20230518 Ver 1_HE-0001 Buncombe April 2023_20230417

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 18, 2023
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Resources
Regulatory Field Office Transportation Permitting Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 1617 Mail Service Center
Asheville, NC 28805 Raleigh NC 27699-1617
ATTN: Ms. Lori Beckwith Mr. Kevin Mitchell
NCDOT Coordinator NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the proposed new interchange on I-26 (future exit 35)
and roadway extension, Buncombe County, Division 13.
Debit $570 from WBS No. 49472.1.2, TIP: HE-0001
Dear Madam & Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a new
interchange on I-26 (future exit 35). The proposed project is located approximately 6 miles south
of Asheville along I-26, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway and south of the French Broad River
bridge. The proposed interchange would be constructed primarily within the existing right-of-way
of I-26, which currently is under construction to be widened from 2 lanes in each direction to 4
lanes in each direction as part of TIP project I-4700. The proposed roadway extension will connect
to East Frederick Law Olmsted Way (East FLOW), a 2-lane facility constructed by a private
developer (Biltmore Farms, LLC). East FLOW is currently open to traffic and is a
State-maintained facility. Upon completion of HE-0001, East FLOW will connect I-26 to NC 191
via a 2-lane roadway with auxiliary/turn lanes at intersection approaches as needed.
Purpose and Need:
Need: The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191
and I-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Purpose: The purpose of the project is to provide access to I-26 and improve east-west connectivity
within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
Mailing Address: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT SECTION Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH NC 27610
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER Website:www.ncdot.gov
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

Other desirable outcomes of the proposed project include:
• improved traffic safety due to greater separation of local traffic from interstate traffic;
• improved emergency response times to the area including Pratt & Whitney
Manufacturing Center, Biltmore Park West property, and sections of NC 191 and I-26;
• consistency with local and regional economic development initiatives in the project
vicinity;
• improved access to current and anticipated regional employment opportunities and
improved access to tourist destinations.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
A Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form was completed in August 2022 and
is included in this application package.
MERGER SUMMARY
Concurrence Point Meeting Date
1 Purpose and Need 07/15/2021
2 Alternatives to be Studied in Detail 07/15/2021
2A Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review 09/16/2021
3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 02/09/2022
4A Avoidance and Minimization Measures 06/15/2022
4B Hydraulic Review 08/17/2022
4C Hydraulic/Permit Plan Review 01/25/2023
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
and
AVOIDANCE, MIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
The following tables display avoidance and minimization measures in preliminary design, actual
project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams, and then specific avoidance and
minimization measures at each impact site.
Page 2 of 9

Avoidance and Minimization Measures Implemented in Preliminary Design
Location Measure
Eliminated concepts from consideration during the scoping phase of the project for a
Concept/Project variety of factors and feasibility concerns, including avoiding and minimizing potential
Development impacts to the French Broad River(FBR) floodplain/wetland complex,residential and
commercial developments north of the FBR, and the Biltmore Estate National Historic
Landmark L)property.
Project Study Reduced Project Study Area to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the FBR
Area flood lain and known potential jurisdictional resources.
• Did not consider alternatives with the potential to have direct effects to the Blue Ridge
Detailed Study Parkway.
Alternatives • Considered and eliminated alternatives with the potential to have direct effects to the
Biltmore Estate NHL.
Two-lane-Y- Two-lane roadway with curb and gutter typical section(opposed to 4-lane divided with
Line Typical grassed shoulder typical section)to accommodate future traffic volumes,noting auxiliary
Section lanes will likely be required at intersection approaches. This results in less ROW
requirements and will minimize impacts at proposed stream crossings and reduce tree
clearing requirements.
Shift the roadway alignment to the southeast to minimize potential impacts to Stream SA.
-Y-Line Following CP 3,per NCDWR request,NCDOT shifted-y-line alignment to:
Alignment • improve Stream SA crossing skew,reducing potential impacts by approx. 100 ft,
• avoid 0.03 ac impact to Wetland WD, and
• avoid 0.01 ac impact to Wetland WH.
Ramp -C- Following CP 3,retaining walls were refined in conjunction with the DDI design and
Retaining Walls Ramp-C-Alignment shift described below in the same general locations.
Following CP 3, shift ramp alignment between<1 ft to about 18 ft to the east(closer
to I-26 westbound travel lanes)to:
Ramp -C- • improve constructability of the proposed retaining walls,
Alignment • avoid approx. 120 ft of impacts to Stream SDY and Stream SDZ,
• avoid approx. <0.1 ac impacts to Wetland WCR,
•minimize impact to Stream SDX by approx. 175 ft,and
•minimize impacts to Wetland IDs WCS and WCN by approx. <0.1 ac.
Following CP 4B,NCDOT determined that the Ramp-D-Retaining Wall (described
Channel Change below)was not feasible. A stream channel relocation was designed for Stream SDX.
(Stream SDX) Though this does not avoid required compensatory mitigable impacts to a jurisdictional
aquatic resource, daylighting a stream channel is preferable to enclosing in a pipe or
structure. In total, approx. 225 feet of Stream SDX will be daylighted.
Ramp -A- A headwall is included on the upstream side of the 54-inch pipe that will convey Stream
Headwall SA under Ramp -A-. The inclusion of the headwall minimizes stream channel impacts and
avoids impacts to the adjacent Wetland W .
Ramp -B- An approx. 225-ft retaining wall is used along Ramp -B-to avoid fill impacts to the
Retaining Wall perpendicular Stream SH.
Following CP 4C, the proposed culvert extension was shortened by approx. 60 feet due to
revisions to the Ramp -D-design slope stakes. As a result:
Culvert •Approx. 60 feet more of stream SDX is daylighted(this is included in the approx. 225
Extension feet of Stream SDX that will be daylighted with the channel change described above),
•A stormwater control device was removed from the culvert extension and will now
receive treatment before entering Stream SDX
Page 3 of 9

Avoidance Measures Investigated but not implemented
NCDOT reviewed a revised Ramp -C- alignment because of challenges associated with
Ramp -C- bridging Stream SDX(discussed at CP 2A). An approx. 325-ft bridge was reviewed in the
Alignment I-26 bifurcated section to avoid and minimize potential impacts to Stream SDX and
Wetland WCN. The bridge clearance was 6 feet and would not provide the environmental
benefit for the wetland feature.
NCDOT included approx. 1,400 feet of retaining walls to avoid and minimize approx.
Ramp -D- 1,100 feet of potential impacts to Stream SDX and approx. <0.1 ac of wetlands in the 1-26
Retaining Wall bifurcated section through preliminary design and shown at CP 3,CP 4A and CP 4B.
During detailed design NCDOT determined the retaining walls were not feasible and were
removed from the project design.
Site numbers in the tables below correspond with the permit(hydraulic) drawings included in this
application and with the PJD package, dated September 2021. NCDOT received the PJD
authorization from the USACE, dated September 8, 2022.
Page 4 of 9

Wetland Impacts HUC 06010105 (French Broad)
Permit Site / NC WAM Wetland Perm. Fill in Excavation Mechanized Impact Description/
Wetland ID Classification Size (ac) Wetlands (ac) (ac) Clearing (ac) Avoidance and Minimization
1 /WCN Headwater Forest 0.13 <0.01 0 0.01 Fill in Wetland due to construction of Ramp-C. Mechanized Clearing for construction access.
Construction of MSE retaining wall/reinforced slope along Ramp-C to reduce permanent impacts.
2 /WCS Headwater Forest 0.05 0.016 0 0.03 Fill in Wetland due to construction of Ramp-C. Mechanized Clearing for construction access. Will try not to utilize this impact if possible.
Construction of MSE retaining wall/reinforced slope along Ramp-C to reduce permanent impacts.
3 /WCQ Headwater Forest <0.01 <0.01 0 0 Fill in Wetland due to construction of Ramp-C and interchange.
Bottomland Mechanized Clearing due to construction of Ramp-A and installation of proposed 54" RCP. No permanent impacts.
4 / WQ Hardwood Forest 0.135 0 0 0.02 Construction of MSE retaining wall/reinforced slope along Ramp-A to avoid permanent impacts.
51 Headwater Forest 0 0 0 0 No Wetland impacts at this site.
6 /WH Headwater Forest 0.007 0 0.007 0 Excavation in Wetland due to outlet of proposed 24" RCP.
Totals by Impact Type: 0.036 0.007 0.060
Total Permanent Wetland Impacts: 0.103
Total Required Mitigation: 0.103 (@2:1=0.206)
Page 5 of 9

Stream Impacts in French Broad River Basin 06010105
Permit Site/ Stream Temporary ACOE DWR
Stream ID Name Status/Class Impact Type Length Impact Mitigation Mitigation Impact Description/ Avoidance and Minimization
(length) Required Required
Perm. Fill (loss)
Perennial No stream channel impacts this site.
Bank Stabilization -- -- -- --
1 / SDX UT FBR Embedded rip-rap
C No stream channel impacts this site.
Temporary Fill -- -- -- --
Perm. Fill (loss)
Perennial No stream channel impacts this site.
2 / SDX UT FBR Bank Stabilization -- -- -- --
Embedded rip-rap
C No stream channel impacts this site.
Temporary Fill -- -- -- --
Perm. Fill (loss) 512 -- 512 (1:1) 512
Perennial Construction of interchange, installation of 66"RCP and extension of proposed 9'x7' RCBC.
3 / SDX UT FRB Bank Stabilization -- -- -- --
Embedded rip-rap
C Channel change and day light 175'between proposed 9'x7' RCBC and 66" RCP.
Temporary Fill -- 73 -- --
Perm. Fill (loss) 50 -- 50 (2:1)
Perennial Construction of Ramp-A and installation of proposed 54" RCP.
4 / SA-A UT to Bank Stabilization -- -- -- --
FBR Embedded rip-rap -- -- -- --
C Temporary Fill -- 16 __ __ Utilized MSE retaining wall/reinforced slope to reduce permanent impacts.
Perm. Fill (loss) 160 -- 160 (2:1)
Perennial Construction of new roadway and installation of 30" RCP.
5 / SG UT to Bank Stabilization -- -- --
FBR Embedded rip-rap -- -- --
C Temporary Fill 40 -- --
Perm. Fill (loss) 114 -- 114 (2:1)
Perennial Construction of new roadway and installation of 24" RCP.
6 / SE UT to Bank Stabilization -- -- -- --
FBR C Embedded rip-rap -- -- -- --
Temporary Fill -- 45 -- --
Perm. Fill (loss) 145 -- 145 (2:1)
7 SA UT to
Perennial Bank Stabilization -- Construction of new roadway and installation of 36" RCP.
/ -- -- --
FBR C Embedded rip-rap -- -- -- --
Temporary Fill -- 16 -- --
Total Stream Impacts: 981 190 469 (2:1) = 938 512
512 (1:1) = 512 1 A
Total Required Mitigation: 1,450 Pr
Page 6 of 9

MITIGATION SUMMARY
Mitigation for the unavoidable impacts for this project will be handled by mitigation banks and
the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
Wetlands:
DMS has accepted mitigation for the 0.1 acre of unavoidable impacts associated with HE-0001.
Please see attached DMS acceptance letter.
Streams:
The Dead Oak Mitigation Site is part of the RES French Broad 05 Umbrella mitigation bank. The
41.58-acre project is located approximately one mile northwest of Alexander in Buncombe
County, North Carolina.
NCDOT has acquired stream credits from the Dead Oak mitigation site sponsored by EBX in order
to offset impacts associated with future TIP's within HUC 06010105. EBX will be debiting the
Dead Oak mitigation site for 1,450 linear feet, to offset unavoidable impacts associated with HE-
0001. This debit is listed below with the appropriate ratios applied.
Debits
PO Number TIP Debit Amount
7700002202 7
HE-0001 1,450 4691f @ 2:1
5121f @1:1 (impacts)
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of the date of this letter, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) lists
the following federally protected species in the project area:
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
M otis grisescens Gray bat Endangered Yes MANLAA*
M otis se tentrionalis Northern long-eared bat Threatened Yes MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored bat Proposed Yes MANLAA
Endangered
Glyptemys muhlenber ii Bog turtle T S/A No Not Required
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe Endangered No MANLAA*
Sarracenia rubra ss . 'onesh Mountain sweet pitcher plant Endangered No No Effect
G mnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Endangered No No Effect
T(S/A)-Threatened due to similarity of appearance;
MANLAA-May Affect—Not Likely to Adversely Affect;
* Biological Conclusion includes NCDOT commitment implementation of Conservation Measures outlined in the
Informal Consultation USFWS letter dated July 22,2022
Page 7 of 9

INDIRECT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project may impact travel patterns, reduce travel time, and may affect access to
properties in the area, or open areas for development or redevelopment. Due to the potential
transportation impact-causing activities, this project may influence nearby land uses or stimulate
growth. For these reasons, an Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) and Land Use Scenario
Assessment(LUSA) was completed according to NCDOT procedure.
The LUSA Matrix concluded that the rankings for the various development categories are similar
for the future (2045) No-Build and Build scenarios. This does not imply that additional
development is not anticipated to occur within the Probable Development Areas (PDAs), but that
effects of additional development are not quantifiably different between the future No-Build and
Build scenarios (i.e., with or without HE-0001). Based on the results from the LUSA Matrix a
Cumulative Effects Assessment is not required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(1966) (NHPA), as
amended, FHWA and NCDOT must evaluate the project's impact upon any extant architectural
and archaeological resources and determine if additional measure(s) will be necessary to mitigate
any adverse effects of the project upon any significant properties and sites.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NCDOT and FHWA consulted with appropriate
parties in the determination of effects to the four above-ground historic architectural properties
and one archaeological property at a series of meetings:
October 7, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a Pre-effects Meeting with the NC HPO and the
National Park Service (NPS)-Blue Ridge Parkway. The Blue Ridge Parkway was the topic of
discussion.
February 4, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted an Effects Meeting with NC HPO, NC Office of
State Archaeology (OSA),NPS-Blue Ridge Parkway, and Biltmore Estate. All historic properties
were reviewed for effects. Concurrence was reached on all historic properties except the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
March 18, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a follow-up Effects Meeting for the Blue Ridge
Parkway with NC HPO, the NPS-Blue Ridge Parkway, Buncombe County, and Biltmore Farms,
LLC (landowner). The Blue Ridge Parkway was the topic of discussion.
May 11,2022-NCDOT and FHWA hosted a second follow-up Effects Meeting for the Blue Ridge
Parkway with NC HPO, the NPS-Blue Ridge Parkway, Buncombe County, and Biltmore Farms,
LLC. The Blue Ridge Parkway was the topic of discussion.
June 29, 2022 -NCDOT and FHWA hosted a final Effects Meeting to reach concurrence on a No
Adverse Effect,with conditions determination for the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Page 8 of 9

The following effects determinations were made for the Preferred Alternative through consultation:
Historic Property (State ID) Status Effect
Biltmore Estate BN1835 NHL No Effect
Blue Ridge Parkway (NC0001) NR eligible; No Adverse Effect,
NHL pending with conditions
French Broad River Gaging Station BN6468 NR eligible No Effect
Bent Creek Campus BN0898 NR eligible No Effect
32BN1119 NR eligible No Effect
FEMA COMPLIANCE
The project has been coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assure compliance with FEMA, state, and local
floodway regulations.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Please find enclosed Eng. Form 4345, Mitigation Acceptance Letter(s), Stormwater Management
Plan (SMP), US Fish and Wildlife Service Informal Consultation Correspondence, Permit
drawings, Section 106 Correspondence, including Historic Archaeology and Properties forms,
Tribal Coordination, Concurrence Meeting Minutes, and NEPA document.
Application is hereby made for the following regulatory approvals for the above-described
activities:
Section 404: USACE Individual Permit.
Section 401: Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Division of Water Resources. In
compliance with Section 143 215.3D(e) of the NCAC, we will provide $570.00 to act as payment
for processing the Section 401 permit application previously noted in this application(see Subject
line).
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information,please contact Michael Turchy at [e-mail]. A copy of this application
and distribution list will also be posted on the NCDOT website at:
hiip:Hconnect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Pages.
Sincerely,
. feX
Michael Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
ec: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List.
Page 9 of 9

ENG 4345
Form

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
003
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL
EXPIRES:28 FEBRURUARY RY 20 2013
33 CFR 325.The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,searching
existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden,to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project(0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act,Section 10,33 USC 403;Clean Water Act,Section 404,33 USC 1344;Marine Protection, Research,and Sanctuaries
Act,Section 103,33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses:This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal,state,and local government agencies,and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary,however,if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application(see
sample drawings and/or instructions)and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE(agent is not required)
First-Michael Middle-A Last-Turchy First- Middle- Last-
Company- North Carolina Department of Transportation Company-
E-mail [e-mail] E-mail Address-
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 1598 Mail Service Center Address-
City- Raleigh State- NC Zip- 27699 Country-USA City- State- Zip- Country-
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs.WAREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs.WAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
919 707-6000
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish,upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME,LOCATION,AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE(see instructions)
Proposed new interchange on I-26(future exit 35)and roadway extension,Buncombe County,TIP HE-0001
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN(if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS(if applicable)
UTs of French Broad River Address I-26,mile marker 35
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude:-N 35.50378 Longitude: oW -82.57796 City- Asheville State- NC Zip-
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN(see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality
Section- Township- Range-
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)proposes to construct a new interchange on I-26/future exit 35.The proposed
project is located approximately 6 miles south of Asheville along I-26,north of the Blue Ridge Parkway and south of the French Broad
River bridge.
18. Nature of Activity(Description of project,include all features)
Linear Transportation with logical termini: The proposed interchange would be constructed primarily within the existing right-of-way of I-
26,which currently is under construction to be widened from 2 lanes in each direction to 4 lanes in each direction as part of TIP project
I-4700.The proposed roadway extension will connect to East Frederick Law Olmsted Way(East FLOW),a 2-lane facility constructed by a
private developer(Biltmore Farms,LLC).East FLOW is currently open to traffic and is a State maintained facility.Upon completion of
HE-0001,East FLOW will connect I-26 to NC 191 via a 2-lane roadway with auxiliary/turn lanes at intersection approaches as needed.
19. Project Purpose(Describe the reason or purpose of the project,see instructions)
Need:The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191 and I-26 in southern Buncombe County
to accommodate current and planned growth.
Purpose: The purpose of the project is to provide access to I-26 and improve east-west connectivity within the project vicinity to
accommodate current and planned growth.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s)for Discharge
Linear Transportation with logical termini: HE-0001 would include unavoidable fill discharges into UTs of the French Broad River
associated with the practicable construction of the proposed I-26 interchange(future exit 35),including access ramps,and interchange
roadway approach connection to the existing East FLOW.This proposed fill in jurisdictional waters is for roadway shoulder slope
construction and culvert crossings of UTs of the French Broad River that are included in the proposed project construction.
21. Type(s)of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled(see instructions)
Acres 0.103 acre of JD Wetland fill
or
Linear Feet 981 linear feet of permanent JD stream channel fill& 190 linear feet of temporary stream channel impact for dewatering.
23. Description of Avoidance,Minimization,and Compensation(see instructions)
See attached page for description of project development avoidance and minimization.
Applicant agrees to supply appropriate compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to JD Wetlands and Stream Channels associated
with the construction of the referenced transportation project.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes FX—]No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc.,Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody(if more than can be entered here,please attach a supplemental list).
a.Address- Raytheon Technologies,P.O. Box 7000
City- Greenville State- TX Zip- 75403
b.Address- Biltmore Farms LLC,P.O.Box 5355
City- Asheville State- NC Zip- 28813
c.Address- Biltmore Company, 1 N Pack SQ Suite 400
City- Asheville State- NC Zip- 28801
d.Address- National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway, 199 Hemphill Knob Road
City- Asheville State- NC Zip- 28803
e.Address-
City- State- Zip-
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal,State,or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL` IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building,and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
°�-WA'� 13-April-2023
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANY�,— DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity(applicant)or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme,or disguises a material fact or makes any false,fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345,OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

Miti g ati o
n

tt r STATE
ROY COOPER n A
Governor
ELIZABETH S.BISER „ Mmn.�*
Secretary `a`p+N+^�
MARC RECKTENWALD NORTH CAROLINA
Director Environmental Quality
April 13,2023
Mr.Jamie Lancaster,P.E.
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr.Lancaster:
Subject: Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
HE-0001,Construction of New Interchange—I-26 and Frederick L.Olmstead Way,Buncombe County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality—Division
of Mitigation Services(NCDEQ-DMS)will provide the mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information
received from you on March 28,2023,the impacts are located in CU 06010105 of the French Broad River basin in the
Southern Mountains(SM)Eco-Region,and are as follows:
French Broad Stream Wetlands Buffer(Sq.Ft.)
06010105 Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non- Coastal Zone 1 Zone 2
Riparian Marsh
Impacts(feet/acres) 0 0 0 0.100 0 0 0 0
The impacts and associated mitigation needs were not projected by the NCDOT in the 2023 impact data. NCDEQ
—DMS commits to implementing sufficient compensatory mitigation credits to offset the impacts associated with this
project as determined by the regulatory agencies using the delivery timeline listed in Section F.3.c.iii of the In-Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28,2010. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised,then this mitigation acceptance letter
will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from NCDEQ-DMS.
\If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact Ms.Beth Harmon at 919-707-8420.
Sincerely,
for James B. Stanfill
DMS Deputy Director
cc: Mr.Monte Matthews,USACE—Raleigh
Ms.Amy Chapman,NCDWR
File:HE-0001
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
Namicnwo_run �
/'0 919.707.8976

Pre and Post
Stormwater Analysis

Project: HE-0001 Designer: NW Pre/Post Stormwater Analysis
Date: 2/13/2023
10yr
PRE POST
Interchange 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification I Runoff C JDrainageArea ITimeofConc. ITimeused Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C Drainage Are Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 180.001 13.75 9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 180.00 8.87 0.00 0.0%
55" RCP 0.201 116.001 10.001 10.001 5.30 122.961 2.00 3.50 55" RCP 0.221 116.00 10.00 10.00 5.30 135.26 2.10 3.70 12.30 9.1%
-y- 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification Runoff C Drainage Area Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C Drainage Area Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
SG 0.20 10.92 10.00 10.00 5.30 11.58 5.58 2.44 SG 0.26 14.40 10.00 10.00 5.30 19.84 6.55 3.10 8.27 41.7%
SE 0.20 12.69 10.00 10.00 5.30 13.45 6.40 3.31 SE 0.22 12.51 10.00 10.00 5.30 14.59 6.54 3.43 1.14 7.8%
SA 0.20 25.23 10.00 10.00 5.30 26.74 3.59 0.91 SA 0.21 26.35 10.00 10.00 5.30 29.33 3.70 0.95 2.58 8.8%
5yr
PRE POST
Interchange 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification Runoff C lDrainageArea JTimeofConc. JTimeUsed JIntensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C I Drainage Are Time of Conc.ITime Used JIntensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 130.001 12.99 9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 130.00 7.75 0.00 0.0%
55" RCP 0.201 116.001 10.001 10.001 4.70 109.04 55" RCP 0.221 116.001 10.001 10.001 4.70 119.94 10.90 9.1%
-y- 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification Runoff C Drainage Area Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C Drainage Arez Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
SG 0.20 10.92 10.00 10.00 4.70 10.26 5.38 2.31 SG 0.26 14.40 10.00 10.00 4.70 17.60 6.33 2.94 7.33 41.7%
SE 0.20 12.69 10.00 10.00 4.70 11.93 6.20 3.16 SE 0.22 12.51 10.00 10.00 4.70 12.94 6.33 3.26 1.01 7.8%
SA 0.20 25.23 10.00 10.00 4.70 23.72 3.46 0.86 SA 0.21 26.35 10.00 10.00 4.70 26.01 3.56 0.90 2.29 8.8%
2yr
PRE POST
Interchange 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification Runoff C JDrainageArea ITimeofConc. ITimeUsed Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C Drainage Area Time of Conc. Time Used I Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 66.001 10.52 9'x7' RCBC COMPUTED USING HEC RAS 66.00 5.48 0.00 0.0%
55" RCP 0.201 116.001 10.001 10.001 3.37 78.181 1.90 3.00 55" RCP 0.221 116.001 10.001 10.001 3.37 86.00 2.00 3.20 7.82 9.1%
-y- 0 Pre vs Post %Difference
Identification Runoff C Drainage Area Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Identification Runoff C Drainage AreE Time of Conc. Time Used Intensity Discharge Velocity Shear Discharge
SG 0.20 10.92 10.00 10.00 3.90 8.52 5.08 2.12 SG 0.26 14.40 10.00 10.00 3.90 14.60 6.00 2.71 6.08 41.7%
SE 0.20 12.69 10.00 10.00 3.90 9.90 5.89 2.92 SE 0.22 12.51 10.00 10.00 3.90 10.73 6.02 3.02 0.84 7.8%
SA 0.20 25.23 10.00 10.00 3.90 19.68 3.26 0.79 SA 0.21 26.35 10.00 10.00 3.90 21.58 3.34 0.82 1.90 8.8%

Permit
Drawin gs

I it I 1\V Cl North Carolina Department of Transportations
Highway Stormwater Program (�-C' �
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
�""'�
(Version 3.00;Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 49742.3 TIP/Proji No: HE-0001 County(ies): Buncombe Page 1 of 5
General Project Information
WBS Element: 49742.3 TIP Number: HE-0001 Project Type: Other Date: 4/6/2023
NCDOT Contact: Brendan Merithew,PE Contractor I Designer: Rick Tipton,PE
Address:NCDOT Division 13 Address:Gannett Fleming
55 Orange Street One Glenwood Avenue,Suite 900
Asheville,NC 28801 Raleigh,NC 27603
Phone: Phone:
Email: Email:
City/Town: Biltmore Park,NC County(ies): Buncombe
River Basin(s): French Broad I CAMA County? No
Wetlands within Project Limits? Yes
Project Description
Project Length(lin.miles or feet): 1.016 mi Surrounding Land Use: Wooded,Commercial/Residential
Pro osed PrO ect Existing Site
Project Built-Upon Area ac. 9.0 lac. 3.6 Jac.
Typical Cross Section Description: Widening:8-lane,divided with concrete median barrier.Widen paved shoulder on LT side 8-lane,divided with concrete median barrier.Paved shoulders with roadside ditches.
with roadside ditches.
New Location:Ramps-1 lane w/paved shoulder.Y line-2 lane,divided with concrete
median barrier.Paved shoulders and roadside ditches.
Annual Avg Daily Traffic(veh/hr/day): Design/Future] 113700 1 Year:2045 Existin 89900 1 Year:1 2023
General Project Narrative: The purpose of this project is to construct a new Diverging Diamond Interchange at Exit 35 on 1-26 with a new location Y-line from the interchange to a roundabout on East
(Description of Minimization of Water Frederick Law Olmsted Way.The project will be broken into two sections for construction.The first section will consist of the proposed Y-line from the interchange to the
Quality Impacts) roundabout on East Frederick Law Olmsted Way. This portion of the project is new location and can be constructed in one continuous phase.The interchange will be constructed
inside the currently active TIP Project 14700. During Phase IA of construction for 1-4700,the Eastbound lanes along 1-26 are shifted to the inside so that the outer two lanes and
shoulder can be reconstructed. Ideally,Ramps A and B as well as end bent two would be constructed first to minimize impacts to traffic. End bent one would be better suited for
construction during Phase IB of 14700 as the traffic will be shifted into the outer two lanes. During Phase 11 of construction for 1-4700,the Westbound lanes of 1-26 are shifted
adjacent to EB traffic. Ramps C and D can be constructed during this period.Jurisdictional features including wetlands,and streams are all present within the project limits.The
proposed drainage system for this project will primarily tie to the exisitng network proposed by the 1-4700 project.Retaining walls are currently under design to reduce impacts
along the corridor of this project.
1

t ljgjpv.n, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00;Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 49742.3 TIP/Prof No.: HE-0001 County(ies): Buncombe Page 2 of 5
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body(1): FBR NCDWR Stream Index No.: 6-54.75
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Primary Classification: Class B
Supplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Im airments: None
Aquatic T&E Species? Yes Comments:FBR is occupied by the endangered Appalachian elktoe habitat.
NRTR Stream ID: FBR Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Brid e S annin Water Bod? No Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A Dissi alor Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Dischar a Over Water Bod? N/A I (If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
(If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body(2): UT to FBR(SA) NCDWR Stream Index No.: N/A
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Primary Classification: Class B
Supplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Impairments: None
Aquatic T&E Species? No I Comments:No listed species in waterbody;however,receiving body,FBR,is occupied app.elktoe habitat.
NRTR Stream ID: S A-O Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge SpanningWater Bod? INo Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffet? I N/A Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body? I N/A If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body(3): 1 UT to FBR SD NCDWR Stream Index No.: N/A
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Prima Classlflcatlon: Class B
Supplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Impairments: None
A vatic T&E S ecies? No Comments:No listed species in waterbod;however,receivingbody,FBR,is occupied a .elktoe habitat.
NRTR Stream ID: SD X-Z Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Brid a Spanning Water Bod? No Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Dischar a Over Water Body? N/A (If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
(If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)
WEB Element: 49742.3 TIP No.: HE-0001 County(ies): Buncombe Page 3 of 5
Additional Waterbod Information
Surface Water Body(4): UT to FBR SE INCDWR Stream Index No.: N/A
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Prima Classlflcatlon: Class B
Supplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Impairments: None
Aquatic T&E S ecies? No Comments:No listed species in waterbod;however,receiving body,FBR,is occupied app.elktoe habitat.
NRTR Stream ID: SE O-W Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? No Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body? I N/A (If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
(If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body(5): 1 UT to FBR(SDX) I NCDWR Stream Index No.: N/A
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Primary Classification: Class B
ISupplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Impairments: None
Aquatic T&E Species? Yes Comments:No listed species in waterbod;however,receiving body,FBR,is occupied a .elktoe habitat.
NRTR Stream ID: SDX Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Bod? No Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A Dissi.tor Pads Provided In Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Bod? N/A (If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
(If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)
1

North Carolina Department of Transportation
til(1ti t n ,t I i'i Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00;Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element:49742.3 TIP/Prof No.: HE-0001 County(ies): Buncombe Page 4 of 5
Swale
Front Back Drainage Recommended Actual Longitudinal Rock BMP
Sheet Location Surface Water Base Width Slope Slope Area Treatm't Length Length Slope Q2 V2 Q10 V10 Checks Associated w/
No. Line Station (LT,RT,CL) Latitude Longitude Body (ft) (HA) (H:1) (ac) (ft) (ft) N (cfs) (fps) (cfs) (fps) Used Buffer Rules?
7 R d 19+00 LT 936777.5192 659019.314 (5)UT to FBR SDX) 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.3 230 250 0.34% 4.5 1.5 6.3 1.7 No No
Additional Comments
Note: Rp D Swale(slopes average 3:1)
1

i ;)tw 1� North Carolina Department of Transportation
blc)lrll.\,itc•r
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00;Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: TIP/Prof No.: HE-0001 County(ies): Buncombe Page 5 of 5
Preformed Scour Holes and Energy Dissipators
Drainage BMP
Sheet Location Area Conveyance Pipe(in)/Structure Q10 V10 Associated w/
No. Line Station (LT,RT,CL) Latitude Longitude Surface Water Body Energy Dissipator Type Riprap Type (ac) Structure Dimensions(ft) (cfs) (fps) Buffer Rules?
4 R C 15+75 LT 35.500833 -82.56889 (5)UT to FBR(SDX) PSH Class'B' 0.1 Pie 15 0.1 0.1 No
5 R C 26+10 LT 35.503333 -82.570270 (5)UT to FBR(SDX) PSH Class'B' 0.5 Pie 18 2.3 2.3 No
5 R C 30+75 LT 35.3022216 -82.3425352 (5)UT to FBR(SDX) Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 0.4 Pie 15 1.7 1.7 No
6 Y1 36+00 LT 35.3011007 -82.3438601 (2)UT to FBR SA Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 0.6 Pie 18 3.0 3.0 No
7 1 R A 1 22+00 LT 35.303118 1-82.3430029 (5)UT to FBR(SDX) Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 0.8 Pie 18 0.8 0.4 1 No
7 R A 27+00 LT 35.3033863 -82.3435081 (5)UT to FBR(SDX) Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 0.4 Pie 18 0.4 0.2 No
9 Y1 27+00 LT 35.3018127 -82.3432884 (3)UT to FBR SD Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 3.3 Pie 15 5.7 0.0 No
10 Y1 38+15 RT 35.3010782 -82.3441154 (2)UT to FBR SA PSH Class'B' 0.2 Pie 15 3.6 0.5 No
10 Y1 39+00 RT 35.301066 -82.3442176 (2)UT to FBR SA Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 3.6 Pie 18 6.4 1.0 No
9 Y1 25+72 RT 35.3019949 -82.3431706 (4)UT to FBR SE Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 1.4 Pie 15 3.9 0.7 No
10 Y1 33+72 RT 35.3013198 -82.3437235 (2)UT to FBR SA Riprap Energy Dissipator Basin Class'B' 0.3 Pie 15 1.5 0.1 No
10 Y1 38+50 LT 35.309281 -82.3441673 (2)UT to FBR SA PSH Class'B' 0.3 Pie 15 0.9 2.8 No
Additional Comments
Refer o the NUUUT BestManagement rac Ices Toolbox(2014),NUUU I btanclards,the Federal Highway Administration y rau is Engineering Circular No.14(HEC-14), I hird Edition,Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels(July ,as
applicable,for design guidance and criteria.
1

See Sheet t A For Index of Sheets �•, PrATE MWWr REM CB aM
T
See Sheet tB For ConventionolSymbols STATE
p J ®1 NORTH ® A b N T
HE-0001 1 11
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
oz
DTATD PROLN. P.A.PW.Na DtlCR@ m
c m s
b �s xxxxxxxx x_xxxxx PE
—————————— ----------- -------
BUNCOMBE COUNTY O * �e Broad Rr� ��', I, „♦ � ---------- ----------- —_--_------
o
------------
Ay
t r
e �
♦..
LOCATION: NEW I-26 DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGE (EXIT 35)
AND ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING TO NC 191 (BREVARD RD)
fi
9LIIE
• • �4016
74 fi p TYPE OF WORK: GRADING,PAVING,DRAINAGE, STRUCTURE, SIGNALS,AND
o , RETAINING WALLS
V quo --------------- ---
�. END PROJECT
M
BEGIN PROJECT a qp
O VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCAUD
O �J
BEGIN TIP PROJECT HE-000I ���
� -WBL- STA. 1086 +l7.11 � � �� END TIP PROJECT HE_0001
�� L STA. 1138 + 79.12
�+ %
� � 1
v SO
_ P - BRIDG4. E
1016
c i j RP_A-_
BEG BRIDGE �/ ,,,,,.._✓��✓✓✓
C -Y-STA.13+96+/-
DRAINAGE IN RED IS PART OF HE-0001
ALL OTHER DRAINAGE IS EXISTING OR
Y l I BEING BUILT UNDER 1-4700
-Y-STA.12+98+ J
3 "LESD ALL 910NATORES COMPLETED
NOTES:
• • THIS IS A CONCROLLED ACCESS PROJECT WITH ACCESS BEING LIMITED TO INTERCHANGES.` . ` ` s f sSwwx
j �+ n W M`
_ [ � � Lar•Anrr a.rw A.P...+R... ;���.r..,,,
V HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prepored for the Office of:
ADT 2021 = 9,100 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
° 50' 25' 0 50' 100- 1000 Birch Ridge Dr.,Rakigh NC,27610 ®V
ADT 2046 = 18,600 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT HE-0001 = 2.033 Miles e�
PLANS D = 55 % LENGTH STRUCTURES = 0.019 Miles
m TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT HE-0001 = 2.052 Miles Zola sznNDARD sPEcrPicAzroxs SIGNATURE: P.E.
E 50' 25' 0 50' 100, z
- - V = 75 MPH RIGHT OF WAY DATE: RICK TIPTON, PE ROADWAY DESIGN A 0.
TTST = 1% DUAL 4% 2022 PROJECT ENGINEER ENGINEER
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
gNa O 10' 5' 0 10, 20' FUNC CLASS = INTERSTATE ANGEL B. PRIDGEN. PE
NCDOT CONTACT: MCCRAY COATES, PE LETTING DATE: PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
3 3 DI<'ISION 13 PROJECT MANAGER
ocn PROFILE (VERTICAL) P.E.
SIGNATURE:

0" PROJECT REFERENCE NO.A=7111T
NO.
Q Hw
-WBL- (EXISTING /-4700 ALIGNMENT) -RPC-
NO STREAM IMPACTS HE RW SHEET NO. 4
PI Sto 1093+37.38 PI Sto 11+0024 P/Sto 19+3858
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
A = 22'O8'O1.8'(RT) A = r08 55.r(LT) A = 17'25'495'(RT) �,qO
ENGINEER ENGINEER
D = 0'55'002' D = a34'22e D = I'Ir 23.8'
8
L = 43' L = 00 ' L = 1,4648r
122 1
no xor use POR /w ec0rnsLTTox
T = 222.45' T = 002424' T = 7380 077 BNC®�1�L1E ]E 1�LANS
R = 625O,W R = 104W.W R = 4,815D0'
SE = 02 SE = 03
-EBL- (EXISTING 1-4700 ALIGNMENT) RO = 24' RO 24'
PIS Sto 1095+8772 P1 SIG 1102+31.31 DS = 65 MPH DS = 55 MPH
6s = 2'3r 12D' A = 22'06 205'(RT)
Ls = 252D0' D = 2'OO'OOD'
LT = 168,02' L = 1,IO529' BIL IS 122 FARMS,INC. DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
ST = 84DO T = 559W DB 1222 PG 645 UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R = 2.86479' PERMIT DRAWING
25BW � N SHEET 2 OF 19
99.00' -FBI- .F B FILL
N °502'W 5'B'RIIPRAP
S
SST WABLF SPRRINGf
ExisnNG R/w \_ wST.14 TONS MATE IAL 55
ECM / 25BW 19509' EXISTING,g/f
BRP 2R 91 48'WW _ .30 SYGF
N p(9�W
°f / 25BW
48'WW 36"RCP_IV
124.
® N361 eW
BtTMORE FARMS.INC. IND 18
C. I
36,5,W / OB 1222 PG 645 -
N 45gb.05 CLASS'B'RIPRAP 15"—CP 1
EST.10 TONS -
EST�pR 1kAFW 48'WW W/25BW =1 MTV L
MOM-RNNMON �M/r
566.2T'RW 1095+W- L
LASS'B'0.1 RAP _�C4/=MT.- 1 —
EST.11 TOYGF -RPC- PC Sto.10+00,00= —E8< 'I — O _ _
EST 24 -WBL- POC Sto.1088+1628.24 LT _ — — — _ _ _ — _ -
_ _coNc_—
_ s; — 1 3553'382W _ _ — — _ — — C
00 N — — —
_ REMOVE
v' ! CSC n\ REMOVE BLI-47
O ; 3=0'LANE TAPE 1 _��__��
m 1 �ON�� 15„
CSP W/
CP-IV I �,o ELBOWS USE BLIND
BETA ROD &LUG 16
+ \\l�Gc I + i +64.79A CONNECTORS 36"RC�SV .-
�� E D PR P. IN LE -R - P t 1 CLASS'I'RIPRAP PSH 41 ,5 ... -� --_ is
_ FACED BARRIER 4' TONS s
96 f TO I-4700 EXISTING 3 '� BEST J F.CONC.BAB8IER W_ BEG.SBG _ q Typ, <. EST. SYGF /
c_�-R OVE 24' C +3397 4U 2-1I INV=2097.OT --/ C.SIrlon FACED C014 III _ 2_ - LASS TRIP RIN
RETE BAUIER� - _ - FS 2-GI EST.15 TONS
_ N
— EST.30 SYGF
too
P TO 1-4700 9l - 2- 15"RCP-III 15"RCP-III 2-
_ YAP e�
- TA IN - Q
o _z
ujo
108 1. L ov� LE OVE 1 1REMOVE
5+ 1 1090+Opui
—
—
_ _ -- — _
-- Ad'.2GI II
RETAIN � 1-26 WB 74 � I� � ���A7TE ATO -
c0 DI — — — — — — — — — — r— —r—� _ — — — 1— 109'+00
'en Fs
—
'24 -IV ---_---- RCP-IV
RETAIN — — _ — = 7W
30 RETAIN � 1 L
B —
� I REMOVE
m 42"RCP-IV HW HVJ Q f3 "RCP_
-- JS \ CSP W/ELBOWS-USE —
E
u
JS �1S .-- JS 36 &LUG CONNECTORS SM ^25e —
�6' PLUG
._. JS en°i� -- �SS __-_____-- FLOWA vJ
REMO
,� 198. 48' /25BW 196.34' X - W W/2
��� SBWHW BEG.SINGLE SLOPEa
X RBD 2 37"W -x-> `y 191 33' D BLE FA ED
N 3I°OT28'W CONCRETE ENERG W/H - �/ii�T N 25•o0'I7^W CONC.BARRIER �y
UETAIL SPECIAL DETAIL 734'DECELERATION LANE Isnrvc a/ +85.70 'SEE SPECIAL CLASS'B'RIPRAP
EST.2 TONS "X�4 4 WW Ely
4 SYGF N 22°q'39•W
BEGIN TIP PRO ECT HE—O0O1A N 68°g6'31'E
9.39'
96.71'
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION "20°3g 59• �- 8 WW W
—WBL— POC STA.1085+16.28
BILTMORE FARMS.INC.
08 1222 PG 645
BLTMORE FARMS,W.
DO 1222 PG 645
z
�o
rF»
�� FOR —RPC— PROFILE SEE SHEET 10

I � � � ' I � I PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
001
-WBL r XISrl -47 �RPc / / '� / / �� /� NO STREAM IMPACTS HE-0 SHETNO. 4
/ Pl Sto l 3+3738 \ Pt Sto //+0024 Pl Sto/9+3 / , // / /
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
' I 22'08 0/ fRT p = l 08'S5J'fLTI p =\lT 25' b•fRJ / / / H , / / J I
ENGINEER ENGINEER
L C �' MSF(l L =20047226' L _/M164 / I I / // 8 7 /
T — 1222. 5' T = 10024' T = 738J" / / / / / / I [NC®1�IFMR E FLANS
R = 10.000.00 / m 481.00 �/ �/� �� no xo7 vse POB /w ecnclsrTTox
-EBL- IEJI1ST -470a, l S 65 MPH DS mr5 MPH1111
oa
1q�/�\\ — � I ' '///
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINALVL , UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETEDA2 yI
PERMIT DRAWING
25BW SHEET 3 OF 19
�90 AI ® I z�,/� / _ FILL -- ner
/p� _ i S
/ ST.14>•D / SEE SH yL LLL BL� SPR7N� exariec rr
ECM / 2 / // / 1 // - ST.30 Slj„f..F BET 23 S 9.09'
\ ` \ \W / / / J +� / / l I F I - �, S / fo T FOR RIP 32°01'9 W C
BRP . ( //// a/ ( E 1 94+75 00 7.S3bY 4'WIN 25 w 36"RCPIV-
r0.
_
�
FAR J�� 58G
IDS, f! oo L < na
5 LI —
g \ = 1222 PG W9�- Z� ) -
1 / 1"R
EDI
56 SEE AIL FF �_ B. - ITCH W / 1� —O /
_
\/
EST. TON GF �� -RPc, --
ST.24 i BEGIN-YV— - -8= i �„ =/= �� 1 tea, /� C N �-
IloB`aD.o 53'
0 _ 0 LAyl=7 G �4 END BG STA.
EBL-
lOB9 �00 RT=
-1100
+ ��
RRIER
c��f 1 E�R IN LE �_ CLASS'I'�IP P
96�T TO I-4700 XISTING 3 F^RFD BARRIER_ 4' < �� SST. 5
— F.CONC. R Wi'� J OVE 24' G.SS7BG _ = 4 TYP. a 7 ES C SPRl
.SING[E ACED CON `-'�R �S+fR- " 40 2- INV �u _`� �\ -� LASS
n _
— RETE BIER / _ BG 40 ' —n� �\ EST.35 TO IP P O
TO
SI-470 HMOD a`�7 2- 15"RCP-III 15"RCP-111 2-GI-- 0 —_ \ % _O�SY6� to
2
—
�— ujo
/090 — — — _ _
ITCH 1 1 _�H \ REMOVE -
1085+00 SPEC.LAT.'V' G +� — — ——=-- — = _ uj
SEE DETAIL J .y _
_ 7 \ T
RE OVE jW�- I— \ _i .L
E — '^O
R N � � � I-26�74'B57 Z I—� � �TTE ATv,DI `
_ I.-_ / — —
�IN ui
-
- RETAIN
P T�
JSP.
�. ��g,2 \ 8' °25BW�3534• �`�.� TOE PROTEC'110 , —a,a ^—\ �x� R
N 293�'W ` wa W SEE DETAII'LR / CONCRETE-DRCH �� \
N 3I°OT2B6W ` \ r 3 _ZZIT Ell. 5 SFGF / / BEHIND ` B SI LOPE
ENE -/ LL
Soarl_s E DETAIL -� N 25•o0'I7^ �v RETAIN1NCr C E DI __ Q�
IEINTT \ IC A� P CIAL 73 ' ECELE I N W �sn —E D \xti \t,� ce
T JS \ ETA r - DITCH
CSS_B'RI_PRA \- l LPINE� — '-rye,.., TRIM
\\\� EG 3',K,P* T ``4 O�N� �\ \ ,o9a_ o �z =v sEE 7
\ \ �. YGF \
\ \\ I ENDWes `
IN ALL GUTTER- JB E
ls fll 1lil16R17L — (\� 8\
� \1
_
s l
lltl jg22-RCi FIAT
No�BIL
0
�" / L� ✓// �z � FOR -RPC- PROFILE SEE SHEET 10

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT HE-000/A 5
RAN SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
I
BNC®1�IFLE E FLANS
0o xoT vse FOR /w 4.cnvcsRTLox
Ngoo/� PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 4 OF 19
I
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
I
LEGEND
i® TEMPORARY FILL IN WETLAND
MECHANIZE.CLEARING IGRUBBINGI
I
SAFETY FENCE
I
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
- - 11102+25.00J /
.0 o
48-Ww zsew 'C` •e 2GI W O
_— — 300'TAPER 207 ExIi R 13°1T 513 `L
AL W T
/ w ,RCP-IV _ � �i N ..
/ BEG.�V Ln
4g°WWw<a/25B 9 -EEL-+0 D + N
i TIE TO 1�700 F "8L114
N 24�OS SO,W — SBGGUARDRAILPAVED SHLDR C - - -- W r E� 15"
205.1
I HW�
Q
\ �_�_ ————— ------- //QtpQ U
-_ - -- -------------- -
I-26 EB 72�BST -T M
00—
QJ2
n v
` N
✓ f�/ mil f � .. .. _ - .. .. .. -. - REMOVE ..
�J5J5 _
I
JURISDICTIONAL i N
=� WETLAND WCN CITE I/ \
MECHANIZED CLEARING IN WETLANDS
—
PERMANENT FILL IN WETLANDS �S � /f3S� / /�- -�Sty5
TOE PROTECTION RETAIN OSP NG/9 ,
m
SEE DETAIL 5A +67
/ END o V TY.. S ��J f�0 RING �.
01
7 / / / ®GI �S W/2 E18"LBOWS RE AIN S`. _ .. _ - JS. ..� PSH O
yD
N S B5:1 - �_ = 9.25'��
^ \ INV 204 W Lu
C/1 T mVii RrP-111 s" cP-In 2GI 50 2 +
r 1 R P I 50 Ai 2GI N N
D = — — — Z� — dj.2Gl — — �t@MBE — — — — — _ _ _ — — _ ® Adj.2GII W M
L - __
_ _ 9 - _ __ _ __ - ------ ----- - ---- ----
RETA�II
-- --- _
---
+ rn E MATERIAL —241 RCP-IV r— r— r— U
rn E r—
y V u .- LIND ,B IW�20s3FZ0' _— /
� O � "
CL
Q .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. BLIN t
<» O 24"CSP
.. \\ P-IV
O \ RC
tp 48"WW /2SBW 195.52'
i' 104.22' - 30" 208.02' 48'Ww�W/2S8
to 199�10' v ^ _ '., ExISTIN /w N 13°51'15'W \A, / Y —
N 5°41'26"W \_ / 13°09'48'W l 129.00' 153.31'
N 1733'29'W - N 12°32'43 `4"WW W/W/ BW
N 12'17'43'W\
Z z°n'o°
S W DETAIL 5A
146..77' \A TOE�PROTECTION rn
�� N 19°I0'59'W
SPR�NG I I
W� NaNral Q\J
�tp Ground b Q
N� d
>'A d-1.0 Ft.
InFA b-3.0 Ff. Geotextie
Type of Liner= CIB Rip-Ri FOR -RPB- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 12
FROM 5TA.24+50 TO STA.25+00 RT a1 TYlY7F FARMS.IN(;.
�� �� FOR —RPC— PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 13

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
-EBL- (EX/STING 1-4700 ALIGNMENT). -RPB- HE-000/A 5
° P/Sto 1102+3/31 P/s Sto 1108+61.00 P/Sto //+8229 PI Sto /8+11.83 RAN SHEEP NO.
A = 22'06'205_(RT) Os = 2 3P XY A = 6 57'165'(RT) A = 48'14'06A'(RT) ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
D = 2'00'00Z Ls = 25198' D = P 54'355' D = 5'43'465'
L = 1.10529' LT = 168.W L = 3640' L = 841.86'
T = 559.60 ST = 84.01' T = 18229' T = 447.69 ]E FLANS
R = 2.864.79' E=-3 .W 06 SE= 1000,W
Do xoT vse FOR /w ecnvcsEnox
-WBL2-(EXIST/NG 1-4700 ALIGNMENT) RO = 166' RO = 48' AD °�20j�
P1 Sto 1093+37.38 P/s Sto 1105+7135 OS = 55MPH DS = 55MPH
A = 22'08'01,8'(RT) Os = 0'34'39B'
D = 0'55'002' Ls = 12599'
L = 2,414.43' LT = 8399
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
T = 1222.45' ST = 42.00' UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
R = 6z50oo'
PERMIT DRAWING
-RPc- SHEET 5 OF 19
PI Sto 19+3858 P1 Sto 33+17.83
A = 1P25'495'(RT) A = 7'07'24.a(LT) _ SP w 1 \
D = P1/'23B' D = Z/7'043' I 1 a \C "�6 � LEGEND
R O
L = 1.464.8Y L = 311.81' \\\\\\ \�- //j ap/�1� •I�' I ��l I I I 'II II I1\`�' 1�\\ \ / /
T = 7380 T = 156J1' \\ \`� F I 3\ ® TEMPORARY FILL IN-ET—.R
D
R = 48/5Ao R = 2508m BEGIN C0\1 T& O 1 \
SE = 03 SE = 04 /. /
1 l 1 Y\ __ MECHANIZED CLEARING(GRUBBING)
DS = 24' R0 = 45 / I I(I \ - \ \ -. / // / 1 ��\\\\ \�\ 1 �\\1 l)� — _ — — —
DS = 55MPH OS = 45MPH / / \ `= _ _ SAFETY FENCE
21— O
U.1
O
207. 13°I7'
L
2 48° \_TIE 7 9�� F
-E EC O _ N r
Lu
HW =/ N -- - - -
—ate`-gyp.. �. 7j.caM
I-26 EB 2�B57 —�_�—T �—� ��/ —� -r r W
_ I'Z6 BB �ems► � -- �_ � I � �� �---- � \ �-\�\� �s\. � �_ _� —
10
vl
50
c+
RETAIN / OS,l6'G
f � \ " _.�I IN
� `PSH
---
� -
-- - - - Lai
LLJ No
Ln
Ad;2GI — —2Gl N l.2GI
di. —
- —_� . �"`LF, E --- — �-.. �.- ETC CO�� M
� Ad W
m —4-- —RETAI— Q
toN — — — — — ----- ---- — — ------- -E -�
Ln
T26 WB 74'B57�-- fa y—�- =T�T j -�__�•��
CL
.:aDR
/� —iy@^-ww w!9F.52' go"RCP-IV
• la°41'2 i 13°I'la' �f\i / Y �Y 00'�
�� _ / _ 13°09' yy N 12°32 3 153 I' - w W/
xlsn Pw� —/ //-
\/ 777ppp N 12'17'
W—�JI /E PRO IIrJP� /� Cn/�� �,
0 77' //Y/I F / \• I / I/N"rm s.el. 1\I // /
rind
3�= H. eore�n\ Gh �
P\�(Lim— RiPAQp1-�
+oo�� ��l / / /�PA TW --FA \\\� �� /( �� / FOR -RPC- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 13

o, PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT HE-000/A 6
O� I pbe RMI SHEET NO.
Q Cc ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
' ENGINEER ENGINEER
W n 2.00'LT PQ 14' S•
'rF
a x0p77 d 2 BNC®1�IFLE E FLANS
N O Ea xo7•vse FOR /w AcnvcsLTTox
0�4 4 r R R
\ 21s.00'LT ¢ � r of CA — _ CA
+ -RPB- '�? +48.00-Y-
28.00'LT .OZ -13.41-Y-
+ - - Q _ 70.00'LT
260.00'LT 'fib 4' BEG.2.48°
+ - B- _ 1q '� 03 -R PA 1 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
31 . +215.00,LT G I x99s0 TR + r UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
QO� / + 28.00'LT 60 .01 7*
7
G LEGEND
o B
C G 2a.00'LT
BDO
/ 60 I CB l/j 2C0616° 1p0 TPpER SURFACE WATER IMPACTS�l / �
BB
E
D 2 CM645C.
5R
`� ` / V• ® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
j
/ b � 61 ♦ � / i/ N 2.
CB *, * MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING)
- _ _Q — �� b 05 N A � FILL IN WETLAND
7 +QDrn
cP
2GI END DO UB E FACED 2'-b"CBG N 0 in b
73"C&G +80.66 18°5e' 0 24, / C SAFETY FENCE
L b �n c P /
N 07a23 BYy x�h ? C� C 42 \+ mN ffp P� /
ZCI i ,, � ,N °5 R 8:1 / C
PERMIT DRAWING
o 60 SHEET 6 OF 19
y Ln O
Z p
O r Q
L
Ll L +06.94 2131 o / C® o
J_ T � A'Ln
N eil b
N 2GI 6 C
r \ Z rc E8BOW5 W/ H
�J b J RCP-IV 300 SEER LUG
OD
PP OA H B CONNECTORSE REMOVE
RETAIN F 3 p� -IV
U I _ —� 1 ALL _ �� � / / EST GT I�
r co —co, =OlBE 11
_ —EBL 93B4 —�_�_� �i� G/ 2GI /i
- - _- -
STANDARD DITCH 1
END.SINGLE FACED C� �i REMOVE -REeiov _ SEE DETAIL 6B _ sy , J1
BARRIER i +1
BEG.DOUBLE FACED END ALL JURISDICTIONAL __ OW CL B R�P RAP G /�
TLAND WCS CONC.BARRIER END SINGLE FACED F C +5 DRAIN CL B RIP RAP �
+55.19-Y- - EST RR PROTEC(ION 64 TT �� k
225'+/-PROPOSED ES R
BEGIN SBGfiiUARDRAI 6 GI B G = EST S TOE 51
12+97 +� SEE DETAIL 6C -
SO YD
L,qg SEE DETAIL 6A F �y}� //
OPEN CHANNEL C
I STA.12+73 + �ITF 7 / Phi .O
PERMANENT FILL IN WETLANDS BEG.CONCI SINGLE FACED 2 2 RR-2NER /y �// i O
C 94.3 BARRIER
PERMANENT FILL IN WETL "ps
-RPC- 5 gE�G ` )R
MECHANIZED CLEARING IN WETLANDS +69°aoo z' SgG(L7
+oo.00 P
/2"r �Cp Oos ESTfk�} CfTON 9 S,o�� /�/ // > 01.2E FRP E CONC.
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPA F/ 'B
- " EST GT -/ 66.
f PSH
JURISDICTIONAL e 6 ti BOX 4 �66" ;
SITE 9 rT STREAM BF IGWD S 2G /� // � BLIND 1B
66
j�i
e bs ` k, / / / / //E iVJALL DVSINf ACED SS
0NC BARRIE MOMENT S
// BEG SIN
EQ _�/''/j CONC RIER 6 L
�,�„� '` I C ' \ C 62 LI G 2 L5 /// y +
W I� - 63 24 +-III
ST 1 63 E �PERIV ,HEI�
E /i DETAIL 6C
N N R 15"RCP-IV - AMA Mid 2 P_ �26 W8 BST / / //// DETAIL 6B TOE NPPROTEEO eTION
C 72' STANDARD BASE DITCH
9 u.0 _ IN ro Smlel
62 �—��� D _/� / Nururm NoNrol OQ
Z ----- ----- -- IN-2047.04== a70-� I_ // Groun 0,1 Groin 'L� � SLOPE
Q UARDRAIL DETAIL 6A d p c.Ou o d e SEE SHEET 6A FOR INTERCHANGE
REMOVE CobC.� OPEN CHANNEL Georenne g Min.D= l.5'Ff. GEo7ExrnE CURVE DATA DETAIL RDY SHEETS
WB=6T_ SINGLE FA +$�T7� WBL- ( I
L ffAm d= 1.5 Ff.
I— T I -� �� � (Nor to Swle) Max.d= 1.5 F.
END SINGLE FACED CONC.BAR W/CAP _ _E Nmurol Namml •When B is< 6.D' 8= 2 FI.
=N END e3&sac — ----- +�. - kIA�-- ��'17���� FOR -Y- PROFILE SEE SHEET 9
+60.93-RPC- TACED CONC. �� GfOV" p "' 'O�""` Type of Liner6 CL B Ri STA.
�netl d e of Lme.= a e Ri Rn FOR -YWB PROFILE SEE SHEET 10
U I '_--! �A� �GL�1lRDRAI 24"CSP W/ FROM STA.16+21 TO STA.15+35 RPD L
_ BEG.SINGLE CE AR W AP Min.D= 3.5 Ft. "FROM STA.15+35 TO STA.15+16 RPD Lf FOR -YEB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 10
—+ i WBL- 'Ls• ELBOWS G.0-16 g
U `— `— `— 8`� UG Mb..a= 3s FL MIN D = 1.0 F. FOR -RPA- PROFILE SEE SHEET 11-12
BEG.SINGLE FACED CONC.BARRIER WiCAP END SINGLE FACED CONC.BARRIER W/CAP .. - FROM STA.15+16 TO STA.14+62 RPD Lf
+44.20 -WBL- BEG.SINGLE FACED CONC BARRIER .. .� �- - CONNECTORS wh.�e e> 6.a g= 8.o Ff.
QI +68.19 -WBL- _ Sm.No.876.01 FOR -SPURA- PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
210.34,
-. �� Type of L;ne,= eL i R;_R, FOR -RPB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
gw FOR -SPURB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
4'w� N 22`g453°W PROPOSED SIGNAL FOR -RPC- PROFILE SEE SHEET 13
FOR -RPD- PROFILE SEE SHEET 14
I
L—

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
,WETcLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT HE HETNO. 6
O / ✓ �_ ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
2.00'LT lq"
ENGINEER ENGINEER/
DO7j u \ 21� I IInNo xo®DIl[�L�E E eEcnocs�iaTox
215.00'LT
3mo,Li—
- _
/ / 2 0 LT --RPAE,2 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
5. LTr / UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
/
0"LT J �/ LEGEND
• / / // / _ /\/--����- � tPP //� J n � SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
R PI R 11/ N, ® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
c / 6 I ti Cam— �� � b * MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING)
_ ^ � \ -_ _ _ _ - ® FILL IN WETLAND
`/ / CB�G r / \ 1 C �b o
END DO CEO `,j
cH - ' �,. + e .; c SAFETY FENCE
240 /C rm x• Q 073- '1 i B roe'M! \ u. / °• (/(�/
— — / �i x ,Nj „ , o / �j/p,�j PERMIT DRAWING
10 -S RB �'����/, %/ SHEET 7 OF 19
Ln
6.94
Lu
Lu
P rv °r__ Zi
IN ELB SE
Ln
_ PROD.
BE
,
2G
REV
.. 1 LT41 V LYE YV bJ� _C-0NC-BAD r _ N NNGLE--FACEB D QN EST �� x
225'+-'PROPO
_ _ C FTAigNN �j
M A NNE F 1 L W ff I P S��¢ C BARRIERSED/ .. ...�4p 2
NET— iLL WET 5 D D>$slrnTORGiG/ice/////v O
�M k�/� ff E D (`L A R W E N D RAP
' ' /�•/ PC�9 T .� C loss
\ p O R�S T� +ld / e_7 EST GT 5
SITF ST TRXEM �- BE
WALL,
B
1 1 IFtl/Y\ ,g- 93\V1
�V
61
— ON m
Lu
re 6
W _ _ I .. 63 24 CP-III/ /i / i '/`
= + _ _ DETAIL
f�� - B-77 ST 63 - -M� 2 � / 7 B /PERM QEVj/ Y DETAIL 6B TOE PROTEC ON
N♦ iS=RCP =y°= M I_ yyB / / //y STANDARDIrm S.16) ITCH I or ro 5ca e1
liLr C
M —�00 � � P6 BASE D
W -- - --- D - 1 oN"Nr"I ��0.Q, FILL
..........,�_- IN=Z UpRD I�A7DDD I y Groun N D M1.1 Groen 110L F� SLOPE
DETAIL bA a GxouNO a SEE SHEET 6A FOR INTERCHANGE
REM I OPEN CHANNEL Georenno g Min.D= 1.5'Pf. GLo7ExrILE CURVE DATA DETAIL RDY SHEETS
WB BST �E: SIN FA + .�f-�WBL- ( I
T I I Nor,o swlel
END INGLE FACED CONC.BAR W/CAP ` / Max.d= t.5 F. d= 1.5 Fr.
BE('. F3 $BG - —�+ _ IA�� 7 Nererel �/--Namrol -When a�e a.o- g= z Ft. FOR —Y— PROFILE SEE SHEET 9
a 6.93-RPC- CO �� GfOe" p 't'% """" Type of Liner= CL B Rip-kap
a e of Lim r CL B Ri Re FOR —YWB— PROFILE SEE SHEET 10
rcd�� FROM STA.16+21 TO STA.15+35 RPD L U. I` BE "1` CE AR APB E gpyy5/" S GeoW& g Min.D= 3.5 Fr. "FROM STA.MIN T= $1.0 Ft. 16 RPD Lf FOR -YEB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 10
r v — �Bl M .d= 3s H. FOR -RPA- PROFILE SEE SHEET 11-12
RE CM— BAR AP °SINOLE F COIgC W i— FROM STA.15+16DO STA.14+62 RPD Ll
NGLE `^ ONC 5 B a> 6.0' B= 8.0 Fr.
= �-- Srd.No.876.01 FOR —SPURA— PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
1 21o•sq// Type f one.= a 1 Rip-Rep FOR -RPB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
B5 FOR -SPURB- PROFILE SEE SHEET 12
a4
4' PROPOSED SIGNAL FOR -RPC- PROFILE SEE SHEET 13
FOR -RPD- PROFILE SEE SHEET 14
L—

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
RAM SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
50
// ♦ ♦ BILTMORE FARMS.INC. \ 1 H BNC®1�IFLE E FLANS
/ m� ♦ ♦ IDS 1222 PG 645 Do xoT vse FOR /w AQQvcsiTTox
♦ \ 2 1 1
HE-1 ♦\\ �O 1 1
L Or0 \lC \ �k 1 1
131
LEGEND
W�V:. \ \ p DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
61 \ \ lj 1 1 I I UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PERMIT DRAWING
EZ SURFACE WATER IMPACTS \ I I
SHEET 8 OF 19
*** MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING)
SAFETY FENCE
•`� 62 7,50 40 7 CA
\ ep 70 I ! E=�JURISDICTIONAL
2GI 70 \ \ i WETLAND WQ
PERMANENT STRE M IMI A�T
ww
T/EMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
�9,oq� ��• SITE 4r. m i MECHANIZED CLEARING
` BEG.WALL , IN WETLANDS
+13.86 i'' \ JURISDICTIONAL
F\ 2G1
ee csP \' WALL Al STREAM SA—A
COD BS I 169,4$' \ R ENERGY
,per \! \� \ NNfCTOUR F 4J7
999• 48' W +13.86 �• \ ERGY
S W I
NO
0 oti �� \\\\\_� \ Zg MCP N 536•3z "�/ \ _
_ n '
L �-q� W
O 71 CL u`N�$P.P \\\� \�2SJ_ \ 2q.,R ..
\ T� -. .. .. .- P
(40
F U) FRHW O r ' I O
\fie\ \\\ F $ \ qQ PE END N F U W
O' �C6T3C BAB@I MT�r_ 1141E FACED CO BARRIER _— g(/ "'--
�/ TIE TO EXI BL_ I 0 CCMC
2 _ _ — .UO-WBL-- -- f�M/y� V� J
\ 1 t^ 11 TW —r =_ iti MTL
\ \ SPECIAL CUT SS S/I --- �ry-� N
2 N —= --- �— '• ����'�• � EXPRESSWAY CU
W O
—C �-EL-3-
- MTL Z� O
Q
Mrs r— — \ — — — P1l— R �
\ —�_--- -YL-=— _ _ -1P30+010 _ MTL J
= W LA
_—_—WLB——_————
f _
v
r
REM
2L18 32 W 49 9' W - _. O .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ._
h0
•WW W/ SBW�157.B= C+E/T7F�( wLe--_-r ¢_-__--- WL— _-_wLe------�``.. ..\ HW 5g7�'O lR -----W
B arF RCP7� i
\ \ 89.40' _ MAN N R iT J70 ——WLB———
\ DETAIL 7A GRASS SWALE DATA
SPECIAL CUT GRASSED $WA�JS $°45'20'W E I TING R/W X W/ SEW N�gl^ge'IS' p' ISTING R
\ DA= 2.3 -
18;
(Not tc Scale) SLOPE- D034 M N 60°44'11'W 256.49' _,I*- \
L REQ.= 230' —`W� ST A.1131+50. 0
�\ �lgtur 'fir L PRO.-
Ground '� t Qiy 1.53 F
Front �] 1.33 FPS \
O \
\ p c Ditch i QIO-D63
$lope V10= O.9'fps \ I
\ Min.D=1.5 Ft. mo= 1.5 \ \
\ B=2.0 Ft. tee`"/ \\ \
19+00 to STA 21+50-RPD-LT
\ FROM'SSTA.19 Oo To 2+JlY.gPD-a 81LTMORk FARMS.INC. /
/ ea�opf -at g ditch oo DB 222 PG 645
Tig existing ditch
ce\ depth i s< 6' - -�*-3a v ifDP= I eW INV=199987' -
ss 42'RC TOP=1996 87'
' •y �' _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ INV=1987.67
-EB - ING 1-4700-AUGNUrNT)_ - - - GR- - - - - - - B -/'S
- - - _
4 Sto
_ t 44r 40T1L _ _R_53
GR a = � Ls = 335-98 - _ 4z RC
- > LT = 224J1' -
_ .mow,, ST = 112J1' -RPA- -RPD-
R = lb31b,- '9a P/Sto721+00.43�.� :�L Sta-.20+68J8 s� -
y -a=-_.L, 23'24L�L'Lt i A = 1414'-_37 p•//T'1 \ _ TOP=1997.40'B>M\
T 62D.Ci 9— -- -_ " '_ INV=I9BB.09'
Z -WBL tEJttSVAf t-4700 AUGNMENTt D = 2'3-e 15P D = 4'46'28.7'
L - 1282A9' L = 298.32
-PYSto 1119+62.02 PIS Sto 1127+0289 - �.-. \
6 = 39'2r 04.6'QT) 65 = 5'02'22.9 R = 2200A0 T = 14993' --- c \ Nv=199o.7B' /
D = 3'00'00.0' Ls = 335.98 R = 1200.00
w SE = 06 SE = 05 ss 4 / CULTIVATED FIELD
/ L = 1.311.7r LT = 224.08 _ �. RO = l20 \"
_ �. 2 RC \
N� R = �909�6' ST = 112A8 OS = 55MPH DS = 55MPH \INV=1991.06, `
>«
FOR -RPA- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 16-17
FOR -RPD- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 19

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEE7NO.
ro�=cj` \ \ \ \ \ \{, \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\ f I RMI SHEET NO.
Oh \ \ \ I I I I ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
/ r \ y�`\ \ ENGINEER ENGINEER
����O *'�///j//✓��//z0��/\/�//,i/�ce—\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\�_\\�\/\\`��_\`i`�\ �`Y/,�r�` J/I ��P J' o
o0 , / 0 lII 1l I I r/RI�I EIIN
DOCBDNUoM CxEo®NT T1�v IsNe1�OLPTORE C O 7NEwS IeDFcEQLvRcAEsrDn N oFxSI N
AL
LEGEND UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED//�\�
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT DRAWING-reL,
EZ
SHEET 9 OF 19
*** MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING)
SAFETY FENCE AZ
,/\�� IIJWRIl4DI �
f
\ \o �/ / /l\i i ET ND \r
\\ / NENJ S'TR A T ( �
T/EM � �� 11�tT
\� —�/ f� /\ /I E m M ( HANII ED UgEAR1NG \
S7 c"` / I AND
A L Al $M—Ply
11 +13.86 R ENERGY \ +2 I \
4 OR \ ERGY
NO Cli,
W
O
0000
toO
MTL FA CO RRIE0.—
2 � �7�$jgL�P� c 75.s0-u0wc¢B� = T S �zl
CIAL QIT SS S 2 �— '• ����• —� EXPRESSWAY CU
fw �� pF iA _
I-D -EC-S-2TRrP
In
l�R _
=EL-N=2 a ov
Lu
co
2L18 32'W 49 9' W ——— _�_
0�— t�$onSC4�1e —
-Rem/� —r-=
\ \ DETAIL 7A GRA55 WWALE DATA - i�P l\ �'7►� _ _WLB-_
SPEC CUT GRASSED WALE 15 DA i.3 5'`45\'20'WTING R/W\��=%F W/ —
\ (Nof Scale) / SL - .0034 WN v N 60°49'll'W 256.49' ,q�'
I1Nd 'J/ / II ( Qly T6ech 8'S' 2' ST, • 131 ISTING R
230
1.53 FPS
QIo
V10= 1.54 fps
\ � � � Min.D=1.5 Ft. mo= os�
Ft. tee`"/
STA.19+00 to STA 21+50-RPD-LT
FRO 1 0 TO 2+ " PD-Lf
slopf atST�<<+60 � ` _/ BILDBT222FAP�I6 5NC.
\ / 'to
Tie cexde�p .. - l / \
_ �'.
/ eM INV-1999.87'
_ — — — — _ _ _ INV=1987.67
lNG 1-4 00-AUGNMENTt_ - - - �R- - - - - _
St
i- ' GR Q = = 335.99 \Q �_ - - - z`RG` `
�24✓r J- -
T 6 3 ti�,9e _ST-= 112 Pl Sfo 2/ Ob f3- —��tRfn11� _ \ ss �_ o W _`_� Z
E» /' /- '� S&u.204w✓ ` ` TOP=1997.40�s> �� / —Z�.
Fp �9 1/- INV=1988.09'
61-4700 AUGNMENT) D = 23�✓` D —
�/ Pia 1119t62A2 PIS Sto 1127+0289 L = 1282A9' L = 298.32
A = 39'2r 04e QT! 6s = 5'02'22.9 T = 65982 T = 14993'
R = 1200.
D = 3'00'00.0• Ls = 335.98 SE-�� AO 00'
SE = 05 c_ ss CULTIVATED FIELD
L = l 3/l.7/' LT = 224A8 RO = 96' RO = 120' �a�� .. q
}� T = 688�2p9r ST = 112A8 OS = 55MPH DS = 55MPH
V1F» R = 1,%9.86' INV=19 _
a
FOR -RPA- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 16-17
�� FOR -RPD- PROFILE SEE RDY SHEET 19
*

III
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE—DX/ 8
\ \ RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
\;\ ENGINEER ENGINEER
9<
\ \ BNCOMPLE E FLANS
-RPA- \ \ �p Do NOT USE FOE /w ACOULMON
PI S10 21+00.43 \ \ \=
A = 33'23'242(LT)
D = 2 36'15.7' \o
L = 1282A9
T = 659.82' \
R = 2200DU
SE = 06 \ �,•, DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
RO = 96' UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
OS = 55MPH I I
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 9 OF 19
DETAIL 8A
TOE PROTECTION
INw CT NO STREAM IMPACTS
NI I
0—d b
d
d= 2.0 Ft. GeotWeile
b= 5.0 Ft.
I I Type of Liner= CI I Rip-Rap
FROM STA.1137+00 TO STA.1138+00-L-LT
IFROM STA 1138+25 TO STA 1138+75-L-LT
109,00 LT
-RPA- PT Slo.27+22.69= (/ BI OBM1222 PG 645,1NC -NG RIW. N 61°58'23'W 401.24' WW W/2SBW
-L- POT S1o.1135+79J1,6P LT
+ - o
102.00•Lr =�
W cQ
ZQ O 52.56'LT + - - a II g�QdfLcj'R" m1 N 61°56'24'W - 398.4
;"P „ END T P PROJECT HE-0001A
L v' 080 +� N 61°55'54'W� 4' 2SBW — + '
1i O - I 80 8 .. H
W
U W O 25+ 98 ON 2SBN 2G1300'TAPER 18"RCP-IV
^ - - BERM GUTTER EXISTING 1-4700�..°
.. � � SBGfiaUARDRAIIiPVD SHLDR
QNadLo
IN - — — — — — — — — — -
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
INV=2022.52' Z D
MTL -- ----EMT MTL -------------------- MTL
v my
REMOVE _--__—_ - ————————— ----
REMOVE H
-- �335f110 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �� — — — — — — — — — — — — — —-----JW5 f�_-------
-_ ---------------- ___---
----------- -- ------ --- _
W O � TL DI lam_ � TMTL � •— Z MTL= i M�TT
TOP=2025.30' IS'CMP
Z Q O J rMTL — =201954' GPS —
N --_____ __ — ______ __ _________ __ __-- — ---___ ---___J
— --------------------- --
----- ———— —————————————— ——————
�°��Lu�s F1Lrwr
W �LQyYB6_LE MATERIAL __ _
(�W J + _ ___ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ __ __ — __ __ _— — — _— — __—-------------------- --
N co INV=2022.21' -- INV 2024.55' INV=2027. .- BM 2 - - -
r N a �_ .-PROS U ER � � CS T P W/
r 2 �i// „ 9 BERM GUTTER ELBOW
LUG
——— ;, ??REMOVE -
RE,ytO \ REMOVE CONNECTORS
19,
' -
__
WW W{2SBW T 9A X\ INV=19�.78' W
C 61°56'38'W 920.34' iH < 48'WW W7 2SBW "' '
F( e\ N 62°00'49"W 1099.57
fys Wi \ CLASS'I'RIPRAP / \
B((J USF EST 10 TONS \EST.23 SYGF `————_`
\ —
�w�e__
——
—WLB——___ _
�
� --DIM---- —
/
/
Z /
N� CULTIVATED FIELD
�� � FOR -RPA- PROFILE SEE SHEET 16-17

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE-0001
8 SHEET NO.
I ( sue\ \
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
I \ ENGINEER ENGINEER
Tol
1 \
_ 282 � I \``\
T — 659.82'
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
\ / UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
r S = 55
�II — \�//� / l�/ ; ►I lr /�� , ��\�� 11 /\� J�IIIr , \� ( � 1 r 1 F PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 9 OF 19
B TL
`INO STREAM IMPACTS
2. L mod.` yq \ v / I / �/ I I ► �1 1 1 1 \
TYy Ft L \Cl— IR. aP \\\\\\\\\\\\�\\\�
STA 113 +25 TO TR�7138+OS-L>L \\\ \ \ �✓ / / / //—� it
\
// BILTMORE FARMS INC.' \ \ \\ N I�se,s•w\/fal.z4' — 4e ww wi zsew
Sto. +I / \ DB 1222 PG,64T5
2.
LJ.t
Z^ Q O T CT7))\ PRQTECT\
�HpEE 26 \/ J/ \ \ �EE.DEY,(IL TrT DBOIf�—= .-
N 0 0 GF 'C P 1 ST.55dNS
_ C N§75'54'W 75 4 258W EST 2
UUJ—j I O — 48' BW CTI \ EN 4—`EG GU RCP IV
W Sf EXIS7�V6 J 4 00 \\ 840+ Tom- — —
Q=a'^� — — GUTT SBGG HEDR ' — _ - 71 —- J3EH L U=ALL —W .00 LT LR
?G N 2GY56 �._
»�
IN � e v �
MIL —� 1 —r MTL --------�—-----_—
REMOVE bIIjai
,$GUTTER �— ---- O "—------T— ----- ----
FG GAR —T � -- -- —�— -----� �B�F-IO---- � REMOVE H
Bzca — __-- — — — — 7n — _ — _—__—___ JW5+00----- -- _ _------  — — -- — ---
W O 6 — TL -B FIG TOP= _FETE T82GI-B Ap MTL IS'CMP —MTL —
Y NV=2019.4' GR
Z Q O — T. T/ — _ — T MTL T_ _— _ — GPS-� EMT MTL —
J
V W — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �144YB@LE MATERIAL — —\— — — — ` ——--
-- -- —-- — --- — ------
_ 70 _
= J (n — — —_ � —=-- L —INvss-= —�s�Ls F �— - 7.Is' *Tr�=� - razci
�.
�ws- �•�_ BR1� mm�ExF=C�U1T Ron5.8rW�
7-t999.4T' �B°° �-- �€ CITE ROD & L 702 _= -J MOVE CONN RS �' .- �- �•1��
�m� / r
.[QNNEC70A OU
WJ1L,zooI aa; �- 5 —
e•w sera --�1 X! __ --�•��w e� WY-94 'w wi 2SB _ �-— - U7 —
O(/T ?4., \ /H T!61°56'38'w 920.34'� CONCRET NERGY � r� �� <
F( CSP \ CLASS'B'RIPRAP �1
Iy5 Wi / DISSIPATOR CLASS'I'RIP��y \ '� ES7 2 TONS
SEE SPECIAL DETAIL \ '%"
�EST_10 To
( \ �E5T1R SYGF �—
Y S SS FCT C' CLASS'B'RIPRAP \EST.23 SYGF
A/( fST'S TONS RAP Rs EST.S SYGF \ *0/ � ON.
_ V
T O _
—————-
/
M—————— _____
/
/ _ y� - - - - - - - - -
-BIM-----
/ 1
N� CULTIVATED FIELD
�r
J ` — FOR —RPA— PROFILE SEE SHEET 16-17

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE—00018 9
RW SHEET NO.
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT / ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULIC S
DETAIL 9F DETAIL 9G ENGINEER ENGINEER
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL
RIP-RAPPED ENERGY DISSIPATOR BASIN INC®�1 P LE' E PLANS(NOrro Scale)
LEGEND N_j 'R'k o� � �rou dal DO NOT USE FOR /w ACQUISITION
s./ DIM. RIP RAP BASIN# RIP PAP NOT
S SURFACE WATER IMPACTS ",R IF) o9 5 091 R ,I
Length=l0 Ff. CH�nobl iED A *5 ?Rd=2.5 Ft. BR cR4TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS Est.= 15 Tons of Class I Rip-Rap D RSTA.26+45-Y-RT iF ' RRIPRAPNo,SHDOCUMENT NOTCONSIDERED FINAL
SAFETY FENCE G R �� I UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
�ene°.w° n PLAN PERMIT DRAWING
pry
SHEET 12 OF 19
BASIN# LOCATON T OUTLET) Ow.rn
0905 STA 26, E-YI LT
0915 STA 25+])Yl RT akouno
C TPT.
SECTION
7,081
STA.26+98-Y-LT
STA.25+27-Y-RT
/ BERM BASE DITCH SITE 5
/ SEE DETAIL 9A
BERM BASE DITCH
C SEE DETAIL 9B
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT CL 1 RIP RAP GRASS SWALE �� ^
SEE DETAIL 9E EST RR 12 Ton; SEE DETAIL 9C `
GT 8 S.Y.
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPAC JURISDICTIONAL
TOE PROTECTION STREAM
SEE DETAIL 9D S F
/ ��
RR ENERGY DISSIPATOR 2GI
\ / SEE DETAIL 9G v ]
x � 'M"BD CB
ova d�� c\ ce® 25f00
CB 90
- F
\ /
/ �AA 1 OR L W
C
IVA
_ c 1 cB /
3m PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT
RR ENERGY DISSITOR
SEE DETAIL 9G
70. RT \ \ ® SEU.BETAIL 9F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SOIL
DETAIL 9A DETAIL 9B S�ILi — —
SM"1 ELEV.21N.48' \ ^ / BERM BASE DITCH BERM BASE DITCH ��
-BR- STA SET IN BASE
2'RT. 1 / INel to Scale) INol to Swle)�
R/R SPIKE SET OAKBASE OF \ / TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
I Not
o��d d 7.A D 1'� RDwr N.wo I d T� RDwY
/ J /��
I / MI..DR 1.0 F t. B GEOTEOILE Min.D= 1.0 f+. B GEOTEXIILE / / _ / /
Me.d=1.0 Ft. Max.d= 1.0 Ft. \t /` ///���///
B=1.0 Ft. 6= 2.0 FI. _
b=1.0 Ft. 6= 1.0
Type of Liner=CL B Rip-R°p Type of Liner=CL B Rip-Rap SEE DETAIL lOD
/ FROM STA.20+00 TO STA.25+75-Yl-L} FROM STA.28+00 TO STA.32+00-Yl-L} \k
lest.RR 185Tons;GT 325Sq.Yd (es}RR 70Tons;GT 95Sq.yd) I`\�•.���"
DETAIL 9C DETAIL 9D RIP RADAT EMBETAIL ANKMENT
LATERAL GRASSED SWALE TOE PROTECTION 1
(Not}o Scalel INol to SwlRl INol I.Swlel
/ b OQ' Dirch 10'min. \\
NDtuL �— GROUND FILL NATURAL 'C� SLOPE Gmde 2'min.
/ GPOUn 1"AF}, SLOPE d 1.0'mi
Min.D= 1.0 Ft. GEOTEXTILE
D 9 d= 1.5 k. Plaw Ge—ile 7Und.,6.0 Ft. Ripr°p in Localie Presa Ripwp role
/ 6= 2.0 Ft. Directed by Engineer Ch.—I Bo11 m
Umil Reluzol ,
/ Type of Liner= CI1 Rip-Rap
/ FROM STA.26+50 TO STA.27+00-Y1-L} type of Liner= 10 TONs,a Rip-ROp,Keyed-In
/ FROM STA.25+50 TO STA.26+50-Y1-Rt
/ / FROM STA.26+15 TO STA.26+25-Yl-L}

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE-000/B 9
RW SHEET NO.
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
DETAIL 9F DETAIL 9G
PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL RIP-RAPPED ENERGY DISSIPATOR BASIN
LEGEND
I Norro Sealel INCOlMP LE ]E PLANS
M—d e _
Ha as ��dl DO NOT USE FOR 6W ACQUISITION
�.ED
�sDIM RIV26' �
IN# RIP R.Rr NOT® SURFACE WATER IMPACTS R�..RIF) 1 RLength=l0 Ft. OH A 1.5Rd=2.5 Ft. B LoR® c 1.0R 4 FRT�TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS Est.= 15 Tons of Class I Rip-Rap D 3.DRSTA.26+45-Y-RT E 4.0RF13. R RAP aAPOseaDOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
SAFETY FENCE G 26' R I UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
.a ea��aan...rRae�.e PLAN
PERMIT DRAWING
pry
D-°AT°R° "° SHEET 13 OF 19
BASIN# LOCARON T OUTU aeVrn
0905 STA 26+98-YI LT
/ 0915 STA 25+27 Y1 RT ORounD
C IECTION
/ 75O
STA.26+98-Y-LT
STA.25+27-Y-FIT
l
E ETAIj \RRRMMM \BE BASE DI CHDE
RIP�AVEIAN fJ �r ECL 1 P RA 6AIL 9E EST RR 12 To75; 52C9C/ GT S.Y.
"'111
P ARS /�`L �/Imt c //
To
L(/ E I,O �
/SEE NETAIL 9tl t // I \\ /,�♦p\\�"�\ \\� ' j / .A ♦"
RR El� 9G
DE\ -
CB
-J S 47-48,21z w
ANESTRCfTviP� —� __ �. �✓
-
\so DETAIL 9G
DETAIL 9IT DETAIL 9B ✓ �� — — ' — ^L —/ // /
B V.21 BERM BASE DITCH BERM BASE DITCH / / J_ ��IL�y ` ✓�:�,A� /
QB.DD `\ // INe„o Scale) INot to Sw1e) / / / ""//
SET IN 5 OF �/
IH"RED DA� \ I / Gou�dd 7.7 D �RDNN Nld ?.7 D 1.� RDwv TE1 .A TRIW-rH
11 I /
f r MLn,DR 1.0 F t B GEOTSOILE Min.D= 1.0 F. B GEOTEXTILE
Hex,d=F,Ft.
8=1.0 Ft„
=b
/ Type of Liner=CL B Rip-Rap Type of Liner=CL B Rip-Rap SEE DETAIL lOD / � / l / � � f� 1 �/
,,� FROM STA.RR 185 TO STA. 5Sq.Y -Yl-Lt FROM STA,28+00 TO STA.3 q y0,-Yl-Lf
lest.RR 185Tons;GT 3255q.Yd (es}RR 70Tons;GT 95S d
DETAIL 9D \ �DETAIL 9E
V/1
DETAIL 9C RIP RAPAT EMBANKMENTLATERANo11�oS5coleISWALE TOEROION 1 FILL
NO �— FILL NATURAL 0. SLDPE Glme
tu de
IOUn
G 1�, SLOPE GROUND d
D g� Min.D= 1.0 Ff. GEDTExTILE RPla ce Geofi Under
6.0 Ft. d= 1.5 Ft.. pap in L—Loea,iens Presa
2.0 Ft. Directed by Engineer Channel Bottom \ \ 111I I I I I i 1I 1
1
Type of Liner- CI Rip-Rap UMil Reluzol
/ FROM STA.26+50 TO STA.27+00-Y1-Lt Type of Liner= 10 TONS,CL I Ril Rap,Keyed-In \/ I
FROM STA.25+50 TO STA.26+50-Y1-Rt FROM STA.26+15 TO STA.26+25-Yl-Lt ` 1n
JJJ

DETAIL 10J PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE HE-000/B /0
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT RM/ SHEET NO.
DETAIL 101 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
VIE
W EW PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT ENGINEER ENGINEER
RIP-RAPPED ENERGY DISSIPATOR BASIN < MATTING IPSRMI
LEGEND P - INSTAWITH LNATURAL GROUND.
L LEVEL AND H INc®MI3ILE FE PLANS
P BASIN x
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS Dun. PIPE OR DITCH DO NOT USE FOR ®W ACQUISITION
I' I RIP AA vir am Ho.sH OUTLET
\ MIIm 2
^ A 1.5' ; n A
® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS 1 c 1.0• 2 'L- r rL
1 D s.o•
E 0.0'
I\\ F 14.0' ;
* * MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING) \ G zs o' = ur RAo NOT seowN SQUARE PREFORMED
dP DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PLAN SCOUR HOLE(PSH)
>a o.r"yONSx�.rE (RIP RAP IN UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
\
SAFETY FENCE \ DisslrATOR ro o BASIN NOT SHOWN\ FOR CLARITY) B=5.0 H.D=1.0 Ft. PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 14 OF 19
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT IIASIN.LOCATION AT OUTL p A_A
V 1017 STA 39+00-Y1-RT uno akouno �S SECTION
�OpF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT J "FLOW�o PS. STND.ROLL WIDTH
I INFLOW D (MINUS TUCK)
oCL SECTION / , NATURAL
90eOr59egW C 7/08 GROUND
3+oo- -RT LINER:CLASS B RIPRAP
\ \ WITH GEOTEXTILE 6 >� IN.1'TUCK DETAIL lOK
/ PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL
S T 6 LATERAL BASE DITCH / \ STATION 38+15 -YE LT INotm 5<alel
SEE DETAIL IOF S✓
ERM BASE DITCH
EE DETAIL lCD / JURISDICTIONAL TEMPORA Y STREAM IMPACT // ' `r�ael<E°
BERM BASE DITCH /
\ \ SEE DETAIL IOC 1 \ / STREAM
G o2 h zGI E SITE T / °y/ N \\\
\ \/ `� \ STA.34+20-Y-RT Length=10 Ft.
C 00 \ / / // W v 1 d=2.0 Ft.
/ / W �k//St 1 Est.= 13 Tons of Class 1 Rip-Rap
/ H 35+ SPECIAL BACK OF
019 STA.38+80-Y-RT Length=12 Ft.
CURB CUT DITCH / / SS Sf 1 d=1.5 Ft.
SEE DETAIL 10E \ / / \E/,� W \ 1 1 Est.= 11 Tons of Class 1 Rip-Rap
1F W \
` ST RR 2 f, \
02 \ /Y 1 GT 7 S.Y.i
A
/ \
02 CL I RIP RAP 101 02
SEE DET/AC 10K
100 7 1 RIP RAP AT EMBANKMEN v✓/2 ELBOWS-------- F
/ 'ERMANENT STRE U CL B RIP RAP / SEE DETAIL 101 ail E/� \ o EST RR I ran; TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT �wrs Boe e 12 TOF i
r0 / GT 5 S.Y. CL B RIP RAP 1 1 SFf 3 \ /
/ EST RR 1 Ton; EXCAVATION IN WETLANDS �kr4tC
100 / GT 5 S.Y. PSH I 00
SEE DETAIL 701
LATERAL BASE DITCH
/ SEE DETAIL IOF
i
^ ROC -BE ICI I RIP CB
.CI B p-Rop SEED T r'1 \
ZN
Sr
�� R PR�A E IOCN Q Q R \� _%
ENERG ISSI� 18" W2 ELBOWS 1016 9 q QN \ 4 L O
O ^ SEE DL'I AIL 701
i
\ V
_ V O•
_ — — — 1� RIP RAP IL 01 NT Y �\
O '�/� � � _ — — — — — � `kW SEE DETAIL 101 \ =® ....._........�....... CB ti O
/ 0 \.......\...... r 02
O Lj
/ JURISDICTIONAL PDE DE /, *01
. . POARY STREAM IMPACT �,..
STREAM "\ D�
5.' \\
SA
DETAIL 10B
LATERAL GRASSED SWALE
V17-
Not to Scale) 4
f W b
Natural FILL
Groan 1 Wit. SLOPE
;7 D .� Min.D=1.0 Ft.
B=2.0 Ft.
b=2.0 Ft.
FROM STA.38+50 TO STA.39+00-Yl-Rt
DETAIL 10C DETAIL 10D DETAIL 10E
BERM BASE DITCH BERM BASE DITCH
IN—.Scolel INmm srolel� SPECIAL BACK OF CURB CUT DITCH
b INOT TO SCALE)
Naturcl 1 NATURAL
Groanl1, RDWY Groan d 1:7 D 1' RDWY GROUND
d
Mtn.D=1.0 FL B i Min. GEOTEXTILE
Mpx.d=1.0 FL GEOTEXTILE Maz.d=1.0 Ft.
6= 1.6 FL B=2.0 FI.
Elm
1.0 FL b=1.0 Ft.
Type of Liner CL B Rip-Rap Type of Liner= CI I RipJtap FROM STA.40+50 TO STA.42+50 =Y1-RT
FROM STA.32+00 TO STA.34+00-YI-Lt FROM STA.47+b1 TO STA.44+00-YI-Rt
(est.RR 55Tons;GT 10OSq.Yd lest.RR 100 Tons;GT 130 Sq.Yd
DETAIL lOF DETAIL 10 DETAIL 10
LATERALBA&a DITCH TOE PROTECTION RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
INalo Scolel (N f.Scele)
h
Natural r— Fill \M1Toc Ditch 10'min
ara .
Groan tF a
SIoPo Nall ,L.1`\S\oQo Grade 1.0'min. 2'min.
Ground b F
GEOTWILE B
Min.D= I.0 Ft. d Place in L.ile Under
Max.d= 1.0 Ft. d=1.5 Ft. RipraP in Locafions Preas Ripra
"When B is< 6.0' B= 2.0 Ft. Is .0 Ft. Geota file Directed by Engineer Channel Buxom
Umil Relusal
Type of Liner= CL I Rip-Rap b= 2.0 Ft. Type of Lin­ CI I Rip-Rap
Type of Liner= 10 TONS,CL I Rip-Rap,Neyod-In
FROM STA.34+00 TO STA.34+35-YI-U FROM STA.38+50 TO STA.38+80-Yl-U FROM STA.38+40 TO STA.38+50-I-Rt FROM STA.33+75 TO STA.34+12-YI-Rt FROM STA.38+85 TO STA.43+00-YI-Lt FROM STA.u+xx TO STA.34+12-YI-R}est.RR 10 Tons;GT 205.Yd FROM STA.39+40 TO STA.40+50-YI-R}

DETAIL 10J PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE HE-000/B /0
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT RW SHEET NO.
DETAIL 101 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
VIE
W EW PERMANENT SOIL REINFORCEMENT ENGINEER ENGINEER
RIP-RAPPED ENERGY DISSIPATOR BASIN < MATTING IPSRMI
LEGEND INSTALL LEVEL AND FLUSH
WITH NATURAL GROUND. INCOl®'P LE rE PLANS
7 PIPE OR MICH D0 NOT USE FOR ®W ACQUISITION
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS r I Dun. RIP AAP BASIN x nr rnr„o.sH OUTLET
MIIm 2
A 1.6' ; A
® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS c 1.o• —e— CL
D 3.0•
E 4.0'
I\\ F
* * MECHANIZED CLEARING (GRUBBING) \ G zx 0' = ur RAo Nor ssowN SQUARE PREFORMED
jP DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PLAN SCOUR HOLE(PSH) UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
(RIP RAP IN
SAFETY FENCE \ DissirATos ro o BASIN NOT SHOWN 4< �
\\ FOR CLARITY) B=S.o H.D=1.0 Ff. PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 15 OF 19
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT I / BASIN.LOCATION AT DUL F SECTION A_A
1017 STA 39+00-Yl-RT GROUNp ,
SYOpF
PERMANENT STREAM IMPACT NILOWI PS. STND.ROLL WIDTH
INFLOW 0 (MINUS TUCK)
GCL SECTION NATURAL
S 40'Or 59.9'W C 7/08 � GROUND
a7 LINER:CLASS B RIPRAP
\ e � w.riucK DETAIL lOK
WITH GEOTEXTILE
/� 111 PIPE OUTLET CHANNEL
S T LATERAL BASE DITC I I�^ I I _ / , INor fo 5calel
/ I �il'I STATION 38.15 -YI-LT_
ERASE DITC r \//
EE-DPIAIL 1 0 j BE E TCHJJ@7�RI I TI'�I �M�RA s A�MP��-T / // / �\W\ \ '`\\\ 1 I I I 1 I I s/(va ubl<IEo
SEE D1
/ / �j `•a / ✓ _ II I I I2GI� 1 �— J /\� / / I /`^ ry f \ / STA.34+20-Y-RT Length=l0 Ff.
\\ 2.0 Ft�
�' / / /// y / ,a H \ \\ •=I`�_ / •/ /% W Y; W I I I `' llll I II /I / % \ \� \ `E 13 Tons-atEtoss 1 Rip \\\�
TA. �480-Y-Rr engTh=12 F}t.
_CURB CUT DITCH / _
/ / -R'S g 1\I 1 x I ♦ =�-d=t.s-Fr. =,.x\
SEE DE TA / �/ I 1 I I '
yE yE � \\�Esf._ �of CI—oss 1 Rip-R., \ )
1 \
P
B� I 9` /���"
/ GT 7
2 CL4 RIP ����� ' i / / I � /
• \, DET 1k0TAIL
P T M N E�� •,a.� / /ESRR II T n; �- � qL o ;ER IANENT SRE IJ AYRY S �z.1e
G 5 S.Y. CL B RIP P ~" /� �. p,T RR on E X C�V A„
TERAE
��� SEE IIjIP I —--CB_
JJ
.CI B eft SEED \ //
BrP�SI ELXj CT10N Q/ �j�— �a^s
O i
- l\ "yam
O / // -5�/C .J �' _ y / / /SEED AlIrT01/ / _ \ 1 O
� C
/^� �- `- - - - W RIP�\AP NT Y -� _- CB G.'OOY d - - - - - - - j SEE DETAI '�///�//� _ _.\.� ... V��o
% Y \ PORYKtA�VM� PDE ` ..
TR H"' ?�///�%�� �a.,r j g D�
/ X
DETAIL 10B �� ` c_
LATERAL GRASSED SWALE / / •`� J
Not to Swle)
61
N �— FILL / v/
\\
atural
Groan SLOPE Q
1iFt.
D �'> B=2 o Ff.o R.
LBj
FROM STA.38+50 TO STA.39+00-Yl-Rt /--
1 DETAIL 10C DETAIL 10D BERM
M BASE DITCH BERM BASE DITCH DETAIL 10E
(Nono scale) (Noce seelel SPECIAL BACK OF CURB CUT DITCH
t b (NOT TO SCALE)
i I D Naruml d 1 NATURAL — —
� \ 7_12, ?. 'L, POW'
Gman 7;y D 1' RDWY �GRO=ND
\ \ 1 Min.D=1.0 Ff B GEOTEXnLE Fc, B GEOTEXTILE b —
Maz.d=1.0 Ft.
Et 1.0 Ft 8=2.0 FI.
\\\\\\ Type of Liner= CI I RipJta FROM STA.38+00 TO STA.35+00 =Y1-LT
Type of Liner=CL B Rip-Rap P FROM STA.40+50 TO STA.42+50 =Y1-RT
_• / \\ \ \ FROM STA.41+61 TO STA.44+00-YI-Rt
FROM ies.RR 55T.,,;GTA10OSq.Yd n Lt lest.RR 100 Tons;GT 130 Sq.Yd
\\ \\ \ 1 DETAIL 10 RIP RAP DETAIL lOH
/ LATERAL BASE DITCH DETAIL lOG AT EMBANKMENT
\\\\\\\\\\ \� I I Nmro s<olel TOE N PROTECTION
,1,1 ON
h (Ner ro stole)
Naruml �— Fill �\�gt Ditch 10,min.
d O 1^iFr. slope Groand b 'L.1�`�S\oQ Gmde 1.0'min. 2'min.
{ f b \\ \ \ \ GEOTEXTIIE g r
d Pla<e Geore�aile Under
Max.d= 1.0 Ff. d=1.5 Ft. RipraP in Locafion er Preas Ripra
1 x I l "When B is< 6.0, 6=2.0 H. Geora file Directed b En
I I B= 2.0 Ft. y gine ChId RMBuxom
Type of Liner= CL I Rip-Rap b= 2.0 Ft. TYPe of Liner= CI I Rip-Rop U„fl RAusal
Type of Liner= 10 TONS,CL Rip-Rap,Neyod-In
FROM STA.34+75 TO STA.34+12 -Yl-Lf FROM STA.38+85 TO STA.38+00-Yl-Lf
\ 1 \ \ FROM STA.33+75 TO STA.34+12-Yl-Rt FROM STA.38+85 TO STA.43+00-Yl-Lt FROM STA.38+40 TO STA.38+50-Yl-Rt
&� \� est.RR 10 Tons;GT 20S.Yd FROM STA.39+40 TO STA.40+50-Yl-Rt FROM STA.u+xx TO STA.34+12-Yl-Rt

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE-OW/8 /l
R,W SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
P/Sto 44+3
-y- WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT ENGINEER ENGINEER
0 = 6/'2P 23Z(RT)
D = 22 55'05.9• INCOMP LE E Il�L DNS
L = 267.70 DO NOT USE FOR /W ACQUISITION
T = 148.31'
R = 250.W
SE = 04
RO = 42'
DS = 30MPH O
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PERMIT DRAWING
DETAIL 11A SHEET 16 OF 19
BERM 'V'DITCH
I Nw to k.W)
7MD
NO STREAM IMPACTS
0Ff.
FROM S1.45+50 TO STA.46+50-Yl-L1
FROM STA.46+50 TO STA.48+00-Yl-L1
FROM STA.46+00 TO STA.43+35-Yl-R1
END TIP PROJECT HE-000IB 8M"2 TFE 9178.99'
/ \ 07'3 STA 49DlSf
END CONSTRUCTION R/R SPIKE OSET2 IN BASEDI OF.12'RED OAK
\\\\ -Y- POT Sta. 48+03.58 m
-Y- PT Sto.45+5254 \`\
SILT
/ END 2'-6"C&G
BERM 'V'DITCH +03.58 \ ��
SEE DETAIL 11A -r- POT Sto.49+24.98
G
15"W/ 100'R CO�C EXPRESSWAY GUTTER
ELBOW
omm 30°CONC C&G
/ 21 S— / / ` P I FREDERICK
III LAW OLMSTEPD WAY BST
/ TYP.
+ a
/ 15" P- + G V R45+00
A`RBS T
\N 6 W 52.4' / AR R
110 5 15"RCP-III /11 C �P
i
U / 100'R
X END 2'-6"C&GSIDEWALK I ti Y
O�� +99.74 L/ �,RIP-RAP
•OO
tj
&S�011w �I
II= II
III II '
II II
&SRB
II
I o
X II
I
I II
SILT
0

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE-000/8 /l
R,W SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
P/5/o 44+33J3 WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT ENGINEER ENGINEER
0 = 6/'2P 23Z(RT)
D = 22 55'05-q INCOMP LE E Il�L DNS
L = 267.70 DO NOT USE FOR /W ACQUISITION
T = 148.31'
R = 250.W
SE = 04
RO = 42'
DS = 30MPH O
I DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PERMIT DRAWING
DETAIL 11A SHEET 17 OF 19
BERM 'V'DITCH
I Nw to k.W)
7MD
NO STREAM IMPACTS
Ff. /
FROM STA.45+50 TO STgq 46+50
/ FRONNNggq STP,.46+toO f0 STA1,48+Q0
FROM�STA.46+b0\ STA.�43+3'�-YI-Rf
\ �� BM LP<2178.99'
ND TIP 1PR0 E T 1�IE-000IB \� / ei3`S�rA q9+27.29
I -�_� i' 0°07'52.6%W DISL 27.53'
ND CONS R C I N \� �\ -_� �i-/R�srIKE SET'(N BASE OF 12'RED OAK
POT St p. 48+03.5j� \m'
PT Sta.4 54
SILT
\ �EFRM 'V'�-1 y\ END_52a-6"C&G \� web .. r.
\\� SEEB[fA -� �� � 'F�-Y- TS1097 4J0
G}5 I ELBOW 100'R d� EXPRESSWAY GUFfER✓ � �I
AT91KY� /-7'.`ja T- �� 30.ONC E �
ICK rlTEFR�Y
FREDER l"l B5T
-``=�-��
15"\P-III + 1'R / =y�[�
a4
d
1 2,_6„C& \ /4I
15",RCP-III
�\\` R
END '-6"C&CCC,,���555ID \ \ II L/O
I +99.74 \ \ z"� '�"�/ 'RAPRIB ,F
00
j ��j ,� �I� ► III � , � I� I11 \ �� � �� -
%� SIT

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size/Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 RPC 25+17 to 25+30 LT Fill in Wetlands/Mechanized Clearing Due to Roadway Widening < 0.01 0.01
2 RPC 31+75 to 32+62 LT Fill in Wetlands/Mechanized Clearing due to Roadway Widening 0.02 0.03
RPC 34+99 to 36+35 RPD Stream relocated to Proposed Channel Due to Roadway Widening
3 11+38 to 15+16 LT and Extension of Proposed 9'X7' RCBC and 66in RCP (292') < 0.01 512 73
Inlet of Proposed 54in RCP/Mechanized Clearing Due to Roadway
4 RPA 22+89 to 23+34 Widening and Installation of Proposed 54in RCP extension 0.02 50 16
5 -Y- 26+12 to 26+39 Proposed 30in RCP 160 40
6 -Y- 33+95 to 34+08 Excavation in Wetland Due to Outlet of Proposed 24in RCP 0.01
6 -Y- 34+08 to 34+46 Proposed 24in RCP 114 45
7 -Y- 38+34 to 38+94 Proposed 36in RCP 145 16
TOTALS*: 0.03 0.01 0.06 981 190 F 0
Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1/10/2023
BUNCOMBE
HE-0001A-B
Revised 2018 Feb SHEET 14 OF 14

O`
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
HE-000/ /5
PERMIT DRAWING ROADWAY RV
SHEET NO. HYDRAULICS
SHEET 19 OF 19 ENGINEER ENGINEER
I I I
INC®MP LE rE PLANS
DO NOT ME FOR /W ACQUMMON
I I
I I
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
I I
- II
II
0� 150 100 (-) 50 50 100 150
0� (-)
I I
II
I I I
N II
II
I I I
II
I I
I I I
II
I I I -
_ --
II
II
II
- I -- - --
II
II
II -
II
Z
w�
NY
r�

Protected Species/
Section 7

iENT OF U.S. 14
Q, {_.. h w yF F'F:911 al N'1LULlY'H
Q�s i� lil•Aiyl(.Y.
p United States Department of the Interior
A ' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�'agcti 3 '$p Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville,North Carolina 28801
January 13, 2023
Marissa Cox
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh,North Carolina 27610
Subject: Reinitiation of Informal Consultation and Conference Report for the New I-26 Interchange at
Exit 35 and Roadway Connection to Fredrick Law Olmstead Way East,Asheville,Buncombe County,
North Carolina(TIP No. HE-0001, Service Log#21-330)
Dear Marissa Cox:
On November 21, 2022, we received(via e-mail)your request to reinitiate informal consultation and
initiate conference procedures under section 7 for effects the subject project may have on the newly
uplisted northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis) and recently proposed tricolored bat(Perimyotis
subflavus). We have reviewed the information you submitted along with information from three prior
informal concurrence letters (November 18, 2021,March 16, 2022, and July 22, 2022)and the
administrative record summarized in those letters, and the following is provided in accordance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.) and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543) (Act). This concurrence
compliments and does not supersede the July 22,2022 concurrence letter.
On July 5,2022,the U.S. District Court of the Northern District Court of California vacated the 2019
regulations implementing section 7 of the Act. On September 21, 2022,the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted a request to stay the U.S. District Court of Northern California's July 5, 2022, order that
vacated the 2019 regulations of the Act. As a result,the 2019 regulations are again in effect, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)has relied upon the 2019 regulations in issuing our written
concurrence on the action agency's "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"determination. However,
because the outcome of the legal challenges to the 2019 regulations is still unknown,we considered
whether our substantive analyses and conclusions would have been different if the pre-2019 regulations
were applied in this informal consultation and conference report. Our analysis included the prior
definition of"effects of the action."We considered all the"direct and indirect effects"and the
"interrelated and interdependent activities"when determining the "effects of the action."We then
considered whether any"effects of the action"that overlap with applicable ranges of listed species would
be wholly beneficial, insignificant, or discountable to the species. As a result,we determined the
substantive analysis and conclusions would have been the same, irrespective of which regulations applied.
Proiect Description
A full project description is included in the previous concurrence letters. Since the last concurrence letter
was signed,resource agencies reviewed draft hydraulic(stormwater)plans at the Merger Team CP413
Meeting on August 17,2022. Several agencies including ours also submitted comments on the final
hydraulic plans in November and December 2022. A Merger Team CP4C Meeting is currently scheduled

for January 2023. Finally,North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) also submitted a
schedule change with the reinitiation request: construction is anticipated to take 18-24 months from
project letting, scheduled for August 2023. NCDOT and the Service developed conservation measures
during prior informal consultations for gray bat(Myotis grisescens)to minimize and avoid impacts from
lighting,tree removal, and impaired water quality. Because the effects of the action on northern long-
eared bat and tricolored bat are similar to those for gray bat,the conservation measures outlined in the
previous consultation(dated July 22, 2022)will also be protective of these species. Therefore,NCDOT
did not develop additional conservation measures for reducing adverse effects to northern-long eared bat
and tricolored bat. Of primary importance to northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat and our
concurrence is the commitment to remove all trees (19.5 to 26 acres) during the inactive season, from
November 15 through March 15.
Federally Listed Species
While extensive acoustic,tracking,mist netting, and roost count surveys for gray bat have been done
throughout the habitat surrounding the action area, access to the action area outside of the I-26 corridor
has been very limited and no surveys for northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat have been completed.
Additionally, while Indiana State University and NCDOT completed acoustic surveys in the surrounding
area, results for northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat were not reported because that work focused on
gray bat. The closest records of northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat are about 4.5 miles from the
action area. The closest northern long-eared bat record reveals consistent captures of the species between
2008 to 2018. Additionally, current northern long-eared bat records exist 14 miles east and west of the
action area in large tracts of continuous forest,roughly separated by the action area and development
south of the City of Asheville. Finally,the action area is surrounded on three sides by the French Broad
River. Based on this information,the flexible habitat requirements of the northern-long eared bat and
tricolored bat, and the presence of suitable habitat within the action area,NCDOT has assumed presence
of northern-long eared bat and tricolored bat in the action area.
NCDOT discusses the effects of the action on northern-long eared bat and tricolored bat in their request
for reinitiation. While effects are similar to those outlined for gray bat in the original consultations for this
project, they are not identical. The use of trees by northern-long eared bat and tricolored bat is much more
extensive and widespread. They are both tree-roosting bats and routinely establish tree roosts throughout
much of the active season including maternity colonies. However,based on previously established
conservation measures, including the commitment to remove trees in the winter, we concur with the
NCDOT's determination that the effects of the action will be insignificant and therefore not likely to
adversely affect the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat.
Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the
Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of
a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,to help implement recovery plans, or to develop
information.
• Conduct acoustic surveys per the most recent Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat Survey
Guidelines prior to tree removal(Summer 2023)at locations within or near the action area that
are likely to yield high-quality calls to expand knowledge of the distribution of rare populations
of northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat in Western North Carolina in a rapidly developing
area.
For the Service to be kept informed of actions benefitting listed species or their habitats,we request
written notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations along with the results of
any monitoring.
2

Reinitiation Notice
We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the federally listed species
discussed above. However, obligations under section 7 must be reconsidered if. (1)new information
reveals impacts of this proposed action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2)this proposed 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 proposed action.
Because we have concurred with your determination that the project may affect,but it not likely to
adversely affect, the tricolored bat in this conference report, you do not need to reinitiate section 7 solely
due to any final effective listing of the tricolored bat.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Ms. Lauren B. Wilson of our
staff at lauren_wilsonkfws.gov if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this
project,please reference our Service Log#21-330.
Sincerely,
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
3

+41T Of ryF l7411 AN'rl�fSEKME
l.[M.IF'K
o United States Department of the Interior 1
0 -
�� FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ARCH Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville,North Carolina 28801
July 22,2022
Marissa Cox
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh,North Carolina 27610
Subject: Revised Informal Consultation for the New I-26 Interchange at Exit 35 and Roadway Connection
to Fredrick Law Olmstead Way East,Asheville,Buncombe County,North Carolina(TIP No. HE-0001)
Dear Marissa Cox:
This responds to your request for a revised concurrence letter on the subject proposed action. On June 16,
2021,we attended an external scoping meeting with regulatory partners where the North Carolina
Department of Transportation(NCDOT)introduced the HE-0001 project and indicated its placement in
the Merger Process. On June 24,2021,we received(via e-mail)NCDOT's request for informal
consultation and section 7 concurrence on effects the subject project may have on federally listed species.
On June 29,2021,we met with you and your staff to discuss the informal consultation request and initial
comments. We then submitted written comments to NCDOT on July 7,2021. On September 16,2021,
we received(via e-mail) an updated request for informal consultation and section 7 concurrence. We
attended additional meetings with NCDOT staff to discuss issues and concerns. We sent you an informal
concurrence letter dated November 18,2021. Members of your staff provided additional information on
January 18 and 31, 2022. We reviewed the CP3 Merger Packet provided on January 26,2022, sent
additional comments and questions to you on February 4,2022,and received NCDOT's responses on
February 14,2022,which included a request for a revised concurrence letter. This letter also includes a
revision to Conservation Measure TREE 1 per information provided during a July 20, 2022, CP4A
Merger Meeting and associated emails. The following is provided in accordance with the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act(42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.);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). This revised informal concurrence letter supersedes our previous letters
dated November 18,2021 and March 16,2022.
Proiect Description
A full project description is included in the original concurrence letter signed November 18,2022.
NCDOT is not able to implement all the lighting conservation measures requested by the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) and provided additional information on nighttime lighting, stormwater, and
inclusion of development as an indirect effect. Most agencies concurred with the use of Detailed Study
Alternative 3 (Figure 2)at the CP3 Merger Meeting on February 9,2022. The North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office abstained. The study area(Figure 1)remains the same though the action area
is likely to narrow in the future when final designs are completed.
For HE-0001,NCDOT will analyze the project using the Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution
Model(SELDM) Catalog for North Carolina(NC-SELDM)to determine recommendations for

stormwater treatment goals. The model returns one of three recommendations for stormwater treatment
1) a direct discharge is acceptable; 2)minimization measures are sufficient; or 3)implement toolbox best
management practices. Based on the analysis from the NC-SELDM Catalog,NCDOT will implement
stormwater controls as needed to guard against erosion and to protect water quality. Stormwater design
information is limited at this stage of project development.
NCDOT provided additional information on construction sediment and erosion control(SEC)measures.
NCDOT follows design requirements based on peak flow and designs devices to handle the 25-year or
10-year peak flow storm event. Runoff velocities must be controlled so that the peak runoff from the 10-
year frequency storm occurring during or after construction will not damage the receiving stream channel
at the discharge point. The velocity must not exceed the greater of the maximum non-erosive velocity of
the existing channel,based on soil texture or peak velocity in the channel prior to disturbance. If neither
condition can be met,then protective measures must be applied to the receiving channel. As stated in the
BE,NCDOT will default to the most-restrictive SEC measure requirements.
NCDOT has committed to the following conservation measures in their BE dated September 15,2021, in
emails dated January 18 and 31,2022, or did not object to their inclusion in the November 18,2021
concurrence letter. Conservation measures have been modified for clarity as needed,numbered
consecutively,and named based on the type of measure.
Conservation Measures for Gray Bat
TREE 1: As the proposed action will impact suitable habitat for gray bat throughout the action area, all
tree clearing will occur between November 15—March 15,which is outside of the bat active season
for gray bat in the French Broad River(FBR)Basin. There will be one exception to this moratorium,
the minimal tree clearing associated with geotechnical field investigations that will occur starting in
August 2022. This exception will allow equipment access for geotechnical borings planned on the-y-
line (i.e.,connector road)and the bifurcated section. The equipment will work around trees to the
greatest extent practical.
TREE 2: Modify all phases/aspects of the project(e.g.,temporary work areas, alignments)to avoid tree
removal in excess of what is required to implement the project safely.
TREE 3: Ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that clearing limits
are clearly marked in the field(e.g., install bright colored flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to
ensure contractors stay within clearing limits).
LIGHT 1: Permanent lighting will be confined to the interchange portion of this project along I-26 and
will meet safety requirements for fully controlled access roadways. The roadway connection to
Frederick Law Olmstead Way East will remain a dark forested corridor.
LIGHT 2: Lighting used for construction will be limited to what is necessary to maintain safety standards
and will only be directed toward active work areas,not into adjacent wooded areas or inactive work
sites.
LIGHT 3:NCDOT will use the shortest light pole that meets highway requirements and safety parameters
and limits light in suitable bat habitat.
LIGHT 4:NCDOT will use light emitting diode(LED) fixtures with a Type 11 distribution pattern. This
pattern projects light from the fixture further along the road and less across the road.
LIGHT 5: In all cases,the BUG(Backlight,Uplight, and Glare)rating will not exceed 3-0-3.
LIGHT 6:NCDOT will meet the AASHTO minimum requirements of 0.6 fc at 4:1 uniformity,which
represents a 25%reduction in the average light on the pavement surface (compared with using the 0.8
fc standard) and should reduce the amount of light reaching suitable bat habitat.
LIGHT 7: NCDOT will eliminate all high mast light poles within the action area.
2

SEC 1: NCDOT will implement Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds to minimize impacts to
surface waters and wetlands which support aquatic macroinvertebrates, a food source for gray bats.
Conservation Measures for Appalachian Elktoe
Sediment and Erosion Control(SEC)
SEC 2: A combination of Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds(DSSW, 15A NCAC 04B .0124),
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and the NC Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ)Construction
General Permit(NCGO1)terms and conditions that allow for stormwater discharge under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)apply and NCDOT will default to the most-
restrictive SEC measure requirements.
SEC 3: The sedimentation and erosion control plan(SECP)will be in place prior to any ground
disturbance for all pipe replacements and construction. When needed, combinations of SEC measures
(such as silt bags in conjunction with a stilling basin)will be used to ensure that the most protective
measures are implemented.
SEC 4: The SECP shall adhere to the DSSW for portions of the project draining directly or indirectly to
the FBR. Consideration will be given to any on the ground practical application which is most
protective of the resource. For example,there may be some areas where NCDOT would not extend a
measure of the DSSW(e.g., cut trees to construct a basin)which would have greater impact to
sensitive resources.
SEC 5: Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be demarcated within the action area and will be defined by
a 50-foot buffer zone on both sides of jurisdictional streams measured from top of streambank, in
which the following shall apply:
• The contractor may perform clearing operations,but not grubbing operations until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin,work shall progress in a continuous manner until complete.
• Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
• Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately
following final grade establishment.
• Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in
height measured along the slope, or greater than 2 acres in area,whichever is less.
• All SEC measures,throughout the project limits,must be cleaned out when half full of sediment,
when applicable,to ensure proper function.
Monitoring Effectiveness of SEC Devices
SEC 6: One Construction Project Inspector will monitor SEC devices for the life of the project.
SEC 7: Inspections of erosion control devices will be done on the standard inspection schedule(weekly,
or after a rainfall event of one inch or greater).
SEC 8: NCDOT will self-report to the Service any SEC device failures or sediment loss resulting from
exceeding the capacity of the measures. The NCDOT inspector will report any failures or sediment
loss to the Division Environmental Officer,who will contact the agency within 24 hours. If there are
any failures or sediment loss,NCDOT will meet with resource agencies and work to adaptively
manage SEC devices for further storm events while construction continues.
Agency Coordination (AC)
AC 1:NCDOT will invite representatives from the Service,U.S.Army Corp of Engineers, and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to the preconstruction meeting for the proposed project,as
well as to all subsequent field inspections prior to construction,to ensure compliance with all special
project commitments.
AC 2:NCDOT shall provide the Service with the SECP and allow 30 calendar days for review.
3

Stormwater Control Measures (SCM):
SCM 1: NCDOT has developed stormwater commitment guidance,which will apply to any portion of the
NCDOT stormwater conveyance system draining to an outfall discharging to the FBR within the
NCDOT right of way.
SCM 2: NCDOT will prepare a stormwater management plan(SMP)that implements structural and non-
structural post-construction stormwater best management practices(BMPs)to the maximum extent
practical,which is consistent with NPDES Post-Construction Stormwater Program.
SCM 3: NCDOT will use a hierarchical BMP selection process, which is optimized to treat silt,nutrients,
and heavy metals.
SCM 4: NCDOT will evaluate the use of emerging BMP technologies that NCDOT has yet to publish in
its BMP Toolbox. These emerging BMP technologies include bioswales,bioembankments,
biofiltration conveyances, and soil improvements that maximize infiltration.
Federally Listed Species
Appalachian elktoe(Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Appalachian elktoe occur in the FBR upstream and downstream of the project. While the project may not
directly impact the FBR,the project will impact jurisdictional streams SA and SDX that flow into the
FBR. The jurisdictional streams themselves do not provide suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe,but
they do affect the water quality of the FBR. Tree clearing, land clearing, and stormwater management
may all result in effects to the FBR, as discussed in the BE.
The BE states that due to the implementation of conservation measures related to sediment and erosion
control and stormwater, any sedimentation or water quality impacts associated with construction of HE-
0001 will be insignificant or discountable as it is not expected to reach the main stem of the FBR.
Based on the conservation measures outlined above,we concur with NCDOT's determination that the
project may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect Appalachian elktoe.
Gray bat(Myotis grisescens)
While many gray bats forage and commute over water, some choose to fly over land including heavily
wooded areas in the FBR basin and near the project study area(Weber et al.,2020,Figure 3).
Additionally, several studies indicate that bad weather in spring and fall can cause gray bats to leave
primary feeding locations along water bodies for forest canopies(LaVal et al. 1977, Stevenson and Tuttle
1981). Based on this information and the facts that follow,we believe gray bats forage and commute
throughout the action area:
1) a primary gray bat roost occurs within 0.65 miles of the action area boundary,
2)the action area is located within a bend of the FBR that is a well-documented foraging and
commuting corridor for gray bats,which creates opportunity for the action area to serve as an
overland bypass for gray bats traveling north or south along the river,and
3)the action area is within a small undeveloped forested corridor—connecting the U.S. Forest
Service's Bent Creek Experimental Forest with the undeveloped portions of Biltmore properties
—that we believe may serve as an important commuting and foraging overland flyway.
Because gray bats are expected to be foraging,commuting,and potentially roosting within the action area,
artificial lighting and tree removal may cause avoidance behavior in gray bats during construction and
operation of the proposed project. Studies (e.g.,Rydell 1992; Blake et al. 1994; Stone et al. 2009,2012)
have shown that road lighting deters many bat species,notably slow-flying,woodland-adapted species
such as members of the genus Myotis,from approaching the road. Deforestation at foraging sites and
along commuting routes is likely to have negative effects due to the removal of prey abundance and
4

reduced cover from natural predators(Tuttle 1979). Recently-volant young are especially susceptible to
the effects of deforestation, as they require the protection of forest cover while becoming proficient fliers.
Based on the best available science,information above,and the information provided,we believe that tree
removal and new artificial lighting may have short and long-term effects on the gray bat. Conservation
measures for this project aim to address these concerns and ensure effects are insignificant. Winter tree
clearing and other tree-related measures should reduce any impacts to gray bats including impacts to bats
that may temporarily roost in trees during migration(Samoray et al. 2020). Lighting measures aim to
address and reduce the amount of light leaving paved surfaces.
Based on the information provided in the BE, including the conservation measures listed above,we
concur with NCDOT that the project may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat.
Northern long-eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis, NLEB)
Suitable habitat for NLEB is present within the action area. Based on the information provided,the
project is consistent with the final section 4(d)rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective
February 16,2016 for NLEB. This rule exempts take of this species for any tree cutting activity that
occurs more than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site or more than 150 feet from a known maternity
roost during the pup rearing season(June 1 -July 31). Because this project meets the"exempt"criteria,
any take associated with the project has already been addressed in the Biological Opinion for the 4(d)
rule, and no further action under section 7 of the Act is required for this species at this time.
The Service is currently reevaluating the listing status of NLEB, and a final listing decision is expected in
2022. Consultations that use the 4(d)rule for NLEB may need to be reinitiated if the 4(d)rule is
rescinded or the listing status of the species changes during the life of the project.
Other Species
While the following species occur in the region,the action area is outside the current range and/or area of
influence for blue ridge goldenrod(Solidago spithamaea), Carolina northern flying squirrel(Glaucomys
sabrinus coloratus), roan mountain bluet(Hedyotis purpurea var. montana), spreading avens(Geum
radiatum),and spruce-fir moss spider(Microhexura montivaga). While the action area is within the
current range and/or area of influence for mountain sweet pitcherplant(Sarracenia rubra ssp.jonesii)and
rock gnome lichen(Gymnoderma lineare),no suitable habitat is present within the action area for either
species. Therefore,no further section 7 review for these species is required.
Little brown bat(Myotis lucifugus) and tricolored bat(Perimyotis subflavus) are at-risk species(ARS).
ARS are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section
7,unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. The Service is expected to
make listing determinations on these species in the near future. While lead federal agencies are not
prohibited from jeopardizing the continued existence of an ARS or proposed species unless the species
becomes listed,the prohibition against jeopardy and taking a listed species under section 9 of the Act
applies as soon as a listing becomes effective,regardless of the stage of completion of the proposed
action. We include this notification to make you aware of their current status and potential occurrence
within the action area and to request your assistance in protecting them. Depending on the timeline of the
subject project and final listing determinations,reinitiation may be required.
Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the
Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of
5

a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat,to help implement recovery plans, or to develop
information.
• Consider timing clearing and grading operations(not including tree cutting) such that follow-up
seeding and mulching activities avoid the coldest winter months of January and February when
growth of winter rye is slow and may not perform well as a protective BMP for sediment and
erosion control. This measure may be most effective when applied to Environmentally Sensitive
Areas.
• Use only low-pressure sodium(LPS),high-pressure sodium(HPS), or LED light sources that
emit"warm"light. "Warm"light sources are those that contain low amounts of blue light in their
spectrum. Choosing light sources with a color temperature of no more than 3,000 Kelvins will
minimize the effects of blue light exposure. For additional information and actions that can be
taken to reduce outdoor light pollution,visit: httPs://www.darksky.org/our-work/lightingllighting-
for-citizens/lighting-basics/.
• Consider the conservation needs of the Appalachian elktoe when designing SEC and SCM plans
for HE-0001. Include SCMs that provide control of water quantity to prevent downstream
flooding and erosion of Streams SA and SDX. We encourage the use of wet detention basins
which maintain a permanent pool of water and attenuates peak stormwater flows(NCDOT BMP
Toolbox Chapter 12,2014). Wet detention basins will benefit gray bats as they have been shown
to use them in Weaverville and will improve the aesthetics of the roadway for users and the Blue
Ridge Parkway viewshed.
• Develop a study to monitor the new roadway's impacts to Stream SA. We are concerned about
the long-term implications of increased impervious surfaces within the watersheds of
Appalachian elktoe, and this situation presents an opportunity to observe and learn, on a small
scale,what happens to stable streams when well-designed roadway projects that include SCMs
are introduced on the landscape. We are ultimately interested in creating adaptive feedback loops
that can inform freshwater mussel recovery in a landscape that is under constant development
pressure.
For the Service to be kept informed of actions benefitting listed species or their habitats,we request
written notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations along with the results of
any monitoring.
Reinitiation Notice
We believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the federally listed species
discussed above. However,obligations under section 7 must be reconsidered if: (1)new information
reveals impacts of this proposed action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2)this proposed 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 proposed action.
6

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please contact Ms. Lauren B. Wilson of our
staff at lauren_wilsonkfws.gov if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this
project,please reference our Log Number 21-330.
Sincerely,
--original signed--
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
Enclosures: maps
7

,I
rim r
c'l,'SL'e't'•t net' f.
w IF.
t, it y
RRpCyl�jy
Tom-;_ •• � ��A.��lra� „1 �X.iyY
.tom
QPrW0i,yAudVAm ^ SN00 Inelpb4 R­rce
pca—d9-•700Se*A— �&R—.EeteteNH Environmental Features Map
Q Ebrbon d u-3.030 Study Wee C 9­beC—Ay o.IN, NCDOT STIP HE-0001
Str (3-47OQa a WET) NeNr W P.k &,e Rdge Ne y
Flood Zone
— Proposed I 26 Interchange
Me—
®wen.d(1-u0o 5OB Yen Foal Zane Buncombe Wrn Buncombe County, North Carolina
S
Kx'�Nttlend(U34030 WEX) I00 Yee,F Zeae ee.e nm e.au•e.ecnr.u.rn ao.cw.au w,mv.c.Wed.d,INE-OB03 wEx) now=atd + US Feet
=FEMA FW d-, BI.•a.a.:•p3Cl,FUi.wrwer,u,nn c:> M
Figure 1. Stream SA and SDX in the Action Area. Map shows results of the jurisdictional
determination for streams and wetlands within the action area.
8

o N'c4001 Ao A—
Rin,�C Rangnr FeoPt*t
"Q0 4.0'7 AM-Ana
oroRa Range•AGan Aea
HF-OW1 P-powd D-1].Alt—t,—
Road*xy
- a�r�aaoenumu.
Figure 2. HE-0001 Detailed Study Alternatives and Consultation History in Project Vicinity.
Includes action areas for Project Ranger(FWS Log No. 19-328)and 1-26 Widening Project(1-4400/1-
4700). Merger agencies choose Detailed Study Alternative 3,the northern most green road, as the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
A\
Ct�
\\
BUNC
4
A m
Figure 3. Gray Bat Locations Near the Action Area. Known gray bat foraging locations (orange
triangles) from Weber et al. (2020) in the vicinity of the action area. The map shows the French Broad
River(cream colored polygon with red outline) and a 100 m buffer(cream polygon with a gray outline).
9

Archaeology

�>TATF o y
r
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin J.Waters,Ph.D.
June 20, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson mtwilkersonkncdot.gov
Environmental Analysis Unit -
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Ramona M. Bartos, Deputy P&�,
°'`'
State Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: TIP HE-0001, WBS No. 49473, Transportation Programmatic Agreement Project
21 05-0002, Buncombe County, ER 21-1559
Thank you for your submission of March 10, 2021, for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments:
The No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Affected Form
submitted for the area of potential effects (APE) for the proposed TIP HE-0001 (PA Project 21-05-0002)
project reports that impacts to all 18 archaeological sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052, 31BN1090, 31BN1093,
31 BN 1094, 31 BN 1091, 31 BN 1092, 31 BN 1118, and 31 BN 1119-31 BN 1128) identified or revisited in the
2021 survey will be avoided. In our memo of January 14, 2022, we concurred that recently identified sites
31 BN 1091, 31 BN 1092, 31 BN 1118, and 31 BN 1120-31 BN 1128 were not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and no additional archaeological investigations were required ahead of
construction.
Site 31BN1119 was determined to be NRHP eligible, and at the TIP HE-0001 Effects Meeting held of
February 4, 2022, three detailed study alternatives were presented and discussed(DSA1, DSA2, and
DSA3). In the subsequent Concurrence Point 3 (CP3)meeting held on February 9, 2022, DSA3 was
selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative
because it avoids impacts to any portion of site 31BN1119.
Given that DSA3 has been selected as the LEDPA, we concur that HE-0001 will have no adverse effect on
eligible archaeological resources, including site 31BN1119, and no further archaeological work is
necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(abncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
cc: Damon Jones,NC DOT cdjones2gncdot.gov
Donnie Brew, FHWA donnie.brew c(r)e,dot.gov
Lori Beckwith, USACE loretta.a.beckwithgusace.army.mil
Andrew Triplett,NPS andrew_triplett(&Us.gov
Scott Shumate, Biltmore Estate sshumategbiltmore.com
Wenonah Haire, Catawba Nation wenonahhkccpTcrafts.com
Russell Townsend, ECBI THPO russtown(a�nc-cherokee.com
Stephen Yerka, ECBI THPO s ey rka(a),ebci-nsn.gov
Elizabeth Toombs, CN THPO elizabeth-toombsgcherokee.org
Acee Watt, UKB THPO awattkukb-nsn.gov
LeeAnne Wendt, MCN THPO lwendtgmcn-nsn.gov
Roger Bryan,NCDOT Division 13 rdbran(a),ncdot.gov
McCray Coates,NCDOT Division 13 hmcoates(a),ncdot.gov
Mark Gibbs,NCDOT Division 13 mgibbsgncdot.gov
Adam Archual, Gannett Fleming, Inc. aarchualggfnet.com
Rick Tipton, Gannett Fleming, Inc. rtipton(a dnet.com

;p S7Aify'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETrE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 10,2022
Ms. Ramona Bartos, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Ms. Bartos
Subject: TIP HE-0001, WBS No. 49473,Transportation Programmatic Agreement Project 21-05-
0002, Buncombe County, ER 21-1559
Enclosed please find a copy of the No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed
Archaeological Sites Affected Form for the subject project documenting the 2021 investigations
for TIP HE-0001 (PA Project 21-05-0002) and archaeological site 31 BN 1119, which is
recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)under Criterion D. TIP
HE-0001 in Buncombe County is subject to the terms and conditions of the Programmatic
Agreement (PA) among the Federal Highway Administration, United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Wilmington District), North Carolina Department of Transportation, Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer for the
Transportation Program in North Carolina (PA) as executed on December 7, 2020. FHWA is the
lead federal agency in relation to Section 106 of the NHPA. This documentation is being provided
as per stipulation V.C.La.1 of the PA.
Although the results of the initial investigation and site evaluation for 31 BN 1119 remain Unchanged
from the Archaeological Effects Required Forn: submitted to your office dated December 10,
2021; a finding of no effects for 31 BN 1119 is being submitted due to avoidance of the site.
Construction activities for FIR-0001 will not impact site 31 BN 119. Please contact Mr. C. Damon
Jones at 919-707-6076 or [e-mail] or me at 919-707-6089 or [e-mail]
should you have any questions regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Matthew Wilkerson
Archaeology Team Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
Enclosures(PA form)
Mailing Address: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH,NC 27610
159 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NC 27699-1598 Website:www.ncdot.gov

Cc Donnie Brew, FHWA
Lori Beckwith, USACE
Andrew Triplett,NPS
Scott Shumate, Biltmore Estate
Wenonah Haire, Catawba Nation
Russell Townsend, ECBI THPO
Stephen Yerka, ECB1 THPO
Elizabeth Toombs,CN THPO
Acee Watt, UKB THPO
LeeAnne Wendt, MCN THPO
Roger Bryan,NCDOT Division 13
McCray Coates,NCDOT Division 13
Mark Gibbs,NCDOT Division 13
Adam Archual,Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Rick Tipton, Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Pro'ect rac nizNo.
21-05-0002
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ELIGIBLE
)"�,
OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED FORM
44�� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team. af
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: HE-0001 County: Buncombe
WBS No: 49473 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: na Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: FHWA &USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the construction of new interchange on I-26 connecting with an internal road network
under construction on the Biltmore Farms property in Buncombe County. The archaeological Area of
Potential Effects (APE) of the project encompasses approximately 211 acres. It is bounded by the French
Broad River to the north and the Blue Ridge Parkway property to the south. The APE along its maximum
extent measures approximately 5,400 feet from the northwest to the southeast and 4,100 feet from the
northeast to the southwest. The APE also extends to the west along an internal roadway crossing the French
Broad River on a new bridge and intersection with NC 191. A portion of the APE was previously surveyed
during Project Ranger (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b, 2020, 2021) and was excluded from the current
survey. However, its results are still valid.
This project is federally funded. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)Archaeology Team has reviewed the
subject project and determined:
❑ There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
® There are National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area of
potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed).
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
An intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for the proposed construction of a new interchange on I-26
in Buncombe County(TIP HE-0001)was conducted by TRC from August to October 2021 (Figures 1-3). The
survey report and"Archaeological Effect Required" form were completed on December 7, 2021, with copies
submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices(THPO),the National Park Service(NPS),Biltmore Estate, and other concerned parties on December
10,2021.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM'NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AFFECTED"FORM
1 of 9

Pro'ect Trackin No.
21-05-0002
In summary, seven archaeological sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052, and 3IBN1090-31BN1094)were identified within
the project limits prior to the current investigations. The current HE-0001 survey by TRC revisited and expanded
two of those sites (31BN1091 and 31BN1092) and recorded 11 new resources (3113N1118-31BN1128); no
additional survey or evaluation was necessary at the other five previously identified sites (31BN1046,
31BN1052, 31BN1090, 31BN1093, and 31BN1094) as they were covered under Project Ranger (Webb and
Nelson 2019a,2019b, 2020,2021) (see Figures 2 and 3).
Of the 13 resources identified or revisited by the current project, one precontact site (31BN1119) is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D,but lack the characteristics needed for eligibility under
Criteria A—C. This site appears to have the potential to contain intact cultural features and deposits associated
with multiple Archaic to Woodland period occupations. Site 31BN1119 is recommended for avoidance;
however,preservation in place is not warranted. If adverse effects to this site cannot be avoided,data recovery
excavations are required to mitigate those adverse effects prior to construction.
The other 12 sites (31BN1091, 31BN1092, 31BN1118, and 31BN1120-31BN1128) identified or revisited
during the HE-0001 survey are recommended not eligible for NRHP under all four criteria, and no further
archaeological work is required at these sites. However, additional investigations will be necessary at
31BN1092, 31BN1123,and 31BN1125 if the APE expands at these resources since the three sites may extend
outside of the current project limits.
Of the five sites that were not revisited, one (31BN1046) has been determined eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D and has been the subject of recent data recovery excavations(Idol and Webb 2020). No additional
consideration of that site within the APE is required as part of HE-0001. The other four sites (31BN1052,
31 BN 1090, 31 BN 1093, and 31 BN 1094)were previously determined not eligible for the NRHP under all four
criteria, and no additional archaeological work was needed under HE-0001 (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b,
2020, 2021). If the APE boundaries are expanded, additional survey and site delineation might be necessary
to further investigate sites 31BN1052 and 31BN1090, and/or additional data recovery excavations might be
necessary at 31BN1046, since these resources extend outside of the current project limits.
The TIP HE-0001 Effects Meeting was held on February 4,2022. Three proposed detailed study alternatives
(DSA1, DSA2, and DSA3) were presented. An adverse effect to site 31BN1119 was determined for DSA1
and DSA2 with SHPO and FHWA concurring. At least 100 percent of the site would be impacted with DSA1
(Figure 4), while DSA2 would impact at least 21 percent (Figure 5). DSA3 would have no effect on site
31BN119 as it would be avoided(Figure 6). SHPO and FHWA both concurred. No additional archaeological
investigations are required at any other sites as the project will not exceed the surveyed APE.
Concurrence Point 3 (CP3) was subsequential held on February 9, 2022. DSA3 was selected the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative (see Figure 6). DSA3
would avoid impacts to site 31 BN 1119. As a result,HE-0001 will have no effect on the eligible archaeological
resource, and no further archaeological work is necessary.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Nation,the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians,the Cherokee Nation,the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians,and Muscogee(Creek)Nation
have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes
using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.
2020 PROGRAMMATICAGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGYTEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESAFFECTED"FORM
2 of 9

Pro'ect Trackin No.
21-05-0002
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ❑ Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
Signed:
Z. March 10, 2022
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATICAGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGYTEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESAFFECTED"FORM
3 of 9

Project Trackin No.
21-05-0002
REFERENCES CITED
Idol,Bruce, and Paul Webb
2020 Management Summary:Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Site 31BN1046,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North
Carolina. Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
United States Geological Survey(USGS)
2016 Asheville,North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Skyland,North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Webb, Paul, and Michael Nelson
2019a Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Northern Parcel of the Biltmore
Park West Tract,Buncombe County,North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,
Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2019b Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to
Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2020 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina:Addendum 1. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina.
Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2021 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina:Addendum 2. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Caroina.
Submitted to ARCADIS.
2020 PROGRAMMATICAGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGYTEAM"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESAFFECTED"FORM
4of9

�>TATF o y
r
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M.Bartos,Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D.Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary,Darin J.Waters,Ph.D.
January 18, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways n_
FROM: Ramona M. Bartos, Deputy PA
^
State Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: HE-0001, WBS No. 49473, PA 05-0002, Buncombe County, ER 21-1559
Thank you for your submission of December 10, 2021, concerning the above-referenced undertaking. We
have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments:
The Archaeological Effects Required Form submitted for the archaeological survey conducted within the
area of potential effects (APE) for the proposed project reports that thirteen(13) archaeological sites were
identified and evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Of these, twelve (12)
archaeological sites (31BN1091, 31BN1092, 31BN1118, and 31BN1120-31BN1128) are recommended not
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Sites 31BN1092, 31BN1123, and 31BN1125 extend outside the APE
and may require additional investigation and assessment for eligibility, should the project's APE expand to
include the portions of these sites that were not tested.
Archaeological site 31BN1119 is a multicomponent precontact site that is recommended eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion D. If adverse effects to this site cannot be avoided by the proposed undertaking,
NCDOT recommends data recovery investigations. We concur with the Determination of Eligibility and
recommendation.
Additionally, five (5) archaeological sites, investigated as part of a previous survey for Project Ranger(ER
19-4972), intersect with the current APE (31BN1046, 31BN1052, 31BN1090, 31BN1093, and 31BN1094).
All these sites were previously investigated and determined not eligible or were subject to data recovery,
and no further work is recommended ahead of the currently proposed undertaking. In the case of
31 BN 1052 and 31 BN 1090,NCDOT has concluded that additional investigation may be necessary, if the
current APE expands to encompass portions of these sites. We concur with these recommendations and
appreciate the continued effort to minimize adverse effects to significant cultural resources in the vicinity.
Location:109 East Jones Street,Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address:4617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.review(abncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
cc: Damon Jones,NCDOT cdjones2kncdot.gov
Donnie Brew, FHWA donnie.brew(crt dot.gov
Lori Beckwith, USAGE loretta.a.beckwithgusace.army.mil
Andrew Triplett,NPS andrew triplett(&nps.gov
Scott Shumate, Biltmore Estate sshumategbiltmore.com
Wenonah Haire, Catawba Nation wenonahh(ii)ccpperafts.com
Russell Townsend, ECBI THPO russtowngnc-cherokee.com
Stephen Yerka, ECBI THPO syerkagebci-nsn.gov
Elizabeth Toombs, CN THPO elizabethtoombskcherokee.org
Acee Watt, UKB THPO awatt(&ukb-nsn.gov
LeeAnne Wendt, MCN THPO lwendtkmcn-nsn.gov
Roger Bryan,NCDOT Division 13 rdbryan(&ncdotgov
McCray Coates,NCDOT Division 13 hmcoateskncdot.gov
Mark Gibbs,NCDOT Division 13 m ig bbs(a),,ncdot.gov
Adam Archual, Gannett Fleming, Inc. aarchual&GFNET.com

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
oo .• ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS REQUIRED J."3
A' F�• This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
gt'C separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team. `GS
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: HE-0001 County: Buncombe
WBS No: 49473 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: na Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ®Yes ❑No Permit Type: FHWA & USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the construction of new interchange on I-26 connecting with an internal road network
under construction on the Biltmore Farms property in Buncombe County. The archaeological Area of
Potential Effects (APE) of the project encompasses approximately 211 acres. It is bounded by the French
Broad River to the north and the Blue Ridge Parkway property to the south. The APE along its maximum
extent measures approximately 5,400 feet from the northwest to the southeast and 4,100 feet from the
northeast to the southwest. The APE also extends to the west along an internal roadway crossing the
French Broad River on a new bridge and intersection with NC 191. A portion of the APE was previously
surveyed during Project Ranger(Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b, 2020, 2021) and was excluded from the
current survey. However, its results are still valid.
This project is federally funded. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance(36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
An intensive archaeological survey and evaluation for the proposed construction of a new interchange on I-26
in Buncombe County (TIP HE-0001) was conducted by TRC from August to October 2021. The results of
archaeological investigations and their recommendations are included in the attached report.
Seven archaeological sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052, and 31BN1090-31BN1094) were identified within the project
limits prior to the current investigations. The current HE-0001 survey by TRC revisited and expanded two of
those sites(3IBN1091 and 31BN1092)and recorded 11 new resources(3 1BN1 118-3 1BN1 128);no additional
survey or evaluation was necessary at the other five previously identified sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052,
31BN1090,31BN1093,and 31BN1094)as they were covered under Project Ranger(Webb and Nelson 2019a,
2019b,2020,2021).
Of the 13 resources identified or revisited by the current project, one precontact site (31BN1119) is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D,but lack the characteristics needed for eligibility under
Criteria A—C. This site appears to have the potential to contain intact cultural features and deposits associated
with multiple Archaic to Woodland period occupations. Site 31BN1119 is recommended for avoidance;
however,preservation in place is not warranted. If adverse effects to this site cannot be avoided,data recovery
excavations are required to mitigate those adverse effects prior to construction.
The other 12 sites (31BN1091, 31BN1092, 31BN1118, and 31BN1120-31BN1128) identified or revisited
during the HE-0001 survey are recommended not eligible for NRHP under all four criteria, and no further
archaeological work is required at these sites. However, additional investigations will be necessary at
31BN1092, 31BN1123, and 31BN1125 if the APE expands at these resources since these three sites may
extend outside of the current project limits.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS REQUIRED"FORM
1 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
Of the five sites that were not revisited, one (31BN1046) has been determined eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D and has been the subject of recent data recovery excavations(Idol and Webb 2020). No additional
consideration of that site within the APE is required as part of HE-0001. The other four sites (31BN1052,
31BN1090, 31BN1093, and 31BN1094)were previously determined not eligible for the NRHP under all four
criteria, and no additional archaeological work was needed under HE-0001 (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b,
2020, 2021). If the APE boundaries are expanded, additional survey and site delineation might be necessary
to further investigate sites 31BN1052 and 31BN1090, and/or additional data recovery excavations might be
necessary at 31BN1046 since these resources extend outside of the current project limits.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Nation,the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians,the Cherokee Nation,the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians,and Muscogee(Creek)Nation
have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes
using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ❑ Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other: HE-0001 Archaeological Report
SIGNED:
December 7,2021
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS REQUIRED"FORM
2 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
REFERENCES CITED
Idol,Bruce, and Paul Webb
2020 Management Summary:Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at Site 31BN1046,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North
Carolina. Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
Webb,Paul, and Michael Nelson
2019a Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Northern Parcel of the Biltmore
Park West Tract,Buncombe County,North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,
Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2019b Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to
Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2020 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina:Addendum 1. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina.
Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2021 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina:Addendum 2. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Caroina.
Submitted to ARCADIS.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS REQUIRED"FORM
3 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
aat , ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. Itq
is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult °
II separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team. '
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: HE-0001 County: Buncombe
WBS No: 49473 Document: Federal CE
F.A. No: na Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: FHWA&USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the construction of new interchange on I-26 connecting with an internal road network
under construction on the Biltmore Farms property in Buncombe County. The archaeological Area of
Potential Effects (APE) of the project encompasses approximately 288 acres. It is bounded by the French
Broad River to the north and the Blue Ridge Parkway property to the south. The APE along its maximum
extent measures approximately 5,900 feet from the northwest to the southeast and 4,100 feet from the
northeast to the southwest. The APE also extends to the west along an internal roadway crossing the French
Broad River on a new bridge and intersection with NC 191. A portion of the APE has already been
previously surveyed, and this section will be excluded. The APE could also be reduced upon agreement of
the stakeholders at a later date.
This project is federally funded. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEYREQUIRED
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The I-26 interchange project is located just south of Asheville in Buncombe County,North Carolina. The
project area is plotted at the southern end of the Asheville USGS 7.5'topographic quadrangle(Figure 1).
A site file search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology(OSA) on May 10, 2021.
Eight known archaeological sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052, 31BN1084, and 31BN1090-31BN1094) are
reported within the proposed project area. These were recorded during archaeological surveys and field
reconnaissance for PSNC Energy T-072 natural gas pipeline(Nagle 2018),the proposed NC 191 realignment
project(TIP U-3403B),and Project Ranger(also referred to Biltmore Park West project)(Webb and Nelson
2019a,2019b, 2020, and 2021). According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online
data base (HPOWEB 2021),there are no known National Registered, listed, or determined eligible historic
architectural resources within the APE. However, three ineligible architectural resources are within the
project area: The American ENKA Water Intake (BN6469), Riverside Dairy (BN6470), and Campsite
(BN6471). The Riverside Diary, also referred to as Johnson Farm, corresponds to archaeological site
31BN1052. Topographic maps,USDA soil survey maps, aerial photographs (NC One Map),historic maps
(North Carolina maps website), and Google Street View application were further examined for information
on environmental and cultural variables that may have contributed to prehistoric or historic settlement within
the project limits and to assess the level of ground disturbance.
The APE consists mostly of steep hillside slopes,but fairly level landforms are found along the ridges, the
French Broad floodplain, and the stream terraces and/or benches associated with tributaries of the French
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED"FORM
1 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
Broad River (Figure 2). The property is forested except for a few small open areas; however, large scale
clearing is ongoing for urban development by Biltmore Farms. These recently disturbed areas have been
previously surveyed and are located primary outside of the project area (Webb and Nelson 2019a, 2019b,
2020, and 2021). Other modern disturbances include an electrical transmission line and a sewage pipeline
at the western extension near the French Broad River. Several dirt roads and trail cross the property as well.
Otherwise, ground disturbance is limited to past farming activities and soil erosion.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of ten soil types (USDA NRCS 2021). The floodplain is
made up of Biltmore loamy sand(BeA),Iotla loam(IoA), and Rosman fine sandy loam(RsA). These soils
have a slope of 3 percent or less and are subject to occasional flooding. They are also considered well
drained except for the Iotla series, which is somewhat poorly drained. The stream terraces and benches
consist of Clifton clay loam(CkC2),Clifton sandy loam(CsB;CsQ,the Evard-Cowee complex(EwC),and
Unison loam(UnC). These soils generally have a slope of 8 to 15 percent with the CsB variant being 2 to 8
percent. All are well drained, and erosion is moderate on CkC2 variant. The hillsides and ridges are
composed of the Braddock clay loam (BkD2), Clifton clay loam (CkD2), Clifton sandy loam (CsD), the
Evard-Cowee complex(Evd2;EvE2; EwD; EwE), and Tate loam(TaD; TkD). Slope is 15 percent or more
and all are well drained. Erosion is moderate on the BkD2, CkD2, Evd2, and EvE2 variants. Lastly. soils
adjacent to 1-26 are the Udorthents-Urban land complex (UhE). These are disturbed soils in which the
natural characteristics have been altered. Soils with potentially evidence for early settlement activities
should be well drained with no heavy disturbance on a landform with slope of 15 percent or less. These
soils within the APE will require subsurface testing.
The site file review shows that TRC previously carried out a background study and field reconnaissance of
the Biltmore Park West Tract property between the Blue Ridge Parkway, l-26, and the French Broad River
as part of Project Ranger (Webb and Nelson 2019a). This investigation includes the current APE for the
proposed 1-26 interchange. Results confirmed the potential of significant archaeological sites and
recommended an intensive survey. The archaeological survey for Project Ranger was conducted by TRC in
2019, 2020, and 2021 but covered only a smaller section of the overall property (Webb and Nelson 2019b,
2020, and 2021) (Figure 3). The current APE's western extent towards the French Broad was included in
this survey. These field surveys along with testing for the PSNC Energy T-072 natural gas pipeline (Nagle
2018) and the proposed NC 191 realignment project (TIP U-3403B) resulted in the identification of eight
archaeological sites (31BN1046, 31BN1052, 31BN1084, and 31BN1090-31BN1094). All except for
31BN1046 have been determined not eligible for the National Register within the limits of Project Ranger.
Site 31BN1046 on the other hand was determined eligible for the National Register, and data recovery was
carried out(report forthcoming). No further work is needed at these sites within the Project Ranger limits,
but further work maybe necessary if the current 1-26 APE expands past the Project Ranger limits. The
background study also identified the potential of one other historic site(PS-3)within the current APE. PS-
3 is a pair of structures that appear on Biltmore Estate maps from 1891 through 1896. No intensive effort to
locate these structures were made during the field reconnaissance, but they are very likely related to the
historic architectural resource known as Campsite(BN6471).
The current PA review concurs with TRC's field reconnaissance and background study. An archaeological
survey is recommended for the proposed 1-26 interchange project (HE-0001) in Buncombe County.
However,testing is not needed in area previously surveyed for Project Ranger. Known sites evaluated during
Project Ranger required no further work unless the 1-26 APE extends past the Project Ranger limits.
Subsurface testing in the form of shovel tests in well drained and level areas is needed to identify and evaluate
any significant archaeological resources that may be impacted by the 1-26 project.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee
(Creek) Nation have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA
Procedures Manual.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUR VEYREQUIRED"FORM
2 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST—SURVEYREQUIRED
e, 5/20/21
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
TBD
Proposed fieldwork completion date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUR VEYREQUIRED"FORM
3 of 7

Project Tracking No.:
21-05-0002
REFERENCES CITED
HPOWEB
2021 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
htlps://nc.maps.arcgis.com/gpps/webappviewer/index.html?id=79ea67l ebdcc45639fO860257d5f
5ed7. Accessed May 10,2021.
Nagle,Kimberly
2018 Letter to NCSHPO Additional Information—Blue Ridge Parkway T-072 Pipeline
Project. S&ME, Columbia, South Carolina. Submitted to North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office,Raleigh.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2021 Buncombe County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed May 19,2021.
United States Geological Survey(USGS)
2016 Asheville,North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Skyland,North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Webb,Paul, and Michael Nelson
2019a Background Study and Field Reconnaissance of the Northern Parcel of the Biltmore
Park West Tract,Buncombe County,North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,
Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2019b Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for the Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina. Submitted to
Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2020 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for the Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina, Addendum 1. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina.
Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2021 Archaeological Survey and Site Evaluation for the Project Ranger, Buncombe County,
North Carolina, Addendum 2. TRC Environmental Corporation,Asheville,North Carolina.
Submitted to Biltmore Farms,LLC,Asheville.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM`ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUR VEYREQUIRED"FORM
4 of 7

H istoric
Arch itectu re
and
Landscapes

Project Tracking No.(Internal Use)
21-05-0002
•r
B04%, HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: HE-0001 County: Buncombe
WBS No.: 49473 Document CE
Type:
Fed. Aid No: Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal ® Yes ❑ No Permit USACE
Permit(s): T e(s):
Proiect Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a new
interchange on I-26 in the project study area(PSA). The proposed project is located approximately
6 miles south of Asheville along I-26, north of the Blue Ridge Parkway and south of the French
Broad River bridge. The proposed interchange would be constructed primarily within the existing
right-of-way of I-26, which currently is under construction to be widened from 2 lanes in each
direction to 4 lanes in each direction as part of STIP project I-4700. The proposed interchange and
new roadway would ultimately connect to NC 191 via a road (East Frederick Law Olmsted Way,
or East FLOW)that is currently under construction by a private developer(Biltmore Farms,LLC).
The private developer constructing East FLOW has graded the corridor to accommodate a 4-lane
roadway. That actual roadway will be paved as a 2-lane facility upon completion. This road is
anticipated to open to traffic in 2022 and would become a State-maintained road upon meeting
NCDOT standards and acceptance. NCDOT's proposed roadway connection would be graded for
a 2-lane roadway with auxiliary lanes at intersection approaches to meet operational needs (e.g.,
turn lanes).
The purpose of the project is to provide access to I-26 and improve east-west connectivity within
the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth. Three alternatives were
considered at the February 4, 2022 meeting and the preferred alternative was selected on February
9, 2022.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
NCDOT architectural historian reviewed HPOWeb in June 2021 and reviewed the previous
historic architecture surveys for NCDOT TIP #U-3403B (Improvements to NC 191),NCDOT
TIP#I-4400 (Improvements to I-26), and the Pratt &Whitney Manufacturing Center(Project
Ranger). As a result, the NCDOT architectural historian recommended an effects assessment for
the following National Register-eligible or listed properties within or adjacent to the project
study area: BN 1835 Biltmore Estate (NHL),NC 0001 Blue Ridge Parkway(DE,NHL
pending), BN 6468 French Broad River Gaging Station(DE), and BN 0898 Bent Creek Campus
R . Effects assessments for the Biltmore Estate, the French Broad River Gauging
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTSASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualijied in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 6

Station, and the Bent Creek Campus were made during a meeting between NCDOT,
FHWA, and HPO on February 4, 2022. Consultation with the National Park Service with
regard to the effects on the Blue Ridge Parkway continued with the parties through June
29, 2022.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Property Name: Bent Creek Campus Status: NR, Criteria A&C
Survey Site No.: BNO898 PIN.- 960456690300000
Effects
®No Effect ❑ No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
None of the three alternatives will have direct impacts to the Bent Creek Campus. USFS
manages the campus and agrees that the project will incur no effects on their property.
List of Environmental Commitments:
none
Property Name: French Broad River Status: DE, Criteria A&C
Gauging Station
Survey Site No.: BN6468 PIN.- 963507722200000
Effects
®No Effect ❑ No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
None of the three alternatives will have direct impacts to the French Broad River Gauging
Station
List of Environmental Commitments:
none
Property Name: Biltmore Estate Status: NR and NHL, Criteria A,B,&C
Survey Site No.: BN1835 PIN.- 963598538600000
Effects
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 6

❑ No Effect ® No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
Alternatives 1 and 3 will have no direct impacts to the Biltmore Estate. Alternative 2 will require
approximately 4.3 acres of tree removal and ROW along the exiting interstate. Retaining walls
will be placed within the existing ROW on the opposite side of the interstate but will be faced
with a faux ashlar stone. Therefore Alternative 1 & 3 will have no effect, while Alternative 2
would result in no adverse effects. Representatives from the Biltmore Estate agree with this
assesment
List of Environmental Commitments:
none
Property Name: Blue Ridge Parkway Status: DE and NHL(pending),
Criteria A,B,&C
Survey Site No.: NC0001 PIN.- none
Effects
❑ No Effect ® No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
None of the alternatives will have direct impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway(BRP). Several
discussions with the staff of the BRP resulted in the following environmental commitments for a
finding of no adverse effect. NCDOT, FHWA,NC HPO, and the Superintendent of the BRP
have agreed to the following minimization measures to avoid an adverse effect to the historic
property:
List of Environmental Commitments:
(1) Control of Access (C/A)
• NCDOT will include 1,000-foot control of access (C/A) fencing along the HE-0001
portion of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way west of the eastbound I-26 on- and off-ramp
intersection that will prohibit the construction of driveways or access points. This design
element will limit access to adjacent land from the proposed road within 1,000 feet of the
interchange.
(2) Vegetative screening
• NCDOT will design, install, and maintain approximately 900 feet of vegetative screening
along the southside of the HE-0001 portion of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way closest
to the BRP. The vegetative screening will be within the NCDOT right of way and will
screen the proposed project from the BRP.
• NCDOT will commit to produce a vegetative screening plan with the 65% roadway
design plan(late summer/fall 2022) submittal and provide to NPS and NC HPO for
review and comment.
(3) Tree clearing
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 6

• NCDOT will minimize tree clearing consistent with conservation measures for the Gray
bat. NCDOT is committed to avoid tree removal beyond what is required to implement
the project safely. NCDOT will ensure that tree removal is limited to that specified in the
project plans. This will limit lines-of-sight between the BRP and the proposed project.
(4) Future intersecting road(s)
• NCDOT will not construct or maintain any new road or access points that intersect or
cross the HE-0001 portion of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way, from the roundabout to
I-26.
• If NCDOT assumes maintenance of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way from NC 191 to
the roundabout,NCDOT will review driveway access permits to East Frederick Law
Olmsted Way according to current NCDOT procedure and in consultation with NPS and
NC HPO. This condition may be revisited through consultation with NPS and NC HPO
associated with future state transportation projects.
(5) Lighting
• NCDOT will not install roadway lighting along the access roadway portion of HE-0001
(i.e., East Frederick Law Olmsted Way); lighting will be required for the interchange.
o Interchange lighting will be designed and installed in accordance with the
conservation measures included in the US Fish and Wildlife Informal
Consultation letter dated March 16, 2022.
o If NCDOT allows roadway/pedestrian lighting of East Frederick Law Olmsted
Way through an encroachment agreement with a separate/private entity,NCDOT
will require implementation of NPS Sustainable Outdoor Lighting Principles for
any roadway/pedestrian lighting.
■ NPS Sustainable Outdoor Lighting Principles
• Light only IF you need it
• Light only WHEN you need(use timers, sensors, and other
controls)
• Light only WHAT/WHERE you need it(shield light sources and
direct downward, minimize height of light sources)
• Use appropriate color spectra(no whiteiblue light),use amber or
yellow
• Use minimum number of lumens necessary (5001umens or less per
fixture if possible)
• Choose energy efficient lamps and fixtures (minimum possible)
(6) Future capacity improvements
• NCDOT will coordinate review of any future capacity improvements to HE-0001
(including widening, pedestrian, or safety modifications)with the NPS and NC HPO
prior to the approval of any federal or state action(i.e.,NEPA document, permit).
(7) Blue Ridge Parkway Overlay District(Buncombe County)
• Buncombe County is an interested party in the HE-0001 project, as referenced by its
current overlay district and zoning powers that protect the BRP corridor. NCDOT will
coordinate with Buncombe County and request the County to notify and request
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 6

comments from NPS and NC HPO regarding any future proposed changes to the Blue
Ridge Parkway Overlay District(Section 78-643).
FHWA Intends to use the State Historic Preservation Office's concurrence as a basis for a "de
minimis" finding for the following properties, pursuant to Section 4(f):
Biltmore Estate-Alternative 2
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
NCDDT STIP NE-0001
Proposed New I-26 Intudiange
Historic Propertlos
0 500 1A00 2000 us Feet A
I I
3
r
AkemetIm I DOE -Frederlrk law Olmsted
Ake—t—2 NR Wey Fmt•
Ak—t—3 Site FS2 Buncombe foamy BRP
Zmmg Ow+*.APp oa.
• OOF NA1&Whitney Parcel- 114-m)
• NR Bunwmbe County Parcel
wary P W^mnry anJ Reeeka:aw Qmltaa mW Eaa(ROW51 is analtM1 un0e mWucm p&emar Feint.LLG
Mtef!T✓.efe nemM 1M A�Qeanyp-RfMF Mv.�ea¢ts Eo tnt i➢moe ferm.5 llt ptetM.n[etln9 e9Y�,
rm+Hr 191 lBwaN Rose)aaa tmv 5 laro OrCea wvr IN qmM pr9ap plp i1m roa0�ay It bakq CaWtutpE wU 14v
nmt�aeaeOMealme mecei atVbe P•5F'mtI R.WYE ate a�pa Jm Ce compkR in]0]�
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 5 of 6

FINDING BY NCDOT AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Historic Architecture and Landscapes—ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
LDocuftnedby:
P �� 07/14/2022
brt,
ED3110443890489._.
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
DocuSigned by:
,�QU_Z„ADD,,. 07/14/2022
C26A1556A275464... """�"�"d
State Historic Preservation Office Representative Date
E
DocuSigned by:
Donald W. Brew 07/14/2022
B96E8B70991E42C...
FHWA Representative Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 6 of 6

ENT OF TN
IT
TIO
�+9
United States Department of the Interior NA PARNKAL
SERVICE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE -
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville,North Carolina 28803
IN REPLY REFER
1.A.1 Resource Management
June 17, 2022
McCray Coates, PE
Division Project Manager
Division 13
N. C. Department of Transportation
55 Orange Street
Asheville,NC 28802
Subject: NCDOT STIP Project HE-0001
Dear Mr. Coates,
This letter is in response to the North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)/Federal
Highway Administration(FHWA) letter of April 05, 2022 regarding National Park Service (NPS)
comments on HE-0001, a proposed new interchange along Interstate 26 in Buncombe County,NC
on lands adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway, a unit of the National Park System.
The NPS comment letter dated February 02, 2022, outlined the NPS position that cumulative
effects of HE-0001, including changes to traffic levels, circulation patterns, associated
development, and overall reduction in vegetative screening, should be considered and assessed in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Specifically, the NPS maintains that the
HE-0001 project in combination with the eight planned or ongoing STIP projects and associated
private development within three miles of HE-0001 should be considered cumulatively, rather than
as individual projects, when analyzing impacts.
The FHWA is considered the responsible federal agency under the National Historic Preservation
Act for this undertaking, and the NPS is not a consulting party for individual undertakings subject
to review under the 2020 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration,
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer for the Transportation Program in North Carolina. The FHWA and NCDOT
response of April 05, 2022, stated the transportation agencies' position that each STIP project is a
fully independent undertaking, and therefore, the agencies would not consider cumulative effects
with nearby, similar and connected, fully independent undertakings. Based on this assessment, the
transportation agencies concluded that the only foreseeable potential effects to the Blue Ridge

Parkway attributable to HE-0001 are those potential visual, audible, and traffic effects directly
caused by the undertaking, and that consideration of cumulative effects is not warranted.
The NPS does not support this conclusion; however, in order to advance the overall project, the
NPS endorses adoption of the project conditions outlined below.
• NCDOT has previously agreed to maintain Frederick Law Olmsted Way East from NC
191 to the intersection with HE-0001. Frederick Law Olmsted Way East will remain as
currently designed with no further access, and NCDOT will not construct or maintain any
new road or access points that intersect or cross the HE-0001 portion of Frederick Law
Olmsted Way East.
• NCDOT will not install roadway lighting along the access roadway portion of HE-0001
(i.e., Frederick Law Olmsted Way East); lighting will be required for the interchange
only. Interchange lighting will be designed and installed in accordance with the
conservation measures included in the US Fish and Wildlife Informal Consultation letter
dated November 18, 2021.
• If NCDOT allows roadway lighting of Frederick Law Olmsted Way East through an
encroachment agreement with a separate/private entity,NCDOT will require
implementation of NPS Sustainable Outdoor Lighting Principles for any pedestrian
lighting.
o Light only IF you need it
o Light only WHEN you need(use timers, sensors, and other controls),
o Light only WHAT/WHERE you need it(shield light sources and direct
downward, minimize height of light sources)
o Use appropriate color spectra (no white/blue light), use amber or yellow
o Use minimum number of lumens necessary(500 lumens or less per fixture if
possible)
o Choose energy efficient lamps and fixtures (minimum possible)
• NCDOT will coordinate review of any future capacity improvements within the existing
project limits of HE-0001 (including widening, pedestrian, or safety modifications) with
the NPS and NC SHPO prior to the approval of any federal or state action(i.e.,NEPA
document,permit). This condition is not applicable to NCDOT capacity improvements
that are considered an exempt activity under the current NCDOT Section 106
Programmatic Agreement.
• Buncombe County is an interested party in the HE-0001 project, as referenced by its
current overlay district and zoning powers that protect the Blue Ridge Parkway corridor.
NCDOT will coordinate with Buncombe County and request the County to notify and
request comments from the NPS and NC SHPO regarding any future proposed changes to
the Blue Ridge Parkway Overlay District (Section 78-643).
• NCDOT will commit to produce a vegetative screening plan with the 65%roadway
design plan(late summer/fall 2022) submittal and provide to the NPS and NC SHPO for

review and comment.
The conditions listed above are in addition to the mitigations previously committed to by NCDOT:
• 1,000-foot Control of Access (C/A);
• Tree Clearing Minimization; and
• 900-foot Vegetative Screening (NCDOT to maintain 75% survival rate of planted
specimens).
With these conditions and mitigations in place, and pending review of updated visual simulations
of the diamond divided interchange and of planned interchange lighting, the NPS will not further
oppose the FHWA's finding of"No Adverse Effect"to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
The NPS continues to support sustainable growth and maintains that with coordinated planning
well-designed development can be achieved while protecting the Blue Ridge Parkway's historic
character and setting. To facilitate sustainable planning moving forward, please include the NPS
on any NCDOT Merger Teams for projects that may affect Blue Ridge Parkway natural and
cultural resources and values, even if no direct,physical encroachment is anticipated on NPS
lands. If you have any questions regarding this letter,please contact David Sheehan, Resident
Landscape Architect at david—[e-mail] or(828) 348-3435.
Sincerely,
Tracy Swartout
Superintendent
cc: Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office

DocuSign Envelope ID:248B865D-74E9-4749-8C8A-0707B3E65D94
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 15, 2022
Tracy Swartout
Superintendent
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville,NC 28803
Subject: Request for Resolution of Effects Consultation,Blue Ridge Parkway(NC0001)
NCDOT STIP Project HE-0001
NPS Reference LA.1 Resource Management
Dear Ms. Swartout,
This letter is in follow up to the previous Section 106 effects consultation held between NCDOT,
FHWA,NC HPO and NPS-Blue Ridge Parkway staff on May 11, 2022.
Per FHWA's April 5, 2022 letter to you, and supported by materials provided and information
presented at three previous effects consultations between February 4 and May 11, 2022,FHWA and
NCDOT ("transportation agencies") are recommending a No Adverse Effect, with conditions
Ending for the Blue Ridge Parkway (NC0001) for NCDOT STIP Project HE-0001 in Buncombe
County. The transportation agencies will request NC HPO's concurrence in this No Adverse Effect,
with conditions finding at the June 29,2022 Effects Meeting#4.
The transportation agencies are formally requesting that NPS personnel with decision-making
authority attend the June 29, 2022 Effects Meeting #4. It is the transportation agencies intent to
resolve the Section 106 consultation process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 and in accordance with the 2020
Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, United States Army Corps
of Engineers, Wilmington District, North Carolina Department of Transportation,Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation and North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer for the
Transportation Program in North Carolina(PA).
In addition to the materials submitted and presented in association with previous effects
consultations (see attached Blue Ridge Parkway Effects Consultation Timeline), the following
materials are provided for your review prior to the Effects Meeting#4:
• Updated visualizations with diverging diamond interchange (DDI) design as viewed from
the Blue Ridge Parkway bridge over I-26 in daytime and nighttime. Additionally, an
updated birdseye view rendering is provided with the DDI design.
Mailing Address: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 55 ORANGE STREET
HIGHWAY DIVISION 13 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ASHEVILLE,NC 28801
55 ORANGE STREET
ASHEVILLE,NC 28801
Website:www.ncdot.gov

DocuSign Envelope ID:248B865D-74E9-4749-8C8A-0707B3E65D94
• Memorandum addressing NPS's request for comparative details regarding capacity of a
diamond interchange versus a DDI.
• List of conditions NCDOT will commit to implement as part of NCDOT STIP Project
HE-0001 to avoid an adverse effect to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
The transportation agencies respectfully request that any questions, concerns, or proposed
modifications regarding the information contained herein be provided to the NCDOT Project
Manager,McCray Coates (hmcoateskncdot.gov, 828-658-7030) at least five days before the Effects
Meeting#4 (by Friday June 24') so that the transportation team may prepare a response.
Sincerely,
Docusigned by:
T. W. Ate •P.E.
CD10D468D13A4B3...
Tim Anderson,P.E.
Division Engineer,NCDOT Division 13
Attachments
cc: David Clarke,Federal Preservation Officer,FHWA
Mandy Ranslow,FHWA Liaison,ACHP
Donnie Brew,Preconstruction and Environment Engineer,FHWA
Renee Gledhill-Earley,Environmental Review Coordinator,NC Historic Preservation Office
David Sheehan,Landscape Architect,Blue Ridge Parkway,NPS
Alexa Viets, Chief of Staff,Blue Ridge Parkway,NPS
Andrew Triplett,Cultural Resources Specialist,Blue Ridge Parkway,NPS
Dawn Leonard, Community Planner,Blue Ridge Parkway,NPS
Lori Beckwith,Project Manager,USACE
H. McCray Coates,P.E.,Resident Engineer,Project Manager
Mark Gibbs,P.E.,Western Deputy Chief Engineer,NCDOT
Roger D. Bryan,Environmental Program Supervisor,NCDOT Division 13
Brendan Merithew,P.E., Division Project Team Lead,NCDOT Division 13
Nathan Moneyham,P.E.,Division Construction Engineer,NCDOT Division 13
Jamie Lancaster,Cultural Resources Group Leader,NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit
Mary Pope Furr,Historic Architecture Team Lead,NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit

U.S.0
Department North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
of Transportation Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Federal Highway Administration April 5,2022 [phone]
www.fhwa.dot.gov/ncdiv
Tracy Swartout
Superintendent
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville,NC 28803
Subject: NCDOT STIP Project HE-0001 (NPS Reference 1.A.1 Resource Management)
Dear Ms. Swartout,
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (36 CFR Part 800), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) (collectively referred to as the transportation agencies) have
assessed the potential effects caused by HE-0001 that may alter, diminish, or damage the characteristics
and features that contribute to the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)eligibility of the Blue Ridge
Parkway(NC0001)—noting a National Historic Landmark(NHL) designation is pending.
In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5 (a)(1) Criteria of adverse effect, adverse effects may include
reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking (in this case HE-0001) that may occur later in
time,be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Based on the transportation agencies' assessment of
indirect and cumulative effects, within the area of potential effect, there are no reasonably foreseeable
effects to the Blue Ridge Parkway caused by HE-0001. This conclusion is supported by information
provided during consultation and summarized in the attachment. Based on the attached considerations,
following all appropriate measures to minimize harm, and including conditions to avoid adverse effects,
FHWA has determined HE-0001 will have no adverse effect to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
FHWA and NCDOT respectfully request your concurrence in this finding, pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act,as amended.NCDOT will schedule a follow-up meeting in the next two
weeks to discuss these items and determine the appropriate path forward.
Respectfully,
01�41U-v_w
John F. Sullivan,III,PE
Division Administrator,Federal Highway Administration
Page 1 of 2

Attachment
cc: David Clarke,Federal Preservation Officer,FHWA
Mandy Ranslow,FHWA Liaison,ACHP
Donnie Brew,Preconstruction and Environment Engineer,FHWA
Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,NC Historic Preservation Office
David Sheehan,Landscape Architect,NPS
Lori Beckwith,Project Manager,USACE
Mark Gibbs,Division Engineer,NCDOT Division 13
McCray Coates,Division Project Manager,NCDOT Division 13
Roger D. Bryan,Environmental Program Supervisor,NCDOT Division 13
Brendan Merithew,Division Project Team Lead,NCDOT Division 13
Jamie Lancaster, Cultural Resources Group Leader,NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit
Mary Pope Furr,Historic Architecture Team Lead,NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit
Page 2 of 2

NATIONAL
United States Department of the Interior PARK
SERVICF
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
fN REPLY REFER Asheville,North Carolina 28803
LA.1 Resource Management
February 2, 2022
McCray Coates, PE
Division Project Manager
Division 13
N. C. Department of Transportation
55 Orange Street
Asheville,NC 28802
Subject:NCDOT STIP Project HE-0001
Dear Mr. Coates,
This letter is in response to the North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) State
Transportation Improvement Program Project(STIP) HE-0001, a proposed new interchange along
Interstate 26 (I-26) in Buncombe County,NC, on lands adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway(Parkway),
a unit of the National Park Service (NPS). This project also includes a proposed two-lane roadway
(Frederick Law Olmsted Way East)that would connect the proposed interchange to a road that is
currently under construction by Biltmore Farms. The NPS has reviewed the proposed interchange
designs and considered the cumulative effects of this project in addition to other public and private
adjacent projects as outlined below and concludes that the proposed interchange is likely to have an
adverse effect on the Parkway under the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) and mitigations
should be evaluated.
The NHPA requires any Federally-funded undertaking to assess effects to historic properties from
proposed activities. Per 36 CFR part 800,potential effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects
caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time,be farther removed in distance or be
cumulative. Potential effects may also include actions that change of the character of the property's use
or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance, or that
introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's
significant historic features.
Since its inception in the early 1930s,the Parkway has retained an exceptionally high degree of
integrity to its original design which provided for a continuous leisurely driving experience through a
range of idyllic mountain,rural, and pastoral landscapes. Recreation areas, the designed landscape, and
scenic, experiential integrity are fundamental to the Parkway's character, setting, and value as both a
treasured unit of the NPS and a driver for the local economy. Without mitigation,this set of planned
projects is likely to have a cumulative impact that is unacceptable to the historic character and unique
experience of the Parkway under NHPA.

The proposed interchange will likely increase traffic between the NC-191 and I-26 corridors, including
to and from the Pratt and Whitney Advanced Manufacturing Center site via connected roadway and
new five-lane bridge over the French Broad River, and may increase traffic to and from the Parkway.
In addition,the project, associated development and increased cross traffic at River Road and Halfway
Road may be visible from the Parkway, adversely affecting the natural, rural view from the Parkway
and its overlooks. Within three miles of this project there are eight other NCDOT projects planned or
under construction, as well as private development including over 1200 proposed dwelling units, a
120-room hotel, and hundreds of thousands of square feet of proposed industrial space. Combined
impacts from these projects, including changes to traffic levels, circulation patterns, associated
development, and an overall reduction in vegetative screening will be cumulative with HE-0001.
Further evaluation is needed to assess impacts of this project on the Parkway, including an evaluation
of impacts to Parkway congestion as well as visual and auditory impacts.
When completed,the combined projects have the potential to permanently change the character and
visitor experience of the Blue Ridge Parkway between the French Broad Overlook and 1-26. Rather
than the fully forested woodland experienced by visitors to the Parkway in this two-mile section now,
the set of projects will likely convert this landscape into a densely developed residential, commercial,
and industrial area. This change would represent a compromise of the experience of natural beauty and
degrade the leisurely driving experience that was envisioned for the Parkway when it was created. In
addition, the view of forested hillside from the Parkway's French Broad Overlook, which is a
contributing feature for the Parkway's National Historic Landmark(NHL)nomination,may change
significantly with these combined projects,thereby jeopardizing the Parkway's overall eligibility for
NHL designation.
Impacts on NPS lands should be fully evaluated and mitigations included for all projects that may
affect the Parkway's historic character,visitor experiences, and setting, even if no physical
encroachment is anticipated. Our team looks forward to working with NCDOT on these mitigations
moving forward. If you have any questions regarding this or any other any NCDOT projects that may
affect the Parkway,please contact David Sheehan, Resident Landscape Architect, at
david—[e-mail] or(828) 348-3435.
Sincerely,
Tn &J5J_
Tracy Swartout
Superintendent
cc: Renee Gledhill—Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office

Project Tracking No.(Internal Use)
21-05-0002
•r
* HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
"EFFECTS REQUIRED FORM"
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: HE-0001 County: Buncombe
WBS No.: 49473 Document CE
Type:
Fed. Aid No: unknown Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal ® Yes ❑ No Permit USACE
Permit(s): T e(s):
Proiect Description:
Construct new interchange (Future Exit 35) on I-26 north of the Blue Ridge Parkway for the
Pratt& Whitney Manufacturing Center that is under construction. The proposed project includes
construction of a 0.5 to 1 mile, two-lane roadway tie which would connect to the private
developer's two-lane roadway which includes a new bridge over the French Broad River and
intersects with NC 191 (Brevard Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
NCDOT architectural historian reviewed HPOWeb in June 2021 and reviewed the previous
historic architecture surveys for NCDOT TIP #U-3403B (Improvements to NC 191), NCDOT
TIP# I-4400 (Improvements to 1-26), and the Pratt & Whitney Manufacturing Center (Project
Ranger). All three reports were reviewed by the NC-HPO and determinations of eligibility
confirmed. Due to the comprehensive surveys conducted for these three recent projects, there is
no need for additional survey to identify unknown historic structures or landscapes. As such, the
NCDOT architectural historian recommends an effects assessment for the following National
Register-eligible or listed properties within or adjacent to the project study area: BN 1835
Biltmore Estate (NHL), NC 0001 Blue Ridge Parkway (DE, NHL pending), BN 6468 French
Broad River Gaging Station(DE), and BN 0898 Bent Creek Campus (NR). Please provide design
plans that show the proposed alignment(s)along with the boundaries of the four historic properties
to the NCDOT architectural historian so that an effects assessment meeting can be scheduled.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
ZMap(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SUR VEYREQUIREDformfor Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 2

BN1835 Biltmore
BN6469 Estate (N H L)
V�BN6470 ©�a
BN0898
Bent Cre � Study Area
Campus
(N R�)
BNN46,8 French Broad
R�iver�Gaging Station Nr,C000�1 Blue,
arkwa
J
Base map from HPOWeb (June 2021)
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- "EFFECTS REQUIRED"
Mary Pope Furr June 15, 2021
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SUR VEYREQUIREDformfor Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2

Tribal
Coordination

From: Stephen Yerka
To: Brew,Donnie(FHWA); Damon Jones
Cc: Bryan,Roger D;Coates, McCray;Wilkerson,Matt T;Archual,Adam J.
Subject: RE: HE-0001 EBCI THPO consultation
Date: Monday,March 21,2022 2:59:48 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.ono
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Thank you Donnie,
(and thank you, Damon, for sending the GIS files also)
We really appreciate you all being available to respond to the EBCI THPO's questions about the
project status.
I will review the materials a little more, and the EBCI THPO is glad to hear the eligible site (119) is
being avoided with Alt 3.
Thank you,
Stephen
Stephen J. Yerka
Historic Preservation Specialist,THPO
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (https://ebci.com/)
syerka(@ebci-nsn.gov
[phone]
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Stephen Yerka <[e-mail]>; Stephen Yerka <[e-mail]>; Damon Jones
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Bryan, Roger D <[e-mail]>; Coates, McCray<[e-mail]>; Wilkerson, Matt
T<[e-mail]>; Archual, Adam J. <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: HE-0001 EBCI THPO consultation
Good afternoon Stephen,
It was good catching up with you this afternoon.
I've attached a visual for HE-0001 that is pretty helpful. It shows the HE-0001 project area
including the 3 detailed study alternatives. The alternatives and eligible historic resources are
labeled on the visual. We are planning to move forward with the green alternative

(Alternative 3).
There is a footnote in the map key that describes the activities that are part of Project Ranger.
Have a great afternoon and let us know if we can help answer any other questions that may
come up.
Talk to you soon,
Donnie
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction& Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Stephen Yerka <syerka(@ebci-nsn.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 2:08 PM
To: Stephen Yerka; Damon Jones
Cc: Brew, Donnie (FHWA); Bryan, Roger D; Coates, McCray; Wilkerson, Matt T; Archual, Adam J.
Subject: HE-0001 EBCI THPO consultation
When: Monday, March 21, 2022 1:00 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting

From: Jones,Damon
To: Stephen Yerka
Cc: Brew.Donnie(FHWA);Wilkerson,Matt T; Bryan,Roger D;Coates,McCrav;Archual,Adam J.
Subject: HE-0001 GIs files
Date: Monday,March 21,2022 2:42:41 PM
Attachments: imaae001.pna
HE-0001 Archaeological APE.zip
HE-0001&Proiect Ranaer Sites.zip
HE-0001 Alternative#3.zip
Proiect Ranaer Archaeoloaical Survey Area.zip
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Hi Steven,
Nice talking with you today.
Attached are the GIS files you requested
• HE-0001 Archaeological APE/Study Area
• Sites including those from both HE-0001 and Project Ranger
• Micro Station files for the Preferred Alternative Alt 3
• The Project Ranger APE/Survey Area
They should be projected in NAD 83 NC Stateplane (Feet).
Let me know if have any questions about the files.
Have a great day.
Damon Jones
Archaeologist
Environmental Analysis Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
901340 7921 mobile/home
919 707 6076 office
919 250 4224 fax
cdjones2(cDncdot.gov
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
i i_
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Jones,Damon
To: Wenonah Haire;Stephen Yerka;elizabeth-toombs(icherokee.ora;Acee Watt; ukbthDo(caukb-nsn.gov; LeeAnne
Wendt;sshumate(abbiltmore.com;andrew triplet(ftps.gov
Cc: Brew,Donnie(FHWA);man,Roger D;Coates,McCrav;Wilkerson,Matt T;Archual,Adam J.;Tipton,Rick A.
Subject: NCDOT;TIP HE-0001(Buncombe County,NC);Archaeology No NRHP Sites Affected
Date: Thursday,March 10,2022 3:22:28 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.Dno
HE-0001 HPO No Effects Transmittal Letter.Ddf
AR21-05-0002noeffects.Ddf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Good Afternoon,
Please find the attached No NRHP Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Affected PA form and the
HPO Transmittal Letter for the HE-0001 Project (construction of Exit 35 on 1-26) in Buncombe
County, North Carolina (PA Project 21-05-0002).
NCDOT is providing this information to your office on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the designated lead federal agency for this undertaking, so that you may have the
opportunity to offer any comments. In addition to the SHPO, copies of the survey report are being
provided to the National Park Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, The Catawba Nation, The
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation,The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Biltmore Estate.
The Archaeological Survey Report and Effect Required form for HE-0001 were provided to you in an
email dated December 10, 2021, from me.
During the last Merger Meeting on Feb 9, 2022, Alternative 3 (DSA3) was selected as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative. This alternative is
being carried forward and will have no effect to eligible site 31BN1119 as it will be avoided by the
project.
If you have any questions, please let me know
Thank you.
Damon Jones
Archaeologist
Environmental Analysis Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
901340 7921 mobile/home
919 707 6076 office
919 250 4224 fax
cdjones2Pncdot.gov
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
1598 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Emoil correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Low and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
-------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2022
Attention: Matthew Wilkerson
NC Department of Transportation
159 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re. THPO# TCNS# Project Description
TIP HE-0001,WBS No.49473,Transportation Programmatic Agreement Project 21-05-
2020-193-53 0002,Buncombe Co.
Dear Mr. Wilkerson,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and /or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

From: Jones,Damon
To: Beckwith,Loretta A SAW;andrew triDlett(canDs.aov,sshumate(cabiltmore.com;Wenonah Haire;Caitlin Rogers;
Elizabeth Toombs; russtown(abnc-cherokee.com;Stephen Yerka; ukbthpo(abukb-nsn.gov;Iwendt(@mcn-nsn.gov
Cc: Donnie Brew(Donnie.Bremd)dot.gov);man.Roger D;Coates,McCrav;Gibbs,Mark T;Wilkerson,Matt T;
Archual,Adam J.;Tipton,Rick A.
Subject: NCDOT;TIP HE-0001(Buncombe County,NC);Archaeological Survey Report
Date: Friday,December 10,2021 11:29:34 AM
Attachments: imaae001.Dno
HE-0001 HPO Effects Transmittal Letter.Ddf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Greetings,
Please find attached North Carolina DOT'S transmittal letter dated December 10, 2021 to the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) transmitting the Archaeological Effects Required
Form detailing the results of the archaeological survey investigations within the HE-0001 (PA Project
21-05-0002) Area of Potential Effects (APE) in Buncombe County, North Carolina.
NCDOT is providing this information to your office on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the designated lead federal agency for this undertaking, so that you may have the
opportunity to offer any comments. In addition to the SHPO, copies of the survey report are being
provided to the National Park Service, the US Army Corps of Engineers, The Catawba Nation,The
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation,The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Biltmore Estate. An electronic version of the report
and site forms are available at the following link: https://gfnet.sharefile.com/d-
sf5b9dcbf067743c2b04d4bf371662253
Hard copies are being sent to the Catawba Nation and can be provided to others upon request.
Please let me know at cdjones2(@ncdot.gov.
Please forward all questions and comments to Roger Bryan with NCDOT Division 13 at
rdbryanPncdot.gov by Monday, January 10, 2022.
Thank you,
Damon Jones
Archaeologist
Environmental Analysis Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
901340 7921 mobile/home
919 707 6076 office
919 250 4224 fax
cdjones2(@ncdot.gov
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
1598 Mail Service Center

STATEa''
`"� !. 1 •.1.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 10,2021
Dr. Wenonah Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Catawba Indian Nation
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Dear Dr. Haire
Subject: TIP HE-0001, WBS No. 49473,Transportation Programmatic Agreement Project 21-05-
0002, Buncombe County.
Enclosed please find a copy of the Archaeological Effects Required Form detailing the results of
the archaeological survey investigations within the HE-0001 (PA Project 21-05-0002) Area of
Potential Effects(APE). We are providing this information to your office on behalf of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the designated lead federal agency for this undertaking, so that
you may have the opportunity to offer any comments. Copies of the survey report are also being
provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office,National Park Service, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, The
Muscogee(Creek)Nation, the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Biltmore Estate. An
electronic version of the report will be emailed the week of October 13, 2021, to all interested
parties. Please forward all questions and comments to Roger Bryan with NCDOT Division 13 at
[e-mail] by Monday,January 10,2022.
Sincerely,
Matthew Wilkerson
Archaeology Team Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
Enclosures(Archaeological Report)
Cc Donnie Brew, FHWA
Roger Bryan,NCDOT Division 13
McCray Coates,NCDOT Division 13
Mark Gibbs,NCDOT Division 13
Adam Archual, Gannett Fleming,Inc.
Rick Tipton, Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Mailing Addorss: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 RALEIGH,NC 27610
159 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NC 27699-1598 Website:www.ncdot.gov

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill,South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
-------------------------------------------------------
October 14, 2021
Attention: Roger Bryan
NC Department of Transportation
55 Orange Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Re. THPO# TCNS# Project Description
Construction of a new interchange with Interstate 26 and a roadway extension to
2021-193-178 connect with a future state road in Buncombe Co., NC HE-0001
Dear Mr. Bryan,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Ali
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

�EROKFF Chuck Hoskin Jr.
G ti Aincipa!Chief
GWY.B D3P CP
C H EROKEE NAT ION, Bryan Warner
9
V 1. B4ix 444•Tahlequah.OK 74404194.4 Bryan
S, � vla•-153.SIlui�•��ww.chci•,�Lcc.m_� ncipal Chief
�Z.f3PV,9
FPT.6,183,9
WPA DWA OJEOGA
October 8, 2021
Roger Bryan
North Carolina Department of Transportation
55 Orange Street
Asheville,NC 28801
Re: HE-0001, I-26 Interchange and Roadway Extension
Mr. Roger Bryan:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about HE-0001, and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve
as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural,historic, and pre-historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found instances where this project is within close
proximity to such resources. Thus, the Nation recommends that a cultural resources survey is
conducted for this project, and requests a copy of the related report with comments from the State
Historic Preservation Officer. The Nation requires that cultural resources survey personnel and
reports meet the Secretary of Interior's standards and guidelines.
However, the Nation requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
halt all survey activities immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of
cultural significance are discovered during the course of this survey. Additionally, the Nation
requests that NCDOT conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent Tribal and Historic
Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included in the Nation's
databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions,please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

OA ,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 9,2021
Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians(EBCI)
2077 Governors Island Road
Bryson City,NC 28713
Whitney Warrior
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokee Indians
PO Box 1245
Tahlequah,OK 74465
Elizabeth Toombs
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah,OK 74465
Dr.Wenonah Haire(via mail)
Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, SC 29730
LeeAnne Wendt
Muscogee(Creek)Nation
P.O.Box 580
Okmulgee,OK 74447
Dear Sir/Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development,environmental,and
engineering studies for construction of a new interchange with Interstate 26(I-26)and a roadway extension to
connect with a future state road in Buncombe County,NC as project HE-0001.The Federal Highway
Administration(FHWA)is the lead federal agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)and a Permit is anticipated under the
Section 404 Process with the USACE. The coordinates of this project are approximately 35.504013,-82.571906.
Mailing Address: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 55 ORANGE STREET
DIVISION THIRTEEN ASHEVILLE,NC 28801-2340
55 ORANGE STREET Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
ASHEVILLE,NC 28801-2340
Website:www.ncdot.gov

The project vicinity and NCDOT Survey Required Form are attached.Archaeological field investigations are
underway and expected to conclude in winter 2021.The results of these investigations can be shared with you upon
request.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied.Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a NEPA/State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA,we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that,in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA,we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by October 91 so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project.If you have any
questions concerning this project,or would like any additional information,please contact me at rdbryan(a)ncdot. og_v
or 828-250-3005.
Thank you,
DocuSigned by:
V. brjaAA,
33212C738EB8411...
Roger D.Bryan
NCDOT Division 13 Environmental Supervisor
cc:Matt Wilkerson,NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Donnie Brew,Federal Highway Administration
Lori Beckwith,US Army Corps of Engineers

Section 404 /
NEPA
Merger

Gannett Fleming
Excellence Delivered As Promised
Project: HE-0001,New Interchange with I-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: External Scoping Meeting Summary
Date: June 16,20218:30 am
Location: Remote(GoTo Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Mark Gibbs NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Derrick Weaver NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
John Jamison NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Mike Sanderson NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Marissa Cox NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Tyler Stanton NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Donnie Brew FHWA [e-mail]
Joe Gei le FHWA ,[e-mail]
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Amanetta Somerville USEPA [e-mail]
Holland Youngman USFWS [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS lauren [e-mail]
Marla Chambers NCWRC [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO tistan@landofsky.o
John Ridout FBRMPO [e-mail]
Heather Wallace NV5 [e-mail]
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Adam Archual Gannett Fleming aarchual@ fnet.com
John Thomas Gannett Fleming thomas@ fnet.com
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with I-26 and connecting
roadway to access the Pratt & Whitney (P&W) Manufacturing Center currently under
construction.The project is located approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Suite 900•One Glenwood Avenue•Raleigh,NC 27603
t:919.420.7660•f:919.999.3632
www.gannettfleming.com

Gannett Fleming
County. NCDOT-Division 13 is managing the project and anticipates federal funding. The
Division is targeting an October 2022 construction let date.
The intent of this meeting was to provide information about the proposed project to the state
and federal resource agency partners and collect feedback and direction in the development of
the project. The PowerPoint Presentation is attached to this summary and the meeting packet
may be accessed via the NCDOT file transfer site. The following topics were discussed at the
meeting:
- Jurisdictional Resources
o NCDOT will spot check approved delineations completed for I-4700 and
U-3403B while delineating the remainder of the study area. Full delineation
within the previously surveyed areas is not required but delineations should be
field checked.
■ The Project Ranger delineation expires in October of 2021 and will not be
relied on by this project.
o NCDOT should plan on a field verification with the USACE and NCDWR; that
should be expected later this summer.
o The JD submittal should explain the history and status of the intersecting JDs,
their status, and results of spot checks; these features should also be provided in
the mapping.
- Agency Input/Comments
o USACE
■ Due to conflicting resources and the unique situation of this project
overlapping the 1-4700 project currently under construction, the USACE
agrees with the decision to proceed in the Merger process.
■ Requested that the project purpose statement does not offer a solution to
the project need statement (available in the External Scoping Meeting
packet).
o NCDWR
■ Agreed with decision to proceed in the Merger process.
■ In review of the 2016 Project Ranger JD, noted the presence of several
pocket, headwater wetlands adjacent to first order tributaries to the
French Broad River.
■ The streams and habitat are in good condition based on past
observations.
■ Avoidance and minimization will be important.
Page 2 of 5

Gannett Fleming
■ A good stormwater management plan is necessary associated with
concerns for downstream aquatic habitat for endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) in the French Broad River.
o USFWS
■ Agreed with plan to observe/incorporate/consider the conservation
measures and commitments NCDOT made for the I-4700 project and
Project Ranger(FWS log# 19-328).
■ Recommend consider tree clearing in the winter in regard for concerns
with the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), soon
after the proposed October 2022 construction let date.
o USEPA
■ Requested additional detail on the annual average daily traffic (AADT) in
future discussions to support this project would not adversely affect
I-4700.
■ Will the French Broad River bridge currently under construction by the
private developer accommodate future traffic needs?
• The private developer is constructing the bridge with five lanes
and the roadway is being constructed with two-lanes but has been
cleared and graded for four-lanes.
o NCWRC
■ Agrees with Merger decision.
■ Will review the U-3403B and I-4700 WRC letters and resend to the
appropriate members of this group.
■ Will be looking for proper passage of fish and wildlife.
■ Will also need to plan to treat stormwater to prevent degradation of the
French Broad River.
o FBRMPO
■ Working on amending the MTP with target of this month but reserving
the option to hold amendments until August if additional conversation is
warranted.
■ Some concerns have been voiced by the TCC about this project and its
impacts to funding availability for other planned transportation projects
in the MTP.
■ It was noted that land-use modeling and socioeconomic data for this TAZ
is a high-growth area. This was coded before the proposed project was
conceived.
o SHPO (not present)
Page 3 of 5

Gannett Fleming
■ In the absence of SHPO, the team was informed that coordination has
begun with Mary Pope Furr and Matt Wilkerson and these studies are
underway.
General Conversation
o Need and Purpose
■ USACE suggested holding a CP 1-2 pre-meeting with the MOU
signatories and noted that the "direct access" in the preliminary purpose
statement would have to be taken under consideration internally.
o Merger
■ The new Merger procedure has not been finalized yet, but some of the
ideas in that procedure update may be applied to this project with the
team's approval.
■ USACE stated that information about the impacts of this project on the
I-26 LOS will be necessary prior to a CP 3/LEDPA decision.
• FHWA clarified that they cannot approve the IAR (Interchange
Access Report), and ultimately the project, if it results in
significant adverse effect on the interstate. However, it is possible
that an LOS less than service level D could be considered not
adverse.
• It was noted that the I-4700 traffic analysis uses a 2040 design
year,whereas this project is a 2045 design year.
o Study Area
■ A reduced study area was presented to the team.
• USEPA asked whether the reduction would limit design options
under consideration.
• NCDOT noted that the reduction was based on evaluation of
design factors and environmental factors. The northern section of
the larger study area present conflicts with the French Broad River
FEMA floodplains and jurisdictional wetlands identified in
environmental studies for I-4700. Also, topography west of a blue-
line stream bisecting the parcel west of I-26 presented design
concerns that would be lessened by alternatives to the east of the
stream.
o USACE replied that alternatives and/or associated study
area limits should not be discarded without agencies
review and comment.
Page 4 of 5

Gannett Fleming
• NCDOT noted that reducing the study area made sense because it
would reduce the time and effort associated with field data
collection (e.g., archaeology) in areas that we would not expect to
build in.
• USEPA requested that this explanation be documented.
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 External Scoping
Meeting to the best of my recollection.
Adam Archual
June 17,2021
Page 5 of 5

Gannett Fleming
Excellence Delivered As Promised
Project: HE-0001,New Interchange with I-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: Merger Meeting,Concurrence Points 1 &2
Date: July 15,20219:00 am
Location: Remote(GoTo Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Mark Gibbs NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Nathan Mone ham NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Steve Cannon NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Derrick Weaver NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
John Jamison NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Mike Sanderson NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Marissa Cox NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Michael Turchy NCDOT-ECAP [e-mail]
Wes Cartner NCDOT-Mitigation [e-mail]
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT-Cultural Resources [e-mail]
Mark Staley NCDOT-Roadside Environmental [e-mail]
Donnie Brew FHWA [e-mail]
Joe Gei le FHWA ioseph.Gei leg @dot.gov
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Robert Patterson NCDWR [e-mail]
Ntale Ka'umba USEPA [e-mail]
Larry Lamberth USEPA [e-mail]
Holland Youngman USFWS [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS lauren [e-mail]
Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO [e-mail]
John Ridout FBRMPO [e-mail]
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Adam Archual Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Suite 900•One Glenwood Avenue•Raleigh,NC 27603
t:919.420.7660•f:919.999.3632
www.gannettfleming.com

Gannett Fleming
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with I-26 and roadway
extension to connect to a future state road (Frederick Law Olmsted East).The project
is located approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe County. NCDOT-Division
13 is managing the project and anticipates federal funding. The Division is targeting an October
2022 construction let date.
The intent of this meeting was to reach concurrence on the Project Need and Purpose and Study
Area (CP 1) and Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward (CP 2); to review the
information contained in the CP 1 and CP 2 Meeting Packet; and to answer questions from the
Merger Team about the materials provided. The PowerPoint Presentation is attached to this
summary and the meeting packet may be accessed via the NCDOT file transfer site. The
following topics were discussed at the meeting:
Concurrence Point 1
- Project Need and Purpose
o No comments were received at the meeting regarding the project need and
purpose statements as presented.
- Study Area Defined
o USACE requested additional information from NCDOT to explain the factors
involved in determining the extent of the study area and why an interchange
would not work anywhere else between NC 191/Brevard Road (Exit 33) and NC
146/Long Shoals Road (Exit 37).
■ In addition to the information contained on page 4 of the meeting packet,
the Consultant replied on behalf of NCDOT that an interchange north of
the French Broad River (FBR) on 1-26 would result in traffic accessing the
current and planned growth at Biltmore Park West (BPW) to make two
turns and rely on NC 191. Such a scenario would put additional pressure
on the local road network (NC 191) and result in less efficient traffic
operations, in addition to the reasons discussed in the meeting packet.
o SHPO asked about the character of the planned development.
■ The Consultant replied that the Pratt & Whitney Manufacturing Center
(P&W) is the first development within BPW. BPW is bound by 1-26 to the
east, the FBR to the north, NC 191 to the west, and the Blue Ridge
Parkway (BRP) to the south (see Exhibit 1 in meeting packet). Additional
development is planned. Table 3 (page 7) of the meeting packet quantifies
the type of planned development which would include development of a
work force training facility by Asheville-Buncombe Technical College.
Page 2 of 8

Gannett Fleming
Specifics about the placement of individual developments within the site
are not known.
■ SHPO remarked that the effects assessment for HE-0001 should not be
limited to the transportation infrastructure alone but also review the
secondary and/or foreseeable development that would occur closer to the
BRP.
• FHWA replied that development at BPW is coming regardless of
the proposed access to the interstate under HE-0001; access to the
BPW has been established by the bridge over the FBR. HE-0001
would provide direct access to I-26.
• SHPO stated that the desirability and pace of future development
would be greater with the proposed interchange than it would be
with access from NC 191 only. Project HE-0001 is intended to
increase connectivity and that will spur development.
• FHWA noted that the five-lane bridge over the FBR is being
constructed; the Frederick Law Olmsted Way East roadway is also
under construction to connect to P&W (under construction); and
reiterated that the expectation is that development of the site will
continue without this project(HE-0001).
• SHPO would expect pushback from the BRP and the tribes like
that experienced for the bridge project(a.k.a.,Project Ranger).
• FHWA stated that Project Ranger is a separate independent
project and HE-0001 is a separate and independent project. This
project would introduce additional transportation resources in
response to the current and planned development.
• SHPO stated the Section 106 Area of Potential Effect (APE) needs
to include the BRP.
• FHWA replied that a proposed APE would not be limited by the
NEPA study area.
o USFWS asked why the meeting materials did not address this project in the
context of these other projects, i.e., Project Ranger and NCDOT STIP I-4700. (post-
meeting note:refer to External Scoping Meeting Presentation, slide 8.)
■ FHWA responded that "current and planned growth" is intended to
capture that.
■ The Consultant replied that P&W is the only known, named project in
BPW.
Page 3 of 8

Gannett Fleming
o USFWS asked why this project was not included in either Project Ranger or
NCDOT STIP I-4700.
■ FHWA replied that at the time I-4400/1-4700 was under development, this
project was not known. On the other hand, the private development
occurred outside of the state and federal transportation purview.
■ USFWS requested that the timeline and sequencing of events be included
in the meeting summary. (See Attachment 1)
Concurrence Point 1
o USACE surveyed the Merger Team for verbal concurrence on Project Need and
Purpose and Study Area. The following agencies concurred at the meeting:
■ FHWA
■ USACE
■ NCDOT
■ USFWS (note:Lauren Wilson will serve as FWS lead for HE-0001)
■ NCDWR
■ SHPO
■ FBRMPO
o The USEPA and NCWRC abstained from verbal concurrence because both
agency representatives responsible for Merger concurrence did not attend the
meeting (note: USEPA was represented at the meeting, however, the USEPA Merger
representative responsible for project concurrence was not in attendance).
■ NCDOT noted that slight modifications may be made to the signature
lines to reflect the USEPA and NCWRC abstention at the meeting with
option to concur following meeting.
Concurrence Point 2
- Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs)to be Carried Forward
o NCDWR asked whether the stream in the bifurcated section would be avoided,
or bridged, in DSA 2.
■ The Consultant replied that a bridge would have to span the stream in the
bifurcated section in this configuration due to the proximity of the stream
to the interstate.
■ NCDOT remarked that this would be discussed in greater detail at CP2A.
o USFWS asked if there was more information about any other alternatives, noting
the meeting packet mentioned 15 concept designs.
■ The Consultant replied that those concepts were variations of the three
alternatives proposed here. The other design concepts explored options to
tie the interchange to the roundabout.
Page 4 of 8

Gannett Fleming
■ USFWS asked whether the transportation team looked at a tight diamond
configuration on DSA 1, for example.
• The Consultant replied that such a concept was looked at but the
large cut on the eastbound lanes and the distance between the
interchange ramp terminals were considered in the retention of
the current DSA 1 configuration.
o USACE remarked that environmental agencies want to know how the
transportation team determined what would work with traffic while also
avoiding impacts to resources.
■ USFWS stated that it was unclear how these designs were completed to
meet traffic needs in the context of resource locations.
■ The Consultant replied that available stream information was used to
layout concept designs and impacts avoided to the extent possible at first
pass,noting there remain opportunities for minimization.
• NCDOT remarked that avoidance and minimization efforts
completed to date will be documented following field verification
of surface water resources. There should be more information
available on this topic at CP2A.
■ USFWS reminded the Merger Team that minimization of tree clearing is
also an important consideration.
• NCDOT replied that additional information will be shared with
USFWS regarding tree clearing.
o SHPO asked why NCDOT was forwarding DSA 2 which has 6.8 acres of impacts
to the Biltmore Estate National Historic Landmark (NHL) (and more aquatic
resources impacts) while there are two other alternatives that do not impact the
NHL.
■ FHWA replied that DSA 2 is the only "traditional' right exit / entrance
interchange alternative. For that reason alone, FHWA is encouraging
NCDOT to carry DSA 2 forward for more detailed study.
■ SHPO further remarked that DSA 2 is the closest alternative to the BRP
which is in the process of becoming an NHL.
■ FHWA responded that from a preliminary standpoint DSA 2 appears to
be the most impactful and may not raise to LEDPA. However, FHWA is
advocating that DSA 2 be carried forward to further explore the potential
Section 106 effects and aquatic resource impacts. There is the potential
that FHWA-Headquarters will not approve a left exit / entrance on the
interstate without documentation that it is the only viable option.
Page 5 of 8

Gannett Fleming
o USACE noted that Consultants are delineating resources currently and USACE
and NCDWR will field verify. As a result, potential impacts presented today for
streams and wetlands may change or vary at CP2A.
o USACE asked NCDOT to explain to the group what the following sentence on
the CP 2 Form meant: "If the traffic forecast shows that only two lanes are
required for the roadway tie, Concurrence Point 2 will be revisited."
■ The Consultant responded that the traffic forecast was recently completed
and is being processed currently to determine whether a two-lane typical
section between the interstate and the roundabout would function
acceptably.
• The Consultant noted that the potential impacts reviewed at CP 1-
2 are worst-case scenario, for a four-lane curb and gutter roadway
cross section.
• NCDOT noted that right of way would be acquired for a four-lane
roadway;however, at this time is anticipating a two-lane roadway
would function acceptably.
• USACE reminded the Merger Team that if the forecast showed a
two-lane roadway would function the Corps can only permit
those impacts to waters of the U.S. that would be necessary for a
two-lane roadway.
■ USACE concluded that if CP 2 needed to be revisited by the Merger Team
because the forecast shows that a two-lane roadway would function, an
email will most likely suffice, particularly with the prospect that the
impacts would decrease. Clear documentation of the decision is required.
NCDOT, FHWA and NCDWR agreed to the approach to revisit with the
Merger Team by email so long as the request is clear.
• NCDOT clarified that should the two-lane roadway cross section
work and additional materials (e.g., updated impacts) explaining
this are provided to the Merger Team via email such a revision
would not reopen the interchange alternatives to be carried
forward for detailed study. Whether a new CP2 concurrence form
is required based on this revision (opposed to updated via email)
will be evaluated and coordinated with the Merger Team.
Concurrence Point 2
o USACE surveyed the Merger Team for verbal concurrence on Detailed Study
Alternatives to be Carried Forward. The following agencies concurred at the
meeting:
Page 6 of 8

Gannett Fleming
■ FHWA
■ USACE
■ NCDOT
■ USFWS
■ NCWWR
■ SHPO
■ FBRMPO
o The USEPA and NCWRC abstained from verbal concurrence for the reasons
mentioned above for CP 1.
■ NCDOT noted that slight modifications may be made to the signature
lines to reflect the USEPA and NCWRC abstention at the meeting with
option to concur following meeting.
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 External Scoping
Meeting to the best of my recollection.
Adam Archual
July 26, 2021 (Draft)
Page 7 of 8

Gannett Fleming
ATTACHMENT 1: I-4400/I-4700 AND PROJECT RANGER PROJECT TIMELINES
Project Date Milestone
I-4400/I-4700 May 2001 Environmental Assessment(EA)completed
I-4400/I-4700 January 2002 Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI)completed
I-4400/I-4700 2013 to 2016 Project technical reports
I-4400/I-4700 August 2016 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)
I-4400/I-4700 Oct. 13,2016 Public hearing
Project Ranger 2016 Biltmore Farms,Inc.secures preliminary JD(SAW-2016-01112)
I-4400/I-4700 Jan. 18,2017 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative(LEDPA)
I-4400/I-4700 2018 Right of way acquisition begins
I-4400/I-4700 Spring 2019 USFWS issues final BO
I-4400/I-4700 Spring 2019 Final Environmental Impact Statement / Record of Decision
(FEIS/ROD)
I-4400/I-4700 October 2019 Construction begins
Project Ranger 2020 USACE receives SHPO determination(ER 19-4972)
Project Ranger 2020 USACE issues NWP 14 and 25 FBR bridge(SAW-2019-01867)
Project Ranger 2020 USFWS issues a BO(FWS Log#19-328)
Project Ranger 2020 P&W announces 1 million sq foot advanced manufacturing center
on 100-acre site
Project Ranger 2020 Buncombe County resolution and Incentive Agreement with P&W
HE-0001 2021 Preliminary Engineering and Environmental begins
HE-0001 2022 Environmental Document
HE-0001 2022 Right of way acquisition begins
HE-0001 October 2022 Construction begins
I-4400/I-4700 2024 Construction complete
HE-0001 2024 Construction complete
Page 8 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID: D43COD2C-EF7E-4635-8C8E-DFFBC4D41OE2
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 1
Study Area Defined and Project Need and Purpose
Project Name/Description: 1-26, New Interchange (Future Exit 35), Buncombe County
STIP Project: HE-0001
Project Need: The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between
NC 191 and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west
connectivity within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
The Project Team has concurred on this date,July 15, 2021, on the above project need and purpose and
the study area defined (Figure 2) for STIP Project HE-0001.
DocuSigned by:
FHWA (lead federal agency) bKA w
fnW
896EBB70991E42C... DocuSigned by:
USACE
Vt Wt
DocuSigned by: BE7189E4BA384E3...
NCDOT
USEPA OC47CF5B950645D... DocuSigned by:
FaKAaWAO,F b►Mt VW� t,
DocuSigned by: 4A37089ED457408._
USFWS l,
__
(Abstai ni ng) 6B574C520CDE43C.. DocuSigned by:
NCWRC lZu, C
DocuSigned by:
N C D W R B 1 MDCA076ANC9...
K.cva, M.:xc�U
D9ACAD48D566453... DocuSigned by:
SHPO
FBRMPO DocuSigned by: C26A1556A275464...
%Atr
E58F96DB10AB42E...
Page 21 of 22

DocuSign Envelope ID: D43COD2C-EF7E-4635-8C8E-DFFBC4D41OE2
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 2
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
Project Name/Description: 1-26, New Interchange (Future Exit 35), Buncombe County
STIP Project: HE-0001
Project Need:The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191
and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Project Purpose:The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west connectivity
within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
The Project Team has concurred on this date, July 15, 2021, that all checked alternatives will be carried
forward to be studied in detail for STIP Project HE-0001.
If the traffic forecast shows that only two lanes are required for the roadway tie, Concurrence Point 2 will
be revisited.
DSA Carried Description Figures
Forward (Y/N)
The No-Build Alternative does not meet the project's need and
No Build Y purpose but will be retained to provide a basis for comparing adverse NA
impacts and benefits of the detailed study alternatives.
Build Alt. 1 Y Modified diamond interchange configuration located in the center of 3 &4
the 1-26 bifurcated section and includes a left exit/entrance ramp.
Diverging diamond interchange (DDI) configuration located in the
Build Alt. 2 Y center of the 1-26 bifurcated section and includes a right 5 &6
exit/entrance ramp.
Build Alt. 3 Y Tight diamond interchange configuration located at north end of the 7 &8
1-26 bifurcated section and includes a left exit/entrance ramp.
DocuSigned by:
FHWA (lead federal agency) binA� w
896E8B70991E42C... DocuSigned by:
USACE
Vl Wt
DocuSigned by: BE7189E4BA384E3...
NCDOT ;,7 eolclr�*
USEPA
OC47CF5B950645D... DocuSigned by:
Q� a b►Mt VW� �,
USFWS
DocuSigned by: 4A37089ED457408...
J,
NCWRC (Abstdl ni ng) 6B574CUOCDE43C... DocuSigned by:
DocuSigned by:
N C D W R 61 D3DCA076AD4C9...
D9ACAD48D566453... DocuSigned by:
SHPOF
DocuSigned by:
F B R M PO c26A1 sssaz7sasa...
WiAtr
E58F96DB10AB42E...
Page 22 of 22

Gannett Fleming
Excellence Delivered is Promised
Project: HE-0001,New Interchange with I-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: Merger Meeting,Concurrence Points 2A
Date: September 16,2021, 10:00 am
Location: Remote(GoTo Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Nathan Mone ham NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Steve Cannon NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Hannah Cook NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
John Jamison NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Marissa Cox NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Cheryl Knepp NCDOT-Biological Surveys [e-mail]
Michael Turchy NCDOT-ECAP [e-mail]
Wes Cartner NCDOT-Mitigation [e-mail]
Jennifer Parish NCDOT-Roadside Environmental [e-mail]
Donnie Brew FHWA [e-mail]
Joe Geigle FHWA [e-mail]
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Monte Matthews USACE [e-mail]
Dawn Leonard NPS dawn [e-mail]
Andrew Triplett NPS andrew [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Robert Patterson NCDWR [e-mail]
Amanetta Somerville USEPA [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS lauren [e-mail]
Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO [e-mail]
Lindsay Ferrante DCR [e-mail]
Marla Chambers NCWRC [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO [e-mail]
John Ridout FBRMPO john@landofsk"
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Adam Archual Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Suite 900.One Glenwood Avenue•Raleigh,NC 27603
t:919.420.7660•f:919.999.3632
www.gannettfleming.com

Gannett Fleming
John Thomas Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Angel Prid en Gannett Fleming a][e-mail]
Sierra Tamm Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with I-26 and roadway
extension to connect to a future state road (Frederick Law Olmsted East).The project
is located approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe County. NCDOT-Division
13 is managing the project and anticipates federal funding. The Division is targeting an October
2022 construction let date.
The intent of this meeting was to provide a CP 2 Update to summarize the project-specific
traffic forecast and two-lane roadway decision as well as to update potential impacts presented
at CP 1-2 with field verified aquatic resources; reach concurrence on CP 2A (there are no
proposed hydraulic structures or major crossings requiring bridging decisions); review
potential avoidance and minimization measures; and answer questions and receive comments
from the Merger Team about the materials provided. The PowerPoint Presentation is attached
to this summary and the meeting packets may be accessed via the NCDOT file transfer site. The
following topics were discussed at the meeting:
- USACE asked why the potential impacts went up after the field delineation.
o The Consultant clarified the comparison on Slide 12 showed potential impacts
for a 4-lane roadway, not 4-lane versus 2-lane potential impacts. The additional
stream impacts came from more accurate data from the field delineation.
- SHPO asked why potential visual impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) are not
included in the estimated impact summary.
o The Consultant answered that each alternative would have similar potential
impacts, so it was not included in the summary to compare the three alternatives.
Additionally, the analysis is not finished, and the Consultant was reporting
known potential impacts.
o FHWA asked if we could look at the images for where each alternative ties into
the private road to see where they fall compared to the BRP.
■ The consultant showed each alternative, highlighting the common tie
point and the similar proximity to the BRP.
o SHPO followed up that the same developers own the entire area, so direct and
indirect effects need to consider indirect visual impacts of future development.
o NPS would like to be included in the discussions of potential visual impact to the
BRP moving forward.
Page 2 of 8

Gannett Fleming
o NCWRC stated all three alternatives have similar locations of their closest point
to the BRP but emphasized the viewsheds for each alternative may differ from
various locations along the BRP.
o NCWRC stated that secondary and cumulative impacts is a big concern of theirs
and recommended that a full secondary and cumulative impact analysis be
completed prior to CP 3.
■ NCDOT replied that an indirect and cumulative analyses is currently
underway and results will be available prior to CP 3.
o NCWRC stated that the Pratt and Whitney Project (aka Project Ranger, private
development)was developed in a dishonest way and that the reviewing resource
agencies involved in the Project Ranger permit review were led to believe that an
interchange with I-26 was not feasible.
■ NCDOT replied that the NCDOT has no control over the acts of a private
developer on privately owned property.
■ USACE added that if any agency has questions or concerns about the
honesty or transparency of another agency involved in the Merger
Process,those need to be submitted in writing.
o USACE asked SHPO what is needed for the viewshed analysis prior to CP 3.
SHPO pointed out NPS was on the call and can help facilitate a viewshed
analysis. SHPO stated that NPS should be asked what is needed for the viewshed
analysis and stated that development will be spurred (as a result of the proposed
project).
■ NCDOT responded that renderings were currently being developed
according to past experience with the NPS and would be submitted to
facilitate the discussion.
■ NCDOT also noted that the noise study would address potential noise
impacts to the BRP.
■ NCDOT will consult with NPS regarding the potential effects of HE-0001
to the BRP.
SHPO mentioned the tribes had expressed interest during consultation conducted for
Project Ranger and requested a status on NCDOT's tribal consultation.
o The Consultant responded the Division sent scoping materials and the NCDOT
Archaeology Survey Required Form to the tribes according to NCDOT tribal
consultation procedure. (Note that Consultation Letters were submitted 919121.) The
tribes have 30 days to respond. It was also noted that the USACE Public Notice
was issued 9/2/21,which is also sent to tribal governments.
Page 3 of 8

Gannett Fleming
- USFWS asked how the potential impacts included in the summary table were
determined.
o NCDOT responded they try to factor in all potential impacts, but the summary
table focuses on known potential impacts at this stage of the planning process.
Unknown impacts were not included.
o USFWS asked if acreage of tree clearing and Threatened and Endangered species
can be included moving forward in the merger process.
■ NCDOT responded they will be included in the potential impacts table
for the LEDPA meeting prior to CP 3.
■ USFWS stated they would be interested in any metrics that may relate to
the species of interest in the project area. As bats are a concern, tree
clearing is a metric of interest.
• Post-meeting Note: USFWS clarified that acreage of land clearing may
be another example most relevant to water quality effects to listed
mussels (or acreage of land clearing within x feet of a waterway, etc.). It
would be good to see these kinds of indicators, where they are relevant,
included in the impacts tables that are used to make LEDPA decisions
for this and other Merger projects.
- NCWRC asked if Potential Crossing #1 —DSA 1 is a potential stream impact if not for a
bridge.
o The Consultant replied that it would result in a potential stream impact if the
stream was not bridged.
- NCWRC stated usually we (the resource agencies) see the environmental documents
before CP 3 to help make a decision. NCWRC asked what the environmental document
is going to be for this project.
o The Consultant noted that the project is being processed as a Categorical
Exclusion(CE).
o NCWRC asked if the CE would be done and available for review prior to CP 3.
o The Consultant responded that that is not the schedule presented to date.
o NCWRC would like the project to move forward with an EIS and full Indirect
and Cumulative Effects(ICE) report.
o FHWA responded that the project will continue to be developed following the
Merger Process, and agencies will be provided the appropriate information, as
part of the Merger agreement, prior to the CP 3 meeting.
o Based on available information, FHWA stated the appropriate NEPA Class of
Action for the project is a Categorical Exclusion (CE), due to the lack of potential
for significant environmental effects associated with the project(HE-0001).
Page 4 of 8

Gannett Fleming
o FHWA stated that the ICE (Indirect and Cumulative Effects) process is an
iterative process. The transportation agencies are following their established
process and the results of each step of the process inform what step to take next.
o USEPA asked what criteria was used to determine a CE was appropriate and
why an Environmental Assessment (EA) is not being used given the concerns
raised through Merger.
■ FHWA responded that the question that is being asked when
determining the class of action is "significance". Is there potential that a
proposed project will result in significant environmental effects that
would warrant an EIS(Environmental Impact Statement)? If the answer is
yes, then an EIS will be developed;if the answer is we're not sure,then an
EA will be developed. For this project, based on available information, it
is not anticipated the effects of the project would warrant an EIS.
■ FHWA noted that a lot of the concerns stated by the agencies pertains to
potential future development on the parcel (Biltmore Farms). FHWA
clarified that HE-0001 is separate and independent from the private
development project underway, known as Project Ranger. Through
Project Ranger, a bridge over the French Broad River has been permitted
by the resource agencies and is under construction providing
transportation access to the privately owned parcel from NC 191.
HE-0001 is not creating access to the parcel. That access already exists.
HE-0001 is in response to the transportation needs associated with
current and future development.
• USEPA feels the potential impacts to endangered species are not being
addressed appropriately.
■ FHWA responded the project team is working to ensure compliance with
all applicable environmental laws and regulations and consulting with
the appropriate resource and regulatory agencies. The magnitude of
potential effects for each alternative is likely similar. More information
will be available prior to CP 3.
o SHPO would like additional information on the planned development in this
area and any associated planning and zoning for Asheville and Buncombe
County.
■ Post-meeting Note: The private developer has not submitted any development
plans to Buncombe County, the local planning and zoning jurisdiction. The
private developer provided NCDOT a potential land use concept in May 2021 for
traffic analyses purposes only. This concept included a potential land use density
Page 5 of 8

Gannett Fleming
scenario (e.g., number of housing units, square feet of retail/office) considered to
be a representative development scenario at that time. However, the private
developer made clear that these are concepts and subject to change. These density
figures have been provided to the Merger Team (see Table 3 in CP 1-2 Packet
[July 15, 20211).
■ Two (2) Buncombe County Zoning Districts intersect the project study area: (1)
Employment District (EMP) and (2) Residential District (R-3). Buncombe
County Zoning Districts are defined in the County's Code of Ordinances
(Chapter 78, Article VI, Division 4, Sec. 78-636)
(www.buncombecounty.org/common/planning/zoning-ordinance.pdtl.
o NCWRC stated Pratt and Whitney is not the only development of concern noting
that their concerns extend to the potential additional development to the area
because of the project.
■ FHWA responded indirect effects from HE-0001 will be considered, but
there is already access to these parcels from the private road connecting
to NC 191. Therefore, the project is not creating access but adding
additional access.
- USFWS stated that they have received a draft Biological Conclusion document from the
NCDOT Biological Surveys Group for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7
consultation and have submitted comments. USFWS went on to state the comments
submitted are intended to develop a fuller picture of the potential impacts to Threatened
and Endangered Species.
- USFWS followed up asking why the environmental document is a CE instead of an EA.
o FHWA responded that when it comes to class of action the question is whether
the project can result in significant effects to the environment. If there is potential
for a significant environmental impact, then an EIS would be appropriate. If
significant environmental impacts are possible, an EA would be appropriate.
However,based on the available information, significant adverse impacts are not
anticipated because of HE-0001; therefore, a CE is appropriate. If information
changes or new information becomes available, the level of environmental
document may be revisited.
- NCWRC asked if the project will limit development along the project through use of
control of access.
o NCDOT responded control of access will be closely coordinated with FHWA and
will be implemented on the interchange ramps. NCDOT does not anticipate the
entirety of the roadway being full control of access.
o NCWRC clarified that the rest of the property will be open to development.
Page 6 of 8

Gannett Fleming
■ The Consultant replied that access to the property already exists because
of the private road connection to NC 191.
o USFWS asked if the private road would extend through more of the property if
HE-0001 not to be developed.
■ The Consultant responded this may be a question of timing. At the time a
roadway extension becomes economically beneficial, then the private
developer would likely extend the road.
■ USFWS says the ICE and Land Use Scenario Assessment (LUSA) will
shed light on this issue when they are finished.
- FBRMPO asked why the typical includes a grass shoulder and not a paved shoulder.
o The Consultant clarified that the 8-foot shoulder includes 4 feet of pavement and
4 feet of grass.
- USACE surveyed the Merger Team for verbal concurrence on the CP 2 Update and CP
2A. The following agencies concurred at the meeting:
o FHWA
o USACE
o NCDOT
o EPA
o USFWS
o NCWRC
o NCDWR
o FBRMPO
- SHPO abstained from verbal concurrence because the agency representative left the
meeting early. They will review the meeting summary and determine whether SHPO
will sign or abstain.
- NPS asked what will be decided in CP 3.
o NCDOT responded that will be when the Merger Team can equate a NEPA
Preferred Alternative with the Section 404 Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative(LEDPA).
o USACE followed up, stating CP 3 is the point where one alternative is chosen as
the LEDPA and the other alternatives are discarded.
■ NPS stated concern that there will not be enough time to review a
viewshed analysis prior to CP 3.
• The Consultant is currently working with NCDOT to develop
materials (i.e., renderings, visualizations) and schedule a small
group meeting to discuss the Blue Ridge Parkway with SHPO and
NPS prior to CP 3.
Page 7 of 8

Gannett Fleming
- USACE asked if the auxiliary lanes associated with the two-lane roadway typical section
would be known at CP 3.
o The Consultant responded those will be developed later in the project's design.
Additional turn lanes in intersection approaches would not be expected to
increase potential impacts because those potential impacts have been reported
for slope stakes plus 40 feet. Turn lanes should fall within that area of potential
impact. Once a Preferred Alternative is decided on, then the design will progress,
and the intersection designs laid out.
- NCDWR stated there appears to be an opportunity to implement additional avoidance
and minimization measures relative to the main stream system on the west side of I-26,
specifically the location and alignment of the roadway connection in Alternative 3. Is
this something that will be discussed further in CP 3?
o The Consultant responded that avoidance and minimization will continue going
forward and agreed that there does appear to be additional opportunities to
avoid and minimize the referenced stream system in Alternative 3. However, we
do not anticipate that the roadway alignment will be updated prior to CP 3.
Additional avoidance and minimization will be applied to the selected
alternative..
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 CP2A Merger Meeting.
A recording of the meeting may be made available upon request.
Adam Archual
October 13,2021
Page 8 of 8

DocuSign Envelope ID:631ACADB-A5F7-49C3-B20A-AC23304E9DE7
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 2A
Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
Project Name/Description: 1-26, New Interchange (Future Exit 35), Buncombe County
STIP Project: HE-0001
Project Need:The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191
and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Project Purpose:The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west connectivity
within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
As agreed at the July 15, 2021, CP 1-2 Merger Meeting, NCDOT provided the Merger Team with a CP 2
Update.This update summarized the results of the Traffic Forecast for HE-0001 and NCDOT's decision to
proceed with a 2-lane with shoulder typical section proposed roadway, noting the anticipated need for
auxiliary lanes at proposed intersections to accommodate traffic operations.The CP 2 Update also
revisited potential impacts reported at CP 1-2 to include verified jurisdictional resources in place of the
GIS data sets.
The Project Team has concurred on this date, September 16,2021,that there are no proposed hydraulic
structures or major crossings requiring bridging decisions for STIP Project HE-0001. (However, NCDOT
would likely bridge stream "SDX" [1-4700 PJD] in Alternative 2 due to proximity of the stream to the 1-26
travel lanes.)
DocuSigned by:
FHWA (lead federal agency) Donald W Brew 10/13/2021
8NHB70991E42 ...�
USACE 10/13/2021
,bVl �,(,�CWI
DocuSigned by: BE7189E4BA384E3...
NCDOT �1oCza� Cola�* 10/14/2021
OC47CF5B950645 ,,. ocu igne y:
USEPA QM_. -lla 10/14/2021
ocu igne y 4A37089ED457408...
USFWS -- 4 % __ 10/19/2021
6B574C520CDE43 ... ocu igne y:
NCWRC y��� Cm 10/14/2021
DocuSigned by: B1D3DCA076AD4C9...
NCDWR F1+Xc 10/14/2021
DMCAD48D5664 ,,, ocu igne y:
SHPO (Abstaining) 10/26/2021
ocu igne y: C26A1556A275464...
FBRMPO 5nim, wt-11, 10/27/2021
E58F96DB10AB42E...
Page 13 of 13

GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue
Suite 900
FL EM I NG Raleigh,N 27603
P 919.420.7660 I F 919.999.3632
gannettfleming.com
Project: HE-0001, New Interchange with 1-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: CP 3 Merger Meeting Summary
Date: February 9, 2022, 2:00 pm
Location: Remote (Microsoft Teams Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Monte Matthews USACE [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Robert Patterson NCDWR [e-mail]
Donnie Brew FHWA [e-mail]
Seth Wilcher FHWA [e-mail]
Joe Geigle FHWA [e-mail]
Amanetta Somerville USEPA [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS [e-mail]
Renee Gledhill-Earley SHPO [e-mail]
Dave McHenry NCWRC [e-mail]
Travis Wilson NCWRC [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO [e-mail]
John Ridout FBRMPO [e-mail]
David Sheehan NPS [e-mail]
Andrew Triplett NPS [e-mail]
John Mintz OSA [e-mail]
Lindsay Ferrante OSA [e-mail]
Casey Kirby OSA [e-mail]
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Mark Gibbs NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Steve Cannon NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Karina Clough NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Nathan Moneyham NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
John Jamison NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Mike Sanderson NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Michael Turchy NCDOT-ECAP [e-mail]
Wes Cartner NCDOT [e-mail]

GANNETT
FLEMING
Cheryl Knepp NCDOT-BSG [e-mail]
Mary Pope Furr NCDOT-Historic Architecture [e-mail]
Matt Wilkerson NCDOT-Archaeology [e-mail]
Damon Jones NCDOT-Archaeology [e-mail]
Mark Staley NCDOT-REU [e-mail]
Brian Lipscomb NCDOT-Hydraulics [e-mail]
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Adam Archual Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
John Thomas Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Angel Pridgen Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Sierra Tamm Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Anne Gamber Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with 1-26 and roadway extension to
connect to a future state road (Frederick Law Olmsted Way East [FLOWE]). The project is located
approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe County. NCDOT Division 13 is managing the project
and anticipates federal funding.
The intent of this meeting was to reach agreement on Concurrence Point (CP) 3, the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative(LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative Selection.The CP 3 Merger Meeting Packet
was distributed two weeks prior to the meeting and can be found on the NCDOT file transfer site link). It
was noted that USFWS and NCDWR submitted questions via email prior to the meeting. (Note: Though not
mentioned in the meeting, NCWRC also submitted questions prior to the meeting. All agency emails are
attached to this summary.)The PowerPoint Presentation is attached to the meeting summary.The following
topics were discussed at this meeting:
- SHPO and OSA stated that the locational information for the archeology site included in the CP 3
Merger Meeting Packet is strictly confidential. It is being shared with the agencies only for the
purposes of the LEDPA discussion; it shall not be shared with the public.
o USACE recommended that the file be flagged by individual agencies within their respective
project files (e.g., append file name with "_not for FOIA"). This should notify any future
agency representative of the presence of sensitive information.
- NCDOT and FHWA recommended Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 3 as the Preferred Alternative.
- USFWS asked that the noise analysis update be explained.
o The Consultant replied that the noise analysis was conducted based on NCDOT and FHWA
policy and guidelines. The draft Traffic Noise Report (TNR) is currently in review. The TNR
addresses three noise sensitive resources, the Biltmore Farms Horse Trail, the Mountains-
to-Sea Trail, and the Bent Creek River Park (Buncombe County), because they support
frequent human outdoor uses (these are defined as Activity Category Q. The preliminary
analysis indicates that one "equivalent residence" (ER) would be impacted in each noise
study area (NSA). NCDOT Noise Policy requires that potential noise abatement measures,
e.g., a noise wall, be considered feasible if it would benefit (i.e., reduce the sound at) two
impacted ERs. The relatively low frequency of human use associated with these noise
sensitive resources is a contributing factor to these results. It was noted that the existing
12

GANNETT
FLEMING
sound levels associated with these resources near 1-26 are currently loud and that increases
could be partially attributed to organic traffic growth.
- FBRMPO asked how some of the safety concerns raised in public comments associated with a left
exit will be addressed, noting the terrain and the expected use of the exit by trucks.
o FHWA stated that responses to public comments are currently being reviewed and that
from their perspective they will be looking to NCDOT to meet or exceed minimum safety
and design standards.
o The Consultant noted that there are not too many left exits to draw comparisons to but
reiterated that all safety and design standards would have to be met or exceeded.Adequate
advance signing and good visibility are some elements that will be further evaluated and
implemented in the projects design.
■ NCDOT noted there are three left exits in proximity to this proposed project.
o FBRMPO wondered if left exits are not common because of safety concerns. FBRMPO went
to state that it will be important to convey how safety concerns are being addressed
through communications with the public.
• The Consultant agreed there are less opportunities where left exits would work
with the configuration of the interstate.
o FBRMPO asked about truck restrictions to the right lane on 1-26 and how those restrictions
will be factored into this project.
■ NCDOT responded that 1-26 is currently signed for truck restrictions to the right
lane as an uphill climbing lane.This will be further evaluated, and truck restrictions
updated should a left exit be selected as the LEDPA.
■ The Consultant remarked that truck restrictions may not be as critical following the
widening of 1-26 project (STIP 1-4400/1-4700).
• USACE asked how this project corresponds with the 1-4400/1-4700 project.
o The Consultant replied that the intent is to let this project for
construction while the 1-26 widening is under construction.
USFWS asked about the need for a sidewalk between Project Ranger and the interstate. While
Project Ranger created first access and access to the parcel,the road (FLOWE)currently"dead ends"
in the roundabout. This project (HE-0001) provides the first access to the forested area between
Project Ranger and 1-26. The Land Use Scenario Assessment (LUSA) does not entirely address
indirect and cumulative effects as defined in section 7.
o NCDOT responded that they are in discussion with the FBRMPO and Buncombe County to
decide on the future need of a sidewalk, noting the County has trail systems in place (i.e.,
greenways) and plans to expand these. NCDOT must consider these types of
accommodations (e.g., pedestrians) under their"Complete Streets Policy" link). Ultimately,
the local jurisdiction's need for a sidewalk will inform this decision. However, nothing has
been decided yet.
o SHPO indicated that this information makes them uncomfortable, referring to prior stated
concerns with the five-lane bridge (being constructed by Project Ranger). Now the Merger
Team is being told about sidewalks and complete streets. How does NCDOT intend to
preserve the integrity of setting of the Blue Ridge Parkway?
o Regarding the sidewalk, FHWA replied that the transportation agency's job is to provide
safe accommodation for all users, not just vehicles.
o Regarding USFWS remark about access and indirect effects, FHWA reminded the Merger
Team that this is a privately owned parcel that was previously landlocked and inaccessible
13

GANNETT
FLEMING
before Project Ranger. The local jurisdiction (Buncombe County) zoned this area for
development. The purpose of HE-0001 is to accommodate current and planned growth.
Buncombe County zoning and the establishment of access by Project Ranger point to
future development. Based on NCDOT's analyses, this project does not appear to change
future development patterns. There is nothing preventing the private developer from
continuing a road to the east and it is a misconception that that area east of Project Ranger
is not accessible.
■ USFWS agreed development will happen without this project, but still thinks
NCDOT is providing first access to the area between the current development and
1-26. Development in the "Blue Area" (see Probable Development Area [PDA] 2 in
Merger Packet, Exhibit S, page 18) would be considered an indirect effect under
section 7 for this project.
■ FHWA reiterated the position that these effects are attributable to Project Ranger
because the bridge and roadway"unlocked" the parcel.
o SHPO asked whether it is foreseeable that this project will eventually be widened, noting
that the inclusion of sidewalk would widen the footprint. Would this not make future
crossings of the Blue Ridge Parkway more attractive and in turn damage the integrity of
setting that makes the Blue Ridge Parkway significant? The inclusion of sidewalk (a
complete street design) in this project, in addition to the five-lane bridge over the French
Broad River (being constructed as part of Project Ranger), indicate the County's favorable
position for development of the area and an adverse outcome to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
■ FHWA agreed that the County is under development pressure but did not agree
on what is reasonably foreseeable. Based on the traffic forecast for this project,
future (2045) traffic volumes will be accommodated by a two-lane roadway
connecting to the roundabout currently under construction. FHWA cannot say the
widening of this roadway to four lanes is reasonably foreseeable. What is
reasonably foreseeable is that DOT is proposing to build a two-lane roadway and
is receptive to conversations about sidewalks rather than a shoulder section.
■ SHPO asked if NCDOT stated they would look favorably on complete street design?
• FHWA responded that complete street design would consider bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations in addition to the roadway.
• SHPO remarked that complete streets also include u-turns and service
roads, etc. The complete streets statement indicates there is already a
thought, or discussions with the County, to move to more access and a
larger footprint.
o NCDOT stated that the County approached the Department with
a request to consider sidewalks for a possible future greenway
connection in this area. As part of NCDOT's Complete Streets
Policy, bicycle and pedestrian facilities must be considered to
meet local community needs. NCDOT included the sidewalk in the
meeting packet for transparency and general knowledge that
these conversations are occurring. Nothing has been determined
to date, and a sidewalk may not be feasible.
o NCDOT also noted the intent to include 1,000 feet of control of
access (C/A) west of the interchange (i.e., sidewalk would not be
permitted here). Further, the private developer is including
14

GANNETT
FLEMING
sidewalk on FLOWE, east of this project between the bridge and
the roundabout.
o FBRMPO also participates in the Complete Streets Policy and
requests that bicycle and pedestrian,and transit, accommodations
be reviewed for almost every project. The region has a growing
number of pedestrian fatalities. FBRMPO is looking at a sidewalk
as a potential safety counter measure.
■ USFWS stated the sidewalk is new information and informs their stance that this
project creates additional access and has indirect effects under Section 7.
• The Consultant added that the Department is required to at least talk to
the local government about the addition of sidewalk. The addition of
sidewalks is typically paid for through a local match. It needs to be
evaluated because it is the most economical time to build a sidewalk. The
footprint of the project would essentially be the same and acknowledged
that complete streets had not been discussed in prior meetings.While the
paved shoulders were discussed as potential bicycle accommodations,
NCDOT had not discussed striping or otherwise specific bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations for this project.
• SHPO remarked that this must be included in future discussion of Section
106 effects. SHPO requested NCDOT and FHWA to invite the County to
the next meeting regarding Section 106 effects.
• FHWA reminded the Merger Team that the Buncombe County Zoning
Overlay provides some protections for the Blue Ridge Parkway and will
remain in place. The County will be invited to future Section 106 effects
meeting(s). The development that is coming is not being caused by the
project. The Merger Team agreed that the project need and purpose is to
accommodate current and planned growth.
- USACE confirmed that USFWS (under Section 7) and SHPO (under Section 106) are concerned with
the project's indirect effects.
o SHPO clarified their concerns also are about the current effects.There had been discussion
at the prior Effects Meeting that perhaps a no adverse effect with certain conditions on the
project was possible. However, perhaps those conditions cannot be put into place if in fact
the County is looking towards future development as a partner to NCDOT on those
developments. This will need far more discussion.
o USACE asked whether USFWS's and SHPO's concerns regarding indirect effects are best
addressed through Section 7 and Section 106 consultation, respectively, and if these
concerns will affect their ability to make a LEDPA decision.
■ USFWS agreed that indirect effect concerns are best addressed through Section 7
and that these concerns will not affect their LEDPA decision.
■ SHPO will abstain from LEDPA.
- NPS added their concerns about cumulative impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway as this is one of
eight NCDOT projects in the vicinity.The sheer volume of work NCDOT is conducting in the area is
something the NPS would like to further discuss in the Section 106 consultation process.
- The Consultant likened the Complete Streets Policy to handicap accessibility for a building permit
— it is something that must be considered. This is not to say a sidewalk will be built but just that
they need to follow the policy as part of the process.
� 5

GANNETT
FLEMING
- NCDWR expressed support for DSA 3 because DSAs 1 and 2 impact the upper reaches of the
streams and wetlands associated with Stream SA. Also, because DSA 3 includes the least acreage
of wetland impacts. (Post-meeting note: In follow-up conversation, NCDWR identified potential
impacts to Wetland IDs WD and WF, specifically, by DSAs 1 and 2.) However, NCDWR does have
concerns with DSA 3's proximity to Stream SA and asked NCDOT to address whether the roadway
could be shifted away from that stream. Additionally, NCDWR asked generally about stormwater
measures and whether there would be room for BMPs with the alignment that close to Stream SA.
o The Consultant stated that it does appear to be possible to shift the roadway away from
Stream SA, which would provide additional room for stormwater BMPs.
o NCDOT agreed there could be adjustments to the roadway alignment to minimize impacts
moving forward. NCDOT stated that hydraulic design has not yet been completed.
o USFWS seconded NCDWR's comments regarding stormwater, noting they provided some
comments prior to the meeting on the subject. USFWS has concerns about stormwater
runoff impacting Stream SA and outletting sediment into the French Broad River. USFWS
requested that as many stormwater control measures (SCMs) as can be designed. The
primary concern is control of peak flow.
■ From a process and policy standpoint, NCDOT will analyze the receiving water with
the project included and return a recommendation(s) based on the NC-SELDM
Catalog tool,developed by USGS,which leverages the Stochastic Empirical Loading
and Dilution Model (SELDM), a water quality mixing model. Additionally, any
projects designed for NCDOT follow the hydraulic guidelines including compliance
with the "Stormwater Outlet Protection" rule (15A NCAC 04B .0109), a post-
construction stormwater erosion policy rule to evaluate stormwater discharge
velocities to guard against accelerated erosion in the receiving stormwater
conveyance. These methods will evaluate erosion of the stream and water quality
concerns.
- NCDOT relayed a question from NCWRC regarding consideration of increasing design standard
from 10 year to 25-year storm.
o In response, NCDOT clarified that post-construction stormwater controls for treatment are
not designed to 10-year or 25-year storms but are designed to capture and treat the 8011
to 90t" percentile storm. In Asheville that is 0.83-inch to 1.28-inch storms, per Table 2-2 of
the NCDOT Stormwater BMP Toolbox, Version 2, April 2014. Conveyance systems are
typically designed for the 10-year storm.These are specifically post-construction controls.
o The Consultant added that the erosion control will likely be designed to a 25-year storm,
noting the proximity to a stream would have a bearing on that.
o NCDOT will address these more thoroughly at following Merger Meetings as design
progresses.
o NCDOT added that sections of the 1-26 Widening Project close to the French Broad River
are designed for 25-year storms.
o NCWRC stated their biggest concern will be with stormwater management regardless of
the alternative selected.
o The Consultant noted that stormwater measures are being evaluated for both stream
systems, Stream SA and SDX, which are going to the French Broad River. DSAs 1 and 2 are
in the center of the bifurcated section and are more impactful to Stream SDX. DSA 3 is less
impactful to Stream SDX because it is located at the northern end of the bifurcated section,
which eases the stormwater impacts to Stream SDX.
16

GANNETT
FLEMING
- USACE stated that DSA 3 is NCDOT's Preferred Alternative and asked each agency whether they
concur with DSA 3 as the LEDPA:
o FHWA concurred
o USACE concurred
o USEPA concurred
o USFWS concurred
o NCWRC concurred
o NCDWR concurred
o SHPO abstained
o FBRMPO concurred but indicated a desire for additional conversations regarding safety
interventions.
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 CP 3 Merger Meeting.The meeting
recording may be made available upon request.
Adam Archual
March 4, 2022
17

From: Mitchell, Robert K
To: Archual,Adam J.; Coates, McCrav
Cc: Donnie Brew(Donnie.Brew(a)dot.gov); Beckwith,Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW(USA);Jamison,John;
Patterson, Robert D
Subject: FW:Stormwater HE-0001
Date: Friday,February 4,2022 12:55:07 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Adam and McCray,
Sorry for the multiple emails and if I left some folks off the first correspondence. I have a few other
questions including the question in my previous email which I have included below:
1. Regarding stormwater in paragraph 3 page 7 of 24 in the packet, you discuss the curb and
gutter section and utilizing stormwater treatment devices such as basins and swales. DWR
has concerns about the proximity of alternative 3 to Stream SA. How will stormwater be
treated in this section that is closest to Stream SA? It would be helpful to discuss this during
LEDPA.
2. We have also discussed the potential to shift the your preferred alternative 3 further upslope
away from Stream SA. I think it would be helpful to touch on this during the meeting. Can the
alignment be moved further upslope away from Stream SA? If not—provide justification.
3. My question from my previous email was regarding the paragraph on page 8 of 24 which
read, "Based on a preliminary drainage review, construction and maintenance of stormwater
BMPs in the bifurcated section (associated with Stream ID SDX) would be more difficult to
implement when compared to Stormwater BMPs associated with Stream ID SA. NCDOT-
Division 13 staff are working under similar constraints to construct stormwater BMPs for STIP
1-4400/1-4700 and have found the terrain and median constraints to be difficult. Stormwater
BMPs upgradient of Stream ID SA would be easier to install and maintain and could
additionally benefit from grass swales rather than basins solely." Wouldn't all three
alternatives still be affected by this issue?
4. The first paragraph on page 10 of 24 states, "NCDOT believes that stormwater BMPs will be
more effective in association with Stream ID SA." Can you elaborate on that as well. Is that
referring to Alternative 3? If so, please explain.
Thanks for your help and feel free to reach out to me if you need any clarification.
Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality

828-296-4650 Office
828-231-1580 Mobile
Email Kevin.mitchell(cDncdenr.gov
NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
From: Mitchell, Robert K
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Archual, Adam J. <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jamison,
John <[e-mail]>; Patterson, Robert D <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stormwater HE-0001
Adam,
Hope you are well. I was a little confused about the paragraph on page 8 of 24 of the CP3 packet.
Wouldn't all three alternatives still be affected by this issue? See below:
Based on a preliminary drainage review, construction and maintenance of Stormwater BMPs in the
bifurcated section (associated with Stream ID SDX) would be more difficult to implement when
compared
to stormwater BMPs associated with Stream ID SA. NCDOT-Division 13 staff are working under
similar
constraints to construct stormwater BMPs for STIP 1-4400/1-4700 and have found the terrain and
median
constraints to be difficult. Stormwater BMPs upgradient of Stream ID SA would be easier to install
and
maintain and could additionally benefit from grass swales rather than basins solely.
Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality
828-296-4650 Office
828-231-1580 Mobile
Email Kevin.mitchell(@ncdenr.gov

NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778

Archual, Adam J.
To: Jamison, John; Cox, Marissa R
Subject: RE: [External] HE-0001 CP3 Merger Packet Comments
From: Wilson, Lauren B<lauren [e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 2:37 PM
To: Coates, McCray<[e-mail]>;Jamison,John <][e-mail]>; Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Knepp, Cheryl L<[e-mail]>; Mizzi,Janet<]anet [e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Mitchell, Robert K<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] HE-0001 CP3 Merger Packet Comments
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi All - I'm writing to provide feedback on HE-0001 prior to the CP3 Merger Meeting next week. I've reviewed the CP3
Merger Packet. I talked to Lori about how to structure my comments and whom to send them too. She recommended
including the MOU signatories and DOT BSG POCs. Please give me a call if you'd like to discuss any of this prior to the
meeting. I've already talked with Cheryl and John.
The following are items that will aid in my ability to concur on the LEDPA decision at our CP3 meeting next week:
1. Pg 7 of the Merger Packet,Section Design Evaluation & Refinement Prior to CP3 states: "Through coordination
with FBRMPO and Buncombe County, NCDOT is currently evaluating the inclusion of a sidewalk on the proposed
roadway which would require a curb and gutter section opposed to the current shoulder section. This decision has
not been made yet but would be finalized prior to CP 4A. A curb and gutter section would require conveyance of
stormwater in a closed drainage system. Based on preliminary drainage review, stormwater treatment devices
would likely include a combination of stormwater basins and swales consistent with Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds (DSSW)."And Pg 8 DSA Impact Comparison states: "Based on a preliminary drainage review,
construction and maintenance of stormwater BMPs in the bifurcated section (associated with Stream ID SDX)
would be more difficult to implement when compared to stormwater BMPs associated with Stream ID SA. NCDOT-
Division 13 staff are working under similar constraints to construct stormwater BMPs for STIP 1-440011-4700 and
have found the terrain and median constraints to be difficult. Stormwater BMPs upgradient of Stream ID SA would
be easier to install and maintain and could additionally benefit from grass swales rather than basins solely. "
a. We support the DSA that would provide the most opportunity and commitment towards construction of
infiltration/bioretention basins/similar SCM to reduce stormwater peak flows to tributaries SA and SDX.
Our concern is that increases in stormwater peak flows, caused by increases in impervious surfaces, will
erode the tributaries, sending large amounts of sediment into the FBR, impacting app elktoe
habitat. Below I suggest some ways this information might be integrated into the CP3 Package.
2. Pg 7 & 10 LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection: "DSA 3 would introduce the least amount of impervious surface
within the French Broad River" .."DSA 3 would construct the least amount of impervious surface within the FBR
watershed"
a. Can we add the amount of impervious surface for each alternative to Table 2 for each
DSA? Contextualizing this to the SA/SDX/Other watershed would also be helpful. Consider including paved
roadway and compacted shoulders/lawns that have reduced infiltration abilities vs current conditions
(forest).
i

3. Pg 8 DSA Impact Comparison: "Based on a preliminary drainage review, construction and maintenance of
stormwater BMPs in the bifurcated section (associated with Stream ID SDX) would be more difficult to implement
when compared to stormwater BMPs associated with Stream ID SA. NCDOT-Division 13 staff are working under
similar constraints to construct stormwater BMPs for STIP 1-440011-4700 and have found the terrain and
median constraints to be difficult. Stormwater BMPs upgradient of Stream ID SA would be easier to install
and maintain and could additionally benefit from grass swales rather than basins solely." Pg 10 Section LEDPA
states: "Though DSA 3 has the highest potential impacts to Stream ID SA (approx. 700 ft), it has the lowest overall
impacts to potential jurisdictional aquatic resources(approx. 1,500 ft. of streams and 0.1 ac of wetlands). For this
reason, NCDOT and FHWA support DSA 3 as the LEDPA and least impactful to the aquatic environment.
Further, NCDOT believes that stormwater BMPs will be more effective in association with Stream ID SA."
a. Is there some quantifiable way to include this comparison in Table 2?
4. Pg 15 Section 7 Consultation (ESA): "FWS provided a draft response to NCDOT's request for concurrence on
November 18, 2021."
a. Our response was not a draft. It was a contingent concurrence letter-that is, an informal concurrence
letter that required additional CMs for gray bat. We are now negotiating these additional CMs with
NCDOT and we will send NCDOT a revised concurrence letter when our discussions are complete.
The following are items that are not needed to support our LEDPA concurrence at the CP3 Meeting next week but
warrant consideration:
1. Same sections as above
a. How much of the Stream ID SA watershed is going to be converted to impervious surface?We estimated
about 10%.A 10-20%increase in impervious surface may cause some channel alteration and channel
alteration would cause effects (increase sediment load)to mussel habitat in the FBR. Can your
hydrologist model this?
b. We do not have concerns with a curb and gutter system vs current shoulder section if the stormwater in
the closed drainage system travels to an infiltration/bioretention basin or similar SCM that would reduce
peak storm flows to Stream SA.
c. The section 7 informal concurrence letter lists the conservation measures (CM)that DOT has
incorporated into the project-do the stormwater mgmt CMs that DOT has so far proposed address the
above concerns?We can ask this question under our Section 7 process.
d. Our aquatics recovery lead has an interest in putting in some monitoring stations on SA to monitor the
long-term impacts in this system. It represents a great opportunity to understand, on a small scale, what
is happening at a larger scale across the species range.
5. Page 11 Table 3 DSA 3-Y-Line AMM "Shifted the roadway alignment to the southeast to minimize potential
impacts to Stream ID SA."
a. Can you explain why DSA 3 has to run so close to wetland/stream ID SA? I see that you have
already shifted it away from SA but why not further?Topography?
6. Pg 7 of the Merger Packet,section Design Evaluation & Refinement Prior to CP3 states: "Through coordination
with FBRMPO and Buncombe County, NCDOT is currently evaluating the inclusion of a sidewalk on the proposed
roadway which would require a curb and gutter section opposed to the current shoulder section." Pg. 12 of the
Merger Packet Section Indirect and Cumulative Analysis states: "Existing conditions include the ongoing
development permitted by Project Ranger, specifically the transportation infrastructure(i.e., French Broad River
bridge and Frederick Law Olmsted Way East roadway)and the P&WAdvanced Manufacturing Facility currently
under construction and expected to be complete in 2022. This project(HE-0001) would provide additional access—
2

it will not provide the only access, or the first access—within the FL USA, therefore supporting current and planned
development of the area."And Pg 13 Indirect and Cumulative Discussion states: "If the proposed project(HE-0001)
is not constructed, development within the FLUSH is anticipated to proceed as planned and zoned anyway."
a. I am making the following comment to ensure it is part of the administrative record. I believe NCDOT and
FHWA have made it clear that they do not believe development to be an indirect effect/cumulative effect
of HE-0001.Therefore, I do not need a specific response unless NCDOT/FHWA would like to revise their
previous position or supplement the admin record.
b. The project is now considering a sidewalk between a manufacturing facility and the freeway. I understand
that the MPO has requested this as part of their greenway planning efforts. Inclusion or consideration of
a pedestrian/bike path is an indication that future development is reasonably certain to occur here as is
county zoning that supports development here.The purpose of HE-0001 is to support future and planned
development. It still appears to the Service that development, caused by the new road, is an important
consideration for this project. While it is true that the Project Ranger road provided the first direct access
to the PDA 2 parcel,the Project Ranger road only provides access up to and including the footprint of the
P&W facility; its a dead end street. About half of PSA 2 (in blue Figure 5) is not accessible because there is
no road. DOT is proposing to build a new road to provide the first access to the blue part of PDA
2. Access creates the opportunity for development,therefore development here is caused by DOTS new
road. While the LUSA may be correct that the Build and No Build scenarios are the same, what matters
here is that DOT's HE-0001 road is creating the access for that future development in the blue section.
Just because the road would be built by a private entity if DOT did not build HE-0001, does not mean
development is not an indirect or cumulative effect of HE-0001.This project is creating access to a
previously undeveloped parcel.That access is reasonably certain to result in development and that
development can't occur without a road.The Service is charged with analyzing the environmental impact
of this project under Section 7 thus we have provided these comments to our Section 7 points of contact
for consideration under ESA Section 7a2.
Lauren B.Wilson
Wildlife Biologist and Range Ecologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street,Asheville, North Carolina 28801
lauren [e-mail]
o: 828.258.3939 A2221,c:828.275.8525
(she/her) (Why pronouns matter)
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3

From: McHenry, David G
To: Coates,McCrav
Cc: Mitchell,Robert K;Jamison,John; Beckwith.Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW(USA);Wilson.Lauren B;
Donnie.Brew(@dot.aov;Archual,Adam J.
Subject: HE-0001 meeting WRC follow-up
Date: Tuesday,February 8,2022 11:34:51 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
Good to speak with you on the phone earlier McCray.
As mentioned, I've recently picked up this project for WRC and have gotten familiar with it from
various conversations. Some questions have been raised in advance of CP3 and I wanted to ask
consideration of a couple related ones tomorrow, as possible. In recognition of limitations regarding
designs at this stage, my questions are:
1) would post-construction stormwater controls for any alternative meet 25-year design
frequency (versus 10 from design guidelines)?, and
2) would there be possibility of minor alignment tweaks, (e.g. upper end of alt. 3 where
there is encroachment in the ESA of the mainstem stream SA?
I recognize that the second question may be contingent on having more design, and of course the
alignment is liberally shown with 25 feet added to slope stakes, but nonetheless something that
could have later bearing on stormwater considerations.
Looking forward to the meeting tomorrow.
Thanks
Dave McHenry
NCWRC Western DOT Coordinator
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

DocuSign Envelope ID:2696BDF8-FD9A-4AE1-8F23-D7B435904BEA
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 3
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative(LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative Selection
Project Name/Description: 1-26, New Interchange (Future Exit 35), Buncombe County
STIP Project: HE-0001
Project Need:The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191
and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Project Purpose:The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west connectivity
within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
The Merger Project Team has concurred on this date, February 9, 2022, that the checked alternative is
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for STIP Project HE-0001.
• left exit/entrance ramp
DSA 1 • Diamond configuration
• center of the 1-26 bifurcated section
• right-exit/entrance ramp
DSA 2 • Diverging diamond (DDI) configuration
• center of the 1-26 bifurcated section
• left exit/entrance ramp
X DSA 3 • Diamond configuration
• North end of the 1-26 bifurcated section
ocu igne y:
FHWA(lead federal agency) V60CUa't, 6 2/24/2022
ocu igne B96E8B70991E42C...
USACE 1I 2/24/2022
5�,bin bt,(,�CW&
BE7189MA DocuSigned by:
NCDOT 2/24/2022
ocu Igoe
USEPA : OC47CFse950645D. 2/24/2022
w Q4alntto' Sbma\A llt,
F
4A37089ED4 008..,ocu igne y:
USFWS i, Q, tWASO, 2/24/2022
DocuSigned 6B574C520CDE43C...
NCWRC 2/24/2022
Aft,
D96C6000F37Z-4'-
cuKu"igned by:
NCDWR Ku" 2/24/2022
DocuSigned y:
SHPO (abstained) D9ACAD48D566453.. 2/23/2022
Pe�nxz �JQ,ed�►�i,Q,�-
C26A1556A2 .DocuSigned by:
FBRMPO wllA� 2/23/2022
71'ViSfAAA,
EWWDP OAABB42E...
Page 24 of 24

GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue
Suite 900
FL EM I NG Raleigh,N 27603
P 919.420.7660 I F 919.999.3632
gannettfleming.com
Project: HE-0001, New Interchange with 1-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: CP 4A Merger Meeting Summary
Date: July 20, 2022, 2:00 pm
Location: Remote (Microsoft Teams Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Donnie Brew FHWA [e-mail]
Amanetta Somerville USEPA [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS [e-mail]
Renee Gledhill-Earley NC HPO [e-mail]
Dave McHenry NCWRC [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO [e-mail]
John Ridout FBRMPO [e-mail]
Dawn Leonard NPS [e-mail]
David Sheehan NPS [e-mail]
Andrew Triplett NPS [e-mail]
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Tim Anderson NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Nathan Moneyham NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Mark Gibbs NCDOT-Western Deputy Chief Engineer [e-mail]
John Jamison NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Mike Sanderson NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Marissa Cox NCDOT-BSG [e-mail]
Mark Staley NCDOT-REU [e-mail]
Jennifer Parish NCDOT-REU [e-mail]
Brian Lipscomb NCDOT-Hydraulics [e-mail]
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Adam Archual Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
John Thomas Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Leah Starnes Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Anne Gamber Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Hannah Arey Gannett Fleming [e-mail]

GANNETT
FLEMING
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with 1-26 and roadway extension to
connect to a future state road (Frederick Law Olmsted Way East [FLOWE]). The project is located
approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe County. NCDOT Division 13 is managing the project
and anticipates federal funding.
The intent of this meeting was to reach agreement on Concurrence Point (CP) 4A, Avoidance and
Minimization.The CP 4A Merger Meeting Packet was distributed on June 1, 2022 two weeks prior to a June
15, 2022 meeting (link). However, due to schedule conflicts and prior commitments, the CP 4A Merger
Meeting was rescheduled to July 20, 2022. It was noted that a couple agencies submitted questions via
email prior to the meeting.The PowerPoint Presentation is attached to this meeting summary.The following
topics were discussed at this meeting:
- NCWRC asked whether the BMPs included in the right column of Table 2 of the packet (slide 14)
are synonymous with NCDOT's stormwater management goals;what are the treatment goals?
o The Consultant replied that NC-SELDM Catalog was used to identify treatment
recommendations. The goal would be to treat everything as well as we can for sediment
and velocity. At three sites the NC-SELDM Catalog returned a "BMP Toolbox"
recommendation. The Consultant preliminarily evaluated appropriate stormwater
treatment devices at these locations, noting the treatment goals and the challenges the
existing topography pose. The NC-SELDM Catalog recommendation for five sites is use of
'minimum measures' and the remaining one site indicated that a direct discharge would
not likely affect water quality. However, it is NCDOT policy to use minimum measures to
the maximum extent practicable.
o NCWRC asked for clarity on what the Merger Team is agreeing to for the purposes of CP
4A and whether the preliminary stormwater management plan was being approved by the
agencies today.
■ NCDOT-EPU stated there is no intent or need to nail down what these devices may
be today. The intent is to give the agencies a preview of what NCDOT is
considering, ensuring the stormwater management plan generally meets agency
expectations, and to collect any feedback or recommendations from the agencies
on BMPs.
■ NCDOT-Hydraulics stated the purpose of the Preliminary Stormwater Management
Plan (pSMP) is not to decide on a specific device type at a given location but to set
a goal,or an expectation,for each project section and answer the question whether
a BMP from the NCDOT Stormwater BMP Toolbox will be needed at a given
location or whether minimum measures (e.g., vegetated swale) will be sufficient.
Specific device types will have to be teased out through the design process and
determined with input about what the pollutant of concern is at a given location
and what the site-specific constraints will allow.
■ USACE stated that these will be reviewed in greater detail at CP 413 and CP 4C.
• NCDOT replied that specific device types at specific location will be
reviewed at CP 4B and CP 4C.
- NC HPO stated that the sidewalk included on slide 13 had not been previously presented to NC
HPO or NPS through Section 106 consultation.
12

GANNETT
FLEMING
o Post-meeting note: Through follow-up email exchange on July 20, 2022, NC HPO verified
that the sidewalk had been presented in Section 706 consultation and no additional action
relative to the sidewalk and Section 706 was required.
o FBRMPO asked why the sidewalk ends 1,000 feet before the interchange.
■ NCDOT stated that the control of access (C/A) extends 1,000 feet from the
interchange. Since there is no access to the east side of 1-26 (Biltmore Estate) as
part of this project, NCDOT will not encourage pedestrians to approach the
interstate.
- USFWS asked for a brief description of how NC SELDM generates the BMP recommendations.
o NCDOT-Hydraulics replied that the SELDM Model is the Stochastic Empirical Loading and
Dilution Model (SELDM) developed by USGS. NC-SELDM Catalog used the SELDM and
included NC transportation stormwater research data in their database, or catalog. NCDOT
entered receiving water data,which came from USGS Stream Stats Application,and project-
specific data (e.g., impervious drainage area, slope,etc.).The dilution model takes the flows
and quantities and concentrations of roadway and mixes with the in-stream water data and
gives a result if there is (or is not) a risk to water quality based off percent change to in-
stream pollutant concentrations. USGS pre-ran over 75,000 project/receiving waterbody
scenarios through the SELDM model to generate the NC-SELDM Catalog. The project-
specific model references those previous 75,000+ model runs and reports back a
stormwater treatment recommendation, including a direct discharge, minimal measures
(e.g., vegetative conveyance), or that a higher-level toolbox BMP designed specifically for
treatment is needed.
o USFWS asked that, in consideration of the model inputs (e.g., drainage area, new
impervious surface, slope, stream characteristics, etc.), if SELDM determines the project
would result in more water than the stream can handle, NCDOT receives a higher-level
recommendation.
■ NCDOT-Hydraulics responded that this is correct. SELDM identified those locations
where some level of toolbox BMPs or minimum measures are recommended. It is
NCDOT policy to maximize minimum measures to the extent practicable. However,
if during design there are site-specific constraints that prevent treatment, SELDM
recommendations may be referenced to illustrate whether there would be a risk to
water quality.
■ Post-meeting note: SELDM looks at in-stream pollutant concentration which
considers the drainage area, percent impervious, slopes, water volumes, ecoregion,
and typical pollutant concentrations. The change in the in-stream pollutant
concentration determines the level of treatment recommended in the NC-SELDM
Catalog. To clarify the discussion in the meeting, neither SELDM, nor the NC-SELDM
Catalog, is reporting the ability for a stream to handle more quantity of water. A
designer should be following the NCDOT Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design for pre/post analysis that looks at quantity, velocities, etc. SELDM
and the NC-SELDM Catalog are strictly a water quality tool, they are not for water
quantity.
■ USFWS asked whether there would be impacts to the streams at locations where a
toolbox BMP is recommended if NCDOT determines during design that a
treatment device is not practicable?
• NCDOT-Hydraulics replied that if a toolbox BMP is recommended in the
pSMP the designer would have to document why it is not practicable in
13

GANNETT
FLEMING
the final SMP and what was done to meet NCDOT's maximum extent
practicable policy.
- Post-meeting note: For more information about NCDOT's Stormwater Program, please visit the
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit, Highway Stormwater Program Connect site:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/Pages/Highway-Stormwater-Pro_rg am.asi2 You will find
links to the new Post-Construction Stormwater Program Manual (PCSP) (2022), the current BMP
Toolbox Manual (2074), the excel version of the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan
(pSMP)/Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), and the NC-SELDM Catalog.
- USACE asked each agency whether they concur with CP 4A Avoidance and Minimization:
o FHWA concurred
o USACE concurred
o NCDOT concurred
o USEPA concurred
o USFWS concurred
o NCWRC concurred
o NCDWR concurred
o NC HPO concurred
o FBRMPO concurred
- The Consultant asked the Merger Team whether there were any concerns regarding the potential
need for minimal tree clearing associated with geotechnical field investigations,scheduled to begin
in the coming weeks.The geotechnical boring plan is to begin on the -y- line (i.e., connector road)
and move into the bifurcated section.
o USFWS asked for clarity regarding the tree clearing.
■ NCDOT-EPU noted geotechnical field investigations are focused on drilling holes,
not clearing trees, and will work around trees to the greatest extent practical.
However, sometimes a tree needs to be cut here-or-there to access borings.
Essentially this is considered "survey activities" and NCDOT operates under the
USACE Nationwide Permit for survey activities, if there are any associated stream
or wetland impacts.
■ USFWS referenced the March 2022 consultation letter and the conservation
measure for winter tree clearing and asked whether that needed to be updated.
• NCDOT-BSG suggested that a follow-up discussion be had to determine
whether an updated letter is necessary.
• The Consultant confirmed that borings will be staked in the field the week
after next (i.e., August 1) and that borings would take place immediately
after that. The drill rigs used for this work are relatively small and
maneuverable and the work crews are generally avoiding trees.
• Post-meeting note: FWS followed up with NCDOT-BSG and discussed this
topic. FWS sent NCDOT a revised section 7 concurrence letter on July 22,
2022, which now includes some limited tree clearing associated with
geotechnical field investigations.
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 CP 4A Merger Meeting. The
meeting recording may be made available upon request.
Adam Archual
August 12, 2022
14

DocuSign Envelope ID:OC82185E-6AC7-42FC-BC4E-B2E9AAD06E6B
Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 4A
Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name/Description: 1-26, New Interchange (Future Exit 35), Buncombe County
STIP Project: HE-0001
Project Need:The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC 191
and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Project Purpose:The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west connectivity
within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
The Merger Team has concurred on this date, July 20, 2022, with the following Avoidance and
Minimization Measures for STIP Project HE-0001.
Specific avoidance and minimization measures included in the design:
Location Avoidance and Minimization Measure
Implemented in Preliminary Design Development
Project Study Area Reduce PSA to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the FBR floodplain and known
potential jurisdictional resources.
Two-lane roadway typical section (opposed to 4-lane divided typical section) to
Two-lane-Y-Line accommodate future traffic volumes, noting auxiliary lanes will likely be required at
Typical Section intersection approaches.This will minimize impacts at proposed stream crossings and
reduce tree clearing requirements.
Shift the roadway alignment to the southeast to minimize potential impacts to Stream
SA.
Following CP 3, NCDOT shifted-y-line alignment to:
-Y-Line Alignment • improve Stream SA crossing skew, reducing potential impacts by approx. 100
ft,
• avoid 0.03 ac impact to Wetland WD, and
• avoid 0.01 ac impact to Wetland WH.
Prior to CP 3, incorporate approx. 1,400 feet of retaining walls to avoid and minimize
Ramp-C-and Ramp-D- approx. 1,100 feet of potential impacts to Stream SDX and approx.<0.1 ac of wetlands
Retaining Walls in the 1-26 bifurcated section.
Following CP 3, retaining walls were refined in conjunction with the DDI design and
Ramp-C-Alignment shift(described below) in the same general locations.
Following CP 3,shift ramp alignment between<1 ft to about 18 ft to the east to:
• improve constructability of the proposed retaining walls,
• avoid approx. 120 ft of impacts to Stream SDY and Stream SDZ,
Ramp-C Alignment . avoid approx.<0.1 ac impacts to Wetland WCR,
• minimize impact to Stream SDX by approx. 175 ft,and
• minimize impacts to Wetland IDs WCS and WCN by approx.<0.1 ac.
Reviewed in Preliminary Design Development, Not Implemented
NCDOT reviewed a revised Ramp-C-alignment because of challenges associated with
bridging Stream SDX(discussed at CP 2A).An approx.325-ft bridge was reviewed in the
Ramp-C-Alignment 1-26 bifurcated section to avoid and minimize potential impacts to Stream SDX and
Wetland WCN. The bridge clearance was 6 feet and would not provide the
environmental benefit for the wetland feature.
Page 1 of 2

DocuSign Envelope ID:OC82185E-6AC7-42FC-BC4E-B2E9AAD06E6B
The following commitments have been determined or are being developed and will be discussed again
at the CP 4B and CP 4C meetings:
• Through section 7 informal consultation with USFWS, NCDOT has committed to several
conservation measures(see attached USFWS Informal Consultation letter dated March 16, 2022).
• Final designs are not yet available and stormwater design plans continue to be developed.
Therefore, specific avoidance and minimization measures associated with these developing
design plans will be addressed in CP 4B and 4C. NCDOT has committed to implementing Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (DSSW) to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands.
Further, a combination of DSSW (15A NCAC 04B .0124), Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and the
NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Construction General Permit (NCGO1) terms and
conditions that allow for stormwater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) apply and NCDOT will default to the most restrictive SEC measure
requirements.
• NCDOT and FHWA continue to refine measures to minimize harm to the Blue Ridge Parkway
through the Section 106 consultation process.These preliminary measures to minimize harm will
be finalized through the Section 106 process.
The following avoidance and minimization measures were discussed at CP 4A and will be implemented
or further evaluated, as appropriate.
Location AAM Measure
N/A No additional AAM measures discussed at CP 4A Merger Meeting
DocuSigned by:
FHWA(lead federal agency) �a G Bs~ 712112022
896HB70991E42C_ DocuSigned by:
USACE 7/21/2022
F;"e�
uSigned by:
NCDOT BE7189EQA384E3. 712112022
eola�w
OC47CF5B950645D.. DocuSigned by:
USEPA 7/21/2022
DocuSigned by: 4A37089ED457408...
USFWS L�4,A, 8 kJdA.' 7/21/2022
6B574C520CDE43C.. DocuSigned by:
NCWRC dim, kthjAj� 712112022
DocuSigned by:
N C D W R D96C6000F3C647B... 712112022
D9ACAD48D566453., DocuSigned by:
SHPO 7/27/2022
F�nsfw'
ocuSigned by: C26A1556A275464...
FBRMPO wt-Ktttr 7/28/2022
E58F96DB10AB42E...
Page 2 of 2

GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue
Suite 900
FL EM I NG Raleigh, NC 27603
P 919.420.7660 1 F 919.999.3632
gannettfleming.com
Project: HE-0001, New Interchange with 1-26
Project No.: 064926.050
Subject: CP 4B Merger Meeting Summary
Date: August 17, 2022, 1:00 pm
Location: Remote (GoTo Meeting)
Attendees:
Name Representing Email
Lori Beckwith USACE [e-mail]
Kevin Mitchell NCDWR [e-mail]
Seth Wilcher FHWA [e-mail]
Lauren Wilson USFWS [e-mail]
Renee Gledhill-Earley NC HPO [e-mail]
Dylan Clark NCDCR [e-mail]
Dave McHenry NCWRC [e-mail]
Tristan Winkler FBRMPO [e-mail]
Dawn Leonard NPS [e-mail]
David Sheehan NPS [e-mail]
Andrew Triplett NPS [e-mail]
Mark Gibbs NCDOT-Western Deputy Chief Engineer [e-mail]
McCray Coates NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Brendan Merithew NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Roger Bryan NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Yates Allen NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Karina Clough NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Nathan Moneyham NCDOT-Division 13 [e-mail]
Mike Sanderson NCDOT-EPU [e-mail]
Michael Turchy NCDOT-ECAP [e-mail]
Jennifer Parish NCDOT-REU [e-mail]
Brian Lipscomb NCDOT-Hydraulics [e-mail]
Andrew Nottingham MI Engineering [e-mail]
Rick Tipton Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
John Thomas Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Leah Starnes Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Anne Gamber Gannett Fleming [e-mail]
Hannah Arey Gannett Fleming [e-mail]

GANNETT
FLEMING
This project proposes to construct a new interchange (future Exit 35) with 1-26 and roadway extension to
connect to a future state road (East Frederick Law Olmsted Way [EFLOW]). The project is located
approximately 6 miles south of Asheville in Buncombe County. NCDOT Division 13 is managing the project
and anticipates federal funding.
The intent of this meeting was to discuss with agencies the preliminary drainage design of the project and
address any questions or concerns of the stormwater and erosion control plans.The CP 4B Hydraulic Plans
displaying the drainage concept for HE-0001 was distributed on August 3, 2022 two weeks prior to the
August 17, 2022 meeting (link). NCDOT received questions from USFWS and NCWRC prior to the 413
Meeting regarding NCDOT stormwater analysis and design procedure and protocol. NCDOT replied to
these questions on August 15, 2022 (attached). The hydraulics plans presented at the CP 4B Meeting are
attached to this summary.The following are the topics discussed for each plan sheet at this meeting:
- The Consultant (Gannett Fleming [GF]) noted that the design would utilize the proposed drainage
from STIP 1-4700 (1-26 Widening), currently under construction. It was also noted that Plan Sheet 4
did not include any proposed new roadway drainage entering jurisdictional areas.
- USFWS requested clarification and confirmation that the streams identified in the CP 4A Merger
Meeting Packet (dated June 15, 20221) with an NC SELDM Recommendation of "BMP Toolbox"
devices were addressed in the hydraulic concepts.
o The Consultant (GF) stated that the drainage directed to the streams are collected in a
stormwater system and directed to basins before entering jurisdictional areas.
- NCDWR asked what types of basins were being considered.
o The Consultant (GF) replied that dry detention would more than likely be used but would
know more once the geotechnical analysis was available.
- NCDOT commented that pipes near wetlands should not be buried, or embedded, to eliminate the
potential of draining the wetlands. A waiver would be required from the USACE in such an event.
- NCWRC requested a check of the velocity in SA downstream from the proposed discharge point(s)
near 1-26 to assess what effect the project may have on Stream ID SA.
o The Consultant (GF) acknowledged the request and responded that they would attempt to
comply to the maximum extent practicable.
- NCWRC asked whether stormwater discharges would be presented at CP 4C.
o The Consultant (GF) replied that they would be.
- The agencies expressed concern that the outlets would be erosive.
o The Consultant (GF) stated that the outlets would have velocity control devices and noted
that velocity calculations will be completed and included in the CP 4C Meeting.
- NCDWR asked that the preformed scour hole be further away from the wetland to avoid temporary
and/or permanent impacts left of Ramp-A- on plan sheet 7.
o The Consultant (GF) agreed that the preformed scour hole would need to be moved to
avoid impacts.
- NCDWR asked that no direct discharge be allowed at Stream ID SG.
o The Consultant (GF) noted the topography was restricting but would evaluate and install
treatment to the maximum extent practicable.
' The CP4A Merger Meeting was held on June 20, 2022.
12

GANNETT
FLEMING
The Project Team anticipates requesting the CP 4C Merger Meeting before the end of the year (2022), and
likely this fall.
This concludes the summary of the discussions held during the HE-0001 CP 4B Merger Meeting to the best
of my recollection.
Anne Gamber
September 13, 2022
3

STIP HE-0001
CP 4B Advance Agency Comments and Questions
Responses08/15/2022
Dave McHenry, NCWRC Western DOT Coordinator, posed the following CP 4B Advance Questions in
an email dated 7/28/2022. NCDOT, FHWA, USACE, NCWWR,and USFWS were included in the email.
1. Stream SA appeared relatively stable, but at the lower end nearer 1-26 it becomes moderately
incised and sinuous. . . . Streams in the SA watershed are of particular interest. What are the
10-year velocities for streams SA, SE, and SG that will be used to determine whether outlet
protection is needed in those streams under 15A NCAC 04B.0109?
The NC Administrative Code (15A NCAC 04B .0109) applies to the receiving stormwater
conveyance to, and including,the discharge point. The discharge point is the point location
where runoff leaves the tract of land where the land-disturbing activities are occurring or the
outfall location where the runoff discharges into the stream. We concur that an analysis of
NCDOT outfalls is needed to ensure a stable discharge point. However, it should be noted that
the maximum permissible velocities described in the rule do not apply to in-stream flows. The
analysis of the stormwater conveyance system is based on the ten-year discharge (Q10) with a
minimum time of concentration of ten minutes. Rainfall intensities are obtained from NOAA
Atlas 14, and peak discharge is calculated using an appropriate acceptable peak discharge
method from the NCDOT Hydraulic Guidelines, Chapter 7,Table 2.
2. Related to the preceding questions, proportionally how much will the peak discharge volume
increases be off-set at the outlet sites with the BMPs, in particular a potential 0.07 ac ft basin at
site 1, but also swales, level spreaders, or scour holes at other sites?
The initial conservative target water quality volume was determined using the total drainage
area including off-site drainage. In the design, the off-site drainage will be separated from the
roadway discharge. This will allow for a smaller device. More detailed design is required to
accurately determine effects of any stormwater control measure on post-construction peak
discharge. In general,the stormwater controls that provide a capture volume, basin
component, are better at controlling peak flow than flow-through type stormwater control
measures. However, both can be effective at removing targeted parameters of concern. The
BMPs and water quality volumes presented in the 4A meeting were preliminary assessments to
facilitate discussions with the agencies. As design progresses and more information is available
the project team will discuss appropriate BMPs at future merger meetings. Final BMP selections
will be documented in the SMP.
3. Is there sufficient 'flat"terrain for level spreaders or preformed scour holes to provide infiltration
and maintain diffuse flow at sites 2-4?
NCDOT concurs that level spreaders and preformed scour holes need to be sited on flat terrain
for them to function properly. Adjacent to the stream are some flatter areas. All attempts will
be made to facilitate infiltration and maintain diffuse flow in those areas.
4. Do "encroachments"require hydraulic analysis for say tie-ins of ditch-lines into the DOT roadway
system, or do encroachers. . . only need to comply with the "Stormwater Outlet Protection"rule
(15A NCAC 04B.0109)at the run-on point to the NCDOT system?
NCDOT reviews encroachment tie-ins per the NCDOT Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design, and standard design practices. NCDOT requires hydraulic analysis of both
ditch and pipe tie-ins to evaluate their impact to the highway facility and neighboring
properties. At ditch tie-ins velocities, shear stresses, and flow depths are evaluated to ensure
1

STIP HE-0001
CP 4B Advance Agency Comments and Questions
Responses08/15/2022
the ditches are stable and that they are sized appropriately to convey the design-storm event.
On most encroachments this includes a pre/post analysis to aid in the evaluation of impacts.
5. SELDM assesses lS crossings, but not all potential outfalls(?). So, presumably there may be
potential to "split"outfalls, say for additional between crossing measures, as needed?
The NC-SELDM Catalog can be used to analyze a roadway segment at any 'blue line' crossing as
depicted in the USGS StreamStats application. The analysis includes all the roadway drainage
area that is contributing to the runoff at that stream location, conservatively analyzing as a
single point. The application is not splitting analysis into individual outfall locations.
6. Are the measures for this project being pursued generally in keeping with the "special waters"
process in the Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM)guidance, or is this a standard
project approach?1 know the PCSM is relatively new to us all.
Stormwater control measures being pursued will be in compliance with the NPDES Post-
Construction Stormwater Program (PCSP) manual. Construction stormwater, aka Sediment and
Erosion Control measures, will be employed and designed appropriately and in compliance with
the NCG01 and NPDES permits.
In addition to the above questions, Dave McHenry submitted the following comments on 7/28/2022
in response to the Draft CP 4A Merger Meeting Summary:
7. 1 believe the consultant later(or earlier)responded to my follow-up question that the BMPs listed
in the far-right hand column were the target devices being pursued, as practicable. Please
advise if 1 misunderstood.
o In reference to: The Consultant replied that NC-SELDM Catalog was used to identify
treatment recommendations. The goal would be to treat everything as well as we can
for sediment and velocity.At three sites the NC-SELDM Catalog returned a "BMP
Toolbox"recommendation. The Consultant preliminarily evaluated appropriate
stormwater treatment devices at these locations, noting the treatment goals and the
challenges the existing topography pose. The NC-SELDM Catalog recommendation for
five sites is use of'minimum measures'and the remaining one site indicated that a direct
discharge would not likely affect water quality. However, it is NCDOT policy to use
minimum measures to the maximum extent practicable.
The NC-SELDM Catalog returns a recommendation for level of stormwater treatment needed to
minimize risk to water quality. The table presented at the 4A meeting included the NC-SELDM
Catalog recommendation for each stream crossing. The table further showed the consultants
preliminarily recommended BMP to meet the NC-SELDM Catalog recommendation. This is a
preliminary BMP that is subject to change based off site constraints as the consultant continues
with the drainage design. Documentation of these recommendations, measures taken to meet
these treatment goals, or restrictions to implementation will be included in the final Stormwater
Management Plan (SMP).
8. The BMP toolbox(2014)lists swales and preformed scour holes as BMPs. However, it is notable
that there is some overlap in what is a minimum measure and what is considered a BMP when
comparing the PCSP to the 2014 toolbox. For example, the PCSP mentions preformed as way to
get energy dissipation, which is the minimum measure. Little confusing to me.
2

STIP HE-0001
CP 4B Advance Agency Comments and Questions
Responses08/15/2022
o In reference to:NCDOT-Hydraulics stated the purpose of the Preliminary Stormwater
Management Plan (pSMP)is not to decide on a specific device type at a given location
but to set a goal, or an expectation,for each project section and answer the question
whether a BMP from the NCDOT Stormwater BMP Toolbox will be needed at a given
location or whether minimum measures(e.g., vegetated swale) will be sufficient. Specific
device types will have to be teased out through the design process and determined with
input about what the pollutant of concern is at a given location and what the site-
specific constraints will allow.
Swales and preformed scour holes are Toolbox BMPs that meet certain design requirements.
Swales are a type of vegetated conveyance; however, a swale meets specific geometric and
functional characteristics that increase pollutant removal capacity in comparison to a grass-lined
ditch. Similarly, preformed scour holes are an energy dissipator but63 has specific siting criteria
that provides for treatment through dispersing discharge in the surrounding area encouraging
filtration, sedimentation, and infiltration of runoff before reaching a receiving waterbody.
NCDOT will consider revising the terminology in the PCSP to avoid confusion between minimum
measures and Toolbox BMPs.
9. Thanks for this post-meeting clarification. As referenced above and expressed earlier, increased
velocity and run-off(volume)should be primary considerations here, and most western streams
generally, due to potential effects on stream stability. The extent to which a measure addresses
these, if even constructable, depends on design and predicted performance information which 1
understand we will be examining more at 4B (?).
o In reference to:Post-meeting note:SELDM looks at in-stream pollutant concentration
which considers the drainage area, percent impervious, slopes, water volumes,
ecoregion, and typical pollutant concentrations. The change in the in-stream pollutant
concentration determines the level of treatment recommended in the NC-SELDM
Catalog. To clarify the discussion in the meeting, neither SELDM, nor the NC-SELDM
Catalog, is reporting the ability for a stream to handle more quantity of water.A
designer should be following the NCDOT Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic
Design for pre/post analysis that looks at quantity, velocities, etc. SELDM and the NC-
SELDM Catalog are strictly a water quality tool, they are not for water quantity.
As previously noted,the NC-SELDM Catalog provides a recommendation for treatment from a
water quality or pollutant concentration perspective. The NCDOT Guidelines and the 15A NCAC
04b .0109 rule provide guidance that considers velocity and other characteristics for designing a
stable non-erosive stormwater conveyance up to and including the discharge point. If any of
these guidance documents indicate a BMP is needed, there is a BMP Selection Guide to aid in
selection of an appropriate BMP.
(connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/HSPDocuments/BMP%20Decision%20Support%20Matrix%
20and%20POC.pdf). This chart considers issues such as runoff reduction, removal efficiencies,
site constraints, cost, and other criteria. Ultimately the design will determine the actual
percentages.
10. Thanks for the post-meeting note here. 1 believe for[HE-0001]that toolbox BMPs are being
planned(see PCSP "special waters"-Appendix A)but in this case with SELDM as
supporting/screening analysis(?).
o In reference to:Post-meeting note:For more information about NCDOT's Stormwater
Program, please visit the NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit, Highway Stormwater Program
3

STIP HE-0001
CP 4B Advance Agency Comments and Questions
Responses08/15/2022
Connect site:https.Ilconnect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/Pages/Highway-Stormwater-
Program.aspx. You will find links to the new Post-Construction Stormwater Program
Manual(PCSP) (2022), the current BMP Toolbox Manual(2014), the excel version of the
Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (pSMP)/Storm water Management Plan
(SMP), and the NC-SELDM Catalog.
The project sections are draining to a "special water".Therefore, the target will be to provide
treatment through a Toolbox BMP. SELDM could be used to help support if the site constraints
don't allow for a Toolbox BMP.
Lauren Wilson, USFWS NCDOT Liaison, submitted the following comment by email 8/1/2022. Cheryl
Knepp, NCDOT Biological Surveys Group, replied by email 8/1/2022
11. 1 also want to make sure that what is in the section 7 consultation is correct. . . . From the post-
meeting additions to the CP4A Draft Meeting Notes and a quick review of the materials on the
NCDOT's stormwater program pages, it sounds like SELDM and preliminary stormwater info
presented at CP4A addresses water quality issues from roadway pollutants (including sediment
runoff from roads/construction?). SELDM does not appear to address/consider a project's impact
on water velocity/volume inputs and any resulting impact to a stream's stability(and any
resulting sediment releases caused by that instability). Is that right?Do CP48/4C address this?
o In reference to: The BE[Biological Evaluation]states that due to the implementation of
conservation measures related to sediment and erosion control and stormwater, any
sedimentation or water quality impacts...will be insignificant or discountable as it is not
expected to reach the main stem of the FBR.
NCDOT's Post-Construction Stormwater Program (PCSP) manager clarified that the NC-SELDM
Catalog addresses the water quality side of design in regard to mixing roadway runoff with
instream water and determining need for treatment, i.e., this tool helps determine if a
stormwater BMP designed specifically for removing pollutants is needed.
The water quantity/velocity comes in during the pre/post analysis and maintaining compliance
with the NC Administrative Code (15A NCAC 04B .0109) on Stormwater Outlet Protection to
ensure that stormwater discharge velocities will not result in accelerated erosion in the
receiving stormwater conveyance, up to and including the discharge point. That analysis will be
done as the design progresses, drainage systems are laid out, etc. At that time, if the pre/post
analysis determines there is a need for quantity/velocity control (i.e., an increase in quantity or
velocity that would cause erosion),then either additional stormwater BMPs would be included
in the design that are more specifically designed to control flow, or the conveyance channel
could be improved or reinforced. Note these types of devices still improve water quality but the
primary function of these would be for quantity control.
Between the tools, design standards and administrative code compliance, NCDOT will be
implementing stormwater controls as needed to guard against erosion into the stream or any
detriment to water quality.This language and NCDOT compliance workflow are correctly
reflected in the referenced Section 7 consultation statement, "While effects are expected to be
insignificant, conservation measures have been developed to further minimize those effects to
surface waters and wetlands."
4

NEPA
Document

Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No. HE-0001
WBS Element 49742.1.2
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a new
interchange on 1-26 in the project study area (PSA), approximately 6 miles south of Asheville,
north of the Blue Ridge Parkway and south of the French Broad River bridge (Figure 1).
The proposed interchange would be constructed primarily within the existing right-of-way of
1-26, which is currently under construction to be widened from 2 lanes in each direction to 4
lanes in each direction as part of STIP project 1-4700. The proposed interchange and new
roadway would ultimately connect to NC 191 via a road (East Frederick Law Olmsted Way, or
East FLOW) that is currently under construction by a private developer (Biltmore Farms, LLC)
(Figure 2). The private developer constructing East FLOW has graded the corridor to
accommodate a 4-lane roadway, but it will be paved as a 2-lane facility upon completion. This
road is anticipated to open to traffic in 2022 and would become a State-maintained road upon
meeting NCDOT standards and acceptance. NCDOT's proposed roadway connection would
be graded for a 2-lane roadway with auxiliary lanes at intersection approaches to meet
operational needs (e.g., turn lanes).
Land use in the project vicinity is mixed and includes manufacturing/distribution facilities, single-
and multi-family residential neighborhoods, open space, and commercial and recreational uses.
North of the intersection of Clayton Road (SR 3501) and NC 191 , the corridor is characterized
by preserved open space in proximity to the French Broad River, Pisgah National Forest, and
the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Blue Ridge Parkway crosses over NC 191 on a bridge and is
accessible via an access road at the signalized intersection with NC 191 at the west end of the
East FLOW corridor.
NCDOT has utilized the Section 404/NEPA Merger Process to formally coordinate with, and
garner concurrence from, applicable regulatory and resource agencies. The Merger
documentation is available in NCDOT's files and has been provided to all agencies involved.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
Need: The proposed project is needed to address the lack of network connectivity between NC
191 and 1-26 in southern Buncombe County to accommodate current and planned growth.
Purpose: The purpose of the project is to provide access to 1-26 and improve east-west
connectivity within the project vicinity to accommodate current and planned growth.
Other desirable outcomes of the proposed project include:
• improved traffic safety due to greater separation of local traffic from interstate traffic;
• improved emergency response times to the area including Pratt & Whitney
Manufacturing Center, Biltmore Park West property, and sections of NC 191 and 1-26;
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 1

• consistency with local and regional economic development initiatives in the project
vicinity;
• improved access to current and anticipated regional employment opportunities and
improved access to tourist destinations.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type III
D. Proposed Improvements:
The NCDOT evaluated three Build Alternatives for the proposed project. These Detailed Study
Alternatives (DSA's) are summarized in Table 1 and detailed in multiple Merger Concurrence
Meetings.
Table 1. Detailed Study Alternative DSA Description
DSA Description
1 • left exit/entrance ramp
• center of the 1-26 bifurcated section
2 . right-exit/entrance ramp
• center of the 1-26 bifurcated section
3 • left exit/entrance ramp
• North end of the 1-26 bifurcated section
Preferred Alternative/LEDPA:
The Merger Team concurred that DSA 3 is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative on February 9, 2022. (See Figure 3.)
The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to have the lowest overall impacts to potential
jurisdictional aquatic resources. The Preferred Alternative would construct the least amount
of impervious surface within the French Broad River watershed and would result in the least
amount of tree clearing associated with the proposed project. No impacts to FEMA
floodplains are anticipated. The Preferred Alternative would have No Effect to the adjacent
Biltmore Estate National Historic Landmark (NHL), No Effect to the National Register (NR)-
eligible archaeology site (31BN1119), and No Adverse Effect (with conditions) to the NR-
eligible Blue Ridge Parkway (NHL pending).
E. Special Protect Information:
Project Study Area (PSA) Development
The PSA development is detailed in a Study Area memo dated March 30, 2022. The PSA
generally includes approximately 210 acres along and west of 1-26, south of the French
Broad River and north of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The PSA avoids impacts to the bridge
infrastructure associated with the French Broad River (to the north) and the Blue Ridge
Parkway (to the south) and accounts for ramp length requirements. The PSA was also
initially developed to incorporate all of East FLOW and its intersection with NC 191 in order
to consider any future traffic needs along that corridor.
When considering the lack of network connectivity between NC 191 and 1-26 in southern
Buncombe County, NCDOT reviewed environmental and engineering constraints and
opportunities for potential interstate access locations between Exit 33 (NC 191) and Exit 37
(NC 146/1-ong Shoals Road).
The following opportunities and benefits were identified for the PSA:
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 2

• The PSA covers the area of optimal interchange spacing (approximately 2 miles)
between exits 35 and 37, respectively, meeting FHWA and NCDOT interchange
spacing guidance for interstate access.
• The 1-26 bifurcated section allows NCDOT to evaluate left exit/entrance interchange
alternatives that avoid impacts to the Biltmore Estate NHL.
• The construction of East FLOW allows NCDOT to evaluate alternatives to connect to
a modern roadway facility currently under construction by a private developer. The
construction project also includes capacity and operational upgrades at an existing
signalized intersection with NC 191, maximizing investment and improving east-west
connectivity.
• Utilizing a connection to East FLOW would also provide direct access to current and
planned development, consistent with local population and employment growth
goals.
• The undeveloped property west of 1-26 will not require any displacements or
relocations of homes or businesses.
Relationship to Adjacent STIP Projects
STIP project HE-0001 overlaps three other STIP projects (Table 2).
Table 2. Adjacent STIP Projects
STIP Project No. Description Schedule Fiscal Year
1-4700 1-26. NC280 (Exit 40) to 1-40 at Asheville. Under Construction
Add additional lanes.
U-3403B NC 191 (Brevard Road-Old Haywood R/W 2029
Road). SR 3498 (Ledbetter Road) to North Const. Post Year
of Blue Parkway. Widen roadway
HO-0002A 1-40 in Asheville to 1-77 at 1-485 (South) in Under Construction
Charlotte. Install Broadband.
Source: NCDOT, 2020-2029 Current State Transportation Improvement Program (May 2022)
To minimize temporal impacts and avoid duplication, Division 13 plans to let STIP project
HE-0001 for construction while STIP project 1-4700 is under construction.
Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
Based on the Traffic Forecast for HE-0001, NCDOT determined that a 2-lane curb and gutter
typical section for the roadway connection from the 1-26 interchange to East FLOW will
accommodate projected traffic volumes (19,500 AADT in 2045 Build) (Exhibit 1). The
proposed roadway alignment will efficiently connect the proposed new interchange with East
FLOW while minimizing impacts to the natural environment.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type III CE Page 3

w
I
10' 2 .2' 12' 2' 10'
l
Exhibit 1. East Frederick Law Olmsted Way Extension Proposed Typical Section
Right-of-Way and Access Control
Access along 1-26 will remain fully controlled. The proposed interchange, including free-flow
on- and off-ramps, will likewise be full access control. The proposed interchange will be
constructed mostly within existing right of way. New right of way will be required for the 1-26
eastbound ramps.
The proposed roadway connection will be constructed primarily within new right of way
between the proposed interchange and East FLOW, the road currently under construction
by the private developer which is expected to later become a State maintained road upon
acceptance. NCDOT will acquire right of way to accommodate an ultimate 4-lane boulevard
typical section but will construct the 2-lane typical section in Exhibit 1. Based on a Section
106 agency commitment, the proposed roadway connection will be full access control for
1 ,000 feet west of the 1-26 eastbound ramp terminal.
Speed Limit
There would be no changes to posted speed limits on 1-26 (60 mph) as part of this project.
The proposed 2-lane roadway extension connection will be posted at 35 mph.
Design Speed
There would be no changes to design speed on 1-26 (70 mph) as part of this project. The
design speed for the proposed 2-lane roadway connection is 40 mph.
Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no design exceptions anticipated at this stage of planning and design.
Service Roads
There are no existing or planned service roads in the PSA.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 4

Structures
The Preferred Alternative includes a new grade-separated crossing of the 1-26 eastbound
lanes, proposed as a single span 102'6" x 53'3" composite deck on 45" Florida 1-beams.
The Section 404/NEPA Merger Team concurred there are no major hydraulic crossings
requiring bridging decisions on September 16, 2021.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways
Through coordination with Buncombe County, NCDOT will include a separated 5-foot
concrete sidewalk adjacent to the westbound travel lane on the roadway connection. The
proposed sidewalk will tie into a sidewalk at the west end of the project that is being
constructed by the private developer. The proposed sidewalk will terminate at the control of
access limits 1,000 feet west of the 1-26 eastbound ramp terminal (Exhibit 2).
nAnxrc'K/.Aw
/1[UTMAD NAY AA.M
Hf llb'RIfN:h'1V MK e'AY
MY)"I.., Vo W m M IFAYl. `\�� �•�" T- ,
/.ANP.{'(A IN 1'At'II INHl r:Y'NWj./)!A
1-26 MOVING PAOMT
(1.a6617AfUq f5 FXl•F:(TR1l MAR - -
(V6N'LD7'd IN 107A
AR.I9HOAFFRYAYR �'
rAfurxTxuHw! — __ __
FlN['J7IW1LAC7fAN'GG . _
PAF,FARRFA Al.TFRh'AT!/'+: -
manr.mr
Exhibit 2. Birdseye view to the southeast (artist rendering). Note extent of concrete
sidewalk on East Frederick Law Olmsted Way.
NCDOT-Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) reviewed and approved a Complete Streets
Project Sheet on June 9, 2022. IMD concurred with the pedestrian accommodations as
proposed and concurred that no bicycle facilities are required because the roadway
connection is designed to connect to 1-26 and there are no plans to extend the roadway
across (east of) 1-26.
Utilities
No existing utilities will be impacted. Project construction will be coordinated with the
installation of fiber optic cable along 1-26 (HO-0002A), currently under construction.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 5

Noise Barriers
See Section G, Item 27 below.
Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction
It is anticipated that construction of HE-0001 will occur at the same time as the on-going
1-26 widening construction. Work Zone, Traffic Control, and Construction of HE-0001 will be
coordinated with the on-going 1-4700 project activities.
Cost Estimate
Cost estimates (as of December 28, 2021) for the Preferred Alternative are provided below
in Table 3.
Table 3. Cost Estimate for the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
Cost Estimate
Project Development & Design $3,127,200
Property Acquisition $100,000
Construction Cost $25,200,000
Total Cost $28,427,200
Public Involvement
September 3, 2021 - NCDOT hosted a one-hour virtual Local Officials' Informational
Meeting. Invitations to the Informational Meeting were sent on August 20, 2021, via email to
representatives with the following organizations: North Carolina Congress (Senate and
House), City of Asheville, Buncombe County, and French Broad River Metropolitan Planning
Organization (FBRMPO). Representatives from the NC House of Representatives, City of
Asheville, FBRMPO, and Buncombe County attended the virtual meeting.
September 2—October 4, 2021 - Public comments were solicited by the USACE Public
Notice (Merger Application) issued September 2, 2021 (SAW-2021-01535-PN), and by
NCDOT-Division 13 and NCDOT-Public Involvement outreach efforts. The USACE received
written comments from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Catawba
Tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
and the NC Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO). NCDOT received 259 comments by
phone, email and through the project website (www.publicinput.com/126-exit35-buncombe)
during the comment period. NCDOT prepared a comment-response memorandum to
address substantive questions and comments about the proposed project and reviewed the
comments with relevant regulatory agencies in preparation for the CP3 Merger meeting.
February 23, 2022 - NCDOT announced the selection of the Preferred Alternative and
directed the public to review updated information, mapping, and the comment-response
memorandum available on the project website.
Section 404/NEPA Merger and Interagency Coordination
HE-0001 is utilizing NCDOT's Section 404/NEPA Merger Process. Merger Meetings and
interagency coordination and consultation is summarized below. Signed Concurrence
Forms are attached.
July 15, 2021 - The Merger Team concurred with the Project Need and Purpose and Study
Area and the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) Carried Forward at the combined
Concurrence Point (CP) 1 and CP 2 Merger Meeting.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 6

September 16, 2021 - The Merger Team concurred with the Bridging Decisions and
Alignment Review at the CP 2A Merger Meeting. NCDOT also presented a CP 2 Update at
this meeting by summarizing the Traffic Forecast and the decision to proceed with a 2-lane
typical section for the connecting roadway, noting the anticipated need for auxiliary lanes at
proposed intersections to accommodate traffic operations. The CP 2 Update also revisited
potential impacts reported at the combined CP 1 and CP 2 Merger Meeting to include field
verified jurisdictional resources in place of the GIS data sets.
October 18, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a CP 3 Pre-meeting with USFWS.
October 19, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a CP 3 Pre-meeting with NCWRC.
October 20, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a CP 3 Pre-meeting with USEPA.
October 27, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a CP 3 Pre-meeting with USACE and
NCDWR.
October 27, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a CP 3 Pre-meeting with FBRMPO.
February 9, 2022 - The Merger Team concurred with the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
Selection at the CP 3 Merger Meeting.
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act
NCDOT and FHWA considered the potential use of Section 4(f) properties by STIP project
HE-0001. Section 4(f) properties in and adjacent to the PSA include the historic sites
discussed in Section G Item 13, and recreational resources (i.e., Mountains-to Sea Trail).
The Blue Ridge Parkway is a historic site and a public park adjacent to the PSA. No right of
way acquisition is required from Section 4(f) properties; thus, a permanent incorporation or
permanent easement use is not applicable. No temporary easement will be required from
Section 4(f) properties; thus, a temporary occupancy use is not applicable.
Constructive use involves an indirect impact to a Section 4(f) property of such magnitude as
to effectively act as a permanent incorporation. In such a scenario, a project does not
physically incorporate the property but is close enough to it to severely impact important
features, activities or attributes associated with it, and to substantially impair it. Proximity
effects to the Blue Ridge Parkway were considered through Section 106 Consultation (see
Section G, Item 13). However, it was determined that visual effects do not severely impact
important features, activities or attributes associated with the Parkway, nor will visual
impacts substantially impair the property. NCDOT evaluated future potential noise impacts
to the Parkway as well (see Section G, Checklist Item 27). This project would not
substantially alter future sound levels along the studied portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway
adjacent to the proposed project. The traffic analyses concluded that construction of HE-
0001 would not attract additional trips to the Parkway. As a result, no Section 4(f)
constructive uses result from STIP project HE-0001 .
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
NCDOT evaluated and presented the following avoidance and minimization measures to
the Merger Team at the CP 4A Merger Meeting for the Preferred Alternative (Table 4).
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 7

Additional avoidance and minimization measures may be evaluated as the project design
progresses through coordination with the Merger Team.
Table 4. HE-0001, Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Location
(if applicable) Avoidance and Minimization Measure
Implemented in Preliminary Design Development
Eliminated concepts from consideration during the scoping phase of the
Concept project for a variety of factors and feasibility concerns, including avoiding and
Development minimizing potential impacts to the French Broad River floodplain/wetland
complex, residential and commercial developments north of the French Broad
River, and the Biltmore Estate NHL property.
Project Study Reduce PSA to avoid and minimize potential impacts to the French Broad
Area River flood lain and known potential jurisdictional resources.
Did not consider alternatives with the potential to have direct effects
Detailed Study to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Alternatives . Considered and eliminated alternatives with the potential to have
direct effects to the Biltmore Estate NHL.
Two-lane roadway with curb and gutter typical section (opposed to 4-lane
Two-lane -Y-Line divided with grassed shoulder typical section) to accommodate future traffic
Typical Section volumes, noting auxiliary lanes will likely be required at intersection
approaches. This results in less right of way requirements and will minimize
impacts at proposed stream crossings and reduce tree clearing requirements.
Shift the roadway alignment to the southeast to minimize potential impacts to
Stream SA.
Following CP 3, per NCDWR request, NCDOT shifted -y-line alignment to:
-Y-Line Alignment • improve Stream SA crossing skew, reducing potential impacts by
approx. 100 ft,
• avoid 0.03 ac impact to Wetland WD, and
• avoid 0.01 ac impact to Wetland WH.
• Prior to CP 3, incorporate approx. 1,400 feet of retaining walls to avoid
Ramp -C- and and minimize approx. 1,100 feet of potential impacts to Stream SDX
Ramp -D- and approx. <0.1 ac of wetlands in the 1-26 bifurcated section.
Retaining Walls • Following CP 3, retaining walls were refined in conjunction with the
DDI design and Ramp-C- Alignment shift (described below) in the
same generallocations.
Following CP 3, shift ramp alignment between <1 ft to about 18 ft to the east
to:
• improve constructability of the proposed retaining walls,
Ramp -C- . avoid approx. 120 ft of impacts to Stream SDY and Stream SDZ,
Alignment . avoid approx. <0.1 ac impacts to Wetland WCR,
• minimize impact to Stream SDX by approx. 175 ft, and
• minimize impacts to Wetlands WCS and WCN by approx. <0.1 ac.
Reviewed in Preliminary Design Development, Not Implemented
NCDOT reviewed a revised Ramp -C- alignment because of challenges
associated with bridging Stream SDX (discussed at CP 2A). An approx. 325-
Ramp -C- ft bridge was reviewed in the 1-26 bifurcated section to avoid and minimize
Alignment potential impacts to Stream SDX and Wetland WCN. The bridge clearance
was 6 feet and would not provide the environmental benefit for the wetland
feature.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 8

Preliminary Impacts
The following impacts are anticipated because of the project (Table 5).
Table 5. Impact Matrix for the Preferred Alternative
Resource Impact
Relocations (Business, Residential, Non-profit 0
Minority/Low Income Populations (Disproportionate Impacts) 0
Historic Properties Adverse Effects 0
Community Facilities Impacted 0
Section 4 f Impacts 0
Noise Receptor Impacts 4
Prime Farmland acres 0.8
FEMA Floodplain acres 0
Tree Clearing' (acres) 23.6
Stream s2,3,4 (In ft) 980
Wetlands (acres) 0.1
Federally Protected Species5
Appalachian elktoe/Alasmidonta raveneliana MANLAA6
Gray bat/ Myotis grisescens MANLAA6
Northern long-eared bat/ M otis septentrionalis 4 d rule exemption'
' Calculated with preliminary design slope stakes plus 10 feet; 1-4700 tree clearing was removed from this
calculation.
2 Potential Waters of the US (WOTUS) impacts calculated with preliminary design slope stakes plus 10 feet.
3 The potential WOTUS impacts exclude 1-4700 permitted permanent impacts.
4 The HE-0001 PJD delineated to active 1-4700 construction limits or control of access (C/A)fence resulting
in some overlap with the 1-4700 PJD. In these cases, the HE-0001 (i.e., more recent) delineation was used
and the 1-4700 PJD feature removed from potential impact calculations. This overlap did not affect the I-
4700 PJD in the 1-26 bifurcated section.
5 IPaC data checked on August 10, 2022.
6 MANLAA= May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
' On March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the NLEB as endangered under the
ESA; a new final listing determination for the NLEB is expected by November 2022. The proposed
reclassification, if finalized, would remove the current 4(d) rule for the NLEB and the change in the species'
status may trigger the need to re-initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 9

F. Protect Impact Criteria Checklists:
F3. Type III Actions
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type III Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix C) answer questions below.
• NCDOT will certify the Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval.
• If any questions are marked "Yes"then additional information will be required for those questions in
Section G.
Yes No
Does the project involve potential effects to Threatened or Endangered species
1 listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries [1 ❑
Service NMFS ?
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden ❑ 2
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)?
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any ❑ 2
reason, following appropriate public involvement?
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low- ❑
income and/or minority populations?
5 Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements or ❑
right of way acquisition?
6 Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)? ❑ [1
7 Is a project-level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required based R1 ❑
on the NCDOT community studies screening tool?
8 Does the project impact anadromous fish spawning waters? ❑ [1
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
9 High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d)-listed ❑ 2
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)?
10 Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated ❑ R1
mountain trout streams?
11 Does the project require a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual ❑
Section 404 Permit?
12 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory ❑ 0
Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
13 (NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological [1 ❑
remains?
14 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas ❑ 2
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.?
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a regulatory
15 floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a ❑
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart
A?
16 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially ❑ 2
affects the coastal zone and/or any Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type tlt CE Page 10

Type III Actions (continued) Yes No
17 Does the project require a US Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ❑ [1
18 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a ❑ 2
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area?
19 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) resources? ❑ 0
20 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g., US Forest Service (USFS), US Fish ❑ 2
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), etc.) or Tribal (Trust) Lands?
21 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or ❑
construction of an interchange on an interstate?
22 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or ❑
community cohesiveness?
23 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ❑ [�
24 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan ❑ 2
Planning Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
25 the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, TVA, Tribal Lands, or other unique ❑ 0
areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public-use
money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?
26 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) buyout ❑ 2
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?
27 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ❑
28 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the ❑
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)?
29 Is the project in an Air Quality non-attainment or maintenance area for a National ❑
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)?
30 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that ❑ 2
affected the project decision?
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 11

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked `Yes'):
Checklist Item 1: Federally Protected Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list the following federally protected species
within the PSA, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 6).
Table 6. ESA federally protected species listed' for Buncombe Count
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E No MANLAA**
Solida o spithamaea Blue Ride goldenrod T No NE
Glyptemys muhlenbergii bog turtle T(S/A) No Not Required
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina Northern flying squirrel E No NE
coloratus
M otis grisescens Gray bat E Yes MANLAA**
Sarracenia rubra ssp. Mountain sweet pitcher plant E No NE
jonesii
Myotis septentrionalis 4(d) rule
Northern long-eared bat T Yes exemption***
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No NE
Hedyotis purpurea var. Roan Mountain bluet E No NE
montana
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E No NE
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E No NE
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T* No Not Required
1 USFWS County List dated June 17, 2021, IPaC countywide data checked on July 28, 2021
E - Endangered; T - Threatened; T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance; MANLAA - May Affect—Not
Likely to Adversely Affect; NE - No Effect
* Historical record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago) per previous USFWS
County list dated July 17, 2020.
** Biological Conclusion includes NCDOT commitment implementation of Conservation Measures outlined in a
Revised Informal Consultation USFWS letter dated July 22, 2022.
*** On March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to reclassify the NLEB as endangered under the ESA; a
new final listing determination for the NLEB is expected by November 2022. The proposed reclassification, if
finalized, would remove the current 4(d) rule for the NLEB and the change in the species' status may trigger the
need to re-initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed.
Appalachian elktoe
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: March 1—November 1 (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
A review of NHP records on July 28, 2021, indicates one known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the
study area (EO ID 21150, last observed September 29, 2019). The Biological Conclusion includes
NCDOT commitment implementation of Conservation Measures outlined in a Revised Informal
Consultation USFWS letter dated July 22, 2022.
Gray bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: Structure Checks: May 15-August 15. Mist netting and/or
acoustic bat surveys are dependent on results of bat structure checks or USFWS requirements.
Mist Netting Surveys: June 1-August 15, Acoustic Surveys: May 15-August 15.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type Ill CE Page 12

Biological Conclusion: May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
A review of NHP records on July 28, 2021, indicates two known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area. EO ID 39015 was last observed July 18, 2018, and EO 40722 was last observed in
2019. EO 40722 falls within the boundaries of the National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway. The
Biological Conclusion includes NCDOT commitment implementation of Conservation Measures
outlined in a Revised Informal Consultation USFWS letter dated July 22, 2022.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: Structure Checks: May 15-August 15. Mist netting and/or
acoustic bat surveys are dependent on results of bat structure checks or USFWS requirements.
Mist Netting Surveys: June 1-August 15, Acoustic Surveys: May 15-August 15.
Biological Conclusion: 4(d) Rule Exemption
A review of NHP records on July 28, 2021, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area. A 4(d) rule exemption concurrence was included in a Revised Informal Consultation
USFWS letter dated July 22, 2022. On March 23, 2022, the Service published a proposal to
reclassify the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered the USFWS to complete a new final
listing determination for the NLEB by November 2022 (Case 1 :1 5-cv-00477, March 1 , 2021). The
bat, currently listed as threatened, faces extinction due to the range-wide impacts of white-nose
syndrome, a deadly fungal disease affecting cave-dwelling bats across the continent. The
proposed reclassification, if finalized, would remove the current 4(d) rule for the NLEB, as these
rules may be applied only to threatened species. Depending on the type of effects a project has on
NLEB, the change in the species' status may trigger the need to re-initiate consultation for any
actions that are not completed and for which the Federal action agency retains discretion once the
new listing determination becomes effective (anticipated to occur by December 30, 2022).
Checklist Items 7: Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The proposed project may impact travel patterns, reduce travel time, affect access to properties in
the area, or open areas for development or redevelopment. Due to the potential transportation
impact-causing activities, this project may influence nearby land uses or stimulate growth. For
these reasons, an Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) and Land Use Scenario Assessment
(LUSA) was completed according to NCDOT procedure.
The LUSA Matrix concluded that the rankings for the various development categories are similar
for the future (2045) No-Build and Build scenarios. This does not imply that additional development
is not anticipated to occur within the Probable Development Areas (PDAs), but that effects of
additional development are not quantifiably different between the future No-Build and Build
scenarios (i.e., with or without HE-0001). Based on the results from the LUSA Matrix a Cumulative
Effects Assessment is not required.
Checklist Items 11: Waters and Corps 404 Permit
The project will require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers for Section 404 wetland and
stream impacts, but it is yet to be determined whether the permit would be an Individual Permit or
a Nationwide or General Permit.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 13

Checklist Items 13: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act NHPA
Historic Architecture and Landscape Resources
The NCDOT architectural historian identified the following National Register (NR) -eligible or-listed
properties in the project area of potential effects (APE):
• Biltmore Estate (BN1835) — National Historic Landmark (NHL)
• Blue Ridge Parkway (NC0001) — Determined NR eligible, NHL pending
• French Broad River Gaging Station (BN6468) — Determined NR eligible
• Bent Creek Campus (BN0898) — Determined NR eligible
NCDOT recommended an effects assessment for the above-listed historic properties in the Effects
Required Form dated June 15, 2021 (attached).
Archaeological Resources
The NCDOT archaeologist determined an archaeological resource survey was required for the
project APE on May 20, 2021. An intensive archaeological survey and evaluation was conducted
for the APE from August to October 2021. Of the 13 resources identified or revisited by the survey,
one precontact site (31 BN1119) was recommended eligible. NCDOT submitted the Archaeological
Effects Required Form to NC Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and tribes (see tribal coordination
below) on December 10, 2021. On January 18, 2022, NC HPO concurred with NCDOT's
Determination of Eligibility and recommendation for data recovery investigations to mitigate
adverse effects to the site that cannot be avoided by the proposed project. (See attachments.)
Effects Assessment
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NCDOT and FHWA consulted with appropriate
parties in the determination of effects to the four above-ground historic architectural properties and
one archaeological property at a series of meetings:
October 7, 2021 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a Pre-effects Meeting with the NC HPO and the
National Park Service-Blue Ridge Parkway (NPS). The Blue Ridge Parkway was the topic of
discussion.
February 4, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted an Effects Meeting with NC HPO, NC Office of State
Archaeology (OSA), NPS, and Biltmore Estate. All historic properties were reviewed for potential
effects. Concurrence was reached on all historic properties except the Blue Ridge Parkway (see
Table 7).
• Following the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative at Concurrence Point 3 on February 9, 2022, NCDOT
submitted the No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites
Form to NC HPO on March 10, 2022. NC HPO concurred by letter dated June 20, 2022,
that HE-0001 will have no adverse effect on eligible archaeological resources, including site
31 BN1119. (See attachments.)
March 18, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a follow-up Effects Meeting for the Blue Ridge
Parkway with NC HPO, NPS, Buncombe County, and Biltmore Farms, LLC (landowner).
May 11, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a second follow-up Effects Meeting for the Blue Ridge
Parkway with NC HPO, NPS, Buncombe County, and Biltmore Farms, LLC.
June 29, 2022 - NCDOT and FHWA hosted a final Effects Meeting for the Blue Ridge Parkway with
NC HPO, NPS, Buncombe County, and Biltmore Farms, LLC. A No Adverse Effect, with conditions
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 14

determination was concurred to for the Blue Ridge Parkway. These conditions are included in the
HE-0001 project commitments (green sheet).
The following effects determinations were made for the Preferred Alternative (also see attached
Effects Form):
Table 7. Effects to Historic Properties
Historic Property (State ID) Status Effect
Biltmore Estate BN1835 NHL No Effect
Blue Ridge Parkway (NC0001) NR eligible; NHL pending No Adverse Effect,
with conditions
French Broad River Gaging NR eligible No Effect
Station (BN6468)
Bent Creek Campus BN0898 NR eligible No Effect
Archaeological site 31 BN1119 NR eligible No Adverse Effect
Tribal Coordination
NCDOT initiated contact with the following tribal governments consistent with the current NCDOT
protocol on September 9, 2021:
• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI)
• United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
• Cherokee Nation*
• Catawba Indian Nation*
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation
*NCDOT received a response from these tribes.
NCDOT transmitted the Archaeological Effects Form and details regarding the results of the
archaeological survey investigations to the above-listed tribal governments and NC HPO on
December 10, 2021. The Catawba Indian Nation replied by letter dated January 31, 2022.
Following selection of the LEDPA/ Preferred Alternative on February 9, 2022, NCDOT transmitted
updated information based on the No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed
Archaeological Sites Affected Form to the above-listed tribal governments on March 10, 2022.
NCDOT and FHWA met with Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on March 21, 2022, and provided
additional information. (See attachments.)
Checklist Item 21: Interstate Interchange Construction and/or Modification or changes in
Access Control
FHWA reviewed the Interstate Access Report (IAR) for this project and deemed the proposed
interchange acceptable based on safety, operations, and engineering considerations. Final
approval of this new interchange may be given by the FHWA-NC Division Administrator provided
that the scope and design of the selected alternative in the approved environmental document is
consistent with the IAR, dated October 18, 2021.
Access along 1-26 will remain fully controlled. The proposed project will introduce a new
interchange near mile marker 35 that will access only the west side of 1-26; no access will be
provided east of 1-26 on the Biltmore Estate property. The proposed roadway connection will be
controlled access for 1,000 feet west of the 1-26 eastbound on- and off-ramp terminals.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 15

Checklist Item 27: NCDOT Noise Policy Type 1 Project
The source of this traffic noise information is "Traffic Noise Report, 1-26 Interchange (Exit 35), STIP
Project HE-0001, Buncombe County, NU, Gannett Fleming, April 2022.
For the purposes of the traffic noise study, NCDOT evaluated two alternatives: Right Exit and Left
Exit (Preferred Alternative) alternatives. The Right Exit is the closest alternative to the Biltmore
Estate and Blue Ridge Parkway while the Left Exit alternative is the furthest alternative from both
the Biltmore Estate and Blue Ridge Parkway. The analyses of these two alternatives adequately
assess the potential traffic noise impacts associated with all three DSAs.
Blue Ridge Parkway
NCDOT analyzed traffic noise impacts to the Blue Ridge Parkway for purposes of consultation
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). While noise analysis of the
Blue Ridge Parkway is not required by 23 CFR 772 or the 2021 NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy,
NCDOT recognizes that the setting and feeling of the Blue Ridge Parkway are characteristics that
contribute to the property's NR eligibility (NHL is pending). This project would not substantially alter
future sound levels along the studied portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway adjacent to the proposed
project.
Traffic Noise Impacts
The maximum number of receptors in the Preferred Alternative predicted to be impacted by future
traffic noise is shown in Table 8. The table includes those receptors expected to experience traffic
noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy.
Table 8. Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts*
Residential Places of Businesses
Alternative (NAC B) Worship/Schools, (NAC E) Total
Parks, etc. NAC C & D
Preferred 0 4 0 4
Alternative
*Per TNW12.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts, including noise barriers, were
considered for all impacted receptors in each alternative. Noise barriers include two basic types:
earthen berms and noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic
noise.
One impact was identified within each of the project's four noise study areas (NSA). In accordance
with the NCDOT noise policy feasibility requirements, a minimum of two impacted receptors must
benefit from a noise abatement measure; therefore, noise abatement is not feasible for this project.
Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise
abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this
project unless warranted by a substantial change in the project's design concept or scope.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 16

In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are not
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building
permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical Exclusion. NCDOT strongly
advocates the planning, design and construction of noise-compatible development and encourages
its practice among planners, building officials, developers and others.
Checklist Item 28: Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the PSA has been completed (NRCS
Form AD-1006 for point projects, Part VI only) and a total score of 37 out of 160 points was
calculated for the project site. Since the total site assessment score does not exceed the 60-point
threshold established by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), farmland conversion
impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 17

H. Protect Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):
NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
STIP Project No. HE-0001
1-26 Interchange (Future Exit 35)
Buncombe County
Federal Aid Project No. Federal Aid Number
WBS Element 49742.1 .2
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type /// CE Page 18

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
1-26 Exit 35, Construct New Interchange
T.I.P Number: HE-0001
Buncombe
Federal Aid Number:
WBS: 49742.1.2
COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Division Office-Tree clearing- Preconstruction
As the proposed action will impact suitable habitat for Gray bat throughout the action area,all tree clearing will occur between November 15—
March 15,which is outside of the bat active season for Gray bat in the French Broad River(FBR)Basin.There will be one exception to this
moratorium,the minimal tree clearing associated with geotechnical field investigations that will occur starting in August 2022. This exception
will allow equipment access for geotechnical borings planned on the-y-line(i.e.,connector road)and the bifurcated section. The equipment will
work around trees to the greatest extent practical.
NCDOT will modify all phases/aspects of the project(e.g.,temporary work areas,alignments)to avoid tree removal in excess of what is required
to implement the project safely.
Division Environmental Staff-Agency coordination and review- Preconstruction
Based on Section 7 coordination,NCDOT will invite representatives from the FWS,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE),NC Division of Water
Resources,NC Division of Land Quality,and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission(WRC)to the preconstruction meeting for the
proposed project,as well as to all subsequent field inspections prior to construction,to ensure compliance with all special project commitments.
NCDOT shall provide the FWS with the SECP and allow 30 calendar days for review.
Division Office- Blue Ridge Parkway- Blue Ridge Parkway Overlay District
a. Buncombe County is an interested party in the HE-0001 project,as referenced by its current overlay district and zoning powers that protect
the BRP corridor. NCDOT will coordinate with Buncombe County and request the County to notify and request comments from NPS and NC HPO
regarding any future proposed changes to the Blue Ridge Parkway Overlay District(Section 78-643).
Division Office- Blue Ridge Parkway- Future capacity improvements
NCDOT will coordinate review of any future capacity improvements to HE-0001 (including widening,pedestrian,or safety modifications)with the
NPS and NC HPO prior to the approval of any federal or state action(i.e.,NEPA document,permit).This condition is not applicable to NCDOT
capacity improvements that are considered an exempt activity under the current NCDOT Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
Division Office- Blue Ridge Parkway- Future intersecting road(s)
NCDOT will not construct or maintain any new road or access points that intersect or cross the HE-0001 portion of East Frederick Law Olmsted
Way,from the roundabout to 1-26.
If NCDOT assumes maintenance of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way from NC 191 to the roundabout,NCDOT will review driveway access permits
to East Frederick Law Olmsted Way according to current NCDOT procedure and in consultation with NPS and NC HPO.This condition may be
revisited through consultation with NPS and NC HPO associated with future state transportation projects.
Division Office- Blue Ridge Parkway- Lighting
NCDOT will not install roadway lighting along the access roadway portion of HE-0001 (i.e.,East Frederick Law Olmsted Way);lighting will be
required for the interchange. Interchange lighting will be designed and installed in accordance with the conservation measures included in the US
Fish and Wildlife Informal Consultation letter dated March 16,2022 and revised July 22,2022.If NCDOT allows roadway/pedestrian lighting of
East Frederick Law Olmsted Way through an encroachment agreement with a separate/private entity,NCDOT will require implementation of NPS
Sustainable Outdoor Lighting Principles for any roadway/pedestrian lighting.
1. NPS Sustainable Outdoor Lighting Principles
a. Light only IF you need it
b. Light only WHEN you need(use timers,sensors,and other controls)
c. Light only WHAT/WHERE you need it(shield light sources and direct downward,minimize height of light sources)
d. Use appropriate color spectra(no white/blue light),use amber or yellow
e. Use minimum number of lumens necessary(500 lumens or less per fixture if possible)
f. Choose energy efficient lamps and fixtures(minimum possible)
EAU — Cultural Resources, Division Office- Blue Ridge Parkway-Vegetative Screening
NCDOT will design,install,and maintain approximately 900 feet of vegetative screening along the southside of the HE-0001 portion of East
Frederick Law Olmsted Way closest to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
NCDOT will commit to produce a vegetative screening plan with the 65%roadway design plan(late summer/fall 2022)submittal and provide to
NPS and NC HPO for review and comment.
Division Office- Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds- Preconstruction
NCDOT will utilize Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds(DSSW,15A NCAC 04B.0124)for stormwater discharge under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES).
Division Office- Lighting (Bats) - Preconstruction
Based on Section 7 coordination for bats,permanent lighting will be confined to the interchange portion of this project along 1-26 and will meet
safety requirements for fully controlled access roadways.The roadway connection to Frederick Law Olmstead Way East will remain a dark
forested corridor.NCDOT will use the shortest light pole that meets highway requirements and safety parameters and limits light in suitable bat

habitat.NCDOT will use light emitting diode(LED)fixtures with a Type II distribution pattern.This pattern projects light from the fixture further
along the road and less across the road. In all cases,the BUG(Backlight,Uplight,and Glare)rating will not exceed 3-0-3.
NCDOT will meet the AASHTO minimum requirements of 0.6 fc at 4:1 uniformity,which represents a 25%reduction in the average light on the
pavement surface(compared with using the 0.8 fc standard)and should reduce the amount of light reaching suitable bat habitat.NCDOT will
eliminate all high mast light poles within the action area.
Division Environmental Staff, Hydraulics-Stormwater control measures(A.elktoe)- Preconstruction
Based on Section 7 coordination,NCDOT has developed stormwater commitment guidance which will apply to any portion of the NCDOT
stormwater conveyance system draining to an outfall discharging to the French Broad River within the NCDOT right of way.NCDOT will prepare a
stormwater management plan(SMP)that implements structural and non-structural post-construction stormwater best management practices
(BMPs)to the maximum extent practical,which is consistent with NPDES Post-Construction Stormwater Program.NCDOT will use a hierarchical
BMP selection process,which is optimized to treat silt,nutrients,and heavy metals.
NCDOT will evaluate the use of emerging BMP technologies that NCDOT has yet to publish in its BMP Toolbox.These emerging BMP
technologies include bioswales,bioembankments,biofiltration conveyances,and soil improvements that maximize infiltration.
Hydraulics-Sediment and erosion control plan (SECP) - Preconstruction
Based on Section 7 coordination,the sedimentation and erosion control plan(SECP)will be in place prior to any ground disturbance for all pipe
replacements and construction.When needed,combinations of SEC measures(such as silt bags in conjunction with a stilling basin)will be used
to ensure that the most protective measures are implemented.The SECP shall adhere to the DSSW for portions of the project draining directly or
indirectly to the FBR.Consideration will be given to any on the ground practical application which is most protective of the resource.For example,
there may be some areas where NCDOT would not extend a measure of the DSSW(e.g.,cut trees to construct a basin)which would have greater
impact to sensitive resources.
Division Office,Construction Office-Blue Ridge Parkway-Control of Access
NCDOT will include 1,000-foot control of access(C/A)fencing along the HE-0001 portion of East Frederick Law Olmsted Way west of the
eastbound 1-26 on-and off-ramp intersection that would prohibit the construction of driveways or access points.
Construction Office-Blue Ridge Parkway-Tree clearing
NCDOT will minimize tree clearing consistent with Section 7 conservation measures.NCDOT is committed to avoid tree removal beyond what is
required to implement the project safely.NCDOT will ensure that tree removal is limited to that specified in the project plans.
Construction Office-Lighting (Bats)-Construction
Based on Section 7 coordination for bats,lighting used for construction will be limited to what is necessary to maintain safety standards and will
only be directed toward active work areas,not into adjacent wooded areas or inactive work sites.
Division Environmental Staff-Sediment and erosion control monitoring effectiveness-Construction
Based on Section 7 coordination,one Construction Project Inspector will monitor SEC devices for the life of the project.Inspections of erosion
control devices will be done on the standard inspection schedule(weekly,or after a rainfall event of one inch or greater).NCDOT will self-report to
the FWS any SEC device failures or sediment loss resulting from exceeding the capacity of the measures.The NCDOT inspector will report any
failures or sediment loss to the Division Environmental Officer,who will contact the agency within 24 hours.If there are any failures or sediment
loss,NCDOT will meet with resource agencies and work to adaptively manage SEC devices for further storm events while construction continues.
Division Environmental Staff-Tree Clearing (Bats)-Construction
Based on Section 7 coordination regarding bat habitat,NCDOT will ensure tree removal is limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that
clearing limits are clearly marked in the field(e.g.,install bright colored flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay
within clearing limits).
COMMITMENTS FROM PERMITTING
No commitments developed during project permitting.
*****END OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS*****
1-26 Exit 35, construct new interchange

I. Categorical Exclusion Approval:
STIP Project No. HE-0001
WBS Element 49742.1.2
Federal Project No. Federal Aid Number
Prepared By:
8/11/2022 �v4e�l
Date Ad m Archual, Senior Environmental Planner
G nnett Fleming
Prepared For: North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 13
Reviewed By: DocuSigned by:
08/12/2022 --
CA08484A6412432._.
Date John Jamison, EPU Western Regional Team Lead
North Carolina Department of Transportation
❑ Approved
[� Certified If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
,.DocuSigned by:
08/12/2022 r tm aVG�ut&
CD10D468D13AQ3...
Date Tim Anderson, PE, Division Engineer, Division 13
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
DocuSigned by:
08/12/2022 � � -B41Ctv
896E8B70991E42C_..
Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section Vll of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).
v2019.1 HE-0001 Type 111 CE Page 19

sn
Outletse
Venable Ca
S ':
,Rd �
_ �.♦.,� L .off � J' V
.I
aRs�
b
t Creek
6
y
glue R,c,L
Wy { `•
r
\ glue R`dah
N T tm
a+
d r O
0 c
o 0 ?�iChc
l Bilirr re Park
o, T0w 'Square �✓
9'oa Qa4 Ong Syodis Ru {Q
Ire-- �.
Lake.
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Study Area
Proposed Interchange

FIGURE 2. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (DSA 3)AND EAST FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED WAY
(FLOW) UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER)
N� V�
10
r
•
i
Inset Map of Buncombe County
-
AL
t
v w.,
F °HrN� Connection to Frederick Law
p rt.j�(SWY N- Olmsted Way East
I'1 CrlYrld AIMfldlNccrnMlYlc
�! NCDOT STIP HE-0001
h+kkI orKrPnwarrnr c.,nmrratRrA-,) Proposed I-26Interchange
{Figure 2}
'.y OPp _ BurKomhc Caunry, .�:Gmnett Remfng

FIGURE 3. LEDPA/PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (D$A 3)
1
m
1„
,•1
Insel flay of B�Hi<�iiiLr(.�iiii�y I � `• _
Asheville E.
0
00"TN LEDPA/Preferred Alt(DSA3)
t OF Z SOmm p.��0(IR NRR VET1 "©Rpd.R/"tly
—sa.H nrcaml»ul — "�rasa..r NCDOT STIP HE-0001
Proposed I-26Interchange
M 0 NRHPfipHnumwlopr/4. - AcpfMtA (Figure 3)
L1 R�..,.Kr,f�r„mKn: Aon n.renm Ww
'9 Y R�km°r Est.MrlHl A�fit{Y.
�F � rJ NAvuIMkMRgaialwar BuM°mhc CaunlV. -- �fiairtFrc•[t F7cmlfrg
Nr OFTAI Abhh(afnlHa

FIGURE 4. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP
FL
r •
mod. ,._ � '• ,<
h�
WQ NCV!
r �
Nv
wv
r NM NCR•
r NCS
WE NGf
_ Ai
�4 NC
CY
WA yy�
? r
i
f -�►�� �!
ID Project Study Area (�Biltmore Estate NHL
QPortion of1-4700 Study Area QNRHP Eligible ArchaelogicalSite , Environmental Features Map
Stream(1-4700/1-4400 WEl) _ Buncombe County Parcels ". NCDOT STIP HE-0001
-Stream(HE-0001 WEX) National Park-Blue Ridge Parkway® Proposed g
Pro d I-26 Interchange
e Wetland(1.4700/1-4400 WM Flood Zone p
Weand(HE-0001WEx) S00 Year Flood Zone Buncombe County, North Carolina
100 Year Flood Zone , ,mMm Bent Creek-French Broad Rim Trout Water9 .
FEMA Floodway
UaUta Sources:MCD07,ATLAS,Buncombe County GIS.
Created January 21,2022