops future year socio-economic
forecasts
Data Analysis
- Model existing transportation network
- Generate design year transportation information
- Conduct deficiency analysis
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boards, Technical
Staff, and Public
• - Discuss deficiencies with local area
• - Discuss possible alternative solutions
Plan Development
- Develop alternative plans
- Review project impacts
- Conduct cost-benefit analyses
- Discuss alternatives with local area staff and policy boards
• - Conduct public information workshop(s)
- Discuss and resolve public comments with local staff
- Select recommended plan in cooperation with local
staff and policy boards
Plan Adoption
• - Local government conducts public hearing(s)
0 - Present plan for adoption by local government and the
North Carolina Board of Transportation
Plan Implementation
- Local government enforces land use controls
• - Present project requests through TIP process
11. Develop Transportattlon improvement
Program (TIP)
• - Local governments select priorities to include in TIP
• - Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings
statewide to update the previous year's TIP
- Transcribe comments and material received at public
meetings, and submit to Transportation Board
Questions? Call C
North Carolina Department of
staff to update TIP
• - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
to the press, public and governments for review.
- Finalize TIP following comments
- Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
• - Metropolitan Planning Organizations receive public
comment and approve local TIP
- Secretary of Transportation approves local TIPS
M. Develop EnWronmental Docunwrrts
Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
• - Hold citizen information workshops
- Evaluate comments received at workshops
• - Form citizen's advisory group to get local citizens
involved (upon local request)
Select corridors to be studied
- Identify feasible corridors and evaluate costs and
environmental impacts
• - Hold information workshop on selected corridors
- NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens,
governments and state agencies to prepare a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Prepare Draft Environmental Document
• - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
each corridor, available to public and send to review
agencies and local officials for comment
• - Hold public hearing on location of corridor (10-day
comment period follows public hearing)
- NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
recommended using technical data and information
received in conjunction with the public hearing
- Notify public of selected corridor
Prepare Final Environmental Document
- Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
corridor (1)
- If final EIS/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
of Administration) and federal agencies for 30-day
comment period
- Send notification of Final EIS to Review Agencies and
Federal Register
- Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
Hold public hearing on project design (10-dav public
comment period follows public hearing) (1)
- Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
design are made if necessary.
A-42
1) These steps are cw6mi d with corridor location for most smaller projects.
,iit ('919) 250-4092
1. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 211196

COMMENT SHEET
NC 191 Relocation from I-40 to I-240 in Asheville
July 25, 1996
Project 8.1843101 U-2902 Buncombe County
NAME : { "<..
ADDRESS :
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
_y4y
r
Comments may be mailed to: W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E., NC•DOT,
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
A-43

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
I N1.9AA
T41 0
Ida
[D EHNR
January 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorneop
From: Cyndi Bell C"'Lv
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation from North of
Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240 in Asheville
Buncombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1843101, T.I.P. No. U-2902
EHNR # 97-0431, DWQ # 11476
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The project will require a new bridge crossing of Hominy Creek.
No wetland impacts will be involved. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document
review:
A) The FONSI includes a commitment by NCDOT to avoid placement of bridge piers into Hominy
Creek if possible. NCDOT also proposes to direct stormwater runoff into grassed or other
vegetated areas where practical. DWQ appreciates your efforts to minimize impacts to Hominy
Creek through these design details. DWQ will be happy to consult with NCDOT staff throughout
the design and construction phases of this project to help ensure protection of this stream.
B) We ask that NCDOT stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
C) The EA and FONSI state that no stream relocations will be required in order to construct the
preferred alternative. If this detail changes during the design phase of this project, NCDOT is
reminded that strewn mitigation may be required in accordance with current DWQ Wetland
Rules which were not in effect at the time the EA and FONSI were prepared. In such a case, a
comprehensive stream mitigation proposal would be needed with the application for 401 Water
Quality Certification.
Based upon the surface water impacts described in the EA and FONSI, General Certification 2735 will
likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT
and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence
of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
January 27, 1997
Page 2
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is reminded that issuance of
a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water
quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, DOA, Raleigh
Ed Lewis, NCDOT, P&F,
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2702FON.DOC
9%?k
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ID EHNR
August 27, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne?p
From: Eric Galamb
l
Subject: EA for NC 191 relocation
Buncombe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1843101, TIP # U-2902
E H N R # 97-0056
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project
does not quantify the impacts to waters. The document states that wetlands will not
be impacted. The following comments are based on the document review:
A) DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the bridge over Hominy
Creek in order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body
of water. If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed
directly over water.
B) The observations of the impacts to Hominy Creek are accurate. DWQ suggests
that for future reports DOT should reference our Basinwide reports for the
bodies of water that may be impacted by road construction. DOT could
accurately report the sources of impact to the water and the reason for the
degradation.
C) The discharges from the curb and gutter should not be directly i0to Hominy
Creek. These discharges should be to a grassed Swale where pollutant
removal can occur prior to entering the body of water.
D) To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in
the creek.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Ed Lewis, DOT
Charles Bruton, DOT
FAXED
AUG 2 71996
rt196tAs'btal Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
• Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
FAX # [phone]
500/6 recycled/10% poet consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and NaZraT_Ae ources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
t ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
e
ayet E. Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ,J Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh CJ Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
( I Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
El Wilmington 1 Others vironmental Management
El Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiles' 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)
[I Applicant has been contacted
U 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
PS-1 O<
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
MEMORANDUM
DWQ - Water Quality Section
DATE: August 6, 1996
F-V2-1 C, A A 1- A'i'?'1 r3
TO: Jo y, ESB, Wetlands
orrest Westall, ARO - DWQ
Bradley Bennett, Stormwater
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch 4'S
THROUGH: Alan Clark, Supervisor
RE: EA - DEHNR #97-0056
NCDOT Relocation of NC 191
Asheville, Buncombe County
Hominy Creek; French Broad River Basin; 04-03-02
RIC"IV-D
AU6 1.21996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
Attached is a copy of the EA for the project identified above. Please review and provide
your comments to me by August 21, 1996.
Give me a call at [phone], ext. 567 if you should have any questions. My fax
number is [phone] if you would prefer faxing me your comments.
mis:\,nc 191 ea.doc
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
9 ? -orc, '1> d ? '?:- ( vt ZZ3) ?(Y
4- NC «i
6
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ayettev
e ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
?Groundwater
N?Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer 'Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
? W
t ? Recreational Consultant ?' and Resources ? David Foster
ng
on
as ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others _
VEnvironmental Management
(
? Winston-Salem PWS II 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
F?S ,p<
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
F. A. Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
T.I.P. No. U-2902
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)
2
0 q1- ?, L?
Date-f;,, H. Franklin Vic , P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
054 6
Nic o L. a
Divis on Administrator, FHWA
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
F. A. Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
T.I.P. No. U-2902
Environmental Assessment
June 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
!gz??
E Lewis
Project Planning Engineer 1111 WIC/ O?I2C A 1118" 0
O 1%,
J W i on t rou ,••`??? .ffiFES?`id• ??L? •;
Pr ct Planning Unit Head
SEAL
= 6916
' G
20 -7c
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager too .F'y?? vA?•
Planning and Environmental Branch , NMS1ua;;a?•?•
Summary
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Ave
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. 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]
3. Summarv of Special Project Commitments
NCDOT will give the NC 191 bridge over Hominy Creek (No. 216) to the
City of Asheville through a municipal agreement. Under the agreement,
NCDOT will improve the existing bridge by repairing spalled areas of
concrete, repairing the existing bridge rail, and adding a bicycle-safe
one-bar metal rail (to provide a rail height of 54 inches, or 137 cm) to
both sides of the bridge, since the City of Asheville proposes to make the
bridge part of a pedestrian/bicycle facility. The agreement is included
in the Appendix (see pages A-4 through A-10b).
Extra wide outside lanes (14 feet or 4.2 m) will be provided along
proposed NC 191 between Interstate 40 and Interstate 240 to accommodate
bicycles. A sidewalk 5 feet (1.5 m) wide will be provided on each side of
the proposed Hominy Creek Bridge in accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian
Guidelines which require sidewalks on bridges with curb and gutter
approaches. Existing sidewalk on the east side of NC 191 north of
Interstate 240 will be replaced since construction activity will require
its removal. This sidewalk will extend from Fairfax Avenue to the north
end of the project.
During the design stage of the project, consideration will be given
to avoiding the placement of bridge piers for the proposed Hominy Creek
bridge into Hominy Creek. The potential for erosion and sedimentation
will be investigated and minimized through the utilization of erosion and
sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Program. NCDOT recognizes the importance of!stream bank
stability and will make every effort to avoid removing treet or other
vegetation that helps to stabilize stream banks.
A number of horizontal and vertical alignment design exceptions will
be required. In addition, a design exception may be required to retain
the park Road bridge over Interstate 240 (bridge number 242) due to its
narrow width, substandard rails, and inadequate vertical clearance over
Interstate 240.
NCDOT will evaluate the potential presence of the three recently
added federally-protected species (Spotfin chub, Peregrine falcon, and
Gray bat) to determine. if the species are present in the project area.
The results of the survey will be presented in the following final
environmental document for the project.
4. Actions Required by Other Agencies
Construction is likely to be authorized b provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031, or Nationwide Permit No.-25, and/or 33, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Buncombe County is one of 25 counties
designated as having trout waters. Projects in these counties must be
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
prior to issuance of the COE Permit. Also, Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance
of COE permits.
Since this project will likely-be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required
by the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests
with the COE.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of
the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation,
and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will
be forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
5. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
NC 191 by relocating it south of its present location. The project begins
just north of Interstate 40 and ends just north of Interstate 240.
Relocated NC 191 will interchange with Interstate 240 at the existing
Interstate 240/Park Road interchange. .11a.,proposed improvements call for
constructing a four lane, undivided road with curb and gutter on new
locaitiW;'2),removing Bridge No. 216 over Hominy Creek from motor vehicle
traffic service, constructing a new bridge to carry proposed NC 191 over
Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620), eliminating the Fairfax
Avenue access to the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp, realigning and
ii
extending Fairfax Avenue to intersect with NC 191, shifting the westbound
Interstate 240 exit ramp to align it directly across from the westbound
Interstate 240 entrance ramp, and realigning and extending Hominy Creek
Road (SR 3620) to tie into existing NC 191 north of Interstate 240
opposite realigned and extended Fairfax Avenue.
6. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation
and reduced travel times, resulting in road user cost savings. Traffic
safety will be enhanced. Access to homes, businesses, and public
facilities in the project area will be improved.
Approximately 11.7 acres (4.8 ha) of additional right of way will be
required. No businesses will be relocated as a result of the project.
One residence will be relocated. No-motlands other than surface water
wetlands will be impacted by the subject project. No farmland, as defined
by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, will be affected.
7. Alternatives Considered
Two build alternatives were considered. Alternative 1 calls for
relocating NC 191 to the west and north of its present location.
Alternative 2 (Recommended) calls for relocating NC 191 to the south of
Interstate 240. Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as other alternatives
considered, are described below.
a. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 calls for relocating NC 191 to the west and north
of its present location. NC 191 would cross over Interstate 240 and
Hominy Creek by means of a "flyover" bridge and then tie back into
existing NC 191 at the existing Interstate 240 westbound exit ramp
terminal (see Figure 5A).
b. Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Alternative 2 calls for relocating NC 191 to the south of
Interstate 240 crossing over Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road by
means of a proposed bridge. Under this alternative, NC 191 will
interchange with Interstate 240 at the existing Park Road /
Interstate 240 interchange (see Figure 5).
C. Other Design Alternatives
During preliminary planning, NCDOT investigated two variations
of Alternative 2. Both variations were similar to Alternative 2 in
that NC 191 would be realigned to interchange with I-240 at the
existing I-240/Park Road interchange. However, in addition to
realigning NC 191, these alternatives called for (1) replacing the
existing Park Road bridge (Number 242) with a wider structure,
(2) removing the existing interchange and replacing it with either a
compressed diamond interchange or a single point urban interchange
due to the rugged terrain and right of way restraints, and
iii
(3) upgrading I-240 to current interstate standards. Both
alternatives were eliminated early in the planning process due to
design and budgetary constraints. It was decided that the need for
major revisions to this interchange and to Interstate 240 will be
addressed under NCDOT Project I-2513.
d. Postponement of Proposed Action
The existing facility is already operating at an undesirable
level-of-service (LOS E), especially during peak traffic periods.
Postponement of the project would result in a continuing
deterioration of traffic conditions in the future as traffic demand
increases. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
e. "Do nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse
environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from the
project, there would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of
the highway or improvements in traffic safety. The existing bridge
over Hominy Creek would be retained and not improved. For these
reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
f. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The City of Asheville operates a bus transportation system with
15 buses in the fleet. A bus route through the project area
connecting central Asheville with the Farmer's Market was recently
removed from the system due to low ridership. In addition, Buncombe
County operates an "on-call" ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act)
van transportation system with no identified routes that may
intermittently cross through the project area. Regardless of whether
Asheville or Buncombe County has a mass transit alternative in the
project area, the purpose and need of this project (widening an
existing road, replacing a substandard bridge, and upgrading an
interchange) cannot be accomplished by means of a mass transit
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the project area, so no alternative mode of
transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
8. Federal. State, and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of
Federal Emergency Management Administration
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Environmental Project Review
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 - Division of Health Services
iv
N. C. Department of Public Instruction - Auxiliary Services
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Buncombe County
City of Asheville
9. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project were voiced at the Citizens Informational Workshop held August 24,
1993 in Asheville. For these reasons, it is concluded that an
Environmental Assessment is applicable to the project.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................... 1
A. Purpose and Need ....................................... 1
B. General Description of Project ......................... 1
C. Project Status and Historical Resume ................... 1
D. Existing Conditions .................................... 2
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ................. 2
2. Route Classification .............................. 3
3. Existing Cross Section ............................ 3
4. Existing Right of Way ............................. 3
5. Speed Limits .................................... 3
6. Access Control .................................... 3
7. Bridges ........................................ 3
8. Traffic Data ...................................... 4
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature ................. 4
10. Intersecting Roads ................................ 4
11. Sidewalks ... . ......................... 4
12. Degree of Roadside Interference ................... 4
13. Railroad Crossings ................................ 4
14. School Bus Data ................................... 4
E. Capacity Analysis ...................................... 5
1. Mainline Capacity Analysis ................. 5
2. Intersection Capacity Analysis ............... 5
3. Conclusion ................................... 6
F. Accident Analysis ...................................... 6
G. Project Terminals ...................................... 7
H. Thoroughfare Plan ...................................... 7
I. Nearby Airports ........................................ 8
J. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community ........... 8
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................... 8
A. NC 191 Widening and Realignment .... ........ 8
B. Interstate 240/Park Road Interchange Modifications...... 8
C. Fairfax Avenue Realignment and Extension ............... 9
D. Hominy Creek Road Extension ............................ 9
E. Structures ............................................. 9
1. Park Road Bridge .................................. 9
2. Hominy Creek Bridge ......................... 9
3. Interstate 240 Dual Structures ..................... 10
F. Design Speed ......................................... 10
G. Access Control ......................................... 10
H. In
1.
2.
3.
4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
tersection Treatment ................................ 10
Eastbound I-240 Ramp Terminal at Proposed NC 191 .. 10
Westbound I-240 Ramp Terminal at Proposed NC 191 .. 11
NC 191/Fairfax Avenue/Hominy Creek Road ........... 11
Hominy Creek Road/Shelbourne Road ................. 11
I. Right of Way . ............................ 11
J. Degree of Utility Conflicts ........................... 11
K. Anticipated Design Exceptions ......................... 11
L. Special Permits Required .... ...................... 12
M. Changes in the State Highway System ................... 12
N. Multiple Use of Space ................................. 12
0. Bicycle Accommodations ......... ....................... 12
P. Sidewalk ............................................. 13
Q. Cost Estimates ........................................ 14
R. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the area ....... 14
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ 14
A. Alternative 1 ...... ............................ 14
B. Alternative 2 (Recommended) ........................... 15
C. Other Design Alternatives ......................... 15
D. Postponement of Proposed Action ....................... 15
E. "Do Nothing" Alternative .. ....................... 15
F. Alternate Mo des of Transportation .....................
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................ 16
A. Social Effects ........................................ 16
1. Land Use ......................................... 16
a. Existing Land Use ...................... 16
b. Existing Zoning ........................ 16
C. Proposed Land Use ... .... .. ........... 17
d. Project Compatibility with Local Plans.. 17
2. Neighborhood Characteristics ................ 17
3. Relocatees ............................. 18
4. Public Facilities ........................... 18
5. Historic and Cultural Resources ............. 18
a. Architectural/Historical Resources ..... 18
1. Bridge Number 216 .................. 18
2. The Drake House .................... 20
3. The Ingle House .................... 21
4. Conclusions ........................ 22
b. Archaeological Resources ............... 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
B. Section 4(f) Properties ............................... 23
C. Economic Effects .................................. 24
D. Environmental Effects ................................. 24
1. Biological Resources ............................. 24
a. Terrestrial Communities ................. 24
b. Aquatic Communities ... ............ 27
c. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic
Communities .. . ................ 27
d. Rare and Protected Species .............. 28
1. Federally Protected Species ........ 28
2. Federal Candidate and State
Listed Species ................... 34
2. Soils .......................................... 36
3. Wetlands .. . ............................ 36
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation .......................... 37
5. Water Quality .................................... 38
6. Farmland ........... ............................. 39
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction
Noise Analysis .............................. 39
8. Air Quality Analysis ............................. 44
9. Stream Modification .............................. 47
10. Hazardous Materials .............................. 47
11. Geotechnical impacts ............................. 47
12. Construction Impacts ............................. 48
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 49
A. Comments Received . .......................... 49
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................... 50
C. Public Hearing ...................................... 50
D. Project Newsletter .................................... 50
TABLES
Table 1 - Bridge Data ..... .............................. 3
Table 2 - Intersection Capacity Analysis ................... 6
Table 3 - Accident Rates .... ..... ................ 7
Table 4 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial
and Aquatic Communities .................... 25
Table 5 - Federally-Protected Species for
Buncombe County .... .... ......... 28
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species and their State
Status ....................................... 35
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3a - Projected Traffic Volumes (1997)
Figure 3b - Projected Traffic Volumes (2017)
Figure 4 - Asheville Thoroughfare Plan (Part)
Figure 5 - Aerial Mosaic Showing the Proposed
Improvements
Figure 5A - Aerial Mosaic Showing Alternative 1
Figure 6 - TIP Projects in Asheville and Buncombe County
Figure 7 - 100-Year Floodplain Limits
Figure 8 - Proposed Typical Sections for NC 191
APPENDIX
Relocation Report and NCDOT Relocation
Information .. . ........................... A-1
NCDOT/City of Asheville Municipal Agreement .................... A-4
Table N1 - Typical Noise Levels ........................... A-11
Table N2 - Noise Abatement Criteria . ..................... A-12
Figure N1 - Ambient Noise Measurement Sites ................... A-13
Table N3 - Ambient Noise Levels .............................. A-14
Table N4 - Leq Traffic Noise Exposures ....................... A-14
Table N5 - Noise Abatement Criteria Summary .................. A-15
Table N6 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary .............. A-15
Tables Al through A4 - Air Quality Analysis Tables ............ A-16
Comments Received from Review Agencies ...................... A-20
Citizens Informational Workshop Information ................... A-51
Project N ewsletter ............................................ A-59
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. PurDOse and Need
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace
on new location Bridge Number 216 which carries NC 191 over Hominy Creek.
The bridge is substandard in width (20 feet or 6 m) and has a sufficiency
rating of 45.2. This structure is located under the dual bridges (bridge
numbers 206 and 208) which carry Interstate 240 over NC 191, Hominy Creek
Road (SR 3620), and Hominy Creek. The support piers for the dual
Interstate 240 structures are situated in such a manner as to not allow
the replacement of bridge number 216 at its current location because of
inadequate lateral and overhead clearance for standard bridge construction
methods. The bridge relocation will be to the south. In addition, NC 191
is of substandard width and alignment and will be relocated to the south
on a new alignment with a proposed four-lane cross-section. NCDOT also
proposes to extend and/or realign Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620), Fairfax
Avenue, and the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp at the Interstate
240/Park Road interchange. These improvements are recommended in order to
improve traffic operations and safety in the project vicinity.
B. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen and
relocate NC 191 (Brevard Road) to a four-lane road with curb and gutter
(17.3 m or 56 feet face to face) from just north of the Interstate 40/
NC 191 interchange to just north of the Interstate 240/Park Road
interchange on the western side of Asheville. The intersection of Fairfax
Avenue with the westbound Interstate 240 ramp will be eliminated, and
Fairfax Avenue will be extended to intersect with NC 191. The westbound
Interstate 240 exit ramp will be shifted south to tie into NC 191 across
from the Interstate 240 westbound entrance ramp. A new bridge will be
constructed to carry proposed NC 191 over Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek
Road. SR 3620, Hominy Creek Road, will be realigned and extended to tie
into existing NC 191 at the proposed Fairfax Avenue/NC 191 intersection
north of Interstate 240. The project is located in southwest Buncombe
County (see Figures 1 and 5).
C. Project Status and Historical Resume
The 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for improving NC 191 by constructing a multilane facility (part on new
location) and constructing ramp improvements at the Interstate 240/Park
Road interchange. Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled
to begin in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, respectively. The TIP includes a
total funding of $5,975,000 for the project, which includes $775,000 for
right of way and $5,200,0000 for construction. The total estimated cost
of the recommended improvements is $6,275,000, which includes $775,000 for
right of way and $5,500,0000 for construction.
The segment of existing NC 191 between Interstate 40 and Interstate
240 was constructed in 1935. NC 191 not only serves as a connector
between Interstate 240 and Interstate 40, but on a larger scale connects
west Asheville to Interstate 26 and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Regionally,
NC 191 serves as a north-south route connecting Hendersonville to
Asheville.
The subject project was added to the TIP as a result of a bridge
replacement study (TIP Project B-1062), which investigated the replacement
in the same location of bridge number 216 on NC 191 over Hominy Creek.
This structure is located under the dual bridges (bridge numbers 206 and
208) which carry Interstate 240 over NC 191, Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620),
and Hominy Creek. The support piers for the dual Interstate 240
structures are situated in such a manner as to not allow the replacement
of bridge number 216 at its current location.because of inadequate lateral
and overhead clearance for standard bridge construction methods. Because
of the proximity of the NC 191 bridge to the Interstate 240 bridges, the
scope of the proposed improvements was expanded to include relocating
NC 191, constructing a new bridge to carry proposed NC 191 over Hominy
Creek, and improving the Interstate 240/Park Road interchange. These
improvements were added to the TIP under a new project, U-2902.
During preliminary design and planning, it became evident that if the
Interstate 240/Park Road interchange were to be improved, major revisions
to both the interchange and Interstate 240 would be required due to the
existing substandard geometric design. Studies showed the dual Interstate
240 structures over NC 191, Hominy Creek, and Hominy Creek Road would have
to be replaced, the Interstate 240 exit and entrance ramps at Park Road
would have to be widened and extended, and the section of Interstate 240
from Amboy Road to Interstate 26 would have to be brought up to current
interstate design standards and specifications (including grade changes).
Due to the high cost of these improvements and the uncertainty of
what Interstate 240 improvements will be performed under TIP Project
I-2513 (see Section II.R.), it was decided to realign and widen NC 191 as
planned, but to utilize the existing Interstate 240/Park Road interchange
as much as possible. The improvements recommended in this report reflect
the revised project scope.
D. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 191 from north of
Interstate 40 to north of Interstate 240 is approximately 0.5 mile
(0.8 km).
Presently, NC 191 passes under Interstate 240 approximately 1200
feet (360 m) west of the Interstate 240/Park Road interchange.
NC 191 then parallels Interstate 240 on the north side, intersecting
with Park Road opposite the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp. At
3
this intersection, NC 191 makes a 90 degree turn and heads north into
Asheville (see Figure 1).
2. Route Classification
NC 191 is classified as a Arterial in the Functional
Classification System.
3. Existing Cross Section
NC 191 (Brevard Road) is a two-lane, two-way road with an
existing cross section consisting of 22 feet (6.6 m) of pavement with
10-foot (3 m) grassed shoulders. However, the segment of NC 191 north
of Interstate 240 has a cross section consisting of 21.5 feet (6.5 m)
of pavement with a 1-foot (0.3 m) shoulder on the west side and curb
and gutter on the east side. There is a sidewalk 4.5 feet (1.4 m)
wide just behind the curb on the east side that continues northward.
Photographs of existing conditions along the project are shown in
Figure 2.
4. Existing Right of Way
Generally, the existing right of way width for NC 191 is 100
feet (30 m) south of Interstate 240 and 60 feet (18 m) north of
Interstate 240.
5. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit along NC 191 is 45 mph south of
Interstate 240 and 35 mph north of Interstate 240.
6. Access Control
Access to NC 191 is not controlled. Access to Interstate 40 and
Interstate 240 is fully controlled.
7. Bridges
The NC 191 bridge over Hominy Creek (number 216), the Park Road
bridge over Interstate 240 (number 242), and the Interstate 240
bridges over NC 191, Hominy Creek, and Hominy Creek Road (numbers 206
and 208) are described below in Table 1:
Table 1 - Bridge Data
Clear Estimate
Date Roadway Bridge Sufficiency
Bridge Built Width Length Rating
NC 191 (#216) 1935 20' 149' 45.2
Park Road (#242)* 1967 28' 149 75.7
Interstate 240 (#206) 1967 28' 296' 75.2
Interstate 240 (#208) 1967 28' 331' 75.3
*Vertical clearance is 14 feet - 1 inches.
8. Traffic Data
Projected traffic volumes along proposed NC 191 for the year
1997 range from 14,800 vehicles per day (vpd) just south of Aston
Health Park to 10,000 vpd north of SR 3620. Projected traffic
volumes for the year 2017 range from 27,000 vpd to 17,500 vpd at the
above locations. Approximately 9 percent of these volumes (5 percent
duals and 4 percent TTST) will be truck traffic. The design hourly
volume (DHV) is 10 % of the ADT. Projected traffic volumes and major
turning movements are shown in Figures 3A and 3B.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The existing northern approach on the Hominy Creek Bridge on
NC 191 consists of a 10 degree horizontal curve, and the southern
approach consists of a 5 degree horizontal curve. The Hominy Creek
bridge is located at the low end of a sag vertical curve. These
conditions combine to give a poorly aligned section of NC 191 in an
area where the travelway narrows considerably (see Figure 2). In
addition, there is a 90-degree turn on NC 191 at its intersection
with the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp and Park Road.
10. Intersecting Roads
Only the NC 191 (Brevard Road) intersection with the westbound
Interstate 240 exit ramp and Park Road is signalized. The
intersection at Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) is stop sign-controlled,
as is the intersection at Shelbourne Road. The Interstate 240
westbound exit ramp is two-way between NC 191 and Fairfax Avenue.
11. Sidewalks
A 4.5-foot (1.4 m) wide sidewalk is located along the east side
of NC 191 north of Interstate 240. Sidewalks are located on both
sides of bridge number 242, which carries Park Road over Interstate
240.
12. Degree of Roadside Interference
Degree of roadside interference is minimal with three residences
and the N.C. National Guard Armory having direct access to NC 191 in
the project vicinity.
13. Railroad Crossings
No railroads cross the project.
14. School Bus Data
The project borders both the Buncombe County and Asheville City
School Systems. The transportation directors of both systems were
contacted to determine the number of busses that travel on NC 191.
It was determined three school busses travel NC 191 twice daily. The
directors also stated there would be no problem temporarily detouring
the bus routes if needed during project construction.
5
E. Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed for the mainline and intersections
to obtain their levels of service. Level of service is a qualitative
measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream,
generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and
safety.
1. Mainline Capacity Analysis
A mainline capacity analysis was performed for NC 191 in its new
location between Interstate 40 and Park Road based upon the proposed
typical section (four-lane facility) for the years 1997 and 2017.
The results indicate NC 191 will operate at level of service (LOS) B
for 1997 and LOS C for the design year of 2017. However, when the
intersections located along a highway are located in close proximity,
it is the LOS of each intersection which dictates the LOS of the
highway. Therefore, intersection capacity analyses were performed
for the intersections proposed along relocated NC 191 and are
discussed in the next section.
As explained in Section II, Bridge Number 242, which presently
carries Park Road over Interstate 240, will carry NC 191 over
Interstate 240 utilizing its existing two-lane cross-section. This
two-lane section will reach LOS E in the year 1997 and will operate
at LOS F in the year 2017. However, this bridge will be widened or
replaced and the Interstate 240/NC 191 interchange will be upgraded
under TIP Project 1-2513 in order to accommodate projected traffic
volumes (see Section II. R.).
2. Intersection Capacity Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the proposed
design for the following intersections due to heavy projected traffic
volumes and turning movements at these locations: (1) the NC 191/
Eastbound Interstate 240 ramp intersection, (2) the NC 191/Westbound
Interstate 240 ramp intersection, (3) NC 191/Fairfax Ave
Extension/Hominy Creek Road Extension intersection, and (4) the
Hominy Creek Road/Shelbourne Road Extension intersection. These
analyses were performed for the proposed intersections for years 1997
and 2017 and assume each intersection will be signal controlled. The
results of these analyses are shown below in Table 2:
6
Table 2
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Calculated Levels-of-Service
Proposed Facility
Intersection 1997 2017
NC 191 / Eastbound Interstate 240 ramp B D
NC 191 / Westbound Interstate 240 ramp A D
NC 191 / Fairfax Ave Extension/ B C
Hominy Creek Road Extension
Hominy Creek Road / Shelbourne C D
Road Extension
The results of the analyses indicate these intersections will
operate at LOS D or better through the design years.
3. Conclusion
Allowing the existing two-lane Park Road bridge over I-240 to
remain in place in order to carry relocated NC 191 will result in an
unsatisfactory LOS E in 1997 and LOS F in 2017, resulting in
increased delay for motorists traveling on NC 191 and the I-240 exit
ramps. Although widening the bridge or replacing it with a wider
bridge would improve operating conditions, this is not recommended
due to the uncertainty of what improvements to Interstate 240 and the
proposed Interstate 240/NC 191 interchange will be performed under
TIP Project I-2513. For this reason, it is recommended that the
widening or replacement of bridge number 242 be addressed under
Project I-2513.
F. Accident Analysis
An accident analysis was performed for the 0.25 mile section of
NC 191 from 0.25 mile north of Interstate 40 to 0.5 mile north of
Interstate 240. The analysis covered the three year period dated
January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995.
A total of 15 accidents occurred during this time period. Forty-six
percent of the 15 accidents recorded along the project involved rear-end
collisions. Forty percent involved vehicles making left- and right-hand
turns or sideswipes. Six of these accidents were of the rear-end slow or
stop type, and four consisted of the sideswipe type. There were no
fatalities associated with the 15 accidents.
Of the 15 accidents, 14 occurred within a tenth of a mile segment of
NC 191 located between the Hominy Creek Bridge and the Shelbourne Road
intersection. These accidents consisted of the rear-end, run-off road,
angle, and turning types. As noted previously, this section of NC 191 has
very poor horizontal and vertical curvature, in addition to the narrow
Hominy Creek bridge and two T-type intersections with Hominy Creek Road
and Shelbourne Road.
Table 3 presents a comparison between accident rates along existing
NC 191 and the statewide rates for all two-lane "NC" routes. As noted
previously, the rates for NC 191 were obtained from studies conducted
during a recent three year period. The average statewide rates were
obtained from studies conducted from 1992 through 1994.
Table 3
Accident Rates
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Average Statewide Rate for
Rate along all two-lane "NC" Routes
Accident Type NC 191 Urban Rural

All accidents 520.83 264.2 202.6
Fatal 0.0 1.1 2.5
Non-fatal 277.78 107.4 94.5
Nighttime 173.61 49.8 63.2
Wet conditions 208.33 66.5 52.0
The rates for all accidents along NC 191 were substantially higher
than the corresponding statewide rates for urban and rural two-lane "NC"
routes. As noted previously, there has been a concentration of accidents
between the Hominy Creek bridge and Shelbourne Road.
G. Project Terminals
South of the project, NC 191 consists of a four-lane, 56-foot (17 m)
face-to-face curb and gutter facility. North of the project, NC 191
consists of a two-lane undivided facility with 21.5 feet (6.5m) of
pavement with a 1-foot (0.3m) shoulder on the west side and a 4.5-foot
sidewalk with curb and gutter on the east side.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 191 is identified as a minor thoroughfare on the Asheville
Thoroughfare Plan. The plan was adopted by the City of Asheville and the
North Carolina Board of Transportation in 1992. The thoroughfare plan
calls for the realignment of NC 191 as proposed. This portion of
Asheville Thoroughfare Plan in the vicinity of the proposed project is
shown in Figure 4.
8
1. Nearby Airports
There are no airports in the vicinity of the project that will be
impacted by the proposed project.
J. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient and safer vehicle
operation and reduced travel times for motorists, resulting in road user
cost savings.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. NC 191 Wideninq and Realiqnment
It is recommended that NC 191 (Brevard Road) be relocated south of
Interstate 240 and widened to a four-lane, undivided, 56-foot (16.8 m)
face-to-face curb and gutter facility (see Figure 8). The proposed
improvements begin immediately north of the Interstate 40 westbound ramp
terminal where the existing four-lane curb and gutter section ends. The
project will follow along existing NC 191 for approximately 900 feet
(270 m) before beginning on new location south of Interstate 240.
Proposed NC 191 will span Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620),
then tie into the existing Interstate 240/Park Road interchange near the
Aston Park Health Care Center. Two lanes (one in each direction) will be
dropped at the eastbound Interstate 240 ramp terminal, and the proposed
facility will utilize the existing two-lane section of Park Road between
the Interstate 240 ramp terminals (this two-lane section will be widened
to a multi-lane section under TIP Project I-2513). Between the westbound
Interstate 240 terminal and the north project terminal the four-lane curb
and gutter cross section proposed south of Interstate 240 will be resumed
and then tapered down to the existing two-lane cross section. The project
is 0.5 mile (0.8 km) in length. The proposed improvements are shown in
Figure 5.
The section of existing NC 191 which will be removed from the state
transportation system will have the pavement removed and graded to normal
contours or remain in place to be used by the City of Asheville as a
maintenance access to the existing Hominy Creek Bridge, as noted in the
municipal agreement (see Appendix, pages A-4 through A-10a).
B. Interstate 240/Park Road Interchange Modifications
Proposed NC 191 will utilize the existing Interstate 240/Park Road
interchange. This interchange will be retained, with the exception of the
westbound exit ramp. The intersection of Fairfax Avenue with the
westbound exit ramp will be eliminated, thus removing two-way traffic from
the ramp. The westbound exit ramp will be relocated southward to align
with the existing Interstate 240 westbound entrance ramp. Fairfax Avenue
will be realigned and extended to tie into NC 191 opposite the proposed
Hominy Creek Road Extension.
9
C. Fairfax Avenue Realignment and Extension
Fairfax Avenue currently has access to NC 191 by means of its
intersection with the Interstate 240 westbound exit ramp. This type of
access is commonly referred to as a "slip ramp" or a "two-way ramp." This
design is not desirable due to the possibility of motorists making a wrong
way turn down an exit ramp into oncoming traffic. Fairfax Avenue s access
to NC 191 via the exit ramp will be terminated, and Fairfax Avenue will be
extended on tangent to tie directly into NC 191 at the proposed
NC 191/Hominy Creek Road intersection, forming a standard four-legged
intersection. This proposed intersection will be approximately 200 feet
(60 m) north of the existing Interstate 240 westbound entrance ramp. The
proposed typical section for this extended section of Fairfax Avenue
consists of a three-lane curb and gutter road 40 feet (12 m) wide
(face-to-face). A left turn lane will be provided on each approach to
this intersection to accommodate anticipated turning movements.
D. Hominy Creek Road Extension
Existing NC 191 from north of Interstate 40 to north of Interstate
240 will be relocated to the south of its present location. Due to this
relocation, Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) will no longer intersect NC 191 at
its present location. Hominy Creek Road will be extended to the east and
will roughly parallel existing NC 191 on the north side. The proposed
Hominy Creek Road extension will intersect NC 191 opposite the proposed
Fairfax Avenue extension approximately 200 feet (60 m) north of the
existing Interstate 240 westbound entrance ramp. Shelbourne Road will
intersect the Hominy Creek Road extension in approximately the same
location as its intersection with existing NC 191. The proposed typical
section for the Hominy Creek Road extension consists of 24 feet (1.2 m) of
pavement with 8-foot (2.4 m) grassed shoulders. A left turn lane will be
provided on Hominy Creek Road for motorists wanting to turn left onto
NC 191.
E. Structures
1. Park Road Bridoe
Bridge number 242, which presently carries Park Road over
Interstate 240, will be retained to carry relocated NC 191. No
improvements to this bridge are proposed.
2. Hominy Creek Bridge
A new bridge approximately 430 feet (130 m) long will be
constructed to carry relocated NC 191 over Hominy Creek and Hominy
Creek Road (SR 3620). A clear roadway width of 56 feet (16.8 m),
including 2-foot (0.6 m) shoulders on each side, is to be provided on
the bridge. This width also includes 14-foot (4.2 m) outside lanes
for a shared motor vehicle/bicycle lane. In accordance with NCDOT
design policy, a 5-foot (1.5 m) sidewalk will be constructed on both
sides of the bridge since the approaches are curb and gutter. The
proposed typical section on this bridge is shown in Figure 8.
10
Bridge number 216 carrying NC 191 over Hominy Creek will be
removed from motor vehicle service. Through a municipal agreement
with the City of Asheville (see Appendix, pages A-4 through A-10b),
NCDOT will convey ownership of this bridge to the city. The City of
Asheville plans to convert the bridge from a motor vehicle facility
to a bicycle and pedestrian facility. NCDOT will make repairs to
spalled concrete, repair the existing deteriorated bridge rail, and
add a bicycle-safe one-bar metal rail on top of each rail (to provide
a rail height of 54 inches, or 137 cm), since the City of Asheville
proposes to make the bridge part of a pedestrian/bicycle facility.
See Section 11.0. of this document for more information.
The NCDOT and FHWA have determined, and the State Historic
Preservation Officer has concurred, that bridge number 216 is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed
treatment of the bridge was coordinated with SHPO as required under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. Please refer to sections IV.A.4. and IV.A.5.a.1. of this
document for more information and background.
3. Interstate 240 Dual Structures
The dual bridges (numbers 206 and 208) which carry Interstate
240 over Hominy Creek, Hominy Creek Road, and existing NC 191 will be
retained under this project. No improvements to these bridges are
planned as part of this project.
F. Design Speed
The recommended design speed along NC 191 is 50 mph.
G. Access Control
Full control of access is to be maintained along Interstate 240 and
Interstate 40 (mainline and ramps). The control of access in the
northeast quadrant of the Interstate 240/Park Road interchange associated
with the westbound exit ramp will be relocated south of its present
location, and access to the ramp from Fairfax Avenue will be removed. The
limits of proposed access control are shown in Figure 5.
H. Intersection Treatment
1. Eastbound I-240 Ramp Terminals at Proposed NC 191
No improvements are called for at this intersection except for
additional paving. This intersection will be a standard four-legged
ramp terminal normally associated with a diamond-type interchange.
The two ramps serve eastbound Interstate 240 traffic and will provide
access to NC 191. This intersection will be signal controlled.
11
2. Westbound I-240 Ramp Terminals at Proposed NC 191
The westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp will be relocated south
of its present location. It will intersect proposed NC 191 directly
across from the existing Interstate 240 entrance ramp terminal. This
intersection will be a standard four-legged ramp terminal normally
associated with a diamond-type interchange. The two ramps will serve
westbound Interstate 240 traffic and will provide access to NC 191.
This intersection will be signal controlled.
3. NC 191/Fairfax Avenue/Hominy Creek Road
As noted previously, Hominy Creek Road and Fairfax Avenue will
be extended to intersect NC 191 at a common point approximately 200
feet (60 m) north of the westbound Interstate 240 ramp terminal.
These extensions will create a four-legged intersection between
NC 191, Fairfax Avenue, and Hominy Creek Road. Additional design and
capacity analysis will be performed to determine the intersection
geometry and signalization requirements.
4. Hominy Creek Road/Shelbourne Road
The proposed extension of Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) will
intersect Shelbourne Road in approximately the same location as the
existing NC 191/Shelbourne Road intersection. This intersection will
be a standard "T-type" intersection. Additional design and capacity
analyses will be performed to determine the intersection geometry and
signalization requirements.
1. Right of Way
Approximately 11.7 acres (4.8 ha) of additional right of way will be
required to accommodate the proposed improvements. In general, the
proposed right of way width along NC 191 is 100 feet (30 m).
J. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflict of this project is expected to be of
medium severity. Utilities which will be impacted by the project will be
relocated prior to construction. During construction, care will be taken
to prevent damage to utilities along the project. The contractor will
prepare a work schedule which will minimize impacts on water,
communication, power, and other utility services.
Some utilities present in the project vicinity include water lines
north of and paralleling NC 191, above ground and underground communica-
tion cables, and power distribution lines along the south side of
Interstate 240.
K. Anticipated Desion Exceptions
A number of horizontal and vertical alignment design exceptions will
be required. In addition, a design exception may be required to retain
the Park Road bridge over Interstate 240 (bridge number 242) due to its
narrow width, substandard rails, and inadequate vertical clearance over
Interstate 240.
12
L. Saecial Permits Required
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031, or Nationwide Permit No. 25 and/or 33, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Buncombe County is one of 25 counties
designated as having trout waters. Projects in these counties must be
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
prior to issuance of the COE Permit. Also, Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance
of COE permits.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required
by the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests
with the COE.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of
the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation,
and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will
be forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
M. Changes in the State Highway System
The changes in the state highway system such as the relocation of
NC 191 and the extensions of Hominy Creek Road and Fairfax Avenue are
improvements to the system. These improvements are shown in Figure 5.
N. Multiple Use of Space
There are no plans to utilize the right of way for any other purposes
except public utilities, which will be allowed use of the right of way
within certain limitations.
0. Bicvcle Accommodations
A bikeways task force has been appointed by the area's Transportation
Advisory Committee (TAC), and a representative of the task force serves on
the area's Transportation Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The
task force, with assistance from the Land-of-Sky Council of Governments,
has completed a bikeways suitability map and a neighborhood bike route
map. The suitability map serves as a bikeways plan and delineates the
major commuter bike routes in the City, rating them according to factors
such as roadway cross-section, topography, and shoulder width. The task
force is also responsible for preparing and submitting annual funding
requests for bicycle improvement projects through the state Transportation
Improvement Program process.
According to the suitability map, NC 191 is one of the most heavily
used bicycle corridors in the city. Amboy Road is identified as a
commuter bike route on the suitability map. The suitability map
recognized the lack of a good connecting route from Amboy Road to NC 191.
To resolve this problem, the TAC and the COG requested that the Department
of Transportation assist in the development of a ten foot wide bikeway
13
along the existing power line easement located along the south side of
Interstate 240. This bikeway would begin at Amboy Road and run parallel
to Interstate 240 to relocated NC 191 (see Appendix, page A-47). The
construction of the bikeway parallel to Interstate 240 would provide a
connection between the frequently used NC 191 corridor and the city's most
heavily used commuter bicycling corridor, Riverside Drive and Swannanoa
River Road. Input from the TAC and the COG regarding the requested
connection is included in the Appendix (see pages A-45 through A-50).
NCDOT investigated the feasibility of providing a bikeway between
Amboy Road and relocated NC 191. Due to the very steep and rolling
terrain along this proposed bicycle corridor, the proposed bike path
maximum grade would be well in excess of the allowed maximum of 5% as
stated in the North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design
Guidelines. Inaddition, such a bikeway is beyond the scope o the
su-bJect project and is not recommended. However, this bikeway project is
included in the 1997-2003 TIP as in independent bicycle project (E-3608).
The TIP calls for a Feasibility Study to be performed for an off road
bicycle path along the French Broad River from Amboy Road to Hominy Creek
Road.
Although providing a bikeway connection between Amboy Road and NC 191
is not recommended under this project, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation will provide 14-foot (4.2 m) outside lanes along proposed
NC 191 between Interstate 40 and Interstate 240 to accommodate bicycles.
Since a sidewalk is to be provided on both sides of the proposed Hominy
Creek Bridge (sidewalk is required in accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian
Policy where the bridge approaches consist of a curb and gutter section),
a standard 42-inch (101 cm) bridge rail will be provided rather than the
54-inch (137 cm) bicycle rail.
Also, upon final acceptance of the project by the NCDOT, the
Department will convey the existing Hominy Creek Bridge (number 216), a
bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, to the City
of Asheville for use as a bicycle and pedestrian facility. The bridge
will serve as a point of interest in the City's Hominy Creek River Park
development. The NCDOT will repair spall areas of concrete, repair
existing deteriorated bridge rail, and add a bicycle-safe one-bar metal
rail on top of each rail (to provide a rail height of 54 inches, or
137 cm). Part of the existing NC 191 south of Interstate 240 will remain
in place to be used as maintenance access. Refer to the Appendix, pages
A-4 through A-10b, to see the municipal agreement. The City's input
regarding the pedestrian/bicyclist use of this bridge is included on page
A-39 and pages A-48 through A-50 in the Appendix.
P. Sidewalk
Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the proposed Hominy Creek
Bridge. The NCDOT Pedestrian Policy requires sidewalks on bridges which
have curb and gutter approaches. A 4.5-foot wide sidewalk exists along
the east side of NC 191 north of Interstate 240 and continues north into
Asheville (see Figures 2 and 5). This sidewalk will be removed during
construction, but it will be replaced and extended to the proposed Fairfax
Avenue Extension to provide a logical terminal. Any requests for
additional sidewalk will be reviewed in accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian
Policy Guidelines.
14
Q. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate for the recommended alternative is $6,275,000,
which includes $5,500,000 for construction and $775,000 for right of way
acquisition. The total funding apportioned in the TIP for the subject
project is $5,975,000, which includes $775,000 for right of way and
$5,200,000 for construction. Therefore, the total estimated cost for the
project is $300,000 over what is funded in the TIP.
R. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
The 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists
one project which has a direct influence on the subject project. The
project, I-2513, calls for extending Interstate 26 along existing
Interstate 240 from Interstate 40 west of Asheville to US 19-23-70 north
of Interstate 240. Under that project, it is anticipated that Interstate
26 will follow Interstate 240 through the project area. It is anticipated
that routing Interstate 26 along this segment of Interstate 240 will
require improving Interstate 240 and associated interchanges (including
the proposed NC 191 interchange and the Amboy Road interchange immediately
east of NC 191) to reflect current interstate design standards. Right of
way acquisition for project I-2513 is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
1999, and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002. Figure
6 shows all TIP Projects in Buncombe County.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Two build alternatives were considered in the planning process.
Alternative 1 calls for relocating NC 191 over Interstate 240 to the west
and north of its present location. Alternative 2 (recommended improvement)
calls for relocating NC 191 to the south of Interstate 240. The estimated
costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 are shown in the following table.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are described following the table.
Construction Right o Way Total
Cost Cost Cost
Alternative 1
(Recommended)
Alternative 2
$ 4,200,000
$ 5,500,000
$1,540,000
$ 775,000
$ 5,740,000
$ 6,275,000
A. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 calls for relocating NC 191 north and west of its
present location. NC 191 would cross over Interstate 240 and Hominy Creek
by means of a "flyover" bridge and then tie back into existing NC 191 at
the Interstate 240 westbound exit ramp. Hominy Creek Road would be
extended to tie into Shelbourne Road, and Shelbourne Road would be
15
extended to tie into the proposed NC 191. The intersection of Fairfax
Avenue with the westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp would be eliminated,
thus removing the two-way traffic from the ramp (see Figure 5A).
This alternative, though costing less, was not selected because it
does not eliminate the 90-degree turn along NC 191. In addition, this
alternative would impact a potentially National Register eligible historic
property, the Carrier Hydroelectric Power Plant. Therefore, this
alternative was eliminated from further study.
B. Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Alternative 2 calls for relocating NC 191 to the south of Interstate
240 crossing over Hominy Creek and Hominy Creek Road by means of a
proposed bridge. Under this alternative, NC 191 will interchange with
Interstate 240 at the existing Interstate 240/Park Road interchange.
Hominy Creek Road (SR 3620) will be extended to intersect with NC 191
north of the interchange. The intersection of Fairfax Avenue with the
westbound Interstate 240 exit ramp will be eliminated, thus removing the
two-way traffic from the ramp. Fairfax Avenue will be extended to
intersect with NC 191 at the proposed intersection of NC 191 and extended
Hominy Creek Road. This alternative is recommended because it does not
affect any historic properties, it eliminates a 90-degree turn in the
alignment of NC 191, and it improves the access NC 191 has with Interstate
240. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure 5.
C. Other Design Alternatives
During preliminary planning, NCDOT investigated two variations of
Alternative 2. Both variations were similar to Alternative 2 in that
NC 191 would be realigned to interchange with I-240 at the existing
I-240/Park Road interchange. However, in addition to realigning NC 191,
these alternatives called for (1) replacing the existing Park Road bridge
(Number 242) with a wider structure, (2) removing the existing interchange
and replacing it with either a compressed diamond interchange or a single
point urban interchange due to the rugged terrain and right of way
restraints, and (3) upgrading I-240 to current interstate standards.
Both alternatives were eliminated early in the planning process due
to design and budgetary constraints. It was decided that the need for
major revisions to this interchange and to Interstate 240 will be
addressed under NCDOT Project I-2513.
D. Postponement of Proposed Action
The existing facility is already operating at an undesirable level-
of-service, especially during peak traffic periods. Postponement of the
project would result in a continuing deterioration of traffic conditions
in the future as traffic demand increases. Therefore, this alternative is
not recommended.
E. "Do nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environ-
mental impacts that are anticipated to result from the project, there
would be no positive effect on the traffic capacity of the highway or
16
improvements in traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is not
recommended.
F. Alternate Modes of Transportation
The City of Asheville operates a bus transportation system with 15
buses in the fleet. A bus route through the project area connecting
central Asheville with the Farmer's Market was recently removed from the
system due to low ridership. In addition, Buncombe County operates an
on-call ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) van transportation system
with no identified routes that may intermittently cross through the
project area. Irregardless of whether Asheville or Buncombe County has a
mass transit alternative in the project area, the purpose and need of this
project; widening an existing road, replacing a substandard bridge, and
upgrading an interchange, cannot be accomplished by means of a mass
transit alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the project area, so no alternative mode of
transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existina Land Use
The proposed project is located in an urban area, though
land use is of relatively low intensity in the project's
immediate vicinity. Those land uses include a National Guard
Armory; Aston Park Health Care Center, a retirement center and
nursing home; a farm; and a single family residential
neighborhood. The French Broad River is located southeast of
the interchange.
b. Existing Zoning
The majority of the proposed project is located within the
City of Asheville municipal limits. The section of NC 191
immediately north of Interstate 40 is outside the city limits.
The City maintains an active planning program. Its primary
policy guidance document is the Asheville City Plan: 2010, which
was completed in 1987 and amended in 1989. The i ty i s also
developing a series of corridor plans, though none currently
address the area of the relocation project. The City enforces a
zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and is currently
working to update its thoroughfare plan, which will also include
the bikeway plan.
The area northwest of the Interstate 240/NC 191 overpass is
zoned residential (R-2 and R-3). The areas northeast and
southwest of the overpass are zoned commercial hi hway (CH). The
area southeast for the overpass is zoned officejginstitutional
(OH).
17
C. Proposed Land Use
Although the City of Asheville is expecting moderate
population growth during the period ending in 2010, the western
section of the city, which includes the proposed project, is
expected to grow at a relatively slow rate. The central and
eastern portions of the city are expected to grow most rapidly.
While outside the city limits, growth will be concentrated in
the northwest and southeast portions of the city's planning
area.
The Asheville City Plan: 2010 indicates that low density
residentia eve opment is expected north of Interstate 240. The
area incorporating the Aston Park center is expected to remain
in institutional use. The city is planning to acquire the land
on the south side of Amboy Road west to Interstate 240 along the
French Broad River for the proposed Hominy Creek River Park.
d. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
Although the proposed project may adversely affect some
undeveloped properties in the project vicinity, it is
anticipated the project will not have a detrimental effect on
the existing land use, in general. Development may be
encouraged by improved accessibility.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Buncombe County in the City
of Asheville. Buncombe County is in the western section of the state
and is bounded by McDowell, Henderson, Haywood, Madison, and Yancey
Counties. According to the 1990 U.S. Census Data, Buncombe County
has a total population of 174,821 persons. This represents a
population increase of 13,887 persons since the 1980 U.S. Census
Report, when the total population of Buncombe County was 160,934
persons. Currently, Buncombe County has a population density of
266.38 persons per square mile. The racial compositions consist of
a population ratio of 158,979 whites to 15,842 non-whites.
In 1980 the urbanized population of Buncombe County was 101,392
persons and the rural population was 59,542 persons. The City of
Asheville is the largest urbanized area in Buncombe County. It has a
total population of 61,607 persons, according to the 1990 Census
Data.
The proposed project begins just north of Interstate 40. The
project area is sparsely populated. This is primarily due to the
fact that the Interstate 240 corridor is in close proximity.
Development in this area tends to be away from the Interstate 240
corridor.
The proposed project will not split any neighborhoods or
communities. It is anticipated community cohesion will not be
disrupted as a result of the project.
18
3. Relocatees
The proposed improvements will require the relocation of one
residence. Based on the relocation report, there is available
housing in the area and the proposed project will not cause a housing
shortage. The relocation report and information regarding the NCDOT
Relocation Assistance Program are included in the Appendix, pages A-1
through A-3.
Since the only relocatee is neither a minority or of low income,
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) is not
applicable.
4. Public Facilities
The public facilities in the area consist of the Aston Health
Care Center, located just south of Interstate 240, and the Buncombe
County Garages, a recycling center, and Hominy Creek River Park,
located south of Interstate 40 on Hominy Creek Road (the park is
located well outside the limits of the project approximately 0.7 mile
south of the NC 191/Hominy Creek Road intersection). North of
Interstate 240, the National Guard Armory is located on NC 191, and
the Trinity Baptist Church is located off of Shelbourne Road.
5. Historic and 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. Section
106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
Based upon an historic architectural resources survey
conducted by an NCDOT staff architectural historian, NCDOT and
FHWA have identified three properties 50 years old or older in
the vicinity of the project: Bridge Number 216, the Drake
House, and the Ingle House. These properties are discussed
below.
1. Bridge Number 216
Bridge Number 216, built in 1935, carries NC 191 over
Hominy Creek. It is a type 111 bridge, indicating a rigid
deck on an arch structure. The superstructure of Bridge
Number 216 is a reinforced-concrete floor on two closed
spandrel arches (also referred to as solid spandrel
arches). The reinforced-concrete arches of the
substructure are supported by spread footings and
19
reinforced-concrete abutments. Bridge Number 216 consists
of two main spans, each 74 feet - 8 inches in length. The
concrete bridge rails have been repeatedly damaged by
contact with vehicular traffic, and subsequent repairs have
resulted in 3 distinct examples of rail on the bridge.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records,
twenty-seven concrete arch and deck (type 111) bridges
remain in North Carolina. Of these 27 examples, four are
closed spandrel arch bridges (like Bridge Number 216).
Sixteen earth-filled spandrel and seven open-spandrel arch
bridges comprise the remaining type 111 examples. Roughly
seventy percent of the type 111 bridges are located in the
western part of the state. One concrete arch bridge
remains in the coastal plain and seven in the piedmont. The
four closed spandrel arch bridges are located in Buncombe,
Rockingham, Rutherford, and Yancey Counties.
All of the extant type 111 bridges were constructed
before 1940, with twenty of the examples built in the years
between 1920 and 1930. The use of reinforced concrete has
diminished with the increased application of composite
structural systems or lighter, less labor-intensive methods
of construction. The abundance of available laborers in
the 1920s and 30s enabled labor-intensive projects to be
economically viable.
In addition to economic determinants, another
consideration for the application of an arch bridge is the
functional requirements of the structure. Arch structures
are particularly useful over creeks and rivers where a
large span is needed but a sustained clearance is not
necessary. In constructing an arch bridge with few
supports, cofferdams can be employed to establish the
footings, and once above the highwater line, construction
can proceed without further disturbance to the flow of
water. The arch is an efficient form regarding strength
per amount of material; open spandrel arch bridges reduce
the amount of materials required without sacrificing
strength. Arch bridges also possess inherent aesthetic
qualities such as curvature, graceful proportions, and a
comprehensible distribution of structural forces.
NCDOT and FHWA have determined that Bridge Number 216
over Hominy Creek is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criteria C for design and
construction. Bridge Number 216 is an intact example of a
concrete arch and deck bridge (type 111) and one of four
closed spandrel arch bridges remaining in North Carolina.
Constructed in 1935 by Buncombe County, Bridge Number 216
is a late example of its type (none of the twenty-seven
remaining type 111 bridges were built after 1940) and is
the last of the closed spandrel arch bridges to be built.
20
Since World War II, the increased use of lighter materials
and less labor intensive construction methods have resulted
in a discontinuance of concrete arch bridges in this state.
2. The Drake House
The Drake House, located at 358 Brevard Road (NC 191
north of Interstate 240), was constructed in 1921. The
Drake House is a two-story, double-pile, hipped-roof, brick
dwelling with a full basement created by the steeply
sloping site. A one-story, one-bay projection and attached
porch extend across the main facade of the house. Three
Tuscan columns on tall brick pedestals support a flat porch
roof, which serves as a balcony for the second floor. The
metal railing is probably not original. The variety of
brick is a very deep red, striated brick found frequently
throughout the city.
The Drake House does not appear to be any one style of
architecture, but possesses attributes of both Colonial
Revival and Craftsman houses. An interesting detail of the
Drake House is the two tripartite, double-hung "picture"
windows with central six-over-one, vertical muntin section
flanked by four-over-one, vertical muntin sections. The
corbeled brick projections beneath the windows once held
window boxes. On the exterior of the Drake House stretcher
and soldier brick courses, set off by wide mortar joints,
are employed to frame the windows. On the rear of the
house two porches, cased in asbestos siding, are accessed
from the two living floors of the house. The larger porch
may have originally been screened and the upper porch
simply a balcony.
The interior of the Drake House remains largely intact
on the two main living floors and possesses original
hardwood floors, doors, moldings and door frames, plaster
walls, brick fireplaces, and four-over-one, vertical muntin
sash. The insertion of a closet on the second floor
appears to be the only significant interior alteration.
The basement has been completely remodeled for use as an
office. The Drake House is shielded from the road by thick
vegetation but is open to a view of Biltmore Estate from
the rear. A hipped-roof, brick garage with a frame,
shed-roof addition stands to the rear of the house.
The Drake House lacks the special historic or
architectural character to merit listing in the National
Register. Despite the integrity of the structure, the
setting of the Drake House, along Brevard Road and among
the Rhododendron Heights development of 1960, has been
significantly compromised. Other properties located on
Samayoa Road to the north contain more distinctive
characteristics of the mid-1920s period when the area was
developed as Morningside Park. For these reasons, the
NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the Drake House is not
21
eligible for listing in the National Register. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with the
determination of eligibility (see Appendix, page A-27).
3. The Ingle House
The Ingle House is an imposing Colonial Revival style
dwelling situated on a hilltop site which commands a view
of Biltmore Estate to the southeast. The one-story,
side-gable, frame Ingle House displays symmetrical facades,
with the exception of a garage addition attached to the
north end of the structure.
The east facade of the Ingle House, visible from
Brevard Road (NC 191), features a full pedimented portico
supported by four Tuscan columns and flanked by elliptical
bay windows. The portico is served by three glazed,
double-leaf doors capped by fanlights. The east facade is
a well-designed, academic facade and suggests the
involvement of an unidentified architect.
The west facade, which serves as the principal entry,
is less elaborate than its counterpart. A centered
cross-gable pierced by a bullseye window emphasizes the
recessed entry, which is framed by pilasters and surmounted
by a simple entablature. Two large, interior chimneys
accentuate the central massing. Two small, gable-roof
additions extend from the gable ends of the main block of
the house. To the north, the frame, gable-roof, three-car
garage is turned 90 degrees to the ridgeline of the main
house. The garage was converted into additional living
space with a stone fireplace, exterior brick chimney, and
glazing in the place of garage doors. Living space above
the garage was served by two shed dormers, one of which has
been severely damaged. The windows throughout the house,
with the exception of the two bays, are six-over-six,
double-hung sash. Two nine-over-nine, double-hung windows
serve the two corner rooms of the east front.
The Ingle House has not been occupied for a number of
years and has undergone significant deterioration in some
areas of the building. The vegetation surrounding the
house has grown uncontrolled and has begun to cling to the
house. The interior was not available for examination, but
several areas were visible through the large windows. The
interior appears to be largely intact, possibly having been
remodeled in the 1970s, but some areas are in jeopardy due
to the decomposition of the exterior shell.
The Ingle House is approached from the south along a
narrow drive bordered by tall white pines. Located to the
north of the house and down the slope of the hill are a
shed-roof chicken coop with board-and-batten siding and
further still a gambrel-roof, frame barn. While the house
is not presently occupied, the property is used for grazing
22
cattle. The property includes 37.2 acres (15 ha) on the
west side of NC 191 between Interstate 40 and Interstate
240 and is presently owned by Robert P. and Laura Ingle.
The property on South Bear Creek Road was purchased by
the Ingles Corporation in 1969, and Robert Ingle bought the
property from the company in 1978. Mr. Ingle stated that
the house was built in the 1930s (1934 according to tax
records) for an executive of Proctor & Gamble, and that the
original property had been divided by the construction of
Interstate 240. The property was previously owned by
Thomas G. Moseley, an Asheville banker, and C. M. Werk of
Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Werk purchased 165 acres from Oscar
Edwin and Marion Starnes in 1938. Mr. and Mrs. Starnes
were actively accumulating property in the West Asheville
and Lower Hominy Township area throughout the late 1920s
and 1930s.
The Ingle House lacks the special historic or
architectural character to merit listing in the National
Register. Despite the property's prominent location, the
Ingle House is not a remarkable example of Colonial Revival
architecture in comparison to numerous other examples of
the same style located throughout Asheville and Buncombe
County, particularly in the Biltmore Forest and Grove Park
residential areas. The Ingle House is also compromised by
continuing deterioration. Association of the property with
Robert Ingle, a wealthy local entrepreneur, dates from 1969
and does meet Criteria Consideration G for eligibility.
For these reasons, the NCDOT and FHWA have determined that
the Ingle House is not eligible for the National Register
under either Criteria B or C. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with the
determination of eligibility (see Appendix, page A-27).
4. Conclusions
As noted previously, of the three properties older
than fifty years located within the area of potential
effect of the proposed project, NCDOT and FHWA have
determined that only Bridge Number 216 over Hominy Creek is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. The SHPO has concurred with these findings (see
Appendix page A-27) and have concurred the construction of
the proposed project will have no effect on the bridge as
long as the NCDOT includes the following improvements in
the project:
(1) repair spall areas on bridge
(2) repair existing bridge rails
(3) add a bicycle-safe one-bar metal rail on top of
existing bridge rails to provide a 54-inch (137 cm)
rail height
23
Refer to section II.E.2. for more information on
proposed improvements to bridge number 216, and see pages
A-4 through A-10b in the Appendix to review the municipal
agreement. Concurrence from SHPO is shown in the Appendix,
pages A-30 through A-31.
b. Archaeological Resources
Based upon an archaeological survey conducted by NCDOT
staff archaeologist, NCDOT and FHWA have determined that
archaeological site 31BN623** (Carrier Hydroelectric Power
Plant) is a significant archaeological resource. The site is
located on Hominy Creek upstream (north) of the NC 191 bridge.
The site was a powerhouse built in 1889 (or 1899) by E. G.
Carrier. The powerhouse was a small wood structure equipped
with a 60-horsepower turbine and a 40 kilowatt generator. The
site is noted as being the first hydroelectric plant in western
North Carolina and the first hydroelectric plant in the world to
furnish power for a commercial streetcar.
This archaeological site has been determined to be outside
the area of potential effect (APE) of the recommended
improvements and no further compliance within Section 106 is
required. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with
these findings (see Appendix, page A-29).
If Alternative 1 were to become the recommended
alternative, this site could be impacted, and further 106
coordination with SHPO would be required.
B. Section 4M Proaerties
Section 4(f) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 specifies that
historic sites or publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance may
be used for Federal-Aid Projects if: (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land and (2) the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to such land resulting from the
proposed use.
Section 4(f) resources in the project area include the Hominy Creek
River Park, the Carrier Hydroelectric Power Plant site, and bridge number
216 over Hominy Creek. The Carrier Hydroelectric Power Plant site and
Hominy Creek River Park will not be affected by the project (see Sections
IV.A.5.b. and IV.A.4., respectively).
FHWA and NCDOT have coordinated plans to retain Bridge Number 216 in
place with the State Historic Preservation Office and the City of
Asheville. These plans call for repairing spall areas on the bridge,
repairing the deteriorated bridge rail, and adding a one bar metal rail
cap to the rail to give a 54-inch (131 cm) rail height to accommodate
bicycle traffic. NCDOT has coordinated with the City of Asheville with
regard to a municipal agreement which proposes to give ownership of Bridge
Number 216 to the City for development and use as a bicycle and pedestrian
24
facility possibly tied into the Hominy Creek River Park development. The
agreement is shown in the Appendix, pages A-4 through A-10b. FHWA has
determined that Section 4(f) does apply to the proposed work on Bridge
Number 216 and the proposed project will not have any Section 4(f)
impacts.
C. Economic Effects
Buncombe County during the month of December, 1993 had a labor force
of 97,600. Out of this total, 94,700 persons were gainfully employed.
This left an unemployment total of 2,900 or 3.0 percent.
During the year of 1990, Buncombe
of $30,500, according to HUD. Based
the NC Department of Economic and C
Commission, the average wage per wor e
County had a median family income
on 1988 employment statistics from
ommunity Development, Employment
r in bur
was
The proposed relocation of NC 191 will provide improved accessibility
and visibility to some of the established institutions and businesses
located in the general area of the proposed project. One of the major
commercial institutions in the area is the Western North Carolina Farmers'
Market. It is located on NC 191 just south of Interstate 40 within a mile
of the project site. By improving NC 191, the Farmers' Market and other
commercial establishments in the area will be more accessible to the
general public.
D. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions
refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species include
the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
One natural community, the mixed hardwood forest, and the
man-dominated community occur in the project area. Impacts to
these terrestrial communities will result in the loss of
existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal
species in residence. Table 4 compares the anticipated impacts
to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type for each
alternative.
Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas are discussed below. Many species are adapted
to the entire range of habitats found along the project
alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community
description.
25
TABLE 4 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Man- Mixed
Alternative Dominated Hardwood Aquatic Combined
Community Community Community Total
1 1.21 (2.98) 0.60 (1.49) 0.02 (0.04) 1.81 (4.47)
2 1.51 (3.73) 0.88 ( 2.18) 0.02 (0.04) 2.39 (5.91)
(Recommended)
NOTES: * Impacts are based on 100 foot right-of-way limits.
* Values given are in hectares (acres).
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulder,
residential lawn habitats, and former agricultural habitats.
Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas are dominated by
fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover
(Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas
are dominated by those species previously listed, as well as
chicory (Cichorium intybus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), wild blackberry (Rubus sp.), and wild rose (Rosa
carolina).
Many animal species are present in these disturbed habitats
and are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of
resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), northern cardinal (Richmondena cardinalis
cardinalis), American crow (Corvus bracherhynchos), mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos
polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are
often attracted to residential lawn and roadside habitats.
Irregularly maintained areas are suitable habitat for species
such as the rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythropht halmus),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and several species of
mice (Peromyscus spp.). Many faunal species, such as the
Virginia opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled
roadways, become vehicular fatalities and forage items for other
animals, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
26
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs between Interstate 240 and
Shelbourne Road within Alternative 1, between Interstate 240 and
the Aston Park Health Care Center within Alternative 2, and as a
narrow buffer approximately 25 feet wide along the banks of
Hominy Creek.
The forested area within Alternative 1 is located between
Interstate 240 and Shelbourne Road. It appears to have been
disturbed 15 to 30 years ago, as the species composition
includes successional species, and an abandoned bridge abutment
was observed along each side of an intermittent tributary to
Hominy Creek. The moderate slopes in this area support a
variety of mixed hardwoods, including Eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sumacs (Rhus spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), and deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum). A dense
herbaceous layer includes such species as bedstraw (Galium sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle, wild blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Animals previously
listed may be found in this community.
The forested area within Alternative 2 is located between
Aston Park Health Care Center and Interstate 240. This area
appears relatively undisturbed within the past 50 to 80 years.
The moderate to steep slopes support a variety of softwoods and
mixed hard woods, including tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), white oak (Quercus alba), American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), white pine (Pinus strobus), American holly (Ilex
opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and sourwood
(Oxydendron arboreum). The herbaceous layer is sparsely
populated due to the canopy cover and includes such species as
Japanese honeysuckle, false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa),
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata),
and Christmas fern.
Due to the proximity of urban development and a major
thoroughfare (Interstate 240) to the proposed project, large
mammals such as white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) would
not be expected to regularly inhabit this area. Small mammals
such as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
striped skunk (Mephitis sp.) may take advantage of food and
protective resources offered in this habitat. Snakes, turtles,
toads and salamanders would also likely utilize this area. Birds
such as the Carolina wren, red-eyed vireo, and other small
songbirds inhabit these woods, as well.
The vegetated area forming a narrow buffer along the banks
of Hominy Creek has a sparse canopy and subcanopy cover of
hardwoods including tulip poplar, Eastern sycamore, river birch
(Betula nigra), and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), with a
27
dense carpet of Japanese honeysuckle and wild blackberry along
the creek banks. Animal species such as the eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata),
and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) likely inhabit
the vegetated rocks along the creek banks.
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within
`treek. It has already been altered by siltation from
doff, as well as degradation in water quality from upstream
industrial point sources. Construction of any of the
alternatives is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to
Hominy Creek. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful
to local populations of invertebrates which are important parts
of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such as many
of the filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation,
preventing their feeding. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs,
reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction of dissolved oxygen, and alterations in water
temperature. However, potential adverse effects will be
minimized through the utilization of erosion and sediment
control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Program.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within
Hominy Creek. This waterbody is a minor perennial tributary of
the French Broad River, flowing in a southerly direction through
the study area. It contains a fairly high sediment load due to
s?f from surrounding development.
River banks, which are moderately steep and eroded, exhibit
vegetation previously mentioned in both biotic community
descriptions. Animals such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may
reside along the waters edge, along with the mountains dusky
salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) and crayfish (Family
Cambaridae). A variety of macroinvertebrates would be expected
on and under stones and on leaf debris within the stream bed.
Some fish species likely to be found in this section of Hominy
Creek include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), bream
(Lepomis macrochirus), and small bait fish.
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and
aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to steep slopes,
can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to
the communities in which the construction activity occurs.
Efforts should be made to ensure that sediment leaving the
construction site is kept to a minimum.
28
d. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in decline
or are in the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species
listed for Buncombe County and any likely impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction are
discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE),
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists it federally
protected species for Buncombe County as of April 1, 1996.
These species are listed in Table 5.
TABLE 5 - FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe PE
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar E
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern flying squirrel E
coloratus
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE
Sagitaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. jonesii pitcher-plant E
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T
Spotfin chub + Hybopsis monarcha T
Peregrine falcon + Falco peregrinus E
Gray bat + Myotis grisescens E
NOTES: "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
29
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is
proposed to be listed as endangered and which is
protected under law while its status is under review).
No specimen from Buncombe County has been found in at
least twenty years.
Evaluations underway. Findings will be presented in the
final environmental document.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood,
Macon, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania,
Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a
maximum length reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin,
although not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe
is dark brown in color, while juveniles have a
yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist
in North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its
tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The
Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock,
and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the
muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail,
which are black. In North Carolina, the cougar is thought
to occur in only a few scattered areas, possibly including
coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains. The
eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas
where there is an abundance of their primary food source,
white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of
25 miles, and they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No impact to the Appalachian elktoe will result from
project construction. Extensive survey work in North
Carolina by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicate
that populations of Appalachian elktoe are restricted to
the Nolichucky River and its tributaries, as well as the
Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The stream
impacted by the subject project is not within those
populated areas. A review of the Natural Heritage Program
database for rare species and unique habitats was performed
30
by a NCDOT staff biologist in late November 1995. This
search revealed no documented occurrence of the Appalachian
elktoe in the study area. No impact to the Appalachian
elktoe will result from project construction.
Felis concolor couguar (Eastern cougar)
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe,
Carteret, Haywood, Montgomery, Onslow,
Swain, Yancey.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project study area occurs within the city limits
of Asheville and anticipated impacts reveal that the area
is predominantly urbanized and disturbed; the eastern
cougar lives in large, remote wilderness areas. No habitat
for the eastern cougar exists in the project study area. A
review of the Natural Heritage Program database for rare
species and unique habitats was performed by a NCDOT staff
biologist in late November 1995. This search revealed no
documented occurrence of the eastern cougar in the study
area. No impact to the eastern, cougar will result from
project construction.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel)
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/1/85
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, McDowell, Mitchell, Swain,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This
furred flap of skin in connected at the wrist in the front
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with
large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern
flying squirrel in the western part of North Carolina,
along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above
1517 meters (5000 feet) in the vegetation transition zone
between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types
are used to search for food, and the hardwood forest is
used for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The northern flying squirrel has a strict elevation
requirement, greater than 1517 m (5000 feet), and the
project study area (approximately 2200 feet or 667 m) does
not meet this requirement. A review of the Natural
31
Heritage Program database for rare species and unique
habitats was performed by a NCDOT staff biologist in late
November 1995. This search revealed no documented
occurrence of the northern flying squirrel in the study
area. No impact to the northern flying squirrel will
result from project construction.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 4/5/90
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with
an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical
flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June
to early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are
odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped
and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are
reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina
and Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs,
cliffs, and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges.
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations of 1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747
meters (5680-5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other
habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight
and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition
of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, and clay loam. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading avens has a strict elevation requirement,
with the lowest requirement being 1535 to 1541 m 5060 to
5080 feet); the project study area (approximately 200 feet
or 667 m) is at a lower elevation and does not meet this
requirement. A review of the Natural Heritage Program
database for rare species and unique habitats was performed
by a NCDOT staff biologist in late November 1995. This
search revealed no documented occurrence of the spreading
avens in the study area. No impact to the spreading avens
will result from project construction.
Gymnoderma lineare (bunched arrowhead)
Plant Family:
Federally Listed: 12/28/94
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell,
Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, Yancey
32
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its
fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, are
black in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules.
The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from
July through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted
to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation (> 1220 m /4000 ft.)
mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in
fog or lower elevation (< 762 m /2500 ft.) deep gorges in
the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily
occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from
forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock
gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss
Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major
threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates
directly to habitat alteration/loss of high elevation
coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie
adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen.
The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and
Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome
lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford
and Transylvania.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The rock gnome lichen has a strict elevation
requirement of > 1220 m (4000 feet) in Buncombe County; the
project study area (approximately 2200 feet or 667 m) is at
a lower elevation and does not meet this requirement. does
not meet this requirement. A review of the Natural
Heritage Program database for rare species and unique
habitats was performed by a NCDOT staff biologist in late
November 1995. This search revealed no documented
occurrence of the rock gnome lichen in the study area. No
impact to the rock gnome lichen will result from project
construction.
Sagitaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead)
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: 7/25/79
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial
herb. It has spatulate leaves that stem from the base of
the plant. The erect flowering stalk has both male and
female flowers on it, the male being above the female.
Flowers of bunched arrowhead are present from April to
June.
33
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping
bogs with a slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water,
underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water
temperatures are variable, soil and water pH's are between
4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant. These plants
occur naturally in shaded sites, but populations do occur
in unshaded areas and have smaller, less vigorous plants.
Soils are characterize d as sandy loams below a muck layer
ranging in depth from 25-60 cm.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project was visited on several occasions by NCDOT
staff biologists. No wetlands, particularly mountain bogs,
exist within the project limits. Therefore, no suitable
habitat exists for bunched arrowhead. No impacts to
bunched arrowhead will occur as a result of project
construction.
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii
(mountain sweet pitcher plant)
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson,
Transylvania.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow
erect and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow,
trumpet shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate
hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately
veined with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is
retrorsely haired and usually partially filled with liquid
and decaying insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are
borne singly on erect scapes and have recurving sepals.
Flowers are present during late May and fruits appear in
August.
The mountain sweet pitch-plant is found in bogs and
streams in southwestern North Carolina and northwestern
South Carolina. This habitat is characterized by deep,
poorly drained wetlands with soils that are combinations of
loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic content and
medium to high acidic Ph. Sites are intermittently exposed
to flooding. This plant is an early successional plant
that relies on drought, water fluctuation, periodic fire,
and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project was visited on several occasions by NCDOT
staff biologists. No wetlands, particularly mountain bogs,
exist within the project limits. Therefore, no suitable
34
habitat exists for mountain sweet pitcher plant. No
impacts to mountain sweet pitcher plant will occur as a
result of project construction.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea)
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June-July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Buncombe, Clay,
Graham, Macon, Mitchell, Yancey.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow
from one to three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grow
in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly
in size, shape, and degree of serration. They are green
above and usually somewhat glaucous below. The cream
colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in
branched, flattoped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is
easily located during the late fall while herbaceous growth
is minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of
habitats in the mountains of North Carolina. Habitats for
the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient
streams, and on meander scrolls, point bars, natural
levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour
must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not
extreme enough to completely remove small, woody species.
This species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at
the water's edge with various other disturbance-dependent
species. It is most successful in areas with full
sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas until it is
released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Surveys were conducted by contracted biologists for
Virginia spiraea in July 1994. Surveys were conducted
along the banks of Hominy Creek, the only area with
suitable habitat, and no specimens were observed.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed project
will not impact Virginia spiraea.
2. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered.
Table 6 includes federal candidate species listed for Bun-
combe County and their state classifications. Organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Spe-
cial Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
35
TABLE 6 - FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scienti is Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Myotis subulatus leibii"
(Eastern small-footed bat) C2/SC No
Sorex palustris punctulatus"
(Southern water shrew) C2/SC No
Dendroica cerulea
(Cerulean warbler) C2/SR No
Clemmys muhlenbergii"
(bog turtle) C2/T No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis"
(hellbender) C2/SC No
Percina macrocephala'*
(longhead darter) C2/SC No
Cambarus reburrus
(French Broad stream crayfish) C2/W3 No
Phyciodes batesii
(tawny crescent butterfly) C2/SR No
Speyeria diana
(Diana fritillary butterfly) C2/SR No
Buckleya distichophylla"
(piratebush) C2/E No
Calamagrostis cainii"
(Cain's reedgrass) C2/E No
Euphorbia purpurea
(Wolf's milk spurge) C2/C No
Hexastylis contracts"
(mountain heartleaf) C2/E No
Saxifraga caroliniana
(Gray's saxifrage) C2/C No
Silene ovata
(mountain catchfly) C2/C No
36
TABLE 6 - FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY (continued)
Senecio millefolium"
(divided-leaf ragwort) C2/T No
Hexastylis rhombiformis
(French Broad heartleaf) C2/C No
Juglans cinerea
(butternut) C2/W5 No
Juncus trifidus carolianus"
(one-flowered rush) C2/E No
Lilium grayi"
(Gray's lily) C2/T-SC No
Lysimachia fraseri"
(Fraser's loosestrife) C2/E No
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba
(pinnately-lobed brown-eyed
sunflower) C2/C No
Nonotropsis odorata"*
(sweet pinesap) C2/C No
NOTES: - Species afforded state protection.
* No specimen from Buncombe County has been found
in 20 years.
No habitat exists in the project area for any protected species
known to occur in Buncombe County. The banks of Hominy Creek were
surveyed for Virginia spiraea, but no specimens of this species were
observed. No impacts to protected species will result from any of
the proposed project alternatives. Also, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare
species or habitats in the project area.
2. Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized by
moderately steep to steep relief. Moderately steep river banks are
also located on both the east and west banks of Hominy Creek. The
project area elevation is approximately 606.1m (2000.0 ft).
3. Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and' are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
37
i f s` ds will be impacted by the subject project. Project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Investigation into wetland occurrence
in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual. Anticipated Surface Water Impacts fall
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031, or Nationwide Permit No. 25 and/or 33, pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Buncombe County is one of 25
counties designated as having trout waters. Projects in these
counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to issuance of the COE Permit. Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of
the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not
required by the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation
requirements rests with the COE.
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Buncombe County the City of Asheville are participants in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate limits of
the 100-year floodplain of Hominy Creek and the French Broad River in
the vicinity of the project are shown in Figure 7. See Appendix,
page A-41 regarding coordination with the City of Asheville regarding
floodways.
The proposed Hominy Creek crossing is located within the limits
of the detailed flood study and crosses an established regulatory
floodway. This location is also influenced by backwater from the
French Broad River. The existing floodplain consists primarily of
wooded and mountainous terrain downstream of Interstate 240, but the
upstream flood plain north of Interstate 240 consists of a moderate
amount of residential development. More development in the Hominy
Creek watershed and flood plain is anticipated in the future. There
are no known buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Hominy Creek
crossing with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. The
proposed relocation and bridge replacement will not have any adverse
effect on the existing floodplain and floodway. Existing drainage
patterns and groundwater will not be adversely affected by the
project.
Flow velocities on this portion of Hominy Creek and the
potential for bridge scour appears to be significant. A detailed
scour analysis will be performed during final hydraulic design to
ensure appropriate bridge scour protection measures are specified in
the construction plans.
38
During the design phase of the project, every effort will be
made to avoid placing bridge piers in Hominy Creek. If this is not
feasible due to design constraints associated with the bridge pier
locations, sedimentation and turbidity will be minimized through the
use of sedimentation and erosion control measures.
5. Water Quality
The proposed project lies within the Hominy Creek/French Broad
River drainage basin. -Naminy Creek (Index no. 6-76) flows north to
south through the proposed project area and is approximately 12.19
meters (40.0 feet) wide and averages 0.3 meters (1.0 foot) in depth.
The creek substrate is composed of rock, gravel, and sand. Hominy
Creek has a CASs C sanitary rating from the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for
fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading, or other uses requiring
waters of lower quality. It is not suitable as a water supply due in
part to the industrial point sources along its upstream reaches.
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists several dischargers upstream of the project area. Results of a
Use Attainability Study conducted in November 1991 by the Asheville
Regional Office of the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management indicate that water quality problems within the Hominy
Creek watershed include agricultural and highway runoff, as well as
industrial point sources. The existence of fair to poor water
quality in Hominy Creek upstream of the project area is also
substantiated by a benthic macroinvertebrate study conducted in July
1992 by the Water Quality`Section of the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management. This study showed that taxa richness of
the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, which
is used as an indicator of water quality, was classified as fair to
poor at sampling stations upstream of the project area. No waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within 1.6
km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. No impacts to sensitive
water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will
result from sedimentation and turbidity associated with project
construction. Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best
Management Practices and Sediment Control guidelines) will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of this project.
Grass berms along construction areas help decrease erosion and allow
potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and particulate
rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach
waterways. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control
policies will result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
39
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which has been developed, or is designated for urban
development by the local governing body, is exempt from the
requirements of the Act. The proposed action is located in an area
where some urban development has occurred and where additional
development, particularly residential development, is expected.
Therefore, no further consideration of the project's potential
impacts to farmland is required.
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed relocation and widening of NC 191 in Buncombe County on
noise levels in the immediate project area. 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.
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 (0). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A 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 (see Appendix, page A-11).
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:
40
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 when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
riled 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 repugnant 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.
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)
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 112). A summary
of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table N2 (see Appendix, page A-12). 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.
41
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. The existing Leq noise level in the
vicinity of NC 191 and Interstate 40 as measured at 25 feet from the
roadway ranged from 66 to 81 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and
measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and
Table N3, respectively (see Appendix, pages A-13 and A-14).
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 0.2 and
1.7 dBA of the measured noise levels for the three 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.
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-17-108). 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 proposed
project is to relocate NC 191 and make minor improvements to the
Interstate 240/Park Road interchange. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the 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.
42
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 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 location 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 (see Appendix, page A-14). Information included
in these tables consist 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 that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5 (see Appendix, page A-15). 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. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are 5
impacted residences within the project limits. Other information
included in Table N4 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 (see Appendix, page A-15) indicates the exterior
traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in each
roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +1 to +7 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.
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.
43
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. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative
for noise abatement for the subject project. The proposed location
of the relocated section of NC 191 is based on topographic and
geometric design constraints evident in the project area.
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 effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
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 control of access in the immediate
vicinity of Interstate 240, meaning most commercial establishments
and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
NC 191, 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 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-13-7976-1, 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
their case.
44
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" alternative were
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads
in the project area should double within the next twenty years,
future traffic noise levels would only increase approximately 2-3
dBA. This small increase to the present noise level would be barely
noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
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.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not warranted, 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.
8. Air Quality 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 (SO ), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). AutoAobiles 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.
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."
45
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 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 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
46
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 any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the completion year of 1997 and the design year of
2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and
the MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.8 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 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor #6 at a distance of 50' from the centerline of the roadway.
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 No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1997 2017 1997 2017
R-6 3.2 3.7 3.9 5.0
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, A2, A3 and A4 (see Appendix, pages A-16
through A-19) for input data and output.
The project is located in Buncombe County, which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
47
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects 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 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the NEPA process, and no additional reports are required.
9. Stream Modification
mW rechannel ization is anticipated. If stream
rechannelization is required, it will be coordinated with appropriate
natural resource agencies in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC et seq.).
10. Hazardous Materials
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified no
obvious sites which contain or have the potential for underground
storage tanks (UST's). In addition,.a files search of the Division
of Solid Waste Management was also conducted to determine whether any
known unregulated dumps or other potentially contaminated sites were
within the corridor. After reviewing these files and the
DEM/Groundwater incident list, none of the known sites within the
Buncombe County area were identified within the project corridor.
11. Geotechnical Impacts
The study area is situated along the eastern boundary of the
Appalachian Mountains Physiographic Province. The topography of the
Blue Ridge Mountains is generally a deeply dissected mountainous area
of numerous steep mountain ridges, intermontane basins, and trench
valleys that intersect at all angles and give the area its rugged
mountain character. Elevations along the existing project corridor
generally range from 2,000 to 2,200 feet above sea level.
The Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985) depicts this portion
of the Blue Ridge Belt as consisting of clastic metasedimentary rock
and mafic and felsic metavolcanic rock of the Ashe Metamorphic Suite,
Tallulah Falls Formation, and Alligator Back Formation. Soils within
the project corridor consist mostly of moderately drained soils.
48
These soils are composed of AASHTO Soils Classifications A-4, A-6,
and A-7 with minor traces of A-2 and A-5. This portion of Buncombe
County contains soils from the Hayesville-Evard soil association,
which are characterized as being well drained yellowish red and red,
sloping to moderately steep soils on foothills. The project study
area has experienced moderate urban development with some
agricultural and undeveloped land remaining.
Groundwater is expected to be encountered at depths between 20
and 40 feet and seepage from road cuts.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by
the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active
public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted
without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will
not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it
will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitos.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. During construction, care will be taken to prevent damage
to utilities located along the project. The contractor
will prepare a work schedule in cooperation with the
appropriate utility agency which will minimize impacts on
water, communication, power, and other utility services.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned, or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
49
g. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
Contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used
as needed.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the Contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included, or
eligible for inclusion, on the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on
the proposed borrow source.
i. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic
Preservation Officer
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Land Resources, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation, Wildlife Resources Commission
Land-of-Sky. Regional Council
City of Asheville
Asheville Area Transportation Advisory Committee -
Bikeways Taskforce
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix (see
pages A-20 through A-50).
50
B. Citizens Informational Worksho
The Division of Highways held an informal, one-to-one Citizens
Informational Workshop on the project on August 24, 1993 in Asheville.
Representatives from the Roadway Design Branch, the Planning and
Environmental Branch, and Division 13 were present to explain the project,
receive comments, and answer questions. Approximately twenty-five persons
attended the workshop. A copy of the news release advertising the
workshop is included in the Appendix (see page A-51).
Aerial photographs showing alternatives for improving NC 191 and the
Interstate 240/Park Road interchange were displayed at the workshop. A
handout containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a
comment sheet was made available to each participant (see pages A-52
through A-58 in the Appendix). Each participant was given the opportunity
to review the aerial photographs and ask questions or comment on the
project.
The design alternatives being studied at the time of the workshop
were shown on the aerial photographs. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were
presented for public review and comment. Subsequent to the workshop,
Alternatives 2 and 3 were dropped from further study and a new Alternative
2 (recommended improvement) was developed. The original Alternatives 2
and 3 were similar to the recommended Alternative 2 as far as the
relocation of NC 191 was concerned, but they proposed major improvements
to the Interstate 240/Park Road interchange. Refer to Section III.C. of
this document for information regarding these early alternatives.
The majority of those present at the workshop felt the proposed
improvements should include measures to improve bicycle access in the
project area. Other people noted the narrow width of the existing NC 191
bridge over Hominy Creek and supported the idea of replacing it with a
wider bridge.
C. Project Newsletter
A Project Newsletter was published and distributed to individuals,
businesses, organizations, and agencies who had expressed interest in the
project. A copy of the newsletter is in the Appendix, beginning on page
A-59.
D. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following circulation of this report to
provide more detailed information on the project to local citizens and to
receive additional comments on the project.
EFL/plr
NORTH CAROLINA DVPART.Mr-NT Or
cx
'G AND ENVMONNMNTAL BRI PLANNLN AN
GEOGRAPEHC LOCATION MAP
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U-2902
rza?? i
Cn
z
_O
D
O
U
(D
z
x
W
O
U)
O
O
2
a-
Y
W
O W
OU
Ir >-
Y z
w
WO
U =
}- O
z az
O?
LIJ
00
Ir CC
LL Co
~ O
?
W Sr
N
U '
z W
= W
X?-0
O O
O F-
J a m
a
O W
N CD
co O
LL r
°D >
W Y O
•m
w a
a
x ? U w
Q
- -
W ? Z Q?
wg m
woo
U 2 d"
Z N
z I
-O
O U z
=w a
- W =
v F-- cr)
z?Fr
O
d'
I
U- z
-_
a
'h U
Ir O
OJ
z 3:
F- W
U) Z
LL
O
O z
ao
o?
? U
ow
cr G?
>°
wZ
w-
m
m
_ z_
am Y-
0
Z of
z

ez, Iz
= O
z
r_
-
W
- 2
_

r ?

W
Z

r _ -
..,
Z

k z
:rt O Q
{
- Z
_ _
Q

rz
a' :? w
cr-
-
O?
+.3 z
L
1
U U
z W
Y ?

I O?
J C
O
z
D
O
m
f--
Cr)
W
3
N
i
z
cn
X
w
Q J
= a
z
O?
zw
z_
Y O..
0 :E
Oa
J 0?
a
O
cr-
Y
a
d
O
d-
N
W
2
a
F-- LL1
O
U) z
a
c? _
Z U
Y ?
OW
I-
O
J z
C\j
O
N
i
D
N
U W
W
O
0? O
-
CL LL
f y.
O ?
Q n
ti
O x
01 j cu
Zm ?? lQL NR
? f{p h Q
a Rv
h \ N
W
_ N ir
m
• ? ? r ?N
Z ?Z
LL.
0 N v ao
Z c j M 10 /" <a
O H p N a 40 Of
}
=
Q Q U fn, ^ ' -
v_
U \
0 ?
w ow
p ? Z O =??
W H- m cr o
0 Cl) ma
0 z
M
o
a La
0 1 t
V
?o?
N
IT
-? L
4 J
r
? ? a Q
Q
?y
Q 1!1 1 I M Q
m + ?
Z _
O Y
-- OU
N >
N ? _
i f -
M N
:3 N M
m M
J N`
W
N r
P r+- U CD
0 Z
N
-- ?- I I j 1 I t I ?:'
o w
Ir Q
_ I X
w
U jr
z m of lL<i
10
\i-D
N

"'
? M
4
rn in

'a
in
j ?h
Z
cm
O t _ > /?
E..
? Z -? N
Z
0
!- ON
?
?`
QQ
O W
OW
?

?
WI- 0 C.1
CE? U?
Z N
p
O
W F- :) Imp
co cn m a.

>N
OW
CL

cr 0
a cm
_
2
v
N
1 1

! r 1 ! ,1 I
0
Q cu t cm
c?
Z N
\
N *\, N

!J
Cl)
N
N N ±,"k *N
7 N
p /N
N N
It
w
Z
N/
O
m

w

ap m
M
Q
N
a
?O
O
O
O? m
M
W
D
LL
f
fl
O
N
h
- c?
ti

tC
NNkNf\or

\O Y

Q
a
N
O
N Q1?1
I J
i a
-? _ w
z Z

N
[[a'?
V
//
T O
ly ' _
II` (n
Q
rn
y
U
Z
o
VL Ir
?L
w M
-/
w
c' In
M
0u
N >-
c0 Z
M 2
cr O
cn Z
N
A
N
? U
M Z
O
ti
-? N
LEGEND
SXIS"A= PROPOSED
?O» ?`' ??,• ' r
FREEWAY MEMO
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
p,
N
MINOR •THOROUGHFARE P' 10
p.
INTERCHANGE • O ° ?'`
i 0 ,.
pEAV PUNNING BOUNDARY
Q 191 r'
* . ~• a:
> STATE ST.
AMBOY Rp,
rASAW CA ^ 191 ' •c
+ 11,00,y
PROJECT
o ®® U-2902
0
•'' ? warwr © r
6 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
u TRANSPROTATION
RD. • , DIMION OF HIGHWAYS
• 191 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DETAEL OF ASHEMt.F

QUA LW
? w +

nu :? W
co
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
T. I, P. PROJECT U-2902
FIGURE 4 I
-mac ?`
m

F ?
(
s
140
CA*

i

1?1
U ?
Y
W O
N
P? WW? O
? N
?o?A Wa?WU
oHw? x dEq
o
0 7. j J
'%HAa o?
U

-? J FIGURE 6

1
/ MIFS-
ZONE
VEA 5
Creek
:ONE B
13
20.1&r.
201
,1J jam" 1? j ??
9
2007 2603 ZO N E, B
.? ZONE B RP??
200 RM8 Ao C,&
A10 `L00
ZONEAI5
' ZONE 0 r 9819
20 . 006I• PROJEC
T
O ONE B
ZONE C Si ZONE B co
ZONE B y
ZONE B 40
O
RM7 1997
"yo ?L
0-p
raP?Ea?? ?F? r
ZONE A ZONE A17
NORTH CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPROTATION
D1VIBION OF HIGHWAYS
® PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
LDIITB OF
100 YEAR FLOOD
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
- T. I. P. PROJECT U-2902
NOM WarlING ROM NrTmRK IN VICINITY
OF PRWRCI' As dHOWN HEM DOIW
NOT MATCH WITH EWTINO CONDITIONS.
HYDRO INFORMATION 9 STILL VALID. FIGURE 7
00

H N
Z O
(
O N
U i

W
M
W
:2 U
O W
U ?
Z O
D w
M
W ^
^

- 0:

V
/.
•

U •
F -
z
la
(%j
tD
N
0
N
Q o
y? J
J
u
N
N I -op
a?
O N
m
L)
z
cr-
0
LL
Z
0
U
LL]
U
? N

J

zo
N

tD
N
v --NOD
d
? N
LLJ
0
cr) Y
_ w
LLJ
U !Y
z u
c
o z
LL
0
z =
0
of
u LLJ
LLJ
N
J
a
U_
EL
I-
W
LL
RELOCATION REPORT
eel ?s
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
? E.I.S. F1 CORRIDOR a DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1843101 COUN'T'Y Buncombe Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2902 F.A. PROJECT STP-191 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bfi a #216 Over Hominy Creek, ITC 191, From I-40 to I-240

ESTIMx[TED.. . .. ACEES ...
..... .........

INCOME 'LEVEL'
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M I 15-215M ! 25-35M 35-50M
50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Businesses 0 0 O O .: ' : VALUE OF DWELij[Rd DSS Dn'EL .GA.V).L A U,:
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 0 0-20M 1 0

..... ANSWERALL QUESTIONS:*.: ::::::::: 20-40M
1 150-250
0 20-40M
3 150-250
0
Yee No Explain all "ITS re answers. 40-70M 0 0 40-70M 8 250-400 O
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-ZOOM 7 400-600 O
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP 0 600 up 0 100 UP 5 600 UP 0
displacement? TOTAL 1 .. 0 24 0
X 3. Will business services still be available after Re pond b Number
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project

6. (a) Beverly-Hanks Realty, Asheville, NC.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? (b) local newspaper
x 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed? S. As necessary In accordance with State law.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 11. Housing Authority of the City of Asheville.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Beverly-Hanks Realty and local newspaper indicate that
x 11. Is public housing available? adequate decent, safe and sanitary housing will be available
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? during relocation period. _
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within

financial means?
I (- ilk,
/A N/A 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). 199:
ASR D
15. Number months estimated to complete
x>tLLOCArroN? 6 months r P?!iSY0F,1`110N
_ (fi
ll ??. uCr 1. 3f .

-s- 5
4 ......................

r y- ?- ?s-
Relucad __ Date Approved Date
Form 0.e "a Original & 1 copy: State Relocation Agent
?/ A-1 2 Copy Ama Relocation office
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
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 information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or, other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced 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,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
A-2
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 a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will 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, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
A-3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT U-2902 CONSISTING OF RELOCATION OF N. C.
191, BREVARD ROAD TO THE I-240 INTERCHANGE AND ONVE-TING
BRIDGE NUMBER 216 OVER HOMINY CREEK TO THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has prepared and
adopted plans to make certain street and highway im2rovements within the City of
Asheville under Project U-2902, Buncombe County, said plans consisting of the
relocation of N. C. 191 to intersect with I-240; and
N','BEREAS, said Department of Transportation and the City of Asheville
propose to enter into an Agreement for the transfer of ownership of Bridge Number
216 (Hominy Creek Bridge), due to be removed as part of the above-mentioned
project, to &,e City of Asheville for bicycle and pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asheville, at no expense to the Department, shall
assume all liability and maintenance responsibilities for said bridge upon transfer of
ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE THAT:
Project U-29Q2, Buncombe County, is hereby formaLy approved in c cevt by the City
Council of the City of Asheville and the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Asheville
are hereby empowered to sign and execute a Municipal Agreement with the Department
of Trauportationto?e_ffectuate _e_p=oses_set forth her
Read, approved and adopted this day of
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
1996.
Mayor
A-4
NORTH CAROLINA
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
O O IRY
PRO Oil
pRpFT
pp yflT Ci??C??ATE
4/10/96
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT
AND
PROJECT: U-2902
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the day of
, 19 , between the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the Department, and the CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Municipality;
WI IN E S S E I?
WHEREAS, the Department has prepared and adopted plans to make
certain street and highway constructions and improvements within the
Municipality under Project U-2902, Buncombe County, said plan
consisting of the relocation of NC 191 to intersect with I-240
including the construction of a multi-lane facility on new location
south of I-240, removal of Bridge #216 from the Department's
transportation system, extension of Fairfax Avenue to NC 191,
extension of Hominy Creek Road north of I-240 to intersect NC 191
opposite the proposed Fairfax Avenue Extension, and relocation of the
I-240 exit ramp located in the northeast quadrant of the I-240
interchange to intersect NC 191 opposite the existing I-240 entrance
ramp located in the northwest quadrant; said project having a right-
of-way width to be shown on the project right of way plans; and,
A-5
PRELIMINARY
-2- DRAFT
WHEREAS, the City of Asheville ha R&AWCMvY
ANTE
Department leave Bridge #216 (Hominy Cree 4,06
for the future construction of a multi-use bicycle and
pedestrian facility in that vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, the Municipality has agreed to accept
ownership, liability, and maintenance responsibilities for
said bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Department has agreed to transfer
ownership of said bridge to the Municipality in accordance
with the following provisions as hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in
consideration of the promises and undertakings of the other
as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each with
the other, as follows:
1. At the request of the Municipality, the Department
shall, at no cost to the Municipality, transfer ownership of
Bridge #216 (Hominy Creek Bridge) to the Municipality upon
completion of Project U-2902, and after acceptance of said
project by the Department from its contractor. At that time
the Municipality shall assume ownership, all liability and
maintenance responsibilities for said bridge. The
Department shall be indemnified and saved harmless from any
and all claims for damages and liabilities associated with
said bridge upon transfer of ownership to the Municipality
except losses-resulting,trom negligence of the State, it_s_
agents,` officers or employees. The bridge shall be for
pedestrian_and/or bike use only.,
2. The Department reserves the right to periodically
inspect the bridge for structural integrity and proper
maintenance procedures. If, in the opinion of the
Department, the Municipality has not maintained the bridge
in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health
Organization's (OSHA) standards, or is using the
A-6
Q? \
bridge for purposes other than pedestrian and b'?fi?, e
Department shall remove the bridge at the a en? of?h
Municipality. The Municipality shall reimbu a the tment the
entire cost of removal of said bridge. Reimbur a shall be made
in one lump sum payment within sixty (60) days of billing by the
Department.
3. In the event the Municipality fails for any reason to pay
the Department in accordance with
hereinabove provided, the Municip,
Department to withhold so much of
allocated to said Municipality by
Carolina, Section 136-41.1, until
received payment in full.
the provisions for payment
ality hereby authorizes the
the Municipality's share of funds
the General Statutes of North
such time as the Department has
4. The Department shall retain ownership of all right of way
and/or property on which Bridge #216 and its approaches are located.
The Department, at no expense to the Municipality, shall provide the
Municipality with an access easement in order for the Municipality to
maintain the bridge and/or provide emergency services. Said access
easement shall be obtained from the Department. The Department shall
not be liable for any claims for damage and/or injury which may
result from the public using said access. Said access shall be
maintained by the Municipality, at no expense to the Department.
5. If the Municipality elects to develop said access easement
and/or right of way into a bicycle and pedestrian park in conjunction
with the bicycle and pedestrian bridge, an encroachment agreement
would need to be obtained from the Department's Division Engineer for
the 13th Division.
A-7
-4- QUA
6. The Municipality, at no expense to t ?` nt
QQ a ??
provide and install all route signs, war ' g ?i nsational
signs related to bicycle and pedestrian us of tho e. Prior to
y
installation of said signs, the Municipality submit the project
signing plans to the Department for review and approval.
7. The Municipality shall be responsible for adhering to all
Federal and State safety regulations, procedures and policies in
dealing with the containment and disposal of lead paint residues.
8. The Municipality shall comply with all established Federal
and State environmental and safety regulations, specifications,
procedures and policies.
9. The Department, prior to relinquishing ownership of said
bridge to the Municipality, shall repair spalls in the concrete
and add pipe rail on top of the existing bridge railings to meet
AASHTO requirements for bicycle railings.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the approval of the project by
the Department is subject to the conditions of this Agreement and
that no expenditure of funds on the part of the Department will be
made until the terms of this Agreement have been complied with on the
part of the Municipality.
A-8
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has
duplicate, the day and year heretofore se ou
Department and the Municipality by authorit
by the attached certified copy of Resolution,
Provision, as the case may be.
L. S.
ATTEST:
CLERK
(MUNICIPAL SEAL)
This instrument has been pre-
audited in the manner required by
the Local Government Budget and
Fiscal Control Act.
4 ?L4
nance Officer
Munic' Fi
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Qy
of the
n, as evidenced
e or Charter
CITY-DF-,A,SHEVILLE
BY:
MAYOR
BY:
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
BY:
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
A-9
RESOLUTION NO. 96-55
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT U-2902 CONSISTING OF RELOCATION OF N.C.
191, BREVARD ROAD TO THE I-240 INTERCHANGE AND TRANSFERRING
BRIDGE NUMBER 216 OVER HOMINY CREEK TO THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has prepared and
adopted plans to make certain street and highway improvements within the City of
Asheville under Project U-2902, Buncombe County, said plans consisting of the
relocation of N.C. 191 to intersect with I-240; and
WHEREAS, said Department of Transportation and the City of Asheville
propose to enter into an Agreement for the transfer of ownership of Bridge Number
216 (Hominy Creek Bridge), due to be removed as part of the above-mentioned
project, to the City of Asheville for bicycle and pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Asheville, at no expense to the Department, shall
assume all liability and maintenance responsibilities for said bridge upon transfer of
ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE THAT:
Project U-2902, Buncombe County, is hereby formally approved by the City Council
of the City of Asheville and that the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Asheville are
hereby empowered to sign and execute the Agreement with the Department of
Transportation.
Read, approved and adopted this 9th day of Aari 1 , 1996.
City Cler ;ay
Approved as to form:
Ikk
City Attorney
A-10
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
ADDENDUM
PROJECT: U-2902
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
THIS ADDENDUM, made and entered into this the
day of
19 , between the DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, an agency.of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter
referred to as the Department, and the CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Municipality;
N I T N E S S E T A:
WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality propose to enter
into an agreement for the Municipality to accept ownership, liability
and maintenance of Bridge #216 (Hominy Creek Bridge) upon completion
of Project U-2902 in Asheville; and,
WHEREAS, the Department and the Municipality have agreed to add
an addendum to the agreement for Project U-2902 as hereinafter set
forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in consideration of the
promises and undertakings of the other as herein provided, do hereby
covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows:
The Department reserves the right to close the pedestrian
trail and bridge at Hominy Creek during any and all construction and
maintenance activities performed by the Department in the vicinity of
said trail and bridge. Closure of the facility is for the safety and
protection of the general public. Upon completion of the work, the
Department shall approve the re-opening of the facility.
A-10a

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Addendum has been executed, in
duplicate, the day and year heretofore set out, on the part of the
Department and the Municipality by authority duly given.
L. S.
ATTEST:
?vrl BY:
-1 -U
LUE
(SEAL)
BY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
A-10b
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 BO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

H 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

10
0 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.)
A-11
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Laq(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 Laq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-12
FIGURE N1
PROJECT LOCATION & NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation, Buncombe Co.
State Project # 8.1843101, TIP # U-2902
Noise Measurment Site F1 I
:{ mod. ?ru •?i
ILU
END
off
w
LAKE 41
JYNpG:? a 2.0 2
2= .1
c? rz''Z AS
BEGIN
.o a :a .70 ,?1 ? 4 :... • •
• t lilt ` f
T Sand Wq ??_ ?:: hwndo
JUL a ]ice
s
7 1114 26
?? l5 G
.86
p! ANY
• 191
.i - ?? ?1 ?1 7t]7
un

7.T
Venable
17) O 2430 UK

A-13
SITE
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, State Project N 8.1843101, TIP N U-2902
NOISE
LEVEL
LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. NC 191, .08 Mile North of Brevard Road Grassy 66
2. NC 191, .17 Mile South of Shelburne Road Grassy 72
3. I-240, .3 Mile West of Hominy Creek Road Grassy 81
Notes The ambient noise level sites were measured at 25 feet from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4 1/1
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, State Project / 8.1843101, TIP 1 U-2902
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft)
?......... ..... LEVEL
YM? NAME DISTANCE(ft)
?............ .... -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
.......
NC-191, South of I-240 Interchange
1 Residence B NC 191 135 R 62 NC 191 45 R --------------------R/W-- ------------
2 Residence B It 55 R 69 " 60 L --------------------R/W--------------
4 Business C I-240 690 R 47 " 390 R 52.9 46.2 54 + 7
NC-191, North of I-240 Interchange _
3 Business C NC 191 90 L 65 BR2620 80 L 61.8 65.1 66 + 1
5 Residence B " 290 L 58 NC 191 120 L 62.5 61.1 64 + 6
6 Residence B " 35 R 66 " 50 R 68.2 64.0 * 69 + 1
7 Residence B " 40 R 66 " 55 R 67.8 60.3 * 68 + 2
8 Residence B " 45 R 66 to 60 R 67.3 59.7 * 67 + 1
9 Residence B " 35 R 66 " 40 R 69.2 55.7 * 69 + 3
10 Residence B " 35 R 56 " 35 R 69.8 54.7 * 69 + 3
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).
A-14
TABLE N5
MA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 191 (Bravard Road) Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, State Project 18.1843101, TIP I U-2902
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50, 100, 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. NC 191, South of I-240 Interchange
2. NC 191, North of I-240 Interchange
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 0
69 65 59 <43' 89,
68 64 58 <43' 75`
TOTALS
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
Section
1. NC 191, S of Interchange
2. NC 191, N of Interchange
TOTALS
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, state Project / 8.1843101, TIP I U-2902
Substantial
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A-15
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-1997, BUILD 35 MPH
DATE: 04/27/95 TIME: 12:49
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
-----
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
! ------------------------ ----------------------------------------"--- -------- ----------- ------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link • 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 " 1609. 360. AG 760. 20.0 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 760. 20.0 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR " X Y Z "
------------------------- "-------------------------------------"
1. R 6, 50' RT. CL RES " -11.6 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding_ to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with as= maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. - _
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE " (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX " 3.2
DEGR. * 6
RUN: NC 191, YR-1997, BUILD 35 MPH
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-16
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-2017, BUILD 35 MPH
DATE: 04/27/95 TIME: 12:49
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MI)M - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
" XI Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------- '---------------------------------------- "----------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link • 7.3 -804.7 7.3 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 1390. 14.5 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 " 1609. 180. AG 1390. 14.5 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- '-------------------------------------"
1. R 6, 50' RT. CL RES * -11.6 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-2017, BUILD 35 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
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.-360.
WIND " CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX ' 3.7
DEGR. e
THE BIGBEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.70 PPM AT 8 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-17
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-1997, NO BUILD 25 MPH
DATE: 04/27/95 TIME: 12:50
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/8 VD - 0.0 CM/8
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
20 - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) " LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ "------------------------------- ---------R----------- ----------- ------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link " 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 760. 27.0 0.0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link " 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 760. 27.0 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-------------------_.----*-------------------------------------*
1. R 6, 35' LT. CL RES * -8.8 0.0 1.8
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-1997, NO BUILD 25 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
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.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.9
DEGR. * 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.90 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-18
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-2017, NO BUILD 25 MPH
DATES 04/27/95 TIMES 12:50
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/s
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
20 - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2
------------------------ "------------------------------- Y2 * (M)
--------- *----------- (DEG)
---------- (G/MI)
-------------- (M)
----- (M) (VEH)
------------------
1. Far Lane Link " 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 • 1609. 360. AG 1390. 22.1 0.0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link • 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 1390. 22.1 0.0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y 2 "
-------------------------"-------------------------------------"
1. R 6, 35' LT. CL RES * -8.8 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2902: NC 191, Asheville, Buncombe Co. RUN: NC 191, YR-2017, NO BUILD 25 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS s 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.-360. _
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 5.0
DEGR. * 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.00 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-19
Cc Lcw? s
tN NT R Th ?
United States Department of the Interior ?E
0
? s
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
,q Asheville Field Office
a 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 Ci J f
March 11, 1993
7b 19 Z 93
lYloy,A OF
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager 11 Er0
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed relocation of NC 191 between Interstate 40 and
Interstate 240, Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina,
State Project 8.1843101, TIP Project No. U-2902 (ER 93/61)
In your letter of January 20, 1993, received January 28, 1993, you
requested our comments on the subject project. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) biologist conducted a site inspection on March 8, 1993.
According to the information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the relocation of NC 191 (Brevard Boulevard) between
Interstate 40 and Interstate 240. Two existing bridges on NC 191--bridge
number 216 on NC 191 over Hominy Creek and bridge number 242 over
Interstate 240--will be removed and replaced. The entrance and exit
ramps at the interchange of-Interstate 240 and NC 191 also will be
realigned. The exact locations of the NC 191 realignment and bridge
replacements were not provided in your letter.
The Service is particul.arly concerned about the potential impacts the
proposed project could have on Hominy Creek and its associated wetland
and aquatic resource values. During the Service's field visit,-it-was
noted that the creek was fairly degraded due to urban runoff and
siltation. In particular, the banks adjacent to bridge number 216,
which carries traffic on NC 191 over Hominy Creek, had been stabilized
with riprap and large concrete slabs; this appears to have contributed to
bank erosion downstream (by increasing flow velocity). Portions of the
stream bank were devoid of trees and shrubs, further contributing to bank
instability and siltation problems. Despite these impacts, the creek
does appear to provide some fisheries and wildlife habitat.
A-20
The Service recommends that the following issues be addressed in the
environmental review of this project: (1) an analysis of the bridge
structures considered (i.e., especially with regard to the type and
placement of support structures) and the rationale for the preferred
structure(s) for the proposed new bridge; (2) the impacts of, and need
for, bank stabilization (i.e., riprap) to support the new bridge; and
(3) mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for impacts to stream bank integrity or water
quality downstream of the project. Finally, we recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, to
determine the need for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit
(704/259-0855) for carrying out the bridge replacement project over
Hominy Creek.
The Service believes that no federally endangered or threatened species
occur within the impact area of the proposed action. Therefore, we
believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information suggests that the action
may affect listed species in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner not previously considered, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed on the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log. Number 4-2-93-046.
Sincerely,
Nora A. Murdock-------
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
A-21
GSi V O
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
wrEPLYREFM ro March 24, 1993
Planning Division
MAa 2 6 1993
Z
DIVISIGN OF ??Q
utr1-1W A`(S.,
z qIP , .
m
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch ??,
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 21611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1993, requesting
comments on the proposed "Asheville, NC 191 Relocation to I-240
Interchange,. Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-191(1), State
Project 8.1843101, TIP Project U-2902" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199301263).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective, involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and
other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. For
.other than wetland concerns, the proposed project is located in
the Nashville District of the COE. Comments relating to these
purposes have been obtained from the Nashville District. Wetland
permits in this area are handled by the Asheville Field Office of
our (Wilmington District) Regulatory Branch. Comments related to
this issue have been obtained from the field office.
The Nashville District does not currently have any projects
in the Asheville, North Carolina,*area. Therefore, there will
not be any impacts to or from any COE projects due to the proposed
relocation.
The city of Asheville and Buncombe County participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The proposed project
crosses the flood plain of Hominy Creek where a detailed flood
study was done, and the limits-of the detailed study extend
several miles upstream from this location. The project should

A-22
-2-
be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP and in compliance
with local flood plain ordinances and flood plain management
Executive Order 11988. Upon project completion, NCDOT should
provide the local community with sufficient information on the
.,,..completed project so that the community can request a restudy
of Hominy Creek, if necessary.
Our Asheville Field Office has reviewed the proposed project
and has the following comments. The preliminary information
submitted vaguely discusses the removal of Bridge No. 216 over
Hominy Creek and the construction of a replacement structure
along the proposed realignment of NC 191 south of Interstate 240.
Due to the width of Hominy Creek, temporary construction access
fills may be required for both the existing bridge removal and
new bridge construction. Discharges of fill material.could
potentially be authorized by General Permit No. 198200031, or
Nationwide Permit Nos. 25 and/or 33, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended.
Mr. Dave Baker is the point-of-contact for processing your
Department of the Army permit for the proposed project. Should
you have permit-related questions, please contact Mr. Baker of our
Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina, at [phone].
The point-of-contact in the Nashville District COE for other
concerns is Ms. Peggy Goss at [phone].
Sincereoy
Lawrenc nders
Chief, Divisi
on
A-23
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director y
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
N. C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David L. Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: December 16, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for Scoping Comments on N. C. Department of
Transportation Improvements for Relocation of NC 191 to
I-240, Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2902.
Due to a prior commitment, I was unable to attend the
December 1 scoping meeting for this project. Your follow-up
letter mentioned that a second meeting will be held to discuss
construction alternatives after additional design work has been
completed.
Please notify me when a time and place has been set for this
second meeting,, so that I can schedule attendance. I can be
contacted at the following address:
P. 0. Box 118
r==nor., NC 27564
J??1z7ff51 pC'?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to planning
stages for this project. If I can further assist your office,
please call me at [phone].
A-24
? of STA?o
f?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 23, 1993 LNAR2 MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
De artment of r ortation FROM: David Brook Deputy State Inc Preservation
Officer
SUBJECT: NC 191 Relocation to 1-240 Interchange, Asheville,
Buncombe County, U-2902, 8.184310 1, STP-191(1),
CH 93-E-4220-0618
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our survey site files which do not identify any
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general project area.
However, at an early scoping meeting for this project, we discovered the following
properties in the area of potential effect:
Bridge No. 216. Over Hominy Creek on SR 191. We feel that the bridge is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A
and C in the areas of transportation and engineering, respectively.
House with Barn. Between 1-40 and 1-240, on a hill near Ashton Health
Care Center. This property has not been evaluated for National Register-
eligibility.
Please provide photographs, keyed to a map, -of the last property. Also include a
brief statement about its history and explain which National Register criterion it
does not does not meet.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
A-25
109 East Jones Street • Rale?;v. Nertb Carolina 27601-2807
OF

L. J. Ward
March 23, 1993, Page 2
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway Administration
B. Church
T. Padgett
A-26
L + ?
e r-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 30, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 191
relocation from north of 1-40 to north of 1-240,
Asheville, Buncombe County, U-2902, 8.1843101,
STP-191(1), ER 94-8977
Dear Mr. Graf:
cam-'
000W 195,,
Thank you for your letter of May 25, 1994, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Bridge No. 216. Criterion C--The structure is a rare example of a closed
spandrel arch bridge in North Carolina.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places because they have little historical or architectural
significance:
Ingle House
Drake House
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
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.

A-27
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

Nicholas L. Graf
June 30, 1994, Page 2
".?=-Thank'you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
?r-`' environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
_ _Sincerely,
a i Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
A-28
aJ`t-p j?.????
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division or Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 11, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator ?.
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue •JVL l 3 1994 =
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Y
Re: Relocation of NC 191 to 1-240, U-2902, Buncombe
County, ER 93-7690, ER 94-9085
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas J. Padgett concerning the above project.
We concur with the finding that the proposed project will affect site 31 BN623* * if
Alternative 1 is selected. However, if Alternative 1 is selected, the site is not
significant for preservation in place. Thus, data recovery will be considered
appropriate mitigation if the site is determined to be eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. If Alternative 2 or 3 is selected the project
will have no effect on significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Since ely,
David Brook
?1?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
A-29
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Federal Aid # Wrl- 11t t TIP # u-tit 022 County I%V1 oom r, r-
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
146 tit W"t-ac R•AC) 9zIve*rIv4 PE 096,l T--4- xwp T-. 'z4&
On J ua? I& t 111119F , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
V/ there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
Historic Architectural Resources Section
FHWA, &ethe Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
." 22 .
Date
1
Date s
7-7 -qr
RepresentativeISldPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer A-30 Date
(over)
Federal Aid # STP • MI > TIP # u -2-1* L County $a0z-owner.
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
b?lvr? tJ?. 2tb ova ??.?n?aY C???c. (vE J
AV I?FFU.rFa- fP4ro4YE.D "Ptrkoa of 1-baR. VISMI- g.All? T• F.acatinnlF
VFlC'6E V-XILr AAD gEPA11L OF Extsrl?Jfi "WgGF- Fkll, I Subay{p?y?LMRE
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).

Initialed: NCDOT PHWA SHPO
A-31
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
03-26-93 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-80
t<)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
N.C. DEPT• OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGE
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING C ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARI
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SLOPING - PROPOSED NC 191 RELOCATION TO I-240 INTERCHANGE#
BUNCOMBE COUNTY TIP #U-2902
SAI NO 93E42200618 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
'MAR 3 1 1993
Z
j, DIVISI -N OF
HIGHWAYS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSi PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION B
A-32
e.w St^TE u .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0618 Relocation to I-240 Interchange, Asheville,
Buncombe County
DATE: February 23, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
David Foster
FEB ?_ 5 -nc,.9
L•
I
A-33
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
J a. SPATE „
i'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
February 2, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison -'p
SUBJECT: NC 191 Relocation to I-240 Interchange, Asheville,
N.C.. Project No. 93-0618
The proposed project involves relocating NC 191 in the vicinity
of I-240, including replacing bridges over Hominey Creek and
I-240 and realigning access ramps. The Environmental Assessment
should identify any unique, prime, or important farmlands-that
would be impacted by the project. A wetlands evaluation should
be included.
DH/tl
A-34
PO. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative ,fiction EmphryLr

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COM24ENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., secretary Director
Project Number: Cl3-CGI,? County:
Project Name: ./C/ C
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact ygeodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
r? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
y The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
A-35
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirrnadve Action Employer
X10 Y ?•1 / '? ? l
lit
:r
yI42
N,?
.. Dom. D?i3±\v G-? `Y.® r t
J1 Ar
?`' „ ? D ? +D ? ?I `A ?1? D3 Y'x Yi'° lMy?i?f'tiH LL••??"" ni?;t.6??
?= F 76 ?,4 ? do C ? ? _ w6'
?1pi/N.>, ,p ill ,? w'• ,Q?;;. / +, n n1:'•? - °?, 1 «
?a ?Nin. 'Y ? ?Y/L'/N ? w' I ;:w r 4? o o t `''•:':'G ?"?',y?y? ai, i
irii !1 ?? , @`::
A
n? ? b ? 3g ? ,? Ill +?' > ? i +?. a' ????,((rrr yy¦¦ ?''?'I ti M
®w 7 ...° .,Y.. .tom} , sa ?•? .N .. ......
'• '? ::•f R.: ON .: •. ll:'} (n •.? R?
?j?r, V ?rir} :•i }:??:•:J}}}}?rri/ti•YQv?J73}rn:•:iri.4::....
?1r. '•J:}:tilt!: Y`j\/?{
Y • 1? i? C7'V1" - ,AYM71YY1D •\ i' i•• a? 14
n
O
G
s?. `h ? ? w ` ? H S p T Fi .
-Mot
i7ko
[ L'4 f p¢ F e
?^ IZ Y L p $?:: ? ' y 'fry-= ?D??flF M \ °_I H ?*, d?,
n'ts' Y° A
'It
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLE4RINGHJUSE
DEPARTMENT 0.= ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
PT OF AGRICULTURE
PT OF CUL RESOURCES
PT OF EHNR
PT OF TRANSPORTATION
PT OF CC6r''S - NA=P
ATE PLANNING REGION B
STATE NUMBER 93-E-4220-0618
DATE RECEIVED
01 25 93
STATE ASENCY RESPONSE DUE 03 23 93
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE 03 22 93
REVIEW CLOSED 03 25 93
.`?ia93
QOJECT
PPL: N-C- DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
FDA#: 0000 12001
ESC: SC
I- N; I - 'ROPOSED NC 191 RELOCATION TO I-240 INTERCHANGE-1
BU'COM E COUNTY TIP #U-2902
ROSS-REFEE EhCE NUMBER:
l.7
CF= 9' - 7GycF02

REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
DATE. IF ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS OFFICE.
------------------------------------------------------------------ ---I_'zr???s
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED
( ) NO COMMENT -
(N?-UOMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE:___3?2:33 ..-
mAR 2 5 Ir`+'. I'
A-37
f; q .ocr
J
Se)
A n
CAt?
28 HERITAGE DRIVE . ASHEVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 26806
T E Lit P H O N E 1 7 0 4 1 2 8 4. 8 1 3 1
Regional Clearinghouse
N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
he Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached information
a proposal which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to comment on this proposed acti . comple this form and
return it with your comments to this office by 3119/93 . Comments
received after this date cannot be included in o r esponse t the State
Clearinghouse.
If you need additional time in order to obtain more information about
the application or to 'formulate your comments, please call Jim Stokoe
at 2S4-8131 as soon as possible. An extension of the review period may be
possible.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application
Identifier (below) is a funding proposal review. Comments should focus on
the acceptability or unacceptability of the project. Projects with an "E" in
the identifier are environmental or site reviews. Comments for these projects
should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection
process.
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no
comments regarding this proposal.
State Application d tiTfi?er # I - EF 5 220Regional No. 20" 93
Commenter''s Name Title
w
cal gov4rnmefit
Address
Phone Date-
Comment (or attach): ?
____A. _ A n ..?
LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL
A-38
SERVING REGION 81 BUNCOMBE, HENDERSON. MADISON 6 TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES

Comments concerning relocation of NC 191 between I-40 and I-240.
Ron Fuller) -MAYVspcLTHT1 e^( PcA-,"E
February 24, 1993
My comments concerning this project and the environmental impact are as follows:
1) The existing bridge on NC 191 over Hominy Creek should be left intact, however.
it should be restricted to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. By doing so, the impact
to the environment (Hominy Creek) is cut in half since construction will take
place at a new bridge location and no demolition will occur at the present site.
2) Although the existing bridge has but a few years remaining for use by cars and
trucks, it's life span should be relatively long for use by pedestrians and bicycles.
Although this is not necessarily an environmental issue, the safety concerns merit
consideration.
3) Requiring non-motorized traffic utilizing NC 191, Shelboume Road, and Fairfax
Avenue to cross a heavily travelled interstate interchange endangers both that
traffic as well as the cars and trucks. A diversion as suggested will utilize
existing structures and allow for safer conditions for all involved vehicles since
pedestrians and bicycles will be able to completely avoid traffic ingressing and
egressing I-240.
4) The maintenance required by this suggestion should be minimal since access to
Shelbourne Road and SR 3620 will continue to be provided. Substantial cost
savings would be immediately realized by not removing the bridge.
• 1

S Egli v? PLi.?°..
A-39
e, 6, 19
_wc?-/f taet,
1
A-40
ASHEVILLE
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mark P. Monaghan, Zoning Enforcement Officer
TO: N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
DATE: March 77, 7993
SUBJECT: 93-E-4220-0678 Regional Number 20-93
This project involves possible impacts on designated Special
Flood Hazard areas. This project would require approval through
the City of Asheville Planning Department in regard to local
floodplain regulations. It is also highly probable that a
revision of federal flood maps would be necessary to insure
that the appropriate data is available to properly enforce
floodplain regulations.
For additional information regarding City of Asheville review
procedures please contact Mark P. Monaghan at the below address
and phone number.
A-41
ZONING ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
POST OFFICE BOX 7148
ASHEVILLE, NC 28802
?3 --L- - `f,--> Zo -o6/8
February 10, 1993
Mr. J.L. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Re: NC 191 Relocation
TIP Project U-2902
This letter is written on behalf the Bikeways Taskforce of the Asheville Area
Transportation Advisory Committee. It requests a roadway link between Amboy Road
east of the subject project and Brevard Road south of the project that is suitable for
bicycle travel. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important project.
We support the effort to improve or replace the Hominy Creek Bridge. It represents
a hazard for cyclists as well as motorists. Since your project may now be larger in
scope than a bridge widening, it may also present an opportunity to fill a gap in the
area bicycle network. That gap is a connection from Amboy Road on the eastern edge
of your project to 191 on the southwest edge of your project (sketch enclosed.)
Riverside Drive/Meadow Drive is a heavily used bicycle corridor. Amboy Road is a
reasonable connection to the west with State Street providing access to old West
Asheville. At present, cyclists headed to the southwest must cut across two lanes of
I-240 from the Amboy entrance ramp to the Brevard Road exit or take a major detour
through old West Asheville and down Brevard Road which is narrow and not ideal for
both autos and cyclists.
The distance from. the. west end of Amboy road to the existing Brevard Road and I-
240 Interchange is a few hundred feet. One possible solution is a grade separate "bike
path" to bridge this gap. I believe that the Bicycle Taskforce is open to a wide range
of alternatives including wide outside lanes or paved shoulders. We will be glad to
meet with your staff at a time convenient to them to discuss other options.
On a matter unrelated to bicycles but related to this project, I suggest that you
examine the possibility of allowing traffic to move between I-240 westbound and I-40
eastbound. That movement is missing at the I-240/1-40 interchange. This addition as
a part of the subject project will greatly improve circulation in the area.
A-42 "`
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Tom Redinger
Bikeways Taskforce Chair
cc: NCDOT Board Member
Curtis Yates
Bill Smart
Susan Klemm
Ron Fuller
Bikeways Taskforce
A-43
EAI D C LEAW IN U Hok'sL:=
CcYY1 M C- N -r -e,
LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL
26 HERITAGE DRIVE • AS H E V ILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 28906
T E L E P H O N E 17041254-81 3 1
Regional Clearinghouse
N.C. Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached information
about a proposal which could affect your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
If you wish to comment on this proposed action, complete this form and
return it with your comments to this office by 3 9/ 9 1:? Comments
received after this date cannot be included in ou re ponse to the State
Clearinghouse.
If you need additional time in order to obtain more information about
the application or to formulate your comments, please call Jim Stokoe
at 254-8131 as soon as possible. An extension of the review period may be
possible.
A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a IICII in the State Application
Identifier (below) is a funding proposal review. Comments should focus on
the acceptability or unacceptability of the project. Projects with an "Ell in
the identifier are environmental or site reviews. Comments for these projects
should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection
process.
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no
comments regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier # `j3-E-yZ.ZD-j%1R Regional No. Zo'
Commenter's Name B VA SE H6P-A Title EKGCY7.1 J1-5
Representing
-i'r05(? p -may/ _ On/AL NNE ??-
(local government)
Address-2-5- H-C- 7-A GE- E
AstewiL-LE IF ^r c_
PhoneC70 Y 1 -Y/331 Date
Comment (or attach): Tj-FE C-PL!/1!Ca ?'tnnN_Olr ?t= Tel ?S /J,?c %T'
A S L 0,416- A s IT- A OF n/07- f6bi leCC e67S`P, (C -- 0re_ e-.-.A-e .7
A-44
SERVING REGION B: BUNCOMBE. HENDERSON. MADISON 6 TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES ??
G 1 S
LAND-(
,NAL COUNCIL
2 3 H E R IT AG I N O R T H CAROLINA 2! 6 0 6
I A- 6 1 3 1
February 10, 1993
Mr. J.L. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Boa 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
CE
I+AR D
Z
DIV'SICN OF
H1OH:ArAYS
ONh1E%
Re: NC 191 Relocation
TIP Project U-2902
This letter is written on behalf the Bikeways Taskforce of the Asheville Area
Transportation Advisory Committee. It requests a roadway link between Amboy Road
east of the subject project and Brevard Road south of the project that is suitable for
bicycle travel. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important project.
We support the effort to improve or replace the Hominy Creek Bridge. It represents
a hazard for cyclists as well as motorists. Since your project may now be larger in
scope than a bridge widening, it may also present an opportunity to fill a gap in the
area bicycle network. That gap is a connection from Amboy Road on the eastern edge
of your-project to 191 on the southwest edge of your project (sketch enclosed.)
Riverside Drive/Meadow Drive is a heavily used bicycle corridor. Amboy Road is a
reasonable connection to the west with State Street providing access to old West
Asheville. At present, cyclists headed to the southwest must cut across two lanes of
I-240 from the Amboy entrance ramp to the Brevard Road exit or take a major detour
through old West Asheville and -down Brevard Road which is narrow and not ideal for
both autos and cyclists.
The distance from the west end of Amboy road to the existing Brevard Road and I-
240 Interchange is a few hundred feet. One possible solution is a grade separate "bike
path" to bridge this gap. I believe that the Bicycle Taskforce is open- to a wide range
of alternatives including wide outside lanes or paved shoulders. We will be glad to
meet with your staff at a time convenient to them to discuss other options.
On a matter unrelated to bicycles but related to this project, I suggest that you
examine the possibility of allowing traffic to move between I-240 westbound and I-40
eastbound. That movement is missing at the I-240/1-40 interchange. This addition as
a part of the subject project will greatly improve circulation in the area.
A-45
SERVING REGION as OUNCOMSE. HENDERSON. MADISON O TRANSYLVANIA COUNT198
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
i
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
fb%. Tom Redinger
Bikeways Taskforce Chair
cc: NCDOT Board Member
Curtis Yates
Bill Smart " _. -
Susan Klemm. .
Ron Fuller
Bikeways Taskforce
A-46
J v w 1 ! ! ! 7 v f?
A-47
LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL
23 HERITAGE DRIVE • ASHE V ILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 29806
T E L E P H O N E 1 7 0 4 1 2 54-81 ] 1
August 24, 1994
Mr. Ed Lewis
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Bog 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on NC 191 at
Hominy Creek (Project # U-2902)
Dear Ed:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your working drawings for this project. This
intersection is very important to our pedestrian and cycling community in part because of the
barrier that was created by the construction of I-240. The comments contained in this letter
were discussed at length during the August 22 meeting of the Bikeways Taskforce established
by the Asheville Area Transportation Advisory Committee. A Pedestrian Task Force
representative also attended that meeting.'
Riverside Drive/Lyman/Meadow/Swannanoa River Road is the spine of the bicycle
transportation network in the Asheville area. Amboy Road establishes a connector to the
west and south that could be much improved by work in connection with this project.
The enclosed sketch outlines three alternatives for your consideration. Each of them connect
the end of Amboy Road to Brevard Road (191) southbound with a facility that is suitable for
bicycle and pedestrian travel.
A. -A grade separate bikelpedestrian path "inside the fence" on the-fill slope of I-240 that
connects with Hominy Creek Road (SR3620). This option assumes that the existing
191 bridge will be available for crossing Hominy Creek and connecting with 191
southbound.
B. A variation of "A" that includes a loop that goes under 191 and provides access to
southbound 191. This option assumes that the existing 191 bridge will-not be
available for crossing Hominy Creek.
C. A path along the French Broad River from the west end of Amboy road to the Hominy
Creek River Park (at the south end Hominy Creek Road (SR3620)) with a
A-48
SERVING RESIGN ii BUNCOMBE. NENOERSON. MADISON 6 TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
pedestrian/bike bridge connecting to the WNC Farmers Market and 191 south.
The bridge profiles included on your sketch do not appear to accommodate pedestrians or
bicycles. Some of the alternatives listed above may avoid the need to include sidewalks and
wide outside lanes on both of the new bridges. The Taskforce tries to be aware of the cost
implications of their suggestions. Although I have not done a detailed comparison; the grade
separate pathway may be less costly. Alternative B would require pedestrian and bike travel
on Bridge 216 over Hominy Creek and perhaps on #242 over I-240.
Please call if I can assist in any way. I am also sharing these ideas with Ron Fuller with the
City of Asheville and Mary Meletiou of the Bicycle Program. Thanks again for the
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Tom lmore
Planning Director
A-49
4,4 v
uj C)
. ..; •? C '? ?: - ???° ? mac
a 4 z - J',
LIN
00
WOH
lip
10?. _
N C14
Imo'- ,tip ? ?p,`,\ •
p - Q.J 'gyp ;; I m
_ N L, 1t in
tr iv F-QZw-'• ,I •I
L) LL
r Luir*.
mom
Or '1Z
-o
I cq ?` \ \
3 cv -? a I , ?? \\ \\.
N --?
cr _5 "ovC is l Z '
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HuNT. JR SAM HuNT
GovERNOR PUBUC AFFAIRS DIVISION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE DATE: August 17, 1993
CONTACT: Hannah Daniel, [phone] DISTRIBUTION: 11
RELEASE NO: 365
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP SET FOR PROPOSED RELOCATION OF
N.C. 191 FROM NORTH OF I-40 TO I-240 IN ASHEVILLE
RALEIGH - The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a citizens
informational workshop on August 24 to discuss the proposed relocation of N.C. 191 from north
of I-40 to I-240 in Asheville in Buncombe County.
The workshop will be held between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. at the National Guard Armory
on N.C. 191 (Brevard Road) in Asheville.
All interested individuals may attend this workshop at their convenience. NCDOT representatives
will be available to present information, answer questions and receive comments on the early
design stages of the proposed relocation of N.C. 191.
The proposed project consists of constructing a multi-lane highway at a new location south of I-
240, providing a multi-lane bridge over I-240 and improving ramps.
Anyone wanting additional information may contact Mr. Ed Lewis, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 or 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. Lewis at the above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the workshop.
***NCDOT***
A-51 - .
NC DOTIINE
1-ND52(r RUBIE BRrrr HEIGHT
MEDIA INFORMATION UPDATES PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC 191 (BREVARD BLVD) RELOCATION
FROM NORTH OF INTERSTATE 40
TO NORTH OF INTERSTATE 240
ASHEVILLE
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
T. I. R NUMBER U - 2902
AUGUST 24, 1993
Citizens Informational Workshop
A-52 All
- ---- t
B?-

?
T
?. ffu .li
?2
e
? 3
A

p
q
?'<' lot
a f-?
?. t
s
Nc :
:: 2: :
.` 1
I afi`.C:- ?
?'J
St
IM t

3y3ilr
:. 11111.
.
fw
SyA' Vol
A
?1u
M T
Oj' 3
f.o l L
S
:y
f. .vim 11
A
H
?:
.

a

uu ® ?
us l.•
?
,ems
Yu ,

Lu \ 3 a
' L
? 21 1!l!
?
_ v J

G.-
?' zs?
/ ?0?. 53,583
Vuu
LAKE
KENILWOI
YJ '?

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Kj" DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
RELOCATION OF NC 191
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
U-2902
10/92 FIG. 1
CITIZENS
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 191 (Brevard Boulevard) Relocation
From North of Interstate 40
To North of Interstate 240
Asheville
Buncombe County
Federal-Aid Project STP 191(1)
State Project No. 8.1843101
Transportation Improvement Program No. U-2902
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
This informational workshop is being held to review the proposed
relocation NC 191 from north of I-40 to north of I-240. Any comments or
suggestions concerning the proposed improvements or areas of environmental
concern in this study will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the
project study. It is realized that persons who are close to the project
want to know exact information about the effect on their home or place of
business. Exact information is not available at this stage of the
project's development. Additional work is necessary before the actual
right-of-way limits can be established. Therefore, it is not possible for
representatives of the N. C. Division of Highways to provide exact
information about the effect of the project on individual properties at
this time.- More definite information will be available at a future public
hearing.
Written comments or requests for additional information should be
addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for the
relocation of NC 191 and some bridge replacement and rehabilitation. The
proposed improvements will require acquisition of right-of-way. The
attached map shows the location of the project.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvements call for constructing a multi-lane road on
new location, replacing bridges numbered 216 and 242, and bridge deck
rehabilitation on bridges numbered 206 and 208.
A-54
There are three alternatives currently under study.
Alternative 1 calls for carrying NC 191 over I-240 west of its
present location.
Alternative 2 calls for carrying NC 191 over I-240 east of its
present ocation. Bridge No. 242 would carry NC 191 over I-240. There
would be major design revisions at this interchange with a single-point
urban interchange planned.
Alternative 3 calls for carrying NC 191 over I-240 east of its
present location-. Bridge Number 242 would carry NC 191 over I-240. There
would be major design revisions at this interchange with a compressed
diamond interchange planned.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995
with construction scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997.
EXISTING FACILITIES
NC 191
NC 191 is an existing 2 lane roadway classified as a urban minor
arterial. It is a link between I-240, I-40 and I-26. The 1993 ADT
is 13,000 vpd (vehicles per day) of which 10% are trucks. The 2017
projected ADT is 27,600 vpd.
The existing posted speed on NC 191 south of Bridge # 216 is 45 mph
and 35 mph north of Bridge #216.
NC 191 north of the I-240 interchange is a winding, narrow 2 lane
roadway. Older subdivisions and neighborhoods exist on both sides of
the road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, however, from a site
visit, traffic was observed to travel slower than the posted speed
due to the horizontal curves, the grade and the roadside development.
Bridge No. 216 on NC 191 over Hominy Creek is a double concrete arch
bridge. It is located underneath Bridges 206 and 208 on I-240. It
has a sufficiency rating of 49.1 and was scheduled to be replaced
under project B-1062. The bridge railing has been hit and repaired
numerous times. The concrete railing is in very poor condition. The
concrete has cracked and deteriorated exposing corroded rebar.
I-240/NC 191 Interchanae
I-240 within the project area is an existing 4 lane divided
interstate. The 1993 ADT on I-240 is 48,000 vpd. The projected 2017
ADT is 100,300 vpd with 5% Duals and 4% TTST. The subject
interchange serves traffic movements from I-240 to NC 191, the
entrance into Aston Health Park, and Fairfax Avenue. The roadway is
made of concrete pavement. The eastbound and westbound lanes are
separated with a 16' paved median with double faced steel beam
guardrail located in the center. The outside shoulders are 10'
bituminous pavement with concrete curb and gutter. The ramps have
concrete curb & gutter on both sides.
A-55
The ramp in the northeast quadrant aligns with NC 191 and also serves
as a two-way ramp for traffic entering the subdivision via Fairfax
Avenue.
Bridge No. 242 has a sufficiency rating of 79.9. The horizontal
clearance is 28' and the vertical clearance is 14'-10". Sidewalks and
one bar metal rails are on both sides of the bridge.
Bridge No. 206 and 208 on I-240 both have a sufficiency rating 74.9.
Both bridges have a horizontal clearance of 28'. The vertical
clearance is 15'-0". Both bridges have the raised curb with one bar
metal rails across them.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$ 4,200,000
$ 11,200,000
$ 10,000,000
These costs do not include right-of-way acquisition costs. These costs
should be regarded as preliminary only and are subject to revision
later stages of planning. in the
The TIP includes a total funding for this project of $5,410,000 which
includes $4,810,000 for construction and $600,000 for right-of-way
acquisition.
A-56
COMMENT SHEET
NC 191 (BREVARD BLVD) RELOCATION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT U-2902
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
AUGUST 24, 1993
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these
sheets, but please take the time to give us your
comments and concerns regarding this project. Please
continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME: _
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS,
CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT R-2512:
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
REGARDING OUR CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP PROCESS:
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE
NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR
EXPLANATIONS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY-TO READ AND UNDERSTAND? PLEASE
EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
A-57
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS:
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION IN YOUR AREA
AND NORTH CAROLINA IN GENERAL.
WHAT IS YOUR AREA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
WHAT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN YOUR AREA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN NORTH
CAROLINA? GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT? WHY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY
TRANSPORTATION RELATED SUBJECT?
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.,
Manager of the Planning and Environmental Branch, North
Carolina Department of Transportation, P. O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
A-58
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NEWSLETTER
DECEMBER 1995 NO. 1
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT U-2902
NC 191(BREVARD ROAD) RELOCATION
FROM NORTH OF INTERSTATE 40
TO NORTH OF INTERSTATE 240
ASHEVILLE
This newsletter is being sent to update you on the proposed NC 191 (Brevard Road) relocation
project
Three alternatives were presented at the August 1993 Citizens Informational Workshop held
at the North Carolina National Guard Armory. Planning, environmental and design studies
were performed on the alternatives to assess the environmental impacts. The results of
these studies will be outlined in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA will include a
comparison of project costs and environmental impacts, and identify the recommended alternative.
The EA is scheduled for completion in early 1996. A Public Hearing will be scheduled after
completion of the EA. At that hearing the recommended alternative will be presented to the public
for comments and questions. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the final planning
document, is scheduled for completion in the summer of 1996. Right-of--way acquisition is scheduled
to begin in late 1996, and construction will begin in late 1997. If you are on the mailing list, you will
be notified once the Public Hearing is scheduled.
If you have any questions about the project, contact the Project Planning Engineer, Ed Lewis,
at [phone], or write:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
NC 191 (Brevard Road) Relocation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
A-59
A-60
to-

A-61
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PLANNING PROCESS
THIS PROJECT IS IN THE FOURTH
PHASE OF THE PLANNING PROCESS.
PHASE 1
DATA COLLECTION
INVENTORY OF PLANNING ISSUES
PHASE 2
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION
FIELD STUDIES
PHASE 3
ENGINEERING STUDIES
DETAILED FIELD STUDIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
TECHNICAL REPORTS
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLAN
Public participation is an important
part of the planning process for this
project. Several strategies will be
used to inform the public about
the project and to solicit citizen input for
planning and development, including
newsletters, phone- in comments,
mail contact, citizen workshops and local
newspaper advertisements.
A mailing list has been developed which
includes the names of local citizens who
have expressed interest in the NC 191
Relocation. This list will be updated
throughout the project study and used to
distribute subsequent newsletters and
notifications of upcoming meetings and
hearings. If you would like to be placed
on the list, fill out the enclosed
form and mail it to:
Mr. Ed Lewis
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
PHASE 5
REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE EA
REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
PRASE 6
PREPARATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT
This intersection
will be modified under
TIP Project U-2902
Please include my name on the mailing list for
Brevard Road Relocation (U-2902)

(Please Print)
Name:
Address:
• City/State: Zip Code:
Telephone Number: (___)
Neighborhood Organization/Affilliation:
Comments:
cut and share with a neighbor
............................................................................................................................
Please include my name on the mailing list for
Brevard Road Relocation (U-2902)
(Please Print)
Name:
Address:
City/State: Zip Code:
Telephone Number : (_)
Neighborhood Organization/Affiliation:
Comments:
A-63
` k
STATE OF NORTI I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T)?ANSPORTATION
JAW.s B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND h. GARRUT JR.
GO VERNO R P.O. ROX 25201. RAI I:I(111. N.C. 27(,11-5201 SICREIARY
RECEIVED
July 17, 1996 J01. 2.2 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 191 (Brevard Road)
Relocation, From North of Interstate 40 to North of Interstate 240,
Asheville, Buncombe County, F. A. Project No. STP-191(1), State Project
No. 8.1843 T.I.P. No. U-2902
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Systems
Technical 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. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ROE
2
Your comments should be received by September 3, 1996. 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,
??O11L,
H, Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
..{ s _
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA G
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
5
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 ---? ARY
15 November 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist -?
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
addendum for proposed relocation of NC 191,
Asheville, Buncombe County, TIP No. U-2902;
State Project No. 8.1843101; Federal Aid
No. STP-191(1).
REFERENCE: (1) Resource Southeast, Ltd., NRTR for
proposed relocation of NC 191., dated
July 1994.
(2) Saul's NRTR, dated 10 January 1995.
(3) Saul's NRTR addendum, dated 10 January
1995.
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Manager
A review of water resources and protected species issues
has been requested in final preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA). The proposed project involves relocating NC
191 (Brevard Boulevard) in the vicinity of the NC 191/I-240
intersection and new location crossing of Hominy Creek. The
mean sea level (msl) elevation of the project study area is
approximately 667 m (2200 ft).
WATER RESOURCES
Hominy Creek is the only water resource located in the
study area. Hominy Creek (Index No. 6-76) has a DEM best
usage classification of C. A definition for this
classification as well as other pertinent information
concerning Hominy Creek can be found in Reference 2.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and

N
AI
r;?j1 2
.av?ti
.,'--
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As
of 23 March 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists
the following federally-protected species for Buncombe County
(Table 1). Descriptions of these species characteristics and
habitat can be found in Reference 2.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species
for Buncombe County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E*
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E*
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern
coloratus flying squirrel E
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
Gvmnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen E
Sagitaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E*
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. Jonesii pitcher-plant E*
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is like ly to become
an endangered species within the foreseeab le future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Buncombe County found in the past
twenty years.
Since completion of Reference 1, the FWS has revised the
status of the Appalachian elktoe and rock gnome lichen from
Proposed Endangered (PE) to Endangered. No new species have
been added to the FWS listing for Buncombe County since
completion of Reference 2. New, more detailed biological
conclusions for each species are provided below.
Alasmidonta raveneliana
(Appalachian elktoe) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Extensive survey work in NC by the FWS and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) indicate that populations
of Appalachian elktoe are restricted to the Nolichucky River
and its tributaries, as well as the Little Tennessee River
and its tributaries. The stream impacted by the subject
project is not within those populated areas. A review of the
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database for rare species and
unique habitats was performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd
on 15 November 1995. This search revealed no documented
7
3
occurrence of the Appalachian elktoe in the study area. No
.impact to the Appalachian elktoe will result from project
construction.
Felis concolor couguar (eastern cougar) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project study area occurs within the city limits of
Asheville and anticipated impacts reveal that the area is
predominantly urbanized and disturbed (Reference 3); the
eastern cougar live in large, remote wilderness areas. No
habitat for the eastern cougar exists in the project study
area. A review of the NHP database for rare species and
unique habitats was performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd
on 15 November 1995. This" search revealed no documented
occurrence of the eastern cougar in the study area. Project
construction will not result in any impacts to the eastern
cougar.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
(northern flying squirrel) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The northern flying squirrel has a strict elevation
requirement, greater than 1517 m (5000 ft), and the project
study area does not meet this requirement. A review of the
NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was
performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd on 15 November
1995. This search revealed no documented occurrence of the
northern flying squirrel in the study area. Project
construction will have no impact to the northern flying
squirrel.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading avens has a strict elevation requirement, with
the lowest requirement being 1535-1541 m (5060-5080 ft); the-
project study area does not meet this requirement. A review
of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was
performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd was performed on 15
November 1995. This search revealed no documented occurrence
of spreading avens in the study area. No impact to spreading
avens will result from project construction.
Gymnoderma lineare ('rock gnome lichen) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The rock gnome lichen has a strict elevation requirement
of ?1220 m (4000 ft) in Buncombe County; the project study
4
area does not meet this requirement. A review of the NHP
database for rare species and unique habitats was performed
by NCDOT biologist.Phillip Todd was performed on 15 November
1995. This search revealed no documented occurrence of the
rock gnome lichen in the study area. No impact to the rock
gnome lichen will result from project construction.
SaQittaria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead) E
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

The proposed project does not impact habitat suitable
for bunched arrowhead (gently sloping bogs). A review of the
NHP database for rare species and unique habitats was
performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd on 15 November
1995. This search revealed no documented occurrence of
bunched arrowhead in the study area. The proposed project
will result in no impacts to bunched arrowhead.
Sarracenia rubra var. ionsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Habitat for mountain sweet pitcher plant is not present
in the study area as Hominy Creek has high banks ranging in
height from 4.6-6.1 m (15-20 ft), has a canopy cover and is
channelized. A review of the NHP database for rare species
and unique habitats was performed by NCDOT biologist Phillip
Todd on 15 November 1995. This search revealed no documented
occurrence of mountain sweet pitcher plant in the study area.
No impact to mountain sweet pitcher plant will result from
project construction.
Spiraea •:irginiana (Virginia spiraea) T
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for Virginia spiraea exists in the project study
area. Surveys for Virginia spiraea were conducted by
Resource Southeast, Ltd. biglogists in July 1994. Surveys
conducted along the banks of Hominy Creek revealed no
specimens of this species (Reference 1). A review of the NHP
database for rare species and unique habitats was performed
by NCDOT biologist Phillip Todd on 15 November 1995. This
search revealed no documented occurrence of Virginia spiraea
in the study area. No impact to Virginia spiraea will result
from project construction.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2902
a ?. swt
F4? •?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
16 `larch 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: J. Nilson Stroud. Emit head
Project Planning
FROM: Lane Sauis. Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: ..,Ed-,:Lewis.-Pro.ject Manager
SUBJECT: Addendum =2 for NC 191 (Brevard
Boulevard) relocation betwt,--- n I-40 and I -
240 in Asheville. Buncombe County: TIP =
U-2902: State Project = S.1S43101:
Federal Aid Project = STP-191(1).
REFERENCE(s): (1) Resource Southeast International.
LTD. Julv 1994 Natural Resources
Technical Report of Proposed
Relocation of NC 191 from I-40 to I-
240.
(2) Sauls, January 1995 Natural
Rescuces Technicai Report for
Proposed Widenin of I-240.
The attached addendum addresses impacts'likely to occur
to natural resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided.
This project has ciecreaseci in scope since the previous
request. NC 191 (Brevard Boulevard) will be relocated south
of i-240 and north of I-40 (Figure 1) rather than Nvidenin' I-
240 as originally planned. The study area is currently
concentrated around the intersection of NC 191 and 1-240. as
well as the area south associated with Hominy Creek. The
proposed cross section of NC 191 is currently lanes.
undivided and project length is 1.6 km (1.0 mi).
Water Resources
The current scope projects that surface water impacts
will occur only at Hominy Creep:. For additional information
on this water resource. refer to the referenced documents.

?i
G..

1)
Biotic Resources
Three distinct terrestrial communities will be impacted
by the proposed action: mixed pine/hardwood forest; alluvial
forest and maintained communities. The mixed pine/hardwood
forest lies adjacent to I-240. The alluvial forest is
associated with Hominy Creek. Maintained communities
describe all areas that are frequently disturbed by man's
activities. These include roadside shoulders, powerline
right-of-ways, etc. Aquatic community impacts will occur
only to the mountain perennial stream (Hominy Creek). All
communities have been previously described in the referenced
reports. Adjusted impacts to these communities, based upon
the modified scope, are shown in Table 1. Impacts are
estimated by using a proposed ri.-ht-of-way of 30.5 m (100.0
ft). Actual impacts will probably be less.
Table 1. Estimated impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY IMPACT
Mixed pine/hardwood forest 0.7 (1.6)
Alluvial forest 0.1 (0.2)
Maintained communities 4.2 (10.3)
TOTAL 4.9 (12.1)
Note: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
Jurisdictional Topics
Impacts to surface waters will occur as a result of
project construction. No wetlands will be impacted. Refer
to the referenced reports for information pertaining to
Waters of the United States.
As of 17 November 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally protected species for Buncombe County (Table 2).
TABLE 2. FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Felis concolor couRuar
Glaucomvs sabrinus
coloratus
Geum radiatum
Gvmnoderma lineare
SaQittaria fasciculata
Sarracenia rubra
var. .ionesi i
Spiraea vireiniana
Common Name
Appalachian elktoe
eastern cougar
Carolina northern
flying squirrel
spreading avens
rock gnome lichen
bunched arrowhead
mountain sweet
pitcher-plant
Virginia spiraea
Classification
E*
E*
E
E
PE
E*
E*
T*
3
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Buncombe County found in the past
twentv years.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (appalachian elktoe), Felis concolor
Cou?uar (eastern cougar), Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus
(northern flying squirrel), Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
and Gvnmoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen)
Biological Conclusions: NO EFFECT
These species have been addressed in the referenced
reports. No suitable habitat for these species occurs in the
study area.
The remaining three species were concluded as unresolved
in the referenced reports. The new project scope will not
impact the meadow/bog community as originally thought.
Therefore, new biological conclusions can now be stated.
Sagittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead) Endangered
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No wetlands. particularity mountain bogs, exist within
the newly defined project boundaries. Therefore no suitable
habitat exists for bunched arrowhead. No impacts to bunched
arrowhead will occur as a result of project construction.
Sarracenia rubra (mountain sweet pitcher plant) Endangered
var. Jonesii
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No wetlands, particularily mountain bogs, exist within
the newly defined project boundaries. Therefore no suitable
habitat exists for mountain sweet pitcher plant. No impacts
to mountain sweet pitcher plant will occur as a result of
project construction.
Spiraea vir;iniana (Virginia spiraea) Threatened
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Surveys were conducted by Resource Southeast, Ltd
biologists for Virginia spiraea in July 1994. Surveys were
conducted along Hominy- Creek, the only area with suitable
4
habitat, and no specimens were observed. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the proposed project will not impact
Virginia spiraea.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-3902

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
08 March 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ATTENTION:
Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist P9:_
Environmental Unit
Review of Projects in counties of federally-
protect species, the Appalachian elktoe
Ed Lewis, Project Manager
The projects involving B-2081 and U-2902 (which includes
B-2929) have been reviewed to determine if project
construction will impact federally-protected species. These
two projects occur in counties listed for the federally
Endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No impact to the Appalachian elktoe will result from
project construction of U-2902. Surveys by mussel experts,
including those experts from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
have revealed only two viable populations of the Appalachian
elktoe to exist in North Carolina. This project (U-2902)
does not occur in streams associated with the two viable
populations of the Appalachian elktoe.
The subject project (B-2081) involves replacing the
bridge over the North Toe River. An informal consultation
is recommended for B-2081 because FWS, with the help of other
agencies, has surveyed the North Toe River and found viable
Appalachian elktoe populations in the river.
An informal consultation is a meeting set up by the
Project Manager to discuss the ;following topics:
v•
(1) the procedure for project construction;
(2) the anticipated effects of the proposed project
construction upon the federally-protected species,
and;
0
(3) the possibilities of modifying project construction
in order to reduce potential impacts to the
federally-protected species.
Persons who should be in attendance at the informal
consultation meeting include, but are not limited to,
representatives from
* NCDOT Biology H JlpfL? -
* Fish and Wildlife Service
* Wildlife Resources Commission JOo Vl
* Bridge Construction - J, W i id e r
* Division Engineer office
* Roadside Environmental-
Roadway Design -
* Contract Engineer office (if possible)
* Academe, a researcher of the species (if possible).
Abdo 1 i-Zek Mr-AA
Minutes of the meeting should be generated and
distributed. A NCDOT biologist would then need to write a
biological conclusion including recommendations concerning
project construction discussed during-the meeting. These
recommendations would include procedures to minimize adverse
effects to the Appalachian elktoe from construction of the
subject project. These recommendations would then be sent to
FWS for their concurrence. A
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: Mussel
t
y.
e ?sur£o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNi. J1L DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 10, 199
MEMORANDUM TO: J. Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
Project Pl?ing'_ /
n.t
FROM: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Widening of 1-240 from SR 3413
(South Bear Creek Road) to SR 3556
(Meadow Road) in .-Asheville. Buncombe
County; TIP No. U-2902; State Project No.
S.1S43101; Federal Aid Project No. STP-
191(1).
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2902
0
Proposed Widening of I-240
from SR 3413 (South Bear Creek Road)
to SR 3556 (Meadow Road)
Asheville, Buncombe County
TIP No. U-2902
Federal Aid Project No. STP-191(1)
State Project No. S.1843101
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2902
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
JANUARY 10, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................3
2.1 Water Resources ...............................3
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification............
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................5
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 6
2.2 Soils and Topography ..........................6
3.0 Biotic Resources .....................................
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................
3.1.1 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ........... 7
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest ......................8
3.1.3 urbanized/Roadside Comrnunity......... S
3.1.4 Meadow/Bog Community .................9
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...............10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ..............................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................11
4.1.1 Wetlands: Meadow/Bog Community..... 11
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ...... ll
4.1.3 Mitigation ..........................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......... 13
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ............ 19
5.0 References .........................................21
Appendix A: TVA Stream Modification Policy
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Associated with
Project U-2902 ....................................5
Table 2. Mapping Units Found Along the U-2902
Project Area ..................................... .6
Table 3. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......... 10
Table 4. Federal Listed Species for Buncombe County....... 14
Table 5. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Buncombe County .............................. 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map (Project U-2902) ....................2
Figure 2. Locations of waters associated With
Project U-2902 ...................................4
Figure 3. Locations of Wetlands Associated With
Project U-2902 ..................................12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project, located in Asheville. calls for
widening the existing portion of I-240 between SR 3413 (South
Bear Creek Road) and SR 3556 (Meadow Road) from four-lanes to
eight-lanes (Figure 1). The impact footprint will extend
outward 45.7 m (130.0 ft) on both sides from the existing
curb on I-240. Project length is 1.6 km (1.0 mi).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalo, and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attemps
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The study area associated with the proposed project is
primarily disturbed. Residential development and open
pasture dominate the immediate surroundings. Small stands of
timber are interspersed throughout the project. The French
Broad River lies approximately 61.0 m (200.0 ft) to the
southeast of the proposed project. Hominy Creek and one of
its unnamed tributaries intersect the project and eventually
converge with the French Broad River. as well as, an unnamed
tributary, which flows directly,into the French Broad River.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Asheville) and NCDOT aerial photomosaic of
the project area (1:2400). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Buncombe County, 1992). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
I I I I i I I I I I I- i i I I I .t
I
O
I ;
I1
Otter X91 Barnard sm
i DdhnQn
I
Stocksvllit !
1] I `
Alois or Weaw.114
1
Avv?

1 Leicester Wood InlC
- 1f Monlreat I
a!• -Black g 7 \
T
sl
- + 63 Moun in
`
Leona 70
0
-- Asheville*,, `
-
?
7 . , •, - ,. i Swann nos
`
27 e
ap
m as II
lutn
Candle
•I a 71
tla
Fauvrew
9 l,..
_ I
191. 2:A
I!?•?
QOale
s• SkTland Gorton `G
S
17
/

x
ver
Ardert
T•
w
Creek
e
I7c1
`
7i
1
s
r ??
/ua

tti
it /ASHEVILLE
f
' 740
! < 11
u / r 0 D { 1 POP. 53,583

1]12 ~L „ .. L O _ /11
D
Lul
C ` • Ia 'T/
J
i y ` . JILL,
-j.'•. v rto?
d
± + LA KE
k
KENlL IVORT
\,
,
ft f7f nl
y a
Y l
?a

too at

i- •"
?
fN, uu
s u .o PROJECT
„
•`
pG, 2 I.o F M ?tJ LIMITS

TbT7

)Ali •? .?
? a» se / UK .ate ,

.. ..
Ia u! '- -
w td
_ ~; BtQ?A NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTYIENT OF

0 TRANSPORTATION
it, DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
iau u]z '? PLANNING AND ENWRONMENTAL
+• '•: BRANCH
=
a RELOCATION OF NC 191
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
U2 a U-2902
>•n

10192 FIG. 1

species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on December 6 and 7, 1994 by NCDOT
biologist Lane Sauls to evaluate natural resources. General
field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more observation techniques including: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds. scat,
tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1937).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the studv area.
are discussed below. The availability of water and soil
composition directly influences composition and distribution
of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Water Resources
Project U-2902 is located within the French Broad River
Basin. The French Broad River flows southward through
Asheville to within 61.0 m (200.0 ft) of the project study
area (Figure 2). Hominy Creek, a major tributary of the
French Broad River, intersects the project. Also, one
perennial and one intermittent stream will be impacted as a
result of construction. The first is an unnamed intermittent
tributary of Hominy Creek and second is an unnamed tributary
of the French Broad River. Evidence of erosion and
channelization is present in the tributary of the French
Broad River.
At the project site, water flow rates were increased in
all three of the streams and water clarity was poor due to
recent precipitation and subsequent runoff. For information
concerning impacted water bodies refer to Table 1.

HOMINY CREED --?
3
? ?J I? 1 r
?? w a 1 FL_ ,? Y II
or O
h 1
AYWOOO
OWL
W 2 11,\?
UT FRENCH BROAD RIVER

+l? \ ,? > 1 \. ??? ?., y .i._,' \? i\YI \ . (?. ? : - - ' ? 1 ??I i ( ( 11 1 n\ VI i - -??-c•^,--?i " _ .
?1 C o-•..:,i;??• 'i . `i??.,? `?'1 ' ?J ,? 1.1Is\.d??` ?. 1,1,1 ?\ %±? I 1 , ? I ??"' ;?`? ,11 !' ?[P
PROJECTti:jkj I - airr?-e:==o----
,C? J \ LIMITS -
'?'', ?`',` ';•• _•prJ ,,,{,?\r; ahca a6naro,•r
':?.? ?? •' ? ? r? r, ? ?(Rsrk k•i l iu ?.? I ? ?'?? i,r 1 ^ ? ,?'' - ? ...-?L
7; 1,
ram ? t'i'p • ? ? ??'? -? '?\\?? \' ? u ? ?I j ? .. ?°_rl• ? "'/'?v
Cam
UT IiOMINY CREEK ?.
FRENCH BROAD RIVER ?.
la,
nda.ChurChi:;;l?^?` i/-try
?_?. ? ?-_l?• ?'' 'iii =' ?;?" ---• _ \f?' ' ?"1l .? \ t_
?-'-- ••??. v. ;? i 'a•+?:.:;;; \?Y• \,\?•;11?•,?IL? \';, =\?. ?? :a' i,K
SCALE: 1: 24, 000
;L? ? J, iii '.?i \ "^ ?rt _ ?. ,?^`"'./"`;..• :V? .l?.r `?\`P.\-"?. ? J . a .y n \ _.? ? ,`--?
T
FIGURE 2. LOCATIONS OF WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED
WITH PROJECT U-2902

TABLE 1. STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT U-2902
Characteristics UT Hominy Hominy UT French
Creek* Creek Broad River
Substrate Sa/Si B/C/P/Sa/Si Sa/Si
Current medium fast slow
Stream Gradient flat flat flat
Channel Width 1.2 m 9.1 m 4.6 m
(4.0 ft) (30.0 ft) (15.0 ft)
Channel Depth 5.1 cm 91.4 cm 10.2 cm
(2.0 in) (36.0 in) (4.0 in)
Water Color stained stained clear
Aquatic Vegetation none none none
NOTES: approximate dimensions were averaged along 4-5.3 m
(150.0 ft) u pstream and downstream at each crossing;
Substrate: B=boulder, C= Cobblestone . P=Pebble,
Sa=Sand. Si =Silt.
"UT" Refers to unnamed tributary
"*" Refers to intermi ttent stream
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage
classification by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). The French Broad River, Hominy Creek and
corresponding tributary at the project site are designated as
Class "C". Class "C" waters denote secondary uses such as
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing. wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither WS-I or WS-II Water Supplies, Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) nor High Quality Waters (HQW) occur
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. No impacts
to these waters will result from proposed project
construction.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information is available for the French
Broad River nor Hominy Creek at the project location.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
6
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists two
discharges into Hominy Creek: BASF Corporation and Vulcan
Materials. However, the discharges are greater than 6.4 km
(4.0 mi) upstream of the proposed project.
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major
anticipated impacts to water quality. Scouring of the stream
bed, soil compaction and loss of shading due to vegetation
removal are also potential impacts. Increased sedimentation
from lateral flows along with erosion is expected.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project. Also, planning
and construction of the widening project will need to comply
with the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) "Stream
Modification Policy" regarding channelization, modification
and renovation of waters subject to TVA actions. A copy of
the policy- is enclosed in Appendix A.
2.2 Soils and Topography
Two dominant soil series are found within the project
boundaries: Evard and Hawesville Series. The Evard Series
consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable
soils that have formed in residuum from granite, gneiss or
shist. The Hay-esville Series also consists of very deep,
well drained, moderately permeable soils. This series is
found along gently sloping to very steep ridges and side
slopes as well as the Evard Series. Hayesville Series formed
in residuum weathered from felsic crystalline rocks such as
granite, granodiorite, mica gneiss and shirt. Refer to Table
2 for soil mapping units associated with the proposed
project.
TABLE 2. MAPPING UNITS FOUND ALONG THE U-2902 PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
DeB Delanco loam 2-8 B
EsE Evard-Urban land complex 15-30 -
HaB2 Hayesville loam 2-8 -
HaE2 Hayesville loam 15-30 -
HuC2 Hayesville-Urban land
complex 2-15 -
TmC Tate-Urban land complex 2-15 -
SS Saluda-Fannin loams 30-50 -
7
NOTE: "B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils
or wet spots.
Buncombe County lies in the Mountain Physiographic
Province. The topography of Buncombe County is characterized
by steep hills dissected with large alluvial floodplains.
The average elevation associated with the proposed project is
640.2 m (2100.0 ft).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife communities that occur on the U-2902
project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting
these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: (1) %fixed Pine/Hardwood Forest; (2)
Alluvial Forest: (3) Roadside/Disturbed Community; and (4)
Meadow/Bog Community. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of the four
terrestrial communities discussed. Faunal species observed
during the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*)
3.1.1 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mined pine/hardwood forest is found sporadically
throughout the project area. Before urbanization, this was
probably the dominant forest. White pine (Pinus strobus),
shortleaf pine (P. echinata). Virginia pine (P. virginiana),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and black walnut
(Ju,lans nizra) dominate the canopy. Understory components
include black cherry (Prunus serotina), locust (Robinia spp.)
and American holly (Ilex opaca). Shrub, vine and herbaceous
species found are privet (Li-"ustrum sinense), sumac (Rhus
spp.). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) greenbrier
(Smilax spp.) and pokeweed (Phvtolacca americana).
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a
variety of fauna. Reptilian species include the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) and ground skink (Scincella lateralis). The black
racer (Coluber constrictor) serves a predatory role by
feeding on numerous small reptiles, mammals and amphibians.
The presence of stratification provides habitat for
avian species such as the pine warbler (Dendroica ipnus),
red-bellied woodpecker (Nfelanerpes carolinus). northern
flicker (Colaptes auratus) and downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens).
S
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest
The alluvial hardwood forest is found along river and
stream floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and
associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish.
This occurs especially in the piedmont and lower elevation
mountain valleys. Alluvial forests exhibit flood tolerant
species such as river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar,
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). An open understory and dense vine/herbaceous
layer, consisting of blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier,
Japanese honeysuckle, thoroughwort (Eupatorium spp.), fox-
tail grass (Setaria spp.) and barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli) are characteristic of this forest.
The alluvial forest offers excellent habitat for many
reptiles and amphibians. Reptilian fauna such as the worm
snake (Carphophis amoenus), ringneck snake (Diadophis
punctatus) and eastern tarter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may
be found in this community. Amphibians including the marbled
salamander (Ambvstoma opacum) and two-lined salamander
(Eurvicea bislineata) are also expected to utilize these areas
for forage and shelter. Other amphibians such as spring
peeper (Hula crucifer) and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata) may inhabit this area as well.
Fauna including the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), northern parula (Parula americana), swamp
sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) and woodthrush (Hvlocichla
mustelina) utilize the alluvial forest for cover and food.
The barred owl (Stria varia) is considered one of the
dominant predators of this community, primarily hunting at
night.
3.1.3 Roadside/Disturbed Community
The roadside/disturbed community is dominated by both
woody and herbaceous weeds that are regularly controlled by
mowing. In addition, a few remnant canopy trees exist.
Species such as tulip poplar, sweet-um (Liquidambar
stvraciflua), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white ash
(Fraxinus americana) and hickory (Carva spp.) are found in
small fragmented stands within right-of-ways. However,
dominant species of this community are mainly herbaceous and
include fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.),
barnyard grass, lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.) and foxtail grass
which are found commonly in open areas receiving direct
sunlight.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the
existence of many faunal species related to urban settings.
Species such as the northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis*), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis*) and house sparrow (Passer
9
domesticus) are found throughout this community. The gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilasus floridanus), eastern box turtle and black racer
also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this
community. Major predators include the red-tailed hawk
(Buteo iamaicensis) and common barn-owl (Tvto alba).
3.1.4 Meadow/Bog Community
The meadow/bog community is associated with an unnamed
tributary of Hominy Creek. It is located along both sides of
I-240. Species found in this community include green ash,
black willow (Salix ni;ra). cat-tail (Typha spp.), beggar
ticks (Bidens spp.), spikerush (Juncus spp.), bulrush
(Scirpus spp.), knotweed (Polvsonum spp.) and cardinal flower
(Lobelia cartiinalis).
Faunal species likely to be found in or near the wetland
community include four-toed salamander (Hemidactvlium
scutatum), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), green
frog (Rana clamitans) and meadow vole (>ficrotus
pennsvIvanicus), which feed on a host of insects, snails.
worms and herbaceous vegetation respectively. The queen
snake (Regina septemvittata), northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon) and snapping turtle (Cheldra serpentina) serve
predator roles by feeding on numerous reptiles, amphibians
and small mammals.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, mountain perennial stream
and intermittent mountain stream, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics of
the water body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also -reatly influence aquatic communities and vice
versa.
The mountain perennial stream includes fish native to
cooler water temperatures. Grazers such as suckers
(Catostomus spp.), golden shined (`lotemigonus crvsoleucas).
central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), highback chub
(Hvbopsis hvpsinotus), fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare), spottail shiner (\otropis hudsonius) and carp
(Cvprinus spp.) feed on algae, invertebrates and juvenile
fish along the rocky substrate. Predators including rock
bass (Ambloplites rupestris), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) feed on grazers and other aquatic
insects.
The intermittent mountain stream supports few fish
species due to seasonal water flow, primarily in the winter
months. However, these streams support habitat for a variety
10
of amphibians such as the northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), blackbelly salamander (Desmoanathus
quadramaculatus) and red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber).
These can be found mainly in areas of standing water. Common
insects that may occur in isolated pockets of water are the
small whirligig beetle (Gvrinus spp.) and common water
strider (Gerris remigis).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-
related activities in or near these resources will impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted
and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way
width of 45.7 m (150.0 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Impact
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 4.3 (1t.9)
Alluvial Forest 1.1 (2.8)
Roadside/Disturbed Community 6.7 (16.6)
ivleadow/Bog Community 0.7 (1.8)
Total 13.4 (33.1)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the
form of habitat reduction. Since the project area is already
fragmented, relatively little impact will occur to species
that live along the edges and open areas. However, =round
dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in numbers.
Mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation will occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur the form of
increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss
of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms,
inhibiting feeding and respiration. Increased light
penetration from removal of stream-side vegetation may lead
II
to increased water temperatures; which can be detrimental to
cold water species.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3. are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support. and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Wetlands: Meadow/Bog. Community
One particular wetland system, meadow/bog community.
will be impacted by proposed project construction (Figure 3).
Impacts are estimated at 0.; ha (1.S ac). This community is
found along cleared pasturelands. The Cowardin
Classification of this community is PEN12E which denotes
palustrine, non-persistent emergent vegetation and seasonally
flooded/saturated conditions. Soil color is 10 1"R 311,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology are present, thus,
identifying this area as a juridictional wetland. Wetlands
are also rated in accordance with methodologies recommended
by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
The DELI rating of the meadow/bog community- is 70.0 out of a
possible 100.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
A Nationwide Permit 414 (minor road crossings) and/or 426
(above headwaters) are applicable to the project.
Nationwide Permit 414 authorizes fill for roads crossing
waters of the U.S. including wetlands and other aquatic
sites. Standard conditions include: (1) the width of the
fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing; (2) the fill placed in waters of the U.S. is
limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.34 ac);
and (3) no more than a total of 61.0 linear meters (200.0 ft)

nee
n„
TIN
-MEADOW/BOG COMMUNITY

'

r 't v
I
l QY
/
I
O
.n
O

(v •- Avw000

5?. -.
V / / ?j.1 f W
- -_--"
%r on
lirtield:'?----------_
14
r? PROJECT
LIMITS n?u? 1`11 _ `ll
lc,r? Cam:-
MEADOW/BOG COMMUNITY
07
EE& .•Inanc3.ChurCY1' e v errY \._????' :?
?- 111 r?? y• ./? ?-` ?I ?? '? ''f?1?y ??'i :. Il// 1 `• •?<• •\ ? •
; a, SCALE : 1:24,000

FIGURE 3. LOCATIONS OF WETLANDS ASSOCIATED
WITH PROJECT U-2902
13
of the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic
sites, including wetlands.
Nationwide Permit y26 authorizes discharges of dredged
or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters.
Standard conditions include: (1) the discharge: does not
cause the loss of more than 4.0 ha (10.0 ac) of waters of the
U.S.; (2) a 30-dav notification to the district engineer is
required if the discharge would cause the loss of waters of
the U.S. greater than 0.4 ha (1.0 ac); and (3) the discharge,
including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project.
Buncombe County is listed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) as a county containing Mountain
Trout Waters (N1TW). No discharge activities will be
authorized by the nationwide permits within designated MTW
counties without a letter of approval from the NCWRC and
written concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer.
4.1.3 Mitigation
Nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory
in iti -ation according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOE)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
COE. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with
the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FAG'S). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal Classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as ammended. As of November 17, 1994, the FWS lists
the following federally-protected species for Buncombe County
(Table 4). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
14
TABLE 4. FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Classification
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E*
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E*
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern
coloratus flying squirrel E
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
Gvmnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE
Sasittaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E*
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. ionesii pitcher-plant E*
Spiraea vir'iniana Virginia spiraea T*
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
No specimen from Buncombe County found in the past
twenty years.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood. Macon,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum
length reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the
shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is
dark brown in color, while juveniles have a yellowish-brown
color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its
tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The
Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock
and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Extensive surveys conducted by the FwS and N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission indicates that Appalachian elktoe
populations exist only in North Toe and Cane Rivers of the
Nolichucky River System and tributaries of the Little
Tennessee River Svstem. The proposed project is not
15
associated with either drainage system. Therefore, no
impacts will occur to the Appalachian elktoe as a result of
project construction.
Felis concolor cou,uar (eastern cougar) E
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/=1/73
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe,
Carteret, Haywood, Montgomery, Onslow.
Swain, Yancey.
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the
muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which
are black. In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur
in only a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal
swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern
cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there
is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed
deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of _25 miles and
they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of large remote wilderness
areas do not occur at or near the project site. Therefore,
no impacts to the eastern cougar will occur as a result of
project construction.
Glaucomvs sabrinus (northern flying squirrel) E
coloratus
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: "11185
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe. Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, McDowell, Mitchell,
Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This
furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with
large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern
flying squirrel in the western part of North Carolina, along
the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 1517.0
meters (5000.0 ft) in the vegetation transition zone between
hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types are used
to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
16
The project elevation. 640.2 m (2100.0 ft), does not
meet the minimum elevational requirement of 1517.0 m (-5000.0
ft) of this species nor the presence of boreal forests.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the northern flying
squirrel as a result of project construction.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April S, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe. Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes, Transylvania,
Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an
indefinite cvme of bright yellow radially symmetrical
flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to
early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-
pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and
much larder than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or
absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and
Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known
populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations of 1533.0-1-5=11.0 meters (5060.0-50S0.0 feet).
1723.0-1747.0 meters (3680.0-3760.0 feet) and 17-59.0 meters
(5500.0 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils
contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam,
clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky
outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project elevation, 640.2 m (2100.0 ft), does not
meet the minimum elevational requirement of 1-535.0 m (5060.0
ft) of this species. Therefore, no impacts will occur to
spreading avens as a result of project construction.
Gvmnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) PE
Plant Family:
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its
fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black
in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The
fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
17
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to
areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments
occur on high elevation (> 1220 m/ 4000 ft) mountaintops and
cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower
elevation (< 762 m/ 2500 ft) deep gorges in the Southern
Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils
above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea
in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of
extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to
habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests.
These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation
habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford. Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the
rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project elevation. 640.2 m (2100.0 ft), does not
meet the minimum elevational requirement of 1220.0 in (4000.0
ft) of this species. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the
rock gnome lichen as a result of project construction.
Sa?ittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federallv Listed: Jule 2?, 1979
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe. Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb.
It has spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant.
The erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on
it, the male being above the female. Flowers of bunched
arrowhead are present from April to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping
bogs with a slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water,
underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water temperatures
are variable, soil and water pHs are between 4.3 and 6.6, and
water depths are onstant. These plants occur naturally in
shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas
these populations have smaller, less vigorous plants. Soils
are characterized as sandy loams below a muck layer ranging
in depth from 25-60 cm.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat exists within the meadow/bog community
is
described in Section 3.1.4. Surveys for bunched arrowhead
should be conducted in April and June of 1995 while the plant
is in flower.
Sarracenia rubra (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
var. ionesii
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson; Transylvania.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect
and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet
shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood.
Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately veined
with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely
haired and usually partially filled with liquid and decaying
insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are borne singly on
erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present
during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in boas and
streams in southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South
Carolina. The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in
mountain bogs and along streamsides. This habitat is
characterized by deep, poorly drained wetlands with soils
that are combinations of loam. sand, and silt, with a high
organic content and medium to highly acidic pH. Sites are
intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant is an early
successional plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation,
periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat exists within the meadow/bog community
described in Section 3.1.4. Survevs for mountain sweet
pitcher plant should be conducted in late May of 1995 while
the plant is in flower.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) T
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Buncombe. Clay, Graham,
Macon, Mitchell, Yancey.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from
one to three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grow dense
clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size,
shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and
usually somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers
are present from June to July and occur in branched,
flattoped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is easily located
19
during the late fall while herbaceous growth is minimal and
the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of
habitats in the mountains of North Carolina. Habitats for
the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams,
on meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, or braided
features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient to
prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely
remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the
maximum floodplain. usually at the water's edge with various
other disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful
in areas with full sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas
until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat exists within the proposed project.
During the site visit water levels were increased thus
inhibiting a thorough search for Virginia spiraea along the
banks and possible point bars located along Hominy Creek.
Surveys should be conducted as soon as possible when water
levels are normal.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are 21 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Henderson County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject of any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction althou,h no sufficient data
currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered.
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under th State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study- area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
20
TABLE 5. FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED
SPECIES FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name NC Suitable
St atus Habitat
Mvotis subulatus Eastern small-footed
leibii bat SC N
Sorex palustris
punctulatus Southern water shrew SC N
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler - Y
Clemmvs muhlenbergii Bog turtle T Y
Crvptobranchus
alleganiensis Hellbender - Y
Percina macrocephala Lon-head darter SC N*
Cambarus reburrus French Broad stream
crayfish - Y
Phx•ciodes batesi Tawny cresent
butterfly - Y
Speveria diana Diana fritillary
butterfly - Y
Buckleva
distichophvlla Piratebush E Y
Calamaerostis cainii Cain's reedgrass E
Euphorbia purpurea Wolf's milk spurge - N
Hexastylis contracts Mountain heartleaf E N
Hexastvlis
rhombiformis French Broad heartleaf - N
Ju!zlans cinerea Butternut - Y
Juncus trifidus
carolinianus one flowered rush E N
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T -SC Y
Lvsimachia fraseri Fraser's loosestrife E Y*
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap - Y
Rudbeckia triloba Pinnately-lobed brown-
var. pinnatiloba eyed sunflower - N
Saxifraga caroliniana Gray's saxifrage - N
Silene ovata Mountain catchfly - N
Senecio millefolium Divided-leaf ragwort T N
NOTES: "-" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Feder al Candidate.
"*" No speci men from Buncombe County in at least 20
years
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
?1
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1957. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Nienhinick, E.F. 1991. The Fresh Water Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, The
Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1950. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Reptiles. and :amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the French Broad River
Basin. Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
Radford. A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1965. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
19S4.
22
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980.
Soil Survev of Buncombe County, North Carolina. V.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Vir,ina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
r"
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the
Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans,
hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement
structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of
compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a. (Projects
Proposed Relocation of NC 191
from just North of Interstate 40
to just North of Interstate 240
Buncombe County
TIP No. U-2902
State Project No. 8.1843101
FAP # STP-191 (1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BY:
Resource Southeast, Ltd.
4915 Waters Edge Drive, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27606
July 7, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .............................. 1
1.2 Purpose ....................................... 2
13 Study Area ......... ........................... 2
1.4 Methodology ........ ........................... 2
1.5 Topography and Soils . ........................... 3
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................ 3
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................... 3
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................. 3
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ............ 4
2.2 Aquatic Communities ............................ 5
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............ 6
23.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................... 6
23.2 Aquatic Communities ....................... 7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES ................................ 7
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ..................... 7
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............. 8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ................................... 8
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues ........ 8
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters ......... 8
4.2 Permits .......................................9
43 Mitigation .....................................9
4.4 Rare and Protected Species ........................ 9
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species ................... 9
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ...... 16
4.43 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 18
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................... 19
Table 1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial & Aquatic Communities ... 6
Table 2 - Federally-Protected Species .......................... 10
Table 3 - Federal Candidate Species & Their State Status .......... 16
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map ................................ 21
Figure 2 - Proposed Project Route ............................ 22
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist
in preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves relocating NC 191 in the vicinity of
Interstate 240, including the crossing of Hominy Creek and I-240 on new
alignment and the realignment of I-240 access ramps.
ALTERNATIVE 1
This alternative would carry NC 191 over I-240 approximately 457.2
meters (1500 feet) west of its present location. This alignment would
depart from the existing center line approximately 365.8 meters (1200 feet)
south of the 1-240 overpass, and proceed through an agricultural field for
approximately 228.6 meters (750 feet). NC 191 would then fly-over I-240
and Hominy Creek for approximately 198.1 meters (650 feet). The final
portion of the project would involve the realignment of the NC
191/Shelbourne Road intersection, and would tie-in with the existing center
line in front of the Asheville National Guard Armory.
ALTERNATIVE 2
This alternative would carry NC 191 over I-240 at its present
location. This alignment would depart from the existing center line
approximately 243.8 meters (800 feet) south of the I-240 overpass, and
proceed easterly on new alignment for approximately 396.2 meters (1300
feet). The alignment would tie-in with the existing entrance road for Aston
Park Health Care Center, and cross I-240 on existing bridge #242. The I-
240 interchange would be modified into a single-point urban interchange.
ALTERNATIVE 3
This alternative would carry NC 191 over I-240 approximately 91.4
meters (300 feet) west of its present location. This alignment would depart
from the existing center line approximately 243.8 meters (800 feet) south of
the I-240 overpass, and proceed easterly on new alignment for
approximately 396.2 meters (1300 feet). NC 191 would cross I-240 on new
alignment and tie-in with the existing center line near the intersection of
the I-240 access ramp and NC 191. This interchange would be modified
into a compressed diamond configuration with additional right-of-way
necessary for the modification of I-240 access ramps and the NC
191/Shelbourne Road interchange.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the
likely consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change.
13 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Buncombe County (Figure
1) in a somewhat urbanized and heavily traveled area along the western
outskirts of the Asheville city limits. The project site lies within the
southwestern portion of the Mountain Physiographic Province. Buncombe
county's major economic resources include agriculture, industry, and
tourism.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Asheville); NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:100); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil
maps; Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species; and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of
uncommon species and unique habitats. Research using these resources
was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project
alternatives by Resource Southeast biologists on May 31, 1994. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks,
scats, and burrows).
2
15 Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized by moderately
steep to steep relief. Moderately steep river banks are also located on
both the east and west banks of Hominy Creek. Project area elevation is
approximately 606.1m (2000.0 ft).
This portion of Buncombe County contains soils from the
Hayesville-Evard soil association, which are characterized as being well
drained yellowish red and red, sloping to moderately steep soils on
foothills. Soils along Hominy Creek belong to the Codorus-Comus-Tate
association, which are well drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly
level soils on floodplains and well drained gently sloping soils on toe
slopes. The project study area has experienced moderate urban
development with some agricultural and undeveloped land remaining.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to
the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationship of
these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest, are the two terrestrial
communities found in the project study area. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats
found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulder, residential
lawn habitats and former agricultural habitats. Many plant species are
adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly
maintained areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp), ryegrass (Lolium
sp), white clover (Tnfolium repens), red clover (Tnfolium pratense), and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are
3
dominated by those species previously listed as well as chicory (Cichorium
intybus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild blackberry (Rubus
sp) and wild rose (Rosa carolina).
Many animal species are present in these disturbed habitats and are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging
from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead
faunal components. Virginia opossum (Didelphis iftiniana), gray squirrel
(Schma carolinensis), northern cardinal (Richmondena cardinalis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), eastern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), and the American
robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to residential lawn and
roadside habitats. Irregularly maintained areas are suitable habitat for
species such as the rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludm icianus) and several species of mice (Peromyscus
spp). Many faunal species, such as the Virginia opossum, which migrate
across heavily traveled roadways become vehicular fatalities and forage
items for other animals, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs between 1-240 and Shelbourne
Road within Alternative 1, between 1-240 and the Aston Park Health Care
Center within Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, and as a narrow buffer
approximately 25 feet wide along the banks of Hominy Creek.
The forested area within Alternative 1 is located between I-240 and
Shelbourne Road. It appears to have been disturbed from 15 to 30 years
ago as the species composition includes successional species, and an
abandoned bridge abutment was observed along each side of an
intermittent tributary to Hominy Creek. The moderate slopes in this area
support a variety of mixed hardwoods including Eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sumacs (Rhus spp), mountain laurel (Kalmia lagolia) and
deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum). A dense herbaceous layer includes such
species as bedstraw (Galium sp), Japanese honeysuckle, wild blackberry,
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifblia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Animals previously listed may
be found in this community.
The forested area within Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is located
between Aston Park Health Care Center and I-240. This area appears
relatively undisturbed within the past 50 to 80 years. The moderate to
steep slopes support a variety of softwoods and mixed hardwoods including
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipftra), white oak (Quercus alba), American
4
beech (Fagus grandifolia), white pine (Pinus strobus), American holly (Ilex
opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and sourwood (Oxydendron
arboreum). The herbaceous layer is sparsely populated due to the canopy
cover and includes such species as Japanese honeysuckle, false solomon's
seal (Smilacina racemosa), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Pipsissewa (Chimaphila
maculata), and Christmas fern.
Due to the proximity of urban development and a major
thoroughfare, large mammals such as white-tail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) would not be expected to regularly inhabit this area. Small
mammals such as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail (Syhilagus
floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk
(Mephitis sp) may take advantage of food and protective resources offered
in this habitat. Snakes, turtles, toads and salamanders would also likely
utilize this area. Birds such as the Carolina wren, red-eyed vireo, and
other small songbirds inhabit these woods as well.
The vegetated area forming a narrow buffer along the banks of
Hominy Creek has a sparse canopy and subcanopy cover of hardwoods
including tulip poplar, Eastern sycamore, river birch (Betula nigra), and
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) with a dense carpet of Japanese
honeysuckle and wild blackberry along the creek banks. Animal species
such as the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) likely
inhabit the vegetated rocks along the creek banks.
21 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Hominy
Creek. This waterbody is a minor perennial tributary of the French Broad
River, flowing in an easterly direction through the study area. It contains a
fairly high sediment load due to runoff from surrounding development.
River banks, which are moderately steep and eroded, exhibit
vegetation previously mentioned in both biotic community descriptions.
Animals such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may reside along the waters
edge, along with the mountains dusky salamander (Desmognathus
ochrophaeus) and crayfish (Family Cambaridae). A variety of
macroinvertebrates would be expected on and under stones and on leaf
debris within the stream bed. Some fish species likely to be found in this
section of Hominy Creek include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
brim (Lepomis macrochirus) and small bait fish.
5
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However,
impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
moderate to steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the
communities in which the construction activity occurs. Efforts should be
made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
One natural community, the mixed hardwood forest, and the man-
dominated community occur in the project area along each of the three
alternatives. Impacts to these terrestrial communities will result in the loss
of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in
residence. The amount of terrestrial community type impacted will depend
on which of the three alternatives is chosen. Table 1 compares the
anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Alternative Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Community Community
1 1.21 (2.98) 0.60(l.49) 0.02 (0.04) 1.81 (4.47)
2 0.80(l.95) 1.11 (2.75) 0.02 (0.04) 1.90 (4.70)
3 1.51 (3.73) 0.88 (2.18) 0.02 (0.04) 239 (5.91)
NOTES:
* Impacts are based on 100 feet Right-of-Way limits.
* Values given are in hectares (acres).
* Man-Dominated impacts for the Alternative 3
include an additional 0.49 hectares (1.2 acres) of right-of-
way associated with interchange modification.
6
23.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Hominy
Creek. It has already been altered by siltation from runoff as well as
degradation in water quality from upstream industrial point sources.
Construction of any of the alternatives is likely to temporarily increase
sediment loads to Hominy Creek. Construction-related sedimentation can
be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are important parts
of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of the
filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation, preventing their
feeding. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to
the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water
column, reduction of dissolved oxygen, and alterations in water
temperature. However, potential adverse effects can be minimized through
the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the
State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to
major water systems. The proposed project lies within the Hominy
Creek/French Broad River drainage basin.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Water resource discussions include waterbody classification, location
of high quality waters, and licensed dischargers. Hominy Creek flows north
to south through the proposed project area and is approximately 12.19
meters (40.0 feet) wide and averages 03 meters (1.0 foot) in depth. The
creek substrate is composed of rock, gravel and sand. Hominy Creek has a
Class C best usage classification from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing,
fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower
quality. It is not suitable as a water supply due in part to the industrial
point sources along its upstream reaches.
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists
several dischargers upstream of the project area. Results of a Use
Attainability Study conducted in November 1991 by the Asheville Regional
Office of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
indicate that water quality problems within the Hominy Creek watershed
include agricultural and highway runoff, as well as industrial point sources.
The existence of fair to poor water quality in Hominy Creek upstream of
the project area is also substantiated by a benthic macroinvertebrate study
7
conducted in July 1992 by the Water Quality Section of the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management. This study showed that taxa
richness of the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera,
which is used as an indicator of water quality, was classified as fair to poor
at sampling stations upstream of the project area. No waters classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-1I are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of
the project study area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind
will take place as a result of the project construction.
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result
from sedimentation and turbidity associated with project construction.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management Practices
and Sediment control guidelines) should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas
help decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine
fluids and particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these
substances reach waterways. Poorly managed application of sedimentation
control policies will result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 3283 and in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project. Project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact
area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Anticipated Surface Water Impacts fall under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
8
4.2 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031, or Nationwide Permit No. 14 and/or 25 and/or 33,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Buncombe County is one
of 25 counties designated as having trout waters. Projects in these counties
must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission prior to issuance of the COE Permit. Also, Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE
permits.
43 Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by
the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests
with the COE.
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their inability to
coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Buncombe County,
and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 8 federally protected
species for Buncombe County as of March 30, 1994. These species are
listed in Table 2.
9
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe PE`
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar E`
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern flying E
coloratus squirrel
Geum radiatum spreading avens E
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen PE
Sagitaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E`
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet E
var. jonesd pitcher-plant
Spiraea viipmana Virginia spiraea T`
NOTES:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is
proposed to be listed as endangered and which is
protected under law while its status is under review).
No specimen from Buncombe County has been found
in at least twenty years.
10
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) PE
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Macon,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length
reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor
subovate (kidney-shaped). The periostracum (outer shell) of the adult
Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juveniles have a
yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North
Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of the Cane River
and the North Toe River), and the Little Tennessee River and its
tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly
substrates often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and
in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Appalachian
elktoe. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this
Proposed Endangered species.
Felis concolor couguar (Eastern cougar) E
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret,
Haywood, Montgomery, Onslow, Swain,
Yancey.
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the
backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North
Carolina, the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered areas,
possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian
mountains. The eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas
where there is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed
deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles, and they are most
active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
11
No habitat exists in the project study area for the eastern cougar.
It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this
Endangered species.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/ 1 /85
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, McDowell, Mitchell, Swain,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of
skin along either side of its body. This furred flap of skin in connected at
the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its
broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to
tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel
in the western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This
squirrel is found above 1517 meters (5000 ft) in the vegetation transition
zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types are used
to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Carolina
northern flying squirrel as the project area elevation is approximately
606.1 meters (2000.0 ft), which is below the elevation range for this species.
It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this
Endangered species.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 4/5/90
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes, Transylvania,
Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading aven is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite
cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading
avens are present from June to early July. Spreading avens has basal
leaves which are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney
12
shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or
absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee
sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs
on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills and ridges.
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760 feet) and
1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam and clay loam. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exdsts in the project study area for the spreading avens
as the project area elevation is approximately 606.1 meters (2000.0 ft),
which is below the elevation range for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
Gymnodenma lineare (Lichen) PE
Plant Family:
Federally Listed: 12/28/94
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, Yancey
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss
family. The lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies which are born
singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found at the tips of the
squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of
high humidity. These high humidity environments occur on high elevation
(1220 m /4000 ft.) mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently
bathed in fog or lower elevation ( 762 m /2500 ft.) deep gorges in the
Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows only
at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing
with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major
threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
13
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous
forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome
lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery,
Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The lower
elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of
Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock gnome
lichen as the project area elevation is approximately 606.1 meters (2000.0
ft), which is not within the elevation range for this species. It can be
concluded that the subject project will no impact this Proposed
Endangered species.
Sagitaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: 7/25/79
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has
spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant. The erect flowering
stalk has both male and female flowers on it, the male being above the
female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are present from April to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs with a
slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water, underlain by a clay layer. In
these bogs water temperatures are variable, soil and water pHs are
between 4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant. These plants occur
naturally in shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas and
have smaller, less vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as sandy loams
below a muck layer ranging in depth from 25-60 cm.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the bunched
arrowhead. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact
this Endangered species.
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii
(mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
14
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous rhizomatous,
perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect and in clusters. Each leaf
is shaped like a hollow, trumpet shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by
a cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately
veined with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely haired
and usually partially filled with liquid and decaying insect parts. The
maroon colored flowers are borne singly on erect scapes and have
recurving sepals. Flowers are present during late May and fruits appear in
August.
The mountain sweet pitch-plant is found in bogs and streams in
southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina. This
habitat is characterized by deep, poorly drained wetlands with soils that are
combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic content and
medium to high acidic Ph. Sites are intermittently exposed to flooding.
This plant is an early successional plant that relies on drought, water
fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat a fists in the project study area for the mountain sweet
pitcher-plant. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact
this Endangered species.
Spiraea i*giniana (Virginia spiraea) T
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June-July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Buncombe, Clay, Graham, Macon,
Mitchell, Yancey.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to
three meters tall. Virginia spiraea often grow in dense clumps, having
alternate leaves which vary greatly in size, shape, and degree of serration.
They are green above and usually somewhat glaucous below. The cream
colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in branched,
flattoped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late
fall while herbaceous growth is minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia Spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the
mountains of North Carolina. Habitats for the plants consist of scoured
15
banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls, point bars, natural
levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient
to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely remove
small, woody species. This species occurs in the maximum floodplain,
usually at the water's edge with various other disturbance-dependent
species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can survive in
shaded areas until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Experts on this species report that most streams in western North
Carolina of similar size to Hominy Creek are likely to contain suitable
habitat for this species. Surveys conducted along the banks of Hominy
Creek revealed no specimens of this species. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species
listed for Buncombe County and their state classifications. Organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Myotis subulatw kibii C2/SC No
(Eastern small-footed bat)
Sorer pahatris punctulotw C2/SC No
(Southern water shrew)
Dendroica cerulea C2/SR No
(Cerulean warbler)
16
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Clemmys nwhlenbvgii C2/T No
(bog turtle)
Cryptobmnchus alleganiensis C2/SC No
(hellbender)
Po cina macrocephald C2/SC No
(longhead darter)
Cambarus reburrus C2/W3 No
(French Broad stream
crayfish)
Phyciodes batesii C2/SR No
(tawny crescent butterfly)
Speyeria Jana C2/SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Buckleya distichophyila C2/E No
(piratebush)
Calamagrostis cainii C2/E No
(Cain's reedgrass)
Euphorbia purpurea C2/C No
(Wolfs milk spurge)
Heuutylis condncta C2/E No
(mountain heartleaf)
Saxifraga caroliniana C2/C No
(Gray's saxifrage)
Silene ovata C2/C No
(mountain catchfly)
Senecio a0efoiium C2/T No
(divided-leaf ragwort)
Hexastylis rhombiformis C2/C No
(French Broad heartleaf)
Juglans cinerea C2/W5 No
(butternut)
Juncus trifidus carv&uuis C2/E No
(one-flowered rush)
17
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Mum grod C2/T-SC No
(Gray's lily)
L) machia f ami C2/E No
(Fraser's loosestrife)
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatiloba C2/C No
(pinnately-lobed brown-eyed
sunflower)
MonotT . donita* C2/C No
NOTES:
* Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
* Species notated with "*" indicate no specimen from
Buncombe County has been found in at least 20 years.
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any protected species known
to occur in Buncombe County, with the exception of the Virginia spiraea.
The banks of Hominy Creek were surveyed for Virginia spiraea, but no
specimens of this species were observed. No impacts to protected species
will result from any of the proposed project alternatives. Also, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records
exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
18
5.0 REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton
Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United
States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds.
Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North
America. Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (1994 update). Natural Heritage Program List of
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Penrose, D. 1992. Results of EPT Surveys Conducted in the Hominy
Creek Catchment, Buncombe County, July 1992. North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management Water Quality Section,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field
Identification of Birds of North America. Western Publishing,
Racine, Wisconsin.
19
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural
Resources. 1993. Classification and Water Quality Standards.
NCAC:15A NCAC2B.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf
Publishing, New York, New York.
Thompson, P. 1985. Thompson's Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973.
Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (3/30/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Mammals. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
20
FIGURES
ow RES 0 UR CE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
ENMONI=AL CONSULTANTS k DESIGNERS
BMM rn&= CULEM Hall a Aa Mr 080 a IAW1la U AMM
(064) WO-MW a /Az (W4) &W-MM
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 1 ?"jl 00 URCE
SITE LOCATION MAP r
TIP #U-2902 INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
NC 191 RELOCATION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, N.C. P.O. BOX 6160 0 3x34 XMS CHAMW DMW c ASIRAM. VA 23008
[phone] o FAX [phone]
P.N.9402$.01 ANC;
ASHEVILLE, N.C. QUADRANGLE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
M
0
z
Q a
w
0 F- (1) •-1 N
0
3z w w
cc H >
LL J H H
CD O F- F-

HWF- z z
F-- F- H cr cc
cn H J w w

Q H ? H F- F-

z X H F- J J

w wJ::) Q Q
0

N ?
a.

c,
Q
ED
H
LL
L LJ
? U
O ZOZ W? cti
A
H
~ o < >- °
U'oz z
I JO
H
a *CC°
e
0° "W 0
[n l-"x
O i--i °
M z z?
Q m
a ao d
a
a? \
sb
0
0
cn

w
J
Q
U
in
3nN3nV
xvjHIdd e\
Ob°60 \

d
Q
0
/LL
rn \
Om
VI
a ?-+ V
w u
Q z
v
Cl
01
(=7 •?
J
o°o ?
Q/
z Q
m
F-
W Z
H O
c_
H }
Zo
w F-
zmw
z cc
:) ¢U

.r
J•
r\
?S
1

L /
Q /
a
N
Q
Y?
rZ
\ -A
°?0b a
I
0dd'2062-n\io*82006\ :H
•
Yi/-.;I
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
?6T_
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ? All R/O Areas
N .Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
1
? Fayetteville [Air coastal Management Water Planning

? Mooresville )RI Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
'Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh )QLand Quality Engineer Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
? Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

Wilmington
? ?
Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
?Others., .,r,?.? _ Environmental Management

? Winston-Salem
r' n n
?cx? \ t ?cQ,c ?
:ay
JAN 29 1993
Manager Sign-Off/Region: W:PTER QUALIT Date: In-House ReviewerlAgency:
SECTION
. ? -A ? 7-3 ? J OeX, ?
l
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(les) 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
xt her (specify and attach comment )
haug_
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
P$ la.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 20, 1993
JAN 2
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Asheville, NC 191 Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-191(1), State
Project 8.1843101, TIP Project U-2902
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 191. The project is included
in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
Preliminary plans call for relocating NC 191 (Brevard Boulevard) between
Interstate 40 and Interstate 240 (see attached location map). Bridge Number
216 which carries NC 191 over Hominy Creek will be removed from its present
location under the dual structures of Interstate 240, and a replacement
structure will be constructed along the proposed realignment of NC 191 south
of Interstate 240. Existing NC 191 will be terminated on either side of
Bridge Number 216, but access to SR 3620 and Shelbourne Road will be
maintained.
Bridge Number 242 over Interstate 240 will be replaced with a structure
which will carry the realigned NC 191 over Interstate 240. The ramps at this
interchange will be realigned, and the existing two-way ramp located in the
northeast quadrant will serve one-way traffic exiting from Interstate 240. A
schematic map showing the project area is attached.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
G 'J
January 14, 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachments
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
..oiler X91 r BarnarASw
., 1
- Canlo
B U N NC
lercester ?rocH?n?

?:
*.? , ,.
±Asheille
_ ) I
15
IJ
In Ih! Ca nCk?~191
_ I5 °y
r 9 ale '4r er
°rrgah P
0
ntreal ?
?? IJ \
5
inoa
IP
!w 9 G''
1 - 240
DUAL STRUCTURES
BRIDGE NO. 216
o I
O
F-

i
BRIDGE NO. 242
ASHTON PARK
HEALTH CARE CENTER
SCHEMATIC
OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
V , J
r i
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as Indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ?.Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Ir El Coastal Management V
ater Planning
ater n'lronmental
? Water Resources Health
Mooresville O(Groundwater .Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh d Quality Engineer
t Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

? Washington

tional Consultant
rea
e

Land Resources El David Foster

Wilmington
? ?
Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Oth s nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem

VAN 28 1993
Manager Sign-Off/Region: WATEF? ('1.,jA LI P
sECfION Date: In-House ReviewerlAge cy:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager,
? No objection to project as proposed
111 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
Vm#w*at?
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
as+a
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
$rArt
v ?NL uw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 19, 1993
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch' rt/
Dixon School Road Extension from Dixon School Road (SR 2283)
from south of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County,
Federal-Aid Project STP-2283(1), State Project 8.2800801,
TIP Project R-2625
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATO;
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to Dixon School Road (SR 2283). The project
is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1995.
It was determined to begin the re-alignment and ext
Road approximately 0.3 mile north of Interstate 85. The
cross NC 216, the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, SR 2263, SR
terminate at US 74 Business near SR 2031 (see Attached).
will consist of a two-lane, 24-foot paved travelway with
constructed on 150 feet of right-of-way.
?nsion of Dixon School
proposed route will
2256, and will
The proposed route
8-foot usable shoulders
Alternative 1 is the westernmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be relocated
south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing with the
proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad by means of a
grade separation. Intersections will be constructed where the proposed route
crosses SR 2263 and SR 2256. The tentative location of the proposed route under
this alternative is shown on the attached Figure 1.
Alternative 2 is the easternmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be relocated
south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing with the
proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad and SR 2263 by
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative .Action Emplc ,er
January 19, 1993
Page 2
means of a single bridge. A road will be constructed to provide access between
SR 2263 and the proposed route. An intersection will be constructed where the
proposed route crosses SR 2256. The tentative location of the proposed route
under this alternative is shown on the attached Figure 1.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by 0 1993 so that your comments can'•be`^used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ed Lewis,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment

CLEVELAND
COUNTY
2qi
Elb•Nwl Ch.
o w,s
1J
W2

ism
1 Casar Toluca
10 '
Relwood
wi lle fall Slun
Lawn) ale la7 •?
Cherr,
t7 Oouble Wac
J U Shoals '? `R7,
1 tat \oEe ..I k r bbsv BeS
.O esbolo
o
elta ! +Sh'ilby`^'' KingS* n.
1150 t 2 ;=iMounl
U,, ~ V Rodrng 7 1 Palleison S" •
Springs Swings
b v 5 I
1
' - -T _ t 18 all.
7 ror 161)
END /
PROJEC" ,s KINGS MOUNTAIN
POP 9,080
CLEVELAND CO. 6•a30
.0 .20 743_. 07 ••' lOVH711 GASTON CO. 650
1 apPl. Ch. /_ 6115. q
rAs
/l v) 4 71, _ w, -
711 11 .07 IAS .0 .D]
pw 2)14 _ ,
3215 A t?;? ;}t
M ti
Pill t
? 7,9
z ?? w
7131 Q r p ? / .
oe ® ?t4
]1t4 aMa ? `? p0 ?'
2221 19 S ?? Mo<ed°n{p
$ 1!9.! N 444 Zito Ch. D
V .07 .
v
J / O
?° ?1 U -L7 61
° 7102 11.0
y 09 /
y 719) OS ZZe3
]].) ?tIJ3 ? 4
C•Ihvanwn• Ch. ? 79
i
)211
2715 1? ° Am- Ch. l
224k 'o
i1 M.6-
41 \p 1p Ch. 1
7777 s
uQe ?, ? 774, 71e..
7301
7211
114, - BEGIN
:PROJEC7-
0
ti !t'.1
1}
71 e?
? ?\ }101
J ? 61
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Or HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ETNA IRONMENTAI.
Ir-n BRANCH
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
FIG. 1
r
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
SrAIZ
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
November 2, 1992
RIO'V - 919
WETLANDS GROUP -?
WATER QUALITY 10
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Management
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements for
Relocation of NC 191 to I-240, Asheville, Buncombe
County, TIP Project U-2902
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 1, 1992 at 9:30 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please
reference page 4 of the scoping sheet).
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 Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
EFL/wp
Attachments
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
rr
( 6 o c
5- ttmm s
------------------t y
1
pier 191 7 Bafn ardsvi?
3 1' Di IIing
I 9 Iq Stocksville
?. 13 I
Alexa er weaverville !•.? - o0i.
Can o 41 ¦ vO,Ih`plcw^1 Gar
U 5 N O E
Leicester Woo Inip In 6 Sri hr Montreal
+ 'Ashevill
- ? f
19
_ 23
_ In uth Cand
_ i..
? _ IS
gda le F
_ ?rynh ,
! Swannanoa
10 74 Itl ?_
Fa mew 9 G^
land Gcrt
en

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 11/2/92
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2902
Project # 8.1843101
F.A. Project # STP-191(1)
Division 13
County BUNCOMBE
Route NC 191
Functional Classification URBAN MINOR ARTERIAL
Length 1.3 MILES
Purpose of Project: TO REALIGN NC 191 IN A MORE DIRECT MANNER
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: ASHEVILLE, NC 191 RELOCATION TO I-240
INTERCHANGE. CONSTRUCT A MULTI-LANE FACILITY ON NEW LOCATION
SOUTH OF I-240, REMOVE BRIDGE #216, PROVIDE MULTI-LANE BRIDGE
OVER I-240 & IMPROVE RAMPS, AND PROVIDE, MULTI-LANE BRIDGE OVER
HOMINY CREEK.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA and FONSI
Environmental study schedule: BEGIN END
EA NOV 92 NOV 93
FONSI JAN 94 JUL 94
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No x
If yes, by whom and amount: M
How and when will this be paid?
, or M
1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facilit
Type of Facility: MULTI-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full X Partial None _
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges X Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway:
Traffic: Current 9300 vpd Design Year 16,740 vpd
% Trucks % DHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
t
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,500.000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 600000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4.100 000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( )
COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
_ Bridge Rehabilitation x $
_ New Bridge x $
_ 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. $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers
Delineators . . $
Other . . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
3
r
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By:
Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
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
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
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
INIT. DATE
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.
4
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

TO : REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Y ?lr 15- 1axY,4> WryI--0 NN12
FR OM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Cd L i
V ?? c--
s
nr'
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
Q RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
Q PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
b-zqoz-
X
d,w SGTF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAWS B. I IUN1, IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
Gcwl itNOR TARV
P.C. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 (; (p7
January 20, 1993
'.1,? ? V" r?K 1tTLAWUS i' (y
Qu??rrr s ;; ?; ,.
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch --
SUBJECT: Asheville, NC 191 Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-191(1), State
Project 8.1843101, TIP Project U-2902
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 191. The project is included
in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1997.
Preliminary plans call for relocating NC 191 (Brevard Boulevard) between
Interstate 40 and Interstate 240 (see attached location map). Bridge Number
216 which carries NC 191 over Hominy Creek will be removed from its present
location under the dual structures of Interstate 240, and a replacement
structure will be constructed along the proposed realignment of NC 191 south
of Interstate 240. Existing NC 191 will be terminated on either side of
Bridge Number 216, but access to SR 3620 and Shelbourne Road will be
maintained.
Bridge Number 242 over Interstate 240 will be replaced with a structure
which will carry the realigned NC 191 over Interstate 240. The ramps at this
interchange will be realigned, and the existing two-way ramp located in the
northeast quadrant will serve one-way traffic exiting from Interstate 240. A
schematic map showing the project area is attached.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 26, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
?y
?!G?
January 14, 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachments
C;
' ??.Sld
------------------ t
..niier X97 ? Barnardsvl
A
- Cantn
B U N
1_eicester
1 _
`Ashev
,n ?In
IS
gutale
iryah
I

¦
sy
r ??m
1 oG? 191
o vo ,? P
?i? ?P`PFP
1-240
DUAL STRUCTURES 240
i
216 BRIDGE NO. 242
BRIDGE NO.-? ?f
`? El ASHTON PARK
HEALTH CARE CENTER
191 0
0
F--
SCHEMATIC
OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
21 2-
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
MY .
(w ?c m ?rvrn ('
? r
0
FROM: //??11••?? Lau

?
'
REF. N^O, OR ROOM, BLDG.
Vl l
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
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

L
STATE o
M,n 1 h
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA lir r: - 7 I99Z'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201 W"KGROUP
RALEIGH 27611-5201 WATER QUALITY SECTION
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR December 4, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Ed Lewis
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes
Asheville, NC 191 Relocation to I-240 Interchange,
Buncombe County, Federal Aid Project STP-191(1), State
Project 8.1843101, TIP Project U-2902
A meeting was held on'Tuesday, December 1, 1992 in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434) to determine the scope of
work for the subject project. The following people were in attendance:
John Dorney
Robin Stancil
John Alford
Jim Speer
Jack Matthews
Jerry Snead
Stuart Bourne
Susan Dlemm
Darin Wilber
Don Sellers
Cecil McLamb
Don Wilson
G. G. Harper
Joseph Springer
Theresa Turner
Lubin Prevatt
Wayne Elliott
Schenck Cline
Ed Lewis
DEM-Water Quality
SHPO
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Photogrammetry
Hydraulics
Traffic Control
Statewide Planning
Program Development
Right of Way
Right of Way
Location and Surveys
Structure and Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
December 4, 1992
Page 2
Mr. Lewis opened the meeting and updated those present on the status of the
project. Existing conditions for the roads and structures in the project
vicinity were related in detail to those present.
Robin Stancil from the State Historic Preservation Office was given the
opportunity to address any cultural resource impacts in the project area.
She noted there were no structures of historical significance in the area and
none listed on the National Register. An archaeological survey was
recommended for this project. Robin was given 35mm photographs of one house
in the vicinity of the project.
It was noted bridge number 216 over Hominy Creek had been previously studied
under TIP Project B-1062 and scheduled for Post Year construction. Wayne
Elliott briefly discussed this project including design and construction
constraints. These constraints are the limited horizontal and vertical
clearances afforded between bridge number 216 and the dual structures of
I-240. A structure over Hominy Creek is limited to a width of less than 44
feet due to the substructure piers of the I-240 bridges. The low vertical
clearance above the Hominy Creek bridge (#216) will hinder, if not eliminate,
the use of cranes and other conventional construction practices if the bridge
is replaced in the same location.
The interchange at I-240 was also discussed. The two-way (or slip) ramp
located in the northeast quadrant would need to be replaced. The other ramps
would have to be relocated. Bridge number 244 over I-240 would have to be
replaced. It was not clear as to where to relocate NC 191 and how to improve
the I-240 interchange,in order to handle all turning movements.
It became evident that the subject project would require additional analysis
by Roadway Design in order to determine feasible alternatives for study.
John Alford will look at several possible alternatives for addressing the
subject project. Another meeting will be scheduled to present the results of
his analysis.
There were no additional comments, and the meeting adjourned.
EFL/wp
i
OY\
OKI)
t/A
s? (4q?
O-AAv
Nov ? 3
q?m
Cao170 cam)
TT, 4,1 (K
z) j ll? --lb 1J. ve
AP Rc vv- LkA) (4-
o V\ J- L"? C-E
;S?
1935: 4a fy?? py
Lo
0-41 A,
q\ APB' It "'1 ?? a?? v?0,$ \,?e
lj?A -V710-av
7938
S
ti Q ? I
3s
37Q
y ? ? r . _Aara?
Lake;
' • 0 .. 11 1 ? ??? Ili
3936 I/ `to,;
l ??y
'? 1 11 u rry
II /
V ?? f)
?? r ?I
3935 \ J
1 ?' ?? 1 ,\/? 1 1 ?I o
,I
111 _ I.
-o? Ile
I
32'30" y
?f' u o F\ 7 ?1 \ i Q I I
3934 l Ii ) \? ?% / o ??
c?
)'?xjt
it A?I?? _ •II ???:? ??? , 0
1 ?
??
39
33
1???? \\\\? : l ?' V `? r V*76 Yll I I \ f \ . 11 r? !.-
L
State of North Carolina
[department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 17, 1998
Buncombe County
WQC 401 Project # 980120
TIP # U-2902
COE # 199301263
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material for the purpose of
widening and relocating NC 191, as you described in your application dated February 4, 1998. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3100. This
Certification allows you to use General Permit Number 031 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. 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. Also 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. 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). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If
you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
ton H war , r. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
980120.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
4
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
SU77
t
STATE OF NORTH CARD A" -1
"980
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIs TOLSON
February 4, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SR-RF.TARY
?V)
O!i
WFTL11NDS GftC'`.
Attention: Mr. Mike Smith 11C
Assistant Chief 401 ISSUED
Dear Sir:
Subject: Buncombe County, NC 191, from north of I-40 to north of I-240;
Federal Aid Project No. STP-191(1); State Project No. 8.1843101;
TIP No. U-2902; COE Action ID 199301263.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to widen and
relocate NC 191 (Brevard Road) from north of the I-40/ NC 191 interchange to north of
the I-240/ Park Road interchange. The project is scheduled to be let to construction in
October 1998.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the NC 191 relocation and widening on June 26, 1996. The FHWA
approved the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for TIP No. U-2902 on
November 14, 1996. These documents, particularly the EA, included studies pertaining
to impacts of natural systems for the proposed project. Copies of the EA and FONSI for
this project have been provided to regulatory agencies involved in the permit review
process.
The proposed roadway will be a four-lane facility with curb and gutter. Other
improvements include: eliminating the westbound I-240 exit ramp to Fairfax Avenue;
extending Fairfax Avenue to intersect with NC 191; shifting the westbound I-240 exit
ramp to align across from the westbound I-240 entrance ramp; constructing a new bridge
over Hominey Creek and SR 3620 (Hominey Creek Road); extending and realigning
Hominey Creek Road to intersect with Shelbourne Road; and, extending Shelbourne
Road to tie into the proposed Fairfax Avenue/ NC 191 intersection north of I-240.
0
The predominant concern for this letter is the new bridge over Hominey Creek.
Permit drawings for the proposed bridge crossing are attached to this letter. A list of
adjacent property owners is also attached to this letter.
The DOT believes that the subject project can be constructed under a Section 404
General Permit 31. The DOT has completed and attached a pre-construction notification
form as required by the Corps of Engineers (COE) and N.C. Division of Water Quality
for this general permit. The DOT has sent a copy of the permit application to the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and asks that the WRC forward any
comments on the project to the COE.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Mr. David Cox, WRC
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
r
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID: 199301263 T.I.P. No. U-2902
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): General Permit No. 31
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: Buncombe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Asheville
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: HomineY 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: _
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA)
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
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 [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIC
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTUF
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
I
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
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: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER:
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
FT
PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
AFTER: FT
OTHER: Bridge construction
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?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: S 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Construction machines to install bridge on new location over Hominey Creek.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge construction
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USF;
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SH]
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA '.
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: July 30, 1996
(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 PROJ]
DATE CONTACTED: July 16, 1996
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTA:
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTA:
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO H
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLI]
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIAN
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIR
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
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 EQUIVALENT.
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?
Residential (Single family); commercial
f. 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 7THENORT CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DA'Pt
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

'/LAKE
ASHNOCA?
H EV
POP. 6;

Sand
Hill

B I LTMO RE
ESTATE
;r
MI 5..uny
•/ee71 5835
MI M?rd?lon ` l? 1 1
6134 1 PARK .l
e looya? Cora ?.eew r;
r - ?Lo
T H
\ cd
.Ru ther fon
K ? io
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPOR'
DIVISION OF HIGHWA
BUNCOMBE COUNTS
PROJECT: 8.1843101 <U-
NC 191 RELOCATION FR(
TO I-240 IN ASHEVII
SHEET OF
o
M
?W • ? \ Irv / / /, ` ? N"' ? ??./ ?..1
80,
40 ?-4
co 0
U o ?,
h w\
CL / M I In C LL W F"
O
I Q :° 'C Z cz,
u
1. 6
\ v \ N J U
T? ` _ \ ? d, i VI Q fn
V \. ? c? `'i Vl
. \ ?? \ \!ly'J0 Z
ul\
4 /}. \
o LL N +y\?t' ,P\ \ \
Q
' SLY[ a CR ~ \ \ \ \# \
I
/ M 1 ,l? ? W \ \ \ J`1
O\ ? 11 1 Q ? N
009 0 \ ?a - / ` ` \
A \ , C4.A
\',Y\\\\\ \ \t? \ \ CD
PRIOPE R TY (OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
O FRANK P. RYMER, JR.
O CATHERINE SCOTT
O DR. ARTHUR SEITZ
O OAK FOREST
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
O ASTON PARK HOSPITAL, INC.
ADDRESSES
15220 TWEEDALE CIR.
FORT MYERS, FL 33912
516 BREVARD RD.
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
4179 SW MALLARD
CREEK TRAIL
PALM CITY. FL 34990
ADDRESS UNKNOWN
380 BREVARD RD.
ASHEVILLE, NC 28806
%MIKE MCCLURE
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPOR
DIVISION OF HIGHW.,
BUNCOMBE COUNT'
PROJECT: 8.1843101 (U-2
NC 191 RELOCATION FR(
TO I-240 IN ASHEVII
SHEET OF