20070262 Ver 1_EA Comments_20070216

lfdA1'? Michael F. Easley, Governor
4`6 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
>_ ..I Division of Water Quality
R

February 16, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: . Sue Homewood, Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed repair of unstable
roadbed at Milepost 270.3 on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Wilkes County, DENR Project
407-0262 Due date 2/26/07
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 2007. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section'401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:.
Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters that drain to waters classified as ORW,
Outstanding Resource Waters of the State in the project study area. The water quality classification
ORW is one of the highest classifications in the State. DWQ is extremely concerned with any
impacts that may occur to streams with this classification. It is preferred that these resources be
avoided if at all possible. If it is not possible to avoid these resources, the impacts should be
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Given the potent for impacts to these resources during the
project implementation, the DWQ requests that the applicant strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124)
throughout design and construction of the project. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .1006 and 15A
NCAC 2B .0224, the applicant will be required to obtain a State Stormwater Permit prior to
construction.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version bf NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the applicant is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
- One
NorthCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Natura!!y
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {1 5A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
6. The applicant is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
7. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
8. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
9. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Nationwide (NW) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the applicant and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
10. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
11. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
12. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
13. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
14. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
15. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
16. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
17. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964.
cc: Monte Matthews, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ 401 Transportation Permitting Unit
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0262 County: Wilkes
Due Date: 02/26/2007
Date Received: 02/01/2007
Project Description: Proposal to repair 200 linear ft of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost
270.3, Section 2E in Wilkes County
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh .
Washington
Wilmington
T Winston-Salem
1 Office Area
T_ Air
?- Water
T-T Groundwater
y Land Quality Engineer
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
In-House Review
Soil & Water
Coastal Management
Wildlife
T Wildlife - DOT
T Forest Resources
Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
_ Water Quality
J Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Date:
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
Reviewer/Agency:
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
Marine Fisheries
Water Resources
Environmental Health
Solid Waste Mgmt
Radiation Protection
Other
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
. . Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0262
County: Wilkes
Due Date: 02/26/2007
Date Received: 02/01/2007
le
Description:. Proposal to repair 200 linear ft of unstabe roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost
Project
270.3, Section 2E in Wilkes County
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional office
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
n Winston-Salem
_a Air
office Area
_LL Water
Groundwater
Land Quality Engineer
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
In-House Review
Soil & Water
Coastal Management
Wildlife
_f[ Wildlife -DOT
T Forest Resources
Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
_ Water Quality
TT Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Reviewer/Agency:
No Comment
other (specify or attach comments)
System) application,
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
Marine Fisheries
Water Resources
Environmental Health
Solid Waste Mgmt
Radiation Protection
Other
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
Wilkes County, North Carolina
REPAIR OF UNSTABLE ROADBED AT
MILEPOST 270.3
Environmental Assessment
February 2007
M .
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway
Wilkes County, North Carolina
SUMMARY
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the repair of
approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3. This
project consists of the reimediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent
instability since approximately the mid-1970's. The intent of this project is to develop corrective
measures that will either arrest the slide movement to stabilize the slope using a system of anchor blocks
or to stabilize the road bed by spanning the slide with a bridge. The project will alleviate continuing
safety concerns and maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway. The purpose of this
Environmental Assessment is to describe the affected environment and analyze potential impacts
associated pith a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives.
The preferred alternative, which would construct an anchor block system to stabilize the slope, would
have no impact on air quality, floodplains, soundscape, archeological resources, ethnographic resources,
historic and prehistoric structures, museum collections, socioeconomic environment, prime and unique
farmlands, and environmental justice. Impacts to soils would be minor and adverse in the short-term and
negligible and adverse in the long-term. Impacts to water resources, including wetlands, would be minor
and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to vegetation would be minor and adverse in the short-term.
Impacts to wildlife would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to visitor use and experience
would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to cultural landscapes would be negligible and
adverse in the short-term. Impacts to human health and safety would be moderate and beneficial in the
long-term.
Note Regarding Public Comment
If you wish to comment on the Environmental Assessment, you may do so online (our preference) at the
National Park Service website "Planning, Environment, and Public Comment"
http://parkplanning.nps.gov, or you may mail comments to: Blue Ridge Parkway, Attn: Suzette Molling,
Environmental Protection Specialist;; 199 Hemphill Knob Road; Asheville, North Carolina 28803.
This Environmental Assessment will be on public review for 30 days. Our practice is to make comments,
including names, home, addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available
for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home
addresses, etc., but if you wish to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comments. Commentators using the website can make such a request by checking
the box "keep my contact information private." Comments are typically treated as a public record and
made available for public review. Individuals may request that the National Park Service withhold their
name and address from disclosure. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.
Summary
ii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. vi
Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................... I
Project Background .........................................................................................................................1
Park Purpose and Significance ........................................................................................................4
Law, Regulations, and Policies .......................................................................................................5
Scoping ...........................................................................................................................................6
The Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................6
Impact Topics .................................................................................................................................6
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment .............................................7
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration ......................................................8
Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................................................................10
Alternative A: No Action ..............................................................................................................10
Alternative B: Anchor Blocks .......................................................................................................1 l
Alternative C: Bridge with paved shoulders .................................................................................14
Alternative D: Bridge with grassy shoulders ................................................................................16
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................................16
Environmentally Preferred Alternative .........................................................................................18
Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................................19
Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................22
Environmental Consequences .....................................................
Methodology .....................................................................
General Impact Definitions ..................................
Cumulative Impact Scenario ................................
Impairment of Park Resources .............................
Soils and Geology .............................................................
Affected Environment ..........................................
Methodology ........................................................
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..................
Impacts of Alternative B ......................................
Impacts of Alternative C ......................................
Impacts of Alternative D ......................................
Water Resources, Including Wetlands ..............................
Affected Environment ..........................................
Methodology ........................................................
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..................
Impacts of Alternative B ......................................
Impacts of Alternative C ......................................
Impacts of Alternative D ......................................
Vegetation .........................................................................
Affected Environment ..........................................
Table of Contents iii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Methodology ....................................................................................................................41
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..............................................................................42
Impacts of Alternative B ......................................................................................... .........43
Impacts of Alternative C ........................................................................................ ..........44
Impacts of Alternative D ........................................................................................ ..........44
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................45
Affected Environment ......................................................................................................45
Methodology .......................................................................................................... ..........46
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................... ..........47
Impacts of Alternative B ........................................................................................ ..........48
Impacts of Alternative C ........................................................................................ ..........49
Impacts of Alternative D ..................................................................................................50
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources ......................... ..........52
Affected Environment ........................................................................................... ..........52
Methodology .......................................................................................................... ..........52
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................... ..........53
Impacts of Alternative B ........................................................................................ ..........54
Impacts of Alternative C ........................................................................................ ..........55
Impacts of Alternative D ........................................................................................ ..........57
Cultural Landscapes ............................................................................................................ ..........58
Affected Environment ............................................................................................ ..........58
Methodology .......................................................................................................... ..........59
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................... ..........60
Impacts of Alternative B ........................................................................................ ..........60
Impacts of Alternative C ........................................................................................ ..........61
Impacts of Alternative D ........................................................................................ ..........61
Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................... ..........62
Affected Environment ............................................................................................ ..........62
Methodology .......................................................................................................... ..........63
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................... ..........63
Impacts of Alternative B ........................................................................................ ..........64
Impacts of Alternative C ........................................................................................ ..........65
Impacts of Alternative D ........................................................................................ ..........65
Consultation and Coordination ..............................................................................................................66
Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................66
Preparers and Contributors ...........................................................................................................66
References Cited .......................................................................................................................................69
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Scoping and Agency Coordination ....................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Choosing by Advantage ....................................................................................................B-1
Table of Contents iv
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location .............................................. 2
2 Land Tract Number 39-147 ....................................................................................................... ...... 3
3 The No Action Alternative: current road condition at MP 270.3 .............................................. .... 11
4 Alternative B: example of anchor block system ........................................................................ .... 12
5 Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................. .... 15
6 Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................ .... 17
A-1 Scoping Letter ........................................................................................................................... ..A-3
A-2 Scoping Brochure ..................................................................................................................... .. A-5
A-3 News Release ............................................................................................................................ .. A-7
A-4 USFS Comment Letter .............................................................................................................. A-10
A-5 USFWS Comment Letter .......................................................................................................... A-11
A-6 NCDENR Comment Letter ....................................................................................................... A-16
A-7 Wilkes County Comment Letter ............................................................................................... A-22
B-1 CBA Chart ................................................................................................................................. .. B-4
B-2 CBA Graph ................................................................................................................................ .. B-7
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 22
2 Summary Comparison of Impacts ................................................................................................. 23
A-1 Persons Who Received the Scoping Letter .................................................................................. A-7
Table of Contents v
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BLRI Blue Ridge Parkway
BMP Best Management Practices
CBA Choosing by Advantages
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DSC Denver Service Center
DO NPS Director's Order
EA Environmental Assessment
EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division
FHWA Federal Highways Administration
FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FY Fiscal Year
MP Milepost
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
OL Overlook
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters
SERO Southeast Regional Office
T&E Threatened and Endangered
USC United States Code
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VA Value Analysis
Table of Contents vi
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
PURPOSE AND NEED
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
repair of approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI or
Parkway). The site is approximately six miles north of US 421 and Deep Gap at Milepost (MP) 270.3,
Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina near West Jefferson (Figure 1). This project consists of the
remediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent instability since
approximately the mid-1970's. This EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish
the repair solution for this unstable roadbed.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the most frequently visited National Park Service area with an annual
visitation of over 21 million visitors. The Parkway road inventory consists of over 525 lineal miles of
asphalt pavement located at elevations that in some areas exceed 5,000 feet above sea level. All road
areas are subject to extreme weather conditions, including freezing and thawing, which causes rockslides
and other surface failures. As the slide area that is the cause of the unstable road bed at MP 270.3
continues to move, the roadway embankment shifts, thus causing the roadbed to settle and to damage the
pavement surface. The two reasons the fill is moving are that the fill is placed on an existing steep rock
slope without proper benching of the rock slope, and that the existing rock slope is yielding subsurface
water at the interface of the fill and the rock slope, lubricating the fill material and causing the fill to
move at the interface of the existing rock slope and the fill. As water continues to penetrate the structural
foundation of the road base, deterioration is accelerated.
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is considered an extremely high priority. Efforts to repair the
road have been made intermittently for the past 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be
necessary to stabilize the section by using an anchor block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The intent of this project is to develop corrective measures that will either arrest the slide movement to
stabilize the slope or stabilize the road embankment, and will alleviate continuing safety concerns and
maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The two lanes of pavement at this location are supported by a deep embankment fill placed during the
original Parkway construction. The site borders on a major hillside with more than 100-feet of relief
between the top and bottom of the embankment fill slope and has a slope angle of approximately 1.5
horizontal to 1.0 vertical.
The travel way is located on a relatively level bench near elevation 3,300 feet with the hillside continuing
upward starting about 50-feet west of the Parkway pavement. The top of the slide opens up approximately
20 feet west of the Parkway pavement. A steep downhill slope starts approximately 5-feet east of the
pavement and extends to well beyond the project limits. The bottom of the slide is reported to be
approximately 150 feet down the slope at an elevation approximately 80 to 90-feet lower than the
Parkway (NPS, 2005a). Based on the cracking observed on the pavement, it is estimated that the
horizontal length of the slide area is approximately 190-feet near the top at the roadway.
Purpose and Need
U.S. National Park Service En,, ironmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure 1. Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location.
A tract of land bordering the Parkway which was recently acquired expands the boundary in the location
of the slide at MP 270.3 from 350 feet to a total of approximately 750 feet to bordering private land. The
entire tract would expand the boundary much wider, but there is a "donut hole" of private land contained
within the newly acquired tract (Figure 2).
The roadbed movement at MP 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. A horizontal subsurface
drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove subsurface drainage
beneath fill soils, believed at the time to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has been
patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but movement
and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division (EFLHD) personnel conducted an inspection of the
landslide in May 1997. At that time, of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 as part of the drainage
gallery, four were running water and three were dripping. Recommendations were given to seal the
pavement cracks and restore the Parkway grade by placing an asphaltic concrete patch. Further
recommendations were given to install piezometers to measure water levels and to drill into one of the
drainage shafts to determine if they were becoming clogged. EFLHD personnel installed piezometers in
July 1997. Drainage shafts have not been drilled.
Purpose and Need 2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
35

Figure 2. Land Tract Number 39-147 recently transferred to Parkway ownership from the
Conservation Land Trust.

Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. Both patched
areas are the full width of the roadway. The south and north patches are approximately 25 feet and 60 feet
long, respectively. Another patch, 6 feet wide by 56 feet long, extends south from the north patch. An
inspection of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average
of approximately two gallons of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of
trees along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean, geotechnical monitoring of the area indicates
continual slope movement, and catastrophic failure of the slope is considered highly possible.
SEE LAND STATUS MAP 3
Purpose and Need 3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Recent geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that water movement at the interface of bedrock and soil
is a critical contributing cause of roadway movement since it can reduce frictional resistance of the
embankment thus aiding in its instability. However, the weight of the material on the interface between
bedrock and soil exceeds the frictional resistance of that interface and is believed to be a major cause of
slide movement. If it were not for the existing rock slope yielding subsurface water at its interface with
the fill, it is likely that the fill would not be moving. As past attempts to arrest the movement have proven
to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
The legislated purpose of BLRI, under the Act of June 30, 1936, is to link Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee by way of a
recreation-oriented motor road intended for public use and enjoyment. Under the provisions of the
Organic Act approved by Congress on August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535) creating the National Park Service,
the intended purpose of the BLRI is to provide an elongated park to conserve, interpret, and exhibit the
unique natural and cultural resources of the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, as well as
provide for leisure motor travel through a variety of scenic environments.
The general interpretation of BLRI's purpose has been further refined into the following more specific
purpose statements:
• Connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks by way of a "national rural
parkway" - a recreational, destination-oriented motor road traveling through a variety of scenic ridge,
mountainside, and pastoral farm landscapes.
• Conserve the scenery and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Parkway's designed and
natural area to preserve the integrity of resources and to provide a quality visitor experience.
• Influence the protection of the scenic, natural and cultural resources within the corridor composed of
those lands that are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and/or situated adjacent to the boundary.
• Provide for public enjoyment and understanding of the natural resources and cultural heritage of the
central and southern Appalachian Mountains.
• Provide opportunities for high quality scenic and recreational experiences along the Blue Ridge
Parkway and within the corridor through which it passes.
The route of the Blue Ridge Parkway follows mountain and valley landscapes to link Shenandoah and
Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. Its location was selected to provide the best in a variety of
scenic, historic, and natural features that evoke the regional image of the central and southern
Appalachian Mountains. In order to maximize scenic views and give Blue Ridge Parkway visitors the
impression that they are in a park with boundaries to the horizon, the Blue Ridge Parkway was located in
mountainous terrain that normal roads would have avoided. The Blue Ridge Parkway was the first
national rural parkway and is widely recognized as an international example of landscape and engineering
design achievements with a roadway that lies easily on the land and blends into the existing scene. The
Blue Ridge Parkway also was the first national rural parkway to be conceived, designed, and constructed
as a leisure-type driving experience.
Purpose and Need 4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Blue Ridge Parkway follows the crests and ridges of the Blue Ridge, Black, Great Craggy, Great
Balsam and Plot Balsam Mountains. These five major mountain ranges are part of the central and
southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile Parkway encompasses several geographic and vegetative
zones, with altitudes ranging from approximately 650 feet at James River in Virginia to nearly 6,050 feet
at Richland Balsam in North Carolina. The Blue Ridge Parkway is known for spectacular mountain and
valley vistas, quiet pastoral scenes, sparkling waterfalls, colorful flowers and foliage displays, and
interpretation of mountain history and culture. Its varied topography and numerous vista points offer easy
public access to views of southern Appalachian rural landscapes and forested mountains. Designed for
recreational driving, the Blue Ridge Parkway provides visitors with quiet, leisure travel, free from
commercial traffic and the congestion of high-speed highways. As its All-American Road status indicates,
it is one of the most diverse and high quality recreational driving experiences in the world.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the highest and longest continuous route in the Appalachian area. Because of
its long length, proximity to large Eastern United States urban areas, numerous access points, quality
design and diversity of scenic, natural and cultural resources, the Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited
National Park Service area.
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
The following laws and associated regulations provided guidance for the development of this EA, design
of the preferred alternative and alternatives, analysis of impacts, and creation of mitigation measures to be
implemented as part of the preferred alternative.
The NPS Organic Act (1916) and the General Authorities Act (1970) prohibit impairment of park
resources and values. The NPS 2001 Management Policies uses the terms "resources and values" to mean
the full spectrum of tangible and intangible attributes for which the park was established and is managed,
including the Organic Act's fundamental purpose and any additional purposes as stated in the park's
establishing legislation. The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed unless directly
and specifically provided by statute. The primary responsibility of the NPS is to ensure that park
resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have
present and future opportunities to enjoy them.
The evaluation of whether impacts of a preferred alternative would lead to an impairment of park
resources and values is included in this EA. Impairment is more likely when there are potential impacts to
a resource or value whose conservation is:
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park;
essential to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park;
or
• identified as a goal in the park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents.
NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS, 2000) addresses transportation systems, including park roads,
emphasizing that the NPS must find transportation solutions that preserve the natural and cultural
resources while providing a high-quality visitor experience.
Section 9.2 Transportation Systems "If a decision is made to construct, expand, or reconstruct a park
transportation system, the Service will address the need for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife corridor
crossings and other accommodations to avoid or mitigate harm to individual animals, the fragmentation of
plant and animal habitats, and the disruption of natural systems."
Purpose and Need
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Section 9.2.1.1 Park Roads "Park roads will be well constructed, sensitive to natural and cultural
resources, reflect the highest principles of park design, and enhance the visitor experience. Park roads are
generally not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation; rather, they are intended to enhance
the quality of a visit, while providing for safe and efficient travel, with minimal 106 or no impacts on
natural and cultural resources."
SCOPING
Scoping is an open process that determines the breadth of environmental issues and alternatives to be
addressed in an EA. Scoping involves obtaining internal and external input on project-related issues from
resource specialists and the public, respectively. The Park conducted internal Scoping with appropriate
NPS (BLRI. SERO, and DSC) and FHWA staff and external Scoping with the public, including interested
and affected groups or individuals and non-NPS agency personnel.
An interdisciplinary team comprising BLRI, SERO, DSC, and FHWA staff members contributed to the
internal Scoping process. This process resulted in definition of the purpose and need, identification of
potential actions to address the need, and determination of what the likely issues and impact topics would
be.
For external Scoping, a public Scoping letter, a public Scoping brochure, and a news release (see Figures
A-1 through A-3 in Appendix A) describing the project and requesting public input on the proposed
alternatives was issued to private parties and State, Federal, and local agencies on June 1, 2006.
Appendix A provides a list of individual and agencies/organizations that were sent the scoping letter
(Table A-1). The external scoping period ended on July 3, 2005. Comments received during the Scoping
period can be found in Figures A-4 to A-7 of Appendix A.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from the
alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative. This EA has been prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1500 through 1508) for implementing NEPA, and the NPS NEPA compliance guidance handbook (DO-
12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making).
IMPACT Topics
Issues and concerns with this project are grouped into distinct impact topics to aid in analyzing
environmental consequences, which allows for a standardized comparison of alternatives based on the
most relevant information. The impact topics were identified on the basis of federal laws, regulations and
orders, NPS Management Policies 2001, and NPS knowledge of potentially affected resources. A brief
rationale for selecting or dismissing each topic is provided below.
Purpose and Need 6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment
Soils and Geology
Construction activities, such as excavation and the use of heavy equipment, would disturb soils and
potentially cause soil compaction and erosion in the project area. Soil grading and other construction
related activity could permanently change the character of the soil.
Water Resources, Including Wetlands
NPS Management Policies 2001 requires protection of water quality consistent with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to prohibit or regulate, through
a permitting process, the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters. Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands, NPS Management Policies 2001, Section 4.6.5, Wetlands, and NPS DO #77-1,
Wetland Protection, require an examination of impacts to and protection of wetlands. A small perennial
stream with adjoining wetlands occurs below the road at MP 270.3. Construction activities have the
potential to affect water quality and wetlands in the project area.
Vegetation
Vegetation along the roadside could be impacted both from clearing and from trampling during
construction. The spread of invasive plants may occur. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered plants in the vicinity of MP 270.3.
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species
Clearing vegetation could potentially reduce or alter wildlife habitat. Construction activities could
temporarily displace wildlife from the immediate vicinity. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered animals in the vicinity of MP 270.3. However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea) a
federal species of concern, and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.5 miles
of this site.
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources
Visitor use and experience could be affected through noise, aesthetic, and traffic-related effects during
construction. Visual resources would be affected by construction activities and after construction by
changes to the road configuration. Recreational opportunities could be affected by changes in traffic
patterns and conditions along the roadway.
Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes are defined by the NPS as "a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural
resources and is often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use,
systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is
defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting
cultural values and traditions" (DO #28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, 1998). Although the
project area is not located in an historic district, the Parkway itself is considered historically significant
and is eligible for designation as a National Historic Landmark. This project could replace historic
features/elements in kind.
Human Health and Safety
Safety along the Parkway at MP 270.3 would improve with road repairs as the current safety hazards
would be eliminated.
Purpose and Need 7
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration
Air Quality
Air quality could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however, impacts would be
temporary and minor in intensity. Overall, there could be a slight and temporary degradation of local air
quality due to dust generated by activities and emissions from construction equipment. These effects
would last only during construction activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to
limit dust generation and dispersal. To keep equipment emissions down, equipment would be properly
maintained. Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.
Floodplains
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires all Federal agencies to take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, and
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. The proposed project area is not
located near or in any floodplains; therefore this topic was dismissed from consideration.
Soundscape
In accordance with NPS Management Policies 2001, the Parkway strives to preserve the natural
Soundscape. The Soundscape could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however,
impacts would be temporary and minor in intensity. The proposed action would not affect natural ambient
sound in the long-term. Therefore, soundscape was dismissed as an impact topic in this EA.
Archeological Resources
The National Park Service is required to, "preserve collections of prehistoric and historic material
remains, and associated records, recovered under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-
433), the Reservoir Salvage Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c), section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2), or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm)" (36 CFR
Part 79). These regulations, promulgated under the authority of the Secretary of Interior, apply to
findings made by historic preservation professionals that meet qualification standards for Federal
projects. As no archaeological sites are located in the project area, archaeological resources were
dismissed as an impact topic in the EA.
Ethnographic Resources
The National Park Service must be respectful of ethnographic resources, those cultural and natural
features that are of traditional significance to traditionally associated peoples. These are contemporary
peoples whose interest in the park began prior to its establishment (1936) and who have associated with
the park for more than two generations (40 years) (Management Policies 2001, Sec. 5.3.5.3). The
proposed project would not affect any ethnographic resources currently known to park staff, and thus will
not be discussed as an impact topic.
Historic and Prehistoric Structures
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended in 1992 (16 USC 470 et seq.); NEPA of
1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.); NPS DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, NPS Management
Policies 2001, and NPS DO #12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision
Making require the consideration of impacts on historic structures and buildings listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No structures, historic or prehistoric, are directly
involved in this project, and thus, this topic has been dismissed.
Purpose and Need 8
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Museum Collections
The NPS' Management Policies, 2001 and DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline require
the consideration of impacts on museum collections (historic artifacts, natural specimens, and archival
and manuscript material). There are no museum objects that would be affected by this proposal, and thus
was dismissed as an impact topic.
Socioeconomic Environment
Construction activities associated with the action alternative would have short-term, negligible impacts on
the local economy due to short-term increases in employment opportunities and revenues for local
businesses and government during construction. A private construction contractor would be hired by the
FHWA to conduct construction activities. The construction contract would be administered by FHWA
with representation by the National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Construction-related benefits to
the local economy through wages, overhead expenses, material costs, and profits would last only the
duration of construction, and would be minimal. Parkway closure and detour routes during construction
may have an adverse impact to local businesses. No long-term impacts on the local economy would
occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.
Prime and Unique Farmlands
In August 1980, the CEQ directed that Federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on
farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops,
such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops, such as
fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Since the project area does not meet the definition of farmland as stated in
Title 7, Chapter 73, Section 4201 (c)(1) of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), it is not applicable
to the FPPA. Therefore, the topic of prime and unique farmlands was dismissed as an impact topic in this
EA.
Environmental Justice
Presidential Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental
justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations
and communities. The proposed project would not have disproportionate health or environmental effects
on minorities or low-income populations or communities as defined in the US EPA's Draft
Environmental Justice Guidance (July 1996). Therefore, Environmental Justice was dismissed as an
impact topic in this EA.
Purpose and Need 9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives to the preferred alternative, and to briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating
any alternatives that were not considered in detail. This chapter describes a range of reasonable
alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, Preferred Alternative, two other action alternatives, and
an alternative that was considered and eliminated from further analysis.
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
The CBA process was conducted at the Holiday Inn Express in Boone, North Carolina July 26-28, 2005.
The details and outcome of the CBA process are described in Appendix B.
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, the unstable roadway at MP 270.3 would be left as is (Figure 3),
roadbed movement would continue due to the slow moving slide, and the road would not be substantially
repaired. However, this alternative would require continued cyclic maintenance to keep the road
operational. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require the assessment of the No Action Alternative in
NEPA documents. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the management direction
and environmental consequences of the other action alternatives and must be considered in every EA.
Alternatives 10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ALTERNATIVE B - ANCHOR BLOCKS
(NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Under Alternative B, the area around the unstable roadbed would be retained with an anchor block
system. The active slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with tendons anchored to rock
beneath the slip plane. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway and
may include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill embankment and
pavement. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is $2.7M.
Anchor blocks would be completely buried and placed in a zone below the Parkway to the east between
30 and 200 feet from the road edge. The conceptual design for the anchor block system has not been
completed other than the representation of the area of disturbance (Figure 4). A conceptual description of
the anchor block system, subject to revision, follows. Placement could involve placing four or five rows
of evenly spaced concrete anchor blocks located one-third to one-half way up the slope from the toe of the
slide. There could be a total of eighty-eight to ninety-six 8'x8' or 10'x10' blocks. Each row could be
approximately 25 to 40 feet apart and the area of coverage could be 200 feet long by 150 feet deep. Each
row could likely have 20 to 24 anchor blocks. The anchor blocks would be placed in a wedge excavated
from the slope so that a leveled bench can be created. Once the anchor blocks are placed in rows in an
upright position with rock anchor cables in place, the slope wedges with the anchor blocks would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass. Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy
cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock outside of the slide zone.
Alternatives 11
Figure 3. The No Action Alternative: current road conditions at MP 270.3.
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
t?
c
?

Figure 4. Alternative B: example of anchor block system installed at other slide area sites with
similar geotechnical analysis.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary
in diameter, with most being 1" to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it
is believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping is meant to collect the water
from this plane of flow and redirect it to daylight on the face of the slope or into spring boxes then to the
face of the slope. The underdrain pipes that discharge in the spring boxes are directionally drilled towards
34 each 36 inch diameter vertical shafts which are backfilled with aggregate that aide in directing water
flow to the underdrain piping.
The existing under-drain piping system may need to be upgraded and/or replaced in the anchor block
system alternative because drainage relief is inadequate to prevent slide movement. An observed flow rate
from individual outlet pipes has been observed to be approximately 2 gallons per minute. The proposed
anchor blocks to be installed would likely damage or completely destroy the existing piping and outlet
distribution of the existing system of piping since the location of this piping is not known. If additional
subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the existing system. There
would only be piping installed to collect and redirect subsurface drainage at the fill slope slip plane
(between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system and there shall be no aggregate filled
trenches that feed the under drain piping, which is not considered geotechnically feasible. Additional
drainage piping may need to be installed on both the cut (Pkwy R) and fill slopes (Pkwy L) depending on
updated and final geotechnical analysis and design development of the anchor block system. If
geotechnical analysis can validate that the anchor block system can completely subside further slide
movement with repairs to the existing subsurface piping system alone, then the anchor block system
Alternatives 12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would be installed retaining the existing subsurface drainage pipe system, making repairs to pipe only
where necessary. However, every effort would be made to retain the integrity of the existing subsurface
drainage.
Subsurface drainage relief is considered an asset and facilities to capture surface drainage may be
included in detailed design of the anchor block system if deemed necessary and could contribute to the
future stability of the slope. However, it is not at this time considered a geotechnical necessity in the
anchor block system design. If the subsurface drainage system is extended, replaced, or repaired,
additional excavation or area disturbance would not be expanded.
The subsurface drainage system would continue to be evaluated with the design of the anchor block
system to ensure a sustainable geotechnical solution to stabilizing the slide from further movement. A
means of reducing the contributing causes for slide movement should provide the ideal geotechnical
engineering solution. The anchor block system would retain the slope embankment and the subsurface
drainage piping would redirect and reduce subsurface water flow at the plain of movement between the
embankment and bedrock. Additional geotechnical analysis would be necessary to demonstrate that the
anchor block system is in itself an adequate solution to stabilizing slide movement. Additional analysis
would determine any need to increase the amount of or otherwise make improvements to the existing
subsurface drainage piping system.
Surface drainage would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow, much as it is in most other
areas on the Parkway. For the anchor block system, culverts beneath the Parkway would channel run off
from natural drainage swales. The existing culvert system design (size, construction, material, and
placement) may be adequate, but replacing defective culvert may be necessary.
The roadway is to be reconstructed within the slide zone. The existing pavement is in disrepair due to
continued settling and movement of the slide. Additionally, the approaches to the reconstructed pavement
would be milled. Reconstruction would involve repaving the road surface with little disturbance to
roadway subgrade, although it would be subject to erosion for a short time. The asphalt would be
disposed of properly.
Because of the weight, anchor blocks would be staged and stored off the Parkway. The contractor would
stockpile the anchor blocks off of US 421 and transport the blocks to be used that day to the construction
site. When delivered to the site, the blocks would be placed along one lane of the Parkway ready for
installation.
Construction would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November 1 thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for %Z -1 hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Single lane closure would be controlled with flagmen, lights, and signs.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. Native tree sprigs would be planted over the covered anchor blocks, between
the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Alternatives 13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Most waste material to be excavated would be clean fill dirt and rock. Some of this material could be
used to construct an access road to the site where anchor blocks would be placed. Other excavated
material could be used to cover anchor blocks. It is anticipated that there would be minimal to no
excavated waste that would need to be exported. Approximately 100 yards of topsoil material from an
offsite borrow pit may need to be imported, but some topsoil could likely be reserved for use from forest
clearing.
ALTERNATIVE C - BRIDGE WITH PAVED SHOULDERS
Under Alternative C a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to span the unstable slide area.
Installation of the bridge requires some slope excavation that would unload some of the unstable fill
material when placing the bridge and obliterating the existing roadway. The 2008 cost estimate for this
alternative is $4.4M. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and
slope excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to deep bedrock and there
would be a traditional concrete deck.
The bridge would be placed in the same alignment and footprint as the existing road. Just as other bridges
on the Parkway, this bridge would be constructed completely within the straight section of the road
alignment between curves to the north and south. The proposed length of the bridge would not exceed
200 feet. Pavement reconstruction would involve removal and reconstruction of approximately 75 linear
feet of Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (or the entire depth including all courses of existing asphalt
pavement) and Compacted Aggregate Base (or the crushed stone material and gravel that are placed
beneath the asphalt surfacing) to both the north and south approaches of the bridge for a total of 150 feet.
Additionally, there would be milling and overlaying of approximately another 200 linear feet of area
outside the slide scarp.
Based on the available subsurface information from recent geotechnical survey tests (FHWA, 2005) and
the variability of the depth to the top of rock, a deep foundation consisting of drilled shafts would be
required for the support of a bridge at this location. The embedment depth of the shafts would vary
considerably parallel and perpendicular to the roadway centerline. Based on seismic results, the average
shaft length would exceed 60-ft to meet the load requirements. The excavation depth measured from the
existing ground along the Parkway centerline to the grade beneath the proposed structure would be
approximately 20 feet for a length of approximately 100 feet centered in the middle of the 200 foot bridge
span.
The bridge would be a single-span structure containing abutments with pile foundations (Figure 5). The
abutments would be designed to withstand lateral loads since they would be located 5 feet outside of the
slide area. The abutments would be designed to reach bedrock, which is on average 60 feet below finish
grade of the Parkway in the locations where they would be installed. Additional geotechnical analysis
would be required for final cast in place abutment and pile foundation at the bridge abutments design.
The concrete or steel girders would have an open design with no boxed in area beneath for road or stream
clearance; ground clearance would be 10-14 feet maximum. The bridge would also have class B masonry
granite parapet walls.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. There is no reason the existing drainage
system would not continue to work with the bridge. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary in
diameter, with most being 1" to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it is
believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping intercepts gravel column drains
Alternatives 14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
and are placed at each one of the horizontal drain installations. They are meant to collect the water from
the plane of flow and direct it to the toe of the slope.
This bridge alternative would likely have little affect on this system and is less dependent on its existence
than the anchor block alternative since spanning the slide area negates the need for the function it
provides. If additional subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the
existing system. There would only be piping installed to collect and direct subsurface drainage at the fill
slope slip plane (between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system.

i. r~
Figure 5. Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge.
The proposed bridge would be a single span bridge between supporting abutment piers placed at either
end. In contrast to the above photograph, the proposed structure would be single-span with no mid-span
supports. It would have steel support girders rather than precast concrete girders as is shown here, cast in
place concrete abutments, and similar ground clearance. The class B masonry granite parapet wall
construction is similar to the proposed bridge. The parapet walls form the shoulder and guardwall
protection all the way across the bridge span.
The bridge would be open allowing sheet flow to continue to flow naturally under the bridge. Any
concentrated flows would need to be collected and transported down the slope through swales or pipes.
There would be drainage scuppers or ports placed beneath the parapet wall so that sheet drainage on the
bridge deck can drain through. Pipes would be installed beneath the roadway approaches to the bridge.
Surface drainage could flow naturally beneath the bridge or through culverts.
Alternatives 15
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one year, and possibly
two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The contractor would be able to stage
construction materials from the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook (OL). The overlook pavement and
stone curb, along with the Parkway pavement between the overlook and the slide, would be reconstructed
as part of this project due to.likely damage during construction.
It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Little to no forest area would
be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create
ground clearance for the bridge. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and rock material would be
exported and disposed of off site. Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be
salvaged from the site would be imported from an outside source, mixed with grass seed, and placed
along the road shoulder approaches on either side of the bridge. Any grassed or forested area cleared of
vegetation would be seeded to fescue grasses as per the Parkway standard.
This bridge in this alternative would not stop the continuing movement of the slide; it only isolates the
roadway from the slide. There would be minor benefits of relieving mass by.excavation and removal of
embankment necessary to construct the bridge. The pile foundation of the abutment would support the
structure on underlying bedrock and relieve the loads borne by the slope. The major benefit of the bridge
is to span and minimally stabilize the slope.
ALTERNATIVE D - BRIDGE WITH GRASS SHOULDERS
Under Alternative D a bridge would be constructed to span the unstable slide area similar to the bridge
described in Alternative C but with grassy shoulders. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is
$5.OM. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and slope
excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to the deep bedrock. The cost
also includes a bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway across the bridge.
This requires an additional steel beam to support the additional weight.
The bridge would be constructed with grassed shoulders (Figure 6), class B masonry guardwalls, and
concrete abutments that could support lateral slope movement and would be supported for 200 feet by
steel girders. Timing of construction, road closures, area of disturbance and all other aspects other than
bridge shoulders would be the same as the description in Alternative C.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives, and briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating any alternatives that were not
considered in detail. This section describes four alternatives that were considered and eliminated from
further study. The rationale for elimination is given below.
Road Realignment
This concept would realign the roadway outside of the failure scarp, removing some of the material from
the slide by obliterating the existing road. Realignment would move the road into the ridge to the north
and a soldier pile wall socketed into rock would be installed. Excavation of slopes would be required for
realigning the road. This realignment would be feasible only if steep rock cuts could be achieved with
realignment of the Parkway into the ridge. In addition, the realignment alternative would further only be
feasible if the depth to rock under the fill embankment was reasonable, which would require a limited
length for the soldier piles.
Alternatives 16
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Geotechnical survey test results (FHWA, 2005) indicate that competent rock is located at an approximate
depth of 56-ft to 76-ft below the ground surface at the locations of the cut slopes that would result from
realigning the Parkway into the ridge to the north. The preferred steep rock cuts would not be realized at
these cut slope locations. Realignment of the road towards the uphill side of the Parkway would require
extensive stabilization along the downhill side consisting of retaining walls with an anchoring structure
because of the depth to competent rock. A soldier pile wall at this location would require a ground
anchoring system in addition to extending 5 feet, as a minimum, into competent rock. Based on the
subsurface boring and geophysical testing results at the slide location, a cantilevered soldier pile wall
would not have the capacity to withstand the lateral forces without an anchoring system.
Figure 6. Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would
look most like this bridge along the roadway with class B masonry parapet walls and guardwall
approaches. The bridge in the photo has grassed shoulders over the bridge span and along the guardwall
approaches. The proposed bridge would have class B masonry parapet and guardwall approaches with
grassy shoulders that would be continuous.
Alternatives 17
This alternative was dismissed due to the geotechnical test results that indicate such a proposal is not
practical, as well as cost ($6.4 M in 2008 dollars).
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Embankment Excavation
This concept would excavate the embankment to near bedrock level, and reconstruct with benches and
gravel drainage layers. This approach alleviates the buildup of pore pressures in the embankment and
improves soil conditions along the existing slip surface. This proposal may extend beyond the NPS right-
of-way boundaries. It was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because the treatment of
slope grading would appear very unnatural requiring massive vegetation removal and the appearance of
angular sculpted slopes never before used to such as extent on the Parkway.
Rock Buttresses
This concept would construct rock buttresses near the toe of the slide to provide stability. This alternative
was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and as rock buttresses would require significant
excavation and tree clearing for installation. Additionally, their limits may extend beyond the present NPS
right-of-way. This option might be considered a new design element in the cultural landscape if
implemented on the cut slope of the Parkway, although such structures have been used on the fill slopes
of the Parkway in other locations.
Retaining Walls
This concept would construct retaining walls either near the roadway or part way down the slope to
provide stability. Retaining walls would need to be massive due to the anticipated depth to rock (30 to 60-
feet) and would need to be constructed along several levels. It is likely that micropyles or soil nail walls
drilled and grouted into bedrock, or some other anchorage system, would be necessary to provide lateral
resistance for the wall. This option was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because slope
clearing would be massive on both cut and fill slopes. The use of retaining walls on the cut slope side of
the Parkway is an option not used on the Parkway in any other location to date. Geotechnical studies and
calculations would determine the final feasibility of this option.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with DO-12, the NPS is required to identify the "environmentally preferred alternative" in
all environmental documents, including EAs. The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by
applying the criteria suggested in NEPA, which is guided by the CEQ. As stated in Section 2.7 (D) of the
NPS DO-12 Handbook, "The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best
promote the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101(b))." This environmental
policy is stated in six goal statements, which include:
1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations; .
2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health
and safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources (NEPA, 42 USC 4321-4347).
Alternatives 18
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In sum, the environmentally-preferred alternative is the alternative that, not only results in the least
damage to the biological and physical environment, but also that best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources.
As evaluated against the CEQ regulations, Alternative B is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.
The No Action Alternative represents the current situation of an unstable roadbed, has high potential for
catastrophic failure, and is a traffic safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued
settlement. This alternative would not uphold the NPS mandate to administer and protect the Park for the
enjoyment of natural, cultural, and scientific resources in a manner that leaves these resources
unimpaired, while maintaining the Parkway as a safe road.
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is Alternative B because it surpasses the No Action
Alternative and the other action alternatives in realizing the full range of national environmental policy
goals as stated in § 101 of NEPA. Alternative B would stabilize the moving slope with an anchor block
system and effectively eliminate the public safety issues associated with the area. The estimated area of
disturbance would be greater under Alternative B than Alternatives C and D (0.78 vs. 0.33 acres);
however, a difference of less than half an acre would not be considered biologically significant for this
area. Additionally, slide movement after implementation of Alternative B is very low, thus no additional
natural resources would be impacted, while slide movement would still be possible after implementation
of Alternatives C and D, thus disturbing additional forested areas. More potentially significant is the
possible disturbance of the cerulean warbler during two breeding seasons under Alternatives C and D,
compared to possibly only one breeding season under Alternative B. Alternative B would also have the
least visual impact on the cultural landscape as the road would not be altered and the forest would
eventually return to similar current conditions. Finally, risk factors under Alternative B (very low for
both slope and Parkway) would be more favorable than under the No Action (high for both slope and
Parkway) and Alternatives C and D (low for slope, and very low for Parkway).
In conclusion, Alternative B provides the highest level of protection of natural and cultural resources
while supporting the transportation requirements of the Parkway.
MITIGATION MEASURES
For all action alternatives, best management practices and mitigation measures would be used to prevent
or minimize potential adverse effects associated with road repairs at MP 270.3. These practices and
measures would be incorporated to reduce the magnitude of impacts and ensure that major adverse
impacts would not occur. Mitigation measures undertaken during project implementation would include,
but would not be limited to, those listed below. The impact analysis in the "Environmental
Consequences section was performed assuming that these best management practices and mitigation
measures would be implemented as part of all action alternatives.
Soils, Vegetation, and Wildlife
• Limiting the area of disturbance. For example, heavy construction equipment would be kept on the
road surface to the extent possible (i.e., when performing excavation adjacent to the roadway).
• Construction areas would be identified by and fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some
similar material prior to any construction activity. The fencing would define the construction zone
and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. All protection measures would be
clearly stated in the construction specifications, and workers would be instructed to avoid
Alternatives 19
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
construction activities beyond the construction zone, as delineated by the construction zone fencing.
Construction materials would be stored in previously disturbed areas.
• Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent soil erosion due to
wind and rain. The erosion prevention practices would include using silt screening around any
disturbed areas, mulching all exposed slopes, placing staked hay bales in drainages, and sprinkling
exposed soil to prevent wind erosion. Upon completion of the construction project, all disturbed soils
would be revegetated to prevent erosion.
• If erosion matting/netting is required, a biodegradable type with mesh that is small enough (1/2" or
less) to not entangle snakes and other animals shall be used.
• Removing and stockpiling topsoil for reapplication to disturbed areas when construction is complete.
• Restoring disturbed areas to natural contours to the extent possible to reduce the potential for erosion
and revegetating with native species from genetic stocks originating in the Park, or from plants
previously removed from the construction area whenever possible. Revegetation efforts would be
designed to reconstruct the natural spacing, abundance, and diversity of native plant species.
• Subsequent to project completion, Park staff would monitor and require removal of any invasive
species observed.
• Mitigation for the minor loss of habitat would include the use of native plants in revegetation and
removing the nuisance exotic vegetation in the remaining habitat.
• Obtaining gravel and fill for construction or maintenance from certified noxious weed-free sources.
Gravel pits and fill sources would be inspected to identify weed-free sources. There would be no
quarrying of construction materials from inside the park.
• To the extent possible, construction activities would be timed to avoid sensitive wildlife periods, such
as breeding season.
• Construction vehicles could leak fluids into the soil, introduce noise pollution, and emit pollutants to
the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, equipment would be checked frequently to identify and
repair any leaks, mufflers would be checked for proper operation, and only equipment that is within
proper operating specifications would be used.
• Providing fuel and oil services for construction machinery in a designated area away from channels or
drainages. This would include secondary containment for all fuel storage tanks and on-site
availability of a specialized "spill kit" with capacity to contain a 95 gallon fuel spill.
• Construction activities could introduce dust to the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, best
management practices for dust control, such as covering piles of excavated material with fabric and
using water to limit dust during excavation activities, would be used.
• All debris would be removed from the park for legal and proper disposal.
Alternatives 20
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Visitor Use and Experience and Human Health and Safety
• Providing signs to warn travelers about road construction and traffic delays; the use of alternative
routes and destinations may be encouraged.
• Using well-tuned construction equipment with properly operating mufflers and performing work
during low visitation periods.
• During construction activities, traffic flows and safety would be maintained by keeping construction
equipment as, far off the road as possible and by providing flag bearers to assist traffic negotiating
through construction areas.
• Minimizing adverse impacts to visitor use and experience of the natural landscape. These measures
could include the use of rock facing on bridge abutments, and the use of coloring on constructed
elements to blend their appearance with the surrounding landscape.
• Monitoring the slide area for movement during construction and reacting to any unexpected
movements.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation measures for the cultural landscape would include minimal disruption and disturbance of local
vegetation, dust abatement, and re-planting and re-landscaping any areas affected by construction
activities.
If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the
immediate vicinity (600 feet) of the discovery shall be halted until the resources are identified and.
documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent
laws and regulations, including the stipulations of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement Among the
National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
Alternatives 21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 1 compares actions and attributes associated with the alternatives.
Table 1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
No Action Anchor Blocks
(Preferred
Alternative Bridge with paved
shoulders Bridge with grass
shoulders
Total Cost * $2.7M $4.4M $5.OM
Area of Disturbance N/A 0.78 0.33 0.33
# of lanes closed none 1 all all
Tourist seasons none 1 2 2
Slide addressed no es partly partly
Road affected by
continued movement yes yes no no
Visual impact no Tree loss Bridge appearance Bridge appearance
Revegetation none Tree sprigs and grass
seed Grass seed Grass seed
Risk factors High slope / high
Parkway very low slope / very
low Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway
*The no-action alternative is likely to have the highest cost level since it would require continued cyclic
maintenance at considerable cost that would only increase with time.
Table 2 compares the potential environmental impacts resulting from the alternatives. Potential impacts
are provided according to environmental resource topic. The Environmental Consequences section of this
EA contains a detailed discussion of these potential impacts by resource topic.
Alternatives 22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Table 2. Summary Comparison of Impacts
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Soils and Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Geology term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts to adverse impacts to . adverse impacts to
impacts to soils soils from soils from soils from.
and geology from compaction, compaction, compaction,
continued erosion erosion, and erosion, and erosion, and
and continued removal during removal during removal during
cyclic construction construction construction
maintenance. activities, and activities. activities.
negligible, long- Negligible, long- Negligible, long-
term, localized term, localized term, localized
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
impacts on impacts on impacts on
geology from geology from geology from
drilling of drilling of drilling of
bedrock. bedrock. bedrock.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils
and eolo . and eolo . and Bolo . and eolo .
Water Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Resources term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to water water resources water resources water resources
resources from from possible from possible from possible
continued erosion sedimentation and sedimentation and sedimentation and
and sedimentation contamination contamination contamination
due to slide during during during
movement. construction construction construction
activities. activities. activities.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse . Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water
resources. resources. resources. resources.
Vegetation Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to the vegetation from vegetation from vegetation from
vegetation due to trampling and trampling and trampling and
continued cyclic clearing during clearing during clearing during
maintenance of the construction construction construction
road. activities. activities. activities.
Alternatives 23
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
ve etation. ve etation. vegetation. vegetation.
Wildlife Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor to Minor to
term, localized, localized, direct moderate, short- moderate, short-
direct adverse adverse impacts on term, localized, term, localized,
impacts on wildlife and direct adverse direct adverse
wildlife and habitat from impacts on impacts on
habitat from disturbance during wildlife and wildlife and
disturbance during construction habitat from habitat from
continued cyclic activities. disturbance during disturbance during
maintenance. construction construction
activities, with activities, with
Negligible adverse Minor adverse possible impacts possible impacts
cumulative cumulative on cerulean on cerulean
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife. warblers for more warblers for more
than one breeding than one breeding
season. season.
Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife.
Visitor Use Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Moderate, short- Moderate, short-
and term, direct, direct adverse term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts on impacts on visitor adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
Experience visitor use and use and experience visitor use and visitor use and
experience due to from noise, experience from experience from
inconvenience changes in visual road closure road closure
during continuing resources, and during during
cyclic maintenance inconvenience construction for up construction for up
of deteriorating during to two peak tourist to two peak tourist
road conditions. construction. seasons and seasons and
negligible, long- negligible, long-
term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts adverse impacts
due to visual due to visual
changes in road changes in road
configuration. configuration.
Negligible adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor
use and use and use and use and
experience. experience. experience. experience.
Alternatives 24
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A:
No Action Alterative B:
Anchor Blocks
Preferred Alt. Alternative C:
Bridge w/ Paved
Shoulders Alternative D:
Bridge w/Grass
Shoulders
Cultural No impacts on the Negligible, short- Negligible, short- Negligible, short-
Landscapes cultural landscape. term, localized, term, localized, term, localized,
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
effects on the effects on the effects on the
cultural landscape cultural landscape cultural landscape
from vegetation from vegetation from vegetation
removal and removal and removal and
construction construction construction
grading. grading and minor, grading and minor,
long-term, long-term,
localized, direct localized, direct
adverse effects adverse effects
from changing a from changing a
section of road section of road
into a bridge. into a bridge.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
No cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
cultural cultural cultural cultural
landscapes. landscapes. landscapes. landscapes.
Human Moderate, long- Moderate, long- Minor to Minor to
Health and term, adverse, term, beneficial, moderate, long- moderate, long-
direct impacts on direct impacts on term, beneficial, term, beneficial,
Safety human health and human health and direct impacts on direct impacts on
safety as road safety due to the human health and human health and
hazards would stabilization of the safety due to the safety due to the
continue to exist moving slope and stabilization of the stabilization of the
roadway. roadway. roadway.
Moderate adverse
cumulative Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
impacts on human cumulative cumulative cumulative
health and safety. impacts to human impacts to human impacts to human
health and safety, health and safety. health and safety,
Alternatives 25
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences associated with the
alternatives. It is organized by impact topic, which distills the issues and concerns into distinct topics for
discussion analysis. These topics focus on the presentation of the affected environment and environmental
consequences and allow a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant topics.
METHODOLOGY
NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity, and duration of impacts, direct or indirect impacts,
cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate for impacts. NPS policy also requires that "impairment" of
resources be evaluated in all environmental documents.
Overall, the NPS based the following impact analyses and conclusions on the review of existing literature
and Blue Ridge Parkway studies, information provided by experts within the NPS and other agencies,
professional judgments and park staff insights, and public input.
General Impact Definitions
Potential impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse), context, duration, intensity, and
impairment. The following general definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, and
cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives. Impairment is discussed below. The
specific criteria used to rate the intensity and duration of potential impacts for each resource topic are
presented within each resource area impact analysis in this chapter.
Context of Impact
Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as local, park-wide, or regional. CEQ
requires that impact analysis include discussions of context. Localized impacts are those that affect the
resource area only on the project site or its immediate surroundings, and would not extend park-wide or
into the region.
Intensity of Impact
Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely affected by an
action. Impact intensities are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Resource-specific
criteria used to rate the intensity of project impacts are presented within each resource area impact
analysis.
Duration of Impact
The duration of impact is analyzed independently for each resource because impact duration is dependent on
the resource being analyzed. Depending on the resource, impacts may last as long as construction takes
place, or a single year or growing season, or longer. For purposes of analysis, impact duration is measured
in short-term and long-term. Resource-specific criteria used to rate the anticipated duration of resource
impacts are presented within each resource area impact analysis.
Environmental Consequences 26
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Direct verses Indirect Impacts
Direct effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as the
action. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or farther in
distance than the action, but still reasonably foreseeable. An indirect impact could occur because of a
change to another resource or impact topic.
Cumulative Impact Scenario
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making
process for Federal projects. A cumulative impact is an impact on the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal), organization, or person undertakes such
other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions
taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives and are presented at the end of each impact topic
discussion analysis. To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects in the vicinity of the proposed
project site were identified. Potential projects identified as cumulative actions included any planning or
development activity that was currently being implemented or that would be implemented in the
reasonably foreseeable future.
These cumulative actions are evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis in conjunction with the impacts
of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on natural resources, cultural
resources, or visitor use. Because some of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, the
evaluation of cumulative effects was based on a general description of the project. Known past, current,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions in the vicinity of the project area are described
below.
Repair/Resurface Deteriorated Road Section 2D, MP 248-261
This project consists of milling and resurfacing and rehabilitating approximately 13.3 miles of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, Section 2D, from Milepost 247.9 (ramp on State Route 18) to MP 261.2 (at SR 16).
Milling and resurfacing, and rehabilitating appurtenant overlooks, parking areas, developed areas, spurs
and access roads are also included. There are three parking and overlooks along this section. The project
includes pavement removal, milling, pavement patching, asphalt paving, shoulder stabilization, stone curb
removal and replacement, concrete curb removal, drainage work, guardrail replacement and
miscellaneous work. Drainage work consists of inspecting and evaluating culverts, inlets and ditches for
the need for reconditioning or replacement. Safety design and recommendations for safety improvements
will be considered as necessary. Replacement of existing or providing new provisions for handicapped
accessibility according to current ADA guidelines will also be required. This is a FY 2009-2010 project
and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour.
Repair/Resurface Road Section 2H&J, MP 299.4-317.5 (21113,J16)
The project limits extend between MP 299.0 at Cold Prong Pond Overlook and MP 317.5 at US 221 at the
end of Section 2J and beginning of Section 2K. This project would provide pavement patching in areas of
subgrade distress or where pavement is severely deteriorated; mill and overlay or overlay entire Parkway
within project limits; clean and overlay all asphalt ditches not requiring reconstruction; repoint and/or
reset stone in rubble ditches requiring rehabilitation; and regrade all shoulders with aggregate-topsoil to
within %2 inch of edge of pavement final grade. The Parkway would be analyzed for safety
improvements, including locations requiring placement of guardrail, signs, provide breakaway sign
Environmental Consequences 27
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
supports as required and replacement of old or damaged sign panels not meeting current MUTCD
standards for size, legend, color or retro-reflectivity. Pavement markings would be restriped, evaluated
and corrected for sight distance and passing zone. Concrete bridge decks would have all cracks sealed.
There are no road closures anticipated for this project. This is a FY 2010-2011 project that should not
overlap the MP 270.3 project time schedule.
Repair Goshen Creek Bridge, MP 286.3 (21722)
This project consists of rehabilitation of the Goshen Creek Bridge. This bridge is located in North
Carolina approximately 5 miles north of the intersection with US 321 at Milepost 286.29 and carries the
Parkway over North Carolina State Route (SR) 1514 and Goshen Creek. The project proposed to replace
he deck and possibly the bridge railings with rehabilitation to the other elements of the bridge. The
general work items of this project include: repairing various cracking in the concrete bridge supports,
abutments, and wing walls; cleaning and re-pointing the stone masonry joints; cleaning and repairing the
stone approach walls north and south of the bridge; removing the existing bridge overlay and installing a
new wearing course; rehabilitating the asphalt pavement at the bridge approaches; and other
miscellaneous repairs and improvements. This is a 2007 project that would likely require road closure 16
miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. U.S. Highway 321/221 in
Boone NC, to U.S. Highway 421 in Deep Gap would be a likely detour around the bridge. If the MP
270.3 project requires a detour then the above detour could be extended along U.S. Highway 221 at Deep
Gap to S.R. 163 where it would reconnect with the Parkway at MP 261 near Jumping Off Rocks OL.
Another potential detour route would be U.S. Highway 421 at Deep Gap to S.R. 16 also connecting to the
Parkway at MP 261.
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate at MP 294
The Moses H. Cone Memorial Park is located on the north side of the town of Blowing Rock in Watauga
County, North Carolina, and lies between mileposts 292 and 295 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. It is a
designed historic landscape 3,516 acres in extent, administered by the Blue Ridge Parkway, including 20
room manor house with three constructed lakes, hundreds of acres of apple orchards, pastures, a deer park
and an extensive carriage road system. A Memorial Park Developed Area Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment to address current resource and visitor use issues is currently being prepared.
Project planning objectives include 1) developing natural and cultural resource management strategies; 2)
defining the diverse range of resource-based visitor experience opportunities; 3) analyzing potential
visitor services (carriage rides, horseback riding, art and craft sales, interpretive exhibits, personnel
services, etc.) to identify potential visitor demands and needs; and 4) determining compatible uses,
identifying appropriate locations for new facilities, and defining interpretation programs and services to
be provided.
Impairment of Park Resources
In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and other alternatives,
the NPS Management Policies 2001 and DO-12 require analysis of potential effects to determine if
actions would impair a park's resources.
The fundamental purpose of the National Park System, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by
the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values.
NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest degree practicable adverse
impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give NPS management discretion to allow
impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as
long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although
Congress has given NPS management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is
Environmental Consequences 28
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
limited by statutory requirement that the NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a
particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that,
in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources
or values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or
values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. However, an impact
would more likely constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation
is:
Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation
of the park;
Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities. for enjoyment of the
park; or
Identified as a goal in the park's Master Plan or General Management Plan (GMP) or other
relevant NPS planning documents.
Impairment may result from NPS. activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities
undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. In this section, a
determination on impairment is made in the conclusion statement of each resource area for each
alternative. The NPS does not analyze the potential for impairment of recreational values/visitor
experience (unless impacts are resource based), socioeconomic values, or park operations.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Affected Environment
Based on review of plans and previous investigations, the landslide at MP 270.3 is through a large hillside
fill. The fill is in a natural landslide area with colluviums (landslide debris) deposits overlying residual
soils and ultimately bedrock. The colluviums consist of boulders with sand and silt, and the residual soils
consist of micaceous silty sands and sandy silts formed by in-place weathering of the parent mica gneiss
and schist bedrock. Geophysical survey test results performed along the proposed fill wall alignment and
cut walls alignment indicates that depth to competent rock varies between 56-ft and 76-ft (FHWA, 2005).
It has not yet been determined how far down slope from the Parkway the toe of movement or drainage
release actually is.
Wilkes County soils in the vicinity of the project site are characterized as the Evard-Cowee-Chestnut
complex. To the south side of the Parkway (downhill), the soils series that may occur are Chestnut,
Edneyville, and Ashe. To the north side of the Parkway (uphill), the Cowee and Saluda series may occur
(MRCS, no date).
The Chestnut series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges
and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly loam soil formed in residuum that is affected by soil
creep in the upper part, and weathered from felsic or mafic igneous or high-grade metamorphic rocks
such as granite, hornblende gneiss, granodiorite, biotite gneiss, and high-grade metagraywacke. It has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact. Most of the
soil is in forest.
Environmental Consequences 29
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Edneyville series consists of very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This fine sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut series soil. It also has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is very low on gentle slopes, low on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and medium on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact.
The Ashe series consists of moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on gently sloping to
very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut
series soil. It also has moderately rapid permeability. Runoff is similar to the Chestnut series and is
much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Cowee series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly sandy loam formed in residuum affected by soil creep in the
upper part, and weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Runoff class
is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff
is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Saluda series consists of shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in weathered
granite, gneiss, or schist. This sandy loam allows for rapid surface runoff. Most areas are forested.
Methodology
Information on soils was based on recent geophysical testing conducted within the project area, NRCS
soils surveys, and on previous projects conducted within the same area. The impact analysis examines the
potential changes to soils that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Negligible: Soils would not be affected or the effects on soils would be below or at the lower levels of
detection. Any effects to soils would be slight and would return to normal shortly after completion of
project activities.
Minor: The effects on soils would be detectable, but effects on soil productivity, fertility, or area would
be small. Mitigation may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be relatively simple to implement
and likely be successful.
Moderate: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and result in a change to the soil character over a
relatively wide area. Mitigation measures would be necessary to offset adverse effects and likely be
successful.
Major: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and substantially change the character of the soils
over a large area in and out of the Park. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed,
extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in less than three years.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Environmental Consequences 30
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no new impacts on soils or geology as there would not be any new
actions. There would be no construction and, therefore, no need for earthwork activities, such as filling,
grading, or excavation. No new causes for erosion would occur and there would not be any loss of soil
fertility. However, the slide would continue to move slowly over the long-term, with possible continuing
negative effects on soils, such as erosion. Continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could
cause soil compaction or erosion along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Although no new construction would occur under the No Action
Alternative, there would be negligible, adverse cumulative effects on soils and geology as a result of
continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils and geology
from continued erosion and continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would entail disturbing soils temporarily during installation of anchor blocks. The site
preparation would require grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was
previously disturbed consisting of roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway.
Some previously undisturbed soils may be disturbed toward the bottom of the slide by compaction from
heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. As the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock,
thus impacting the bedrock. Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the
small area of the project site and would be buried.
Environmental Consequences 31
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would be alteration of soil function from construction activities. If any natural soil horizons exist,
they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the structure and
function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased runoff and
erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or minimize
soil erosion due to wind and rain.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional soil impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan -for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of the
Parkway, along with numerous other past and future road work projects, implementation of Alternative B
would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities. Alternative B would likely result in
long-term, negligible, localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because
there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is l) necessary to
fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a
goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the
Park's resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative C would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled into bedrock would be required for the support of a bridge,
with the average shaft length exceeding 60 feet to meet the load requirements. Holes drilled into bedrock
would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
Environmental Consequences 32
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. All disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects,. implementation of
Alternative C would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative C would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative C would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative D would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be salvaged from the site would be
imported from an outside source for the grassy shoulders. A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled
into bedrock would be required for the support of the bridge, with the average shaft length exceeding 60
feet to meet the load requirements. A bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway
across the bridge requires an additional steel beam drilled into bedrock to support the additional weight.
Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
Environmental Consequences 33
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. All disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, implementation of
Alternative D would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative D would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative D would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2} key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMT or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
WATER RESOURCES, INCLUDING WETLANDS
Affected Environment
Designed as a scenic drive, the Blue Ridge Parkway motor road tends to run along the ridge tops looking
down on neighboring lands. Unlike downstream areas that receive pollution and discharges from activities
at upstream sites, the Parkway owns the sources of many of its streams and they are generally clean and
free of common pollutants. Being up on top also means that the Parkway has many headwater streams,
such as the small perennial stream located about 20 feet below the surface of the road on the downhill
side of the Parkway in the project area. Springs at the base of the rock cut develop into a stream from
groundwater under the slide. Otherwise, the project area is a dry site. (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006).
The surface waters of the small perennial stream could then drain into lower elevation waters classified as
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) of the State in which water quality has one of the highest
classifications.
Environmental Consequences 34
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Adjacent to the stream is a very small wetland area. This wetland is best described as a perennial seep. It
is partially fed by a pipe coming out of the bank. It is narrow, not more than 4 feet wide on the slope, but
extends more than 100 feet to the base of the slope. Plants dominating the seep were Impatiens during a
July visit (McElrath, 2006).
A recent geotechnical analysis (FHWA, 2005) indicates that the slide at MP 270.3 is most likely caused
from the weight of the material on the slip plane that pushes material down the slope. Subsurface
drainage occurring between the fill plane and the subsurface bedrock is a contributing factor. The
downward forces are resisted by the friction at the interface between soil and bedrock. Subsurface water
increases the soil weight and acts as a lubricant along the interface between soil and bedrock, thus
contributing to the slide. A subsurface drainage collector piping system was installed to divert seepage of
water from beneath the Parkway fill plane.
Currently there is a rubble paved waterway that runs along the bottom of the cut slope to pipes on either
side of the slide area. This system intercepts surface runoff and directs it away from the slide area. This
system would need to remain in place for all alternatives to redirect surface water. If the ditch was
removed in the bridge alternatives, grading underneath the bridge would concentrate the water into a
swale and would cause erosion after leaving the regraded area since there is no existing natural channel.
This system could remain in place without modification for the anchor block system. The inlet of the
pipe culvert on the north end of the slide would need to be moved for bridge parapet construction to take
place.
While some seepage water has been diverted, only a few of the drainage pipes installed continue to have
significant water flow, and many pipes do not carry water at all. Monitoring of the drainage rate from the
existing drainage system piping recorded drainage of approximately 1-gallon per minute emitting from all
piping combined. However, the drainage rate. could be considerably higher during the winter and spring
wet season. Some years after the installation of this drainage system records indicate the slide continues
to move downward towards the fill slope.
Methodology
Impact analyses on water resources, including wetlands, were based on recent assessments of the site by
park and other NPS staff, previous studies or projects conducted within the same area, and assessment of
potential changes in surface water and hydrology caused by road modifications.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Negligible: Impacts would not be detectable. Water quality parameters would be well below all water
quality standards for the designated use of the water. No vegetation or wildlife effects associated with
altered water quality would be evident. Action would cause no change in wetland area or function.
Wetlands would not be affected or effects would be below or at the lower levels of detection. No long-
term effects to wetlands would occur and any detectable effects would be considered slight, local, and
would likely be short-term.
Minor: Impacts would be measurable, but water quality parameters would be well within all water
quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and anti-degradation policy would not be
violated. Changes in vegetation or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be slight
but measurable. Action would cause no change in wetland area and function. The action would affect a
few individuals of plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area. The change would
Environmental Consequences 35
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
require considerable scientific effort to measure and have barely perceptible consequences to wetland or
riparian habitat function. Effects to wetlands would be detectable and relatively small in terms of area
and the nature of the change, and would likely be short-term.
Moderate: Changes in water quality would be measurable and readily apparent, but water quality
parameters would be within all water quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and
antidegradation policy would not be violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health
associated with water quality would be measurable and readily apparent. Mitigation would be necessary
to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful. Action would change an existing wetland area or
function, but the impact could be mitigated by the creation of artificial wetlands. The action would have a
measurable effect on plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area, but all species
would remain indefinitely viable within the park. The alternative would result in effects to wetlands that
would be readily apparent, including a long-term effect on wetland vegetation. Wetland or floodplain
functions would not be affected in the long-term.
Major: Changes in water quality would be readily measurable, and some parameters would periodically
be approached, equaled, or exceeded. State water quality regulations and antidegradation policy may be
violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be
measurable and readily apparent, even to a casual observer. Extensive mitigation measures would be
necessary and their success would not be assured. Action would have drastic and permanent
consequences for an existing wetland area or function which could not be certainly mitigated. Wetland
and riparian species dynamics would be upset, and species would be at risk of extirpation from the park.
Effects to wetlands would be observable over a relatively large area (regional scale) and would be long-
term. The character of the wetland would be changed so that the functions typically provided by the
wetland would be substantially changed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Short-term: Following implementation activities, recovery would take less than one year.
Long term: Following implementation activities, recovery would take greater than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no new impacts on water resources. No new causes for erosion,
sedimentation, or surface water runoff would occur. However, any adverse impacts currently occurring
would continue over the long-term, such as possible soil erosion due to slide movement with subsequent
sedimentation of the stream. Additionally, water flow along the slide during storms could be causing
siltation of groundwater. Overall, water quality would not change from current conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given that implementation of Alternative A
Environmental Consequences 36
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would have very little if any impacts on water resources, Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative A would likely result in long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to water
resources from continued erosion and sedimentation due to slide movement. Alternative A would
contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
installation of anchor blocks increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small
perennial stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but
may or may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would
be utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives.. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be revegetated after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
install the anchor blocks and repaving of the road; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel or
chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage over the long-term would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For the
anchor block system, culverts beneath the Parkway would channel run off from natural drainage swales.
As the anchor blocks would not alleviate sub-surface water flow during storms, siltation of the small
stream and of groundwater would continue, contributing to long-term intermittent adverse effects on
water quality which may or may not be detectable.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
Environmental Consequences 37
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as. highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative B would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Environmental Consequences 38
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative C would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative C
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or.
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short- term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
Environmental Consequences 39
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative D would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative D
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMT or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Environmental Consequences 40
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VEGETATION
Affected Environment
There are 14 major vegetation types identified at the Parkway with currently over 1,400 species of
vascular plants, though this number may well likely approach 2,000 species as the park begins an
extensive inventory of all plants and animals (NPS, no date). The flora of the Blue Ridge Parkway is so
diverse for reasons such as climatic variability, large north-south geographic range, diverse geologic
substrate, and many different micro-habitats.
The project area is located in a deciduous mixed hardwood cove forest community with a full canopy,
shrub layer and herb layer (McElrath, 2006). On the slope below the road, the vegetation is more open
where previous work has been performed. The dominant tree species is tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Other canopy species include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), oaks (Quercus spp.),
hickories (Carya spp.), sweet birch (Betula lenta), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), red maple (Acer
rubra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white pine (Pinus strobus).
Dominant understory species include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), striped maple (Acer
pensylvanicum), hickories (Carya spp.), and wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens). Common
herbaceous stratum plants include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Virginia creeper,
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), impatiens (Impatiens spp.), tall bellflower (Campanula americana),
common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), beebalm (Monarda spp.),
wild grapes (Vitus spp.), Virginia spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana), tall thimbleweed (Anemone
virginiana), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), dayflower (Commelina communis), asters (Aster spp.),
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), black bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa), jack in the pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), sumac (Rumex spp.), milkweed (Asplenium spp.), and rattlesnake fern (Botrychium
virginianum).
Four non-native exotic plants species have been observed at the project site (McElrath, 2006). Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) is abundant in the area covering more than 10 meters square with
fairly high (25-50%) coverage in places. There are two clumps of multiflora rose (Rosa mult flora); one
covering an area greater than 10 meters square, the other (on Parkway Right) is smaller. One patch of
coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) covers approximately 5 meters square. Crown vetch (Coronilla varia) is
somewhat scattered with the largest patch less than five meters square. Any further soil disturbance may
contribute to the spread of these species in the area.
There are no federally listed plant species in the project area.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on vegetation that is considered most likely to be affected by the project.
Information on vegetation was derived from observations made in the field, previous projects conducted
within the same area, and consultation with park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential
changes to vegetation that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Negligible: No native vegetation would be affected or some individual native plants could be affected as
a result of the alternative, but measurable or perceptible changes in plant community size, integrity, or
continuity would not occur. The effects would be short-term and on a small scale. Impacts would be well
within the range of natural fluctuations.
Environmental Consequences 41
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 2703
Minor: Effects to native plants would be measurable or perceptible, but would be localized within a small
area. The viability of the plant community would not be affected and the community, if left alone, would
recover quickly. Impacts would not be expected to be outside the natural range of variability and would
not be expected to have any long-term effects on native species, their habitats, or the natural processes
sustaining them.
Moderate: The alternative would affect some individual native plants and would also affect a sizeable
segment of the species' population in the long-term and over a relatively large area. A change would
occur to the native community over a relatively large area that would be readily measurable in terms of
abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality. Impacts could be outside the range of natural variability for
short periods of time. Mitigation measures to offset/minimize adverse effects would be necessary and
would likely be successful.
Major: The alternative would have a considerable long-term effect on native plant populations and affect
a relatively large area in and out of the park. Impacts would be expected to be outside the natural range of
variability for long periods of time or to be permanent. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed
to offset any adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Lon -tg erm: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any new impacts on
vegetation. There would be no need to clear the vegetation, and the surrounding forest would continue to
exist as it is. However, continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could cause short-term
vegetation damage, such as trampling or clearing, along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot
traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Although no new construction would occur under the No
Action Alternative, there would be short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative effects on vegetation a
result of continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
There would be short-term, negligible, local, direct adverse impacts to the vegetation as a result of the No
Action Alternative due to continued cyclic maintenance of the road. Alternative A would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts
to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences 42
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with Alternative B would necessitate removal of plants located at the
project site for installation of anchor blocks. Trees and ground cover would be removed from the slide
area for site preparation. Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic)
during construction in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of
the vegetation mat.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or topsoil. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional vegetation impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative B would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Environmental Consequences 43
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities associated with the Alternative C would disturb an estimated total of 0.33
acres of unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be
removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances
would be temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, the area would be reseeded in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As there
would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative C would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative C would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with the Alternative D would disturb an estimated total of 0.33 acres of
unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
Environmental Consequences 44
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances would be
temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, bridge shoulders would be seeded with grass as well as any other areas disturbed by
construction activities. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should
not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment or topsoil. New
introductions could allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where
the ground is disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also
become established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that
imported material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented..
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative D would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative D would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
WILDLIFE
Affected Environment
Over 50 species of mammals, more than 40 species of reptiles, almost 50 species of amphibians, and more
than 50 species of fish can be found on Parkway lands. Over 150 species of birds are known to nest here
with dozens of others passing through during fall and spring migrations (NPS, no date). Wildlife use
habitat in the vicinity of the project area for a variety of purposes: shelter, cover and concealment, forage,
and nesting/roosting sites.
Environmental Consequences 45
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The site is not considered to be biologically significant (Cherry, 2006), although many common species
occur there. Commonly seen mammals include white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, fox, raccoon, gray
squirrel, groundhog, eastern cottontail, and Virginia opossum (McElrath, 2006). Numerous salamanders
can be found in the seep below the road, as well as several species of caddisfly. Salamanders at the
wetland area are mostly the Allegheny mountain dusky salamander. The project site is too dry for frogs
and many species of turtles and salamanders. Reptiles observed at the site include the eastern box turtle,
black snakes, and garter snakes (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). There are no fish in the small perennial
stream.
Characteristic bird species observed in the area include black-throated green warbler, ruby-throated
hummingbird, eastern wood pewee, red-eyed vireo, American goldfinch, white-breasted nuthatch,
American robin, eastern or rufous-sided towhee, northern cardinal, blue jay, pileated woodpecker, tufted
titmouse, ovenbird, dark-eyed Junco, Carolina chickadee, indigo bunting, black and white warbler, scarlet
tanager, rose-breasted grosbeak (McElrath, 2006).
According to BLRI staff, there are no federally listed threatened or endangered animals or rare species at
the project site (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea), a
federal species of concern and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.2 to 0.5
miles of this site (Cherry, 2006). The cerulean warbler, a small neotropical migratory bird, nests and
raises young in large tracts of deciduous hardwood forests that have tall, large diameter trees with an open
understory (USFWS, 2002). The breeding season is from April to August. From mid-April into May,
male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates. Females build nests in the mid and upper branches of
deciduous trees and eggs are laid in May and June. Cerulean warblers are experiencing population
declines in parts of its range and habitat loss. As they do not occur on small tracts of forest, many
remaining forested lands are no longer suitable habitat because they have been fragmented into a
patchwork of small wooded islands.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on wildlife and wildlife habitat that are considered most likely to be affected
by the project. Information on wildlife habitats and species potentially present was derived from
observations made in the field, previous projects conducted within the same area, and consultation with
park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential changes to wildlife, habitat and use of the project
area that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on wildlife are defined as follows:
Negligible: Wildlife and their habitats would not be affected or the effects would be at or below the level
of detection, would be short-term, and the changes would be so slight that they would not be of any
measurable or perceptible consequence to wildlife populations. Impacts would be well within the range
of natural fluctuations.
Minor: Effects on wildlife or habitats would be measurable or perceptible, but localized within a small
area. While the mortality of individual animals might occur, the viability of wildlife populations would
not be affected and the community, if left alone, would recover. Impacts would not be expected to be
outside the natural range of variability and would not be expected to have any long-term effects on native
species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Sufficient habitat would remain functional
to maintain viability of all species.
Environmental Consequences 46
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Moderate: A change in wildlife populations or habitats would occur over a relatively large area. Effects
to wildlife would be readily detectable, long-term, and with consequences at the population level. The
change would be readily measurable in terms of abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality of
population. Mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival can be expected on an
occasional basis, but is not expected to threaten the continued existence of the species in the park unit.
Impacts could be outside the natural range of variability for short periods of time. Sufficient habitat would
remain functional to maintain variability of all native wildlife species. Mitigation measures would be
necessary to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful.
Major: Effects on wildlife populations or habitats would be readily apparent, long-term, and would
substantially change wildlife populations over a large area in and out of the national park. Impacts would
be expected to be outside the natural range of variability for long periods of time or to be permanent.
Loss of habitat may affect the viability of at least some native species. Extensive mitigation would be
needed to offset adverse effects, and the success of mitigation measures could not be assured.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on wildlife and habitat are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any impacts on wildlife or
wildlife habitat. There would not be additional human activity in the area for construction activities, so
wildlife would not be affected beyond current disturbance from regular vehicle traffic. Cyclic
maintenance activities that would continue periodically under this alternative would have temporary
impacts on wildlife as animals may get displaced during human activity.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from continued cyclic maintenance in Alternative A would likely produce negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 47
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would likely result in short-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife
and habitat from continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts to wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or.value
whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or
proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for
enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning
documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities for installation of the anchor blocks and human presence would cause temporary
displacement and disturbance of resident wildlife for the seven months duration of construction. Species
are expected to return to the area after construction is completed. Some species may be prevented from
using the resources on the project site due to habitat alteration until the cleared forest is reestablished.
However, a large forested area surrounds the project site which would provide appropriate habitat. These
impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres of wildlife habitat would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is
forested. Although the anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth.
Therefore, of the total disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not
grow again directly over set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be
planted over the covered anchor blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
As construction would be scheduled to occur between November 1 and June 1, there could be some
disturbance of cerulean warblers at the start of their breeding season. From mid-April into May male
cerulean warblers are- singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the season. As
the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is still
possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for part of one breeding season. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would be additional
vehicle traffic to transport materials to the project site. This louder than usual traffic (i.e., big trucks)
would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto the Parkway up
to the project site. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only last for small portions of work days
during the seven month construction period.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Environmental Consequences 48
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative B would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife and
habitat from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMT or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
Environmental Consequences 49
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative C would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
Environmental Consequences 50
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative D would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 51
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING RECREATION AND VISUAL
RESOURCES
Affected Environment
A trip down the Parkway provides stunning, long range vistas and close-up looks at the natural and
cultural history of the southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile drive is designed as a drive-awhile
and stop-awhile experience intended to encourage leisurely progress and frequent stops.
The Blue Ridge Parkway offers a diversity of recreational activities for people with a wide range of
interests, physical abilities, and time available. Popular activities for vehicle-based visitors include
sightseeing, picnicking, viewing wildflowers and fall color, photography, hiking, bird watching, and
Ranger guided programs. It is also possible to rock climb, hang glide, fish for trout, and bicycle.
Camping is also allowed at designated sites.
There have been over 20 million visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway every year since 1997 (NPS, 2005b).
As the Parkway is 469 miles long, not all visitors travel the entire length of the Parkway. According to a
recent survey of visitors to the Parkway (Valliere et. al, 2002), the most popular activities reported were
scenic driving/ stopping at overlooks (88.1%), visiting visitor centers (60.5%), hiking (59.0%), picnicking
(39%), purchasing something at visitor center stores (37.2°/x), and visiting historic sites (33.7%).
In 2005 there were approximately 570,000 vehicles that are estimated to have passed MP 270.3 (adding
numbers from the nearest traffic counters MP 270 at SR 421 to the south and SR 16 to the north). The
project area is not in a commuter zone and there is never any traffic congestion (Hultquist, 2006).
The Blue Ridge Parkway draft Vista Management Plan describes that the Lewis Fork Overlook has a
view toward farm land spread out over the Piedmont valley. It looks over several farms in a distant view
of this valley with panoramic mountains views in the far background. Views to the Piedmont Valley are
considered very picturesque. This view has a moderate rating compared to other Piedmont valley views in
the Doughton Park and Plateau Districts. Betsey's Rock Falls Overlook to the north at MP 267.7 has a
more wide open and more highly rated view to Piedmont valley, within Wilkes County. Similarly,
Cascades Falls Overlook to the south at MP 272 has a more wide open and highly rated view to Piedmont
Valley than the Lewis Fork Overlook. Within 4.7 miles of Lewis Fork Overlook there are approximately
10 vista cuts on Parkway left looking toward Wilkes County and the Piedmont Valley. The Lewis Fork
Overlook has a narrower perspective and is more highly screened with tree growth than the other two
overlooks. Many of the vista cuts along the Parkway motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork
Overlook are similarly being screened from view with large tree growth.
Methodology
Public scoping input and observation of visitation patterns, combined with assessment of what is available
to visitors under current management, were used to estimate the effects of the actions in the various
alternatives in this EA. The impact on the ability of the visitor to experience a full range of park
resources was analyzed by examining resources and objectives presented in the park significance
statement.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Environmental Consequences 52
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Negligible: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual
resources, would be below or at the level of detection. The visitor would not likely be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative.
Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be detectable, although the changes would be slight. The visitor would be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative, but the effects would be slight.
Moderate: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and
would likely be able to express an opinion about the changes.
Major: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent and severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial. The visitor would be aware of
the effects associated with the alternative and would likely express a strong opinion about the changes.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Short-term: Occurs only during project implementation activities.
Long-term: Extend beyond project implementation activities.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
The No Action Alternative would maintain conditions in their present state. Although the visitor
experience would not change from current conditions, visitor complaints of near accidents, or actual
accidents, would go on as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces
deteriorate. While there would be no disturbances to traffic flow during construction or changes in visual
resources, there would also be no long-term road improvements. Continued cyclic maintenance of the
road at MP 270.3 may cause some short-term impacts on visitor experience if traffic is periodically
slowed down to accommodate the repairs. As there would be no major new road repairs, visitors would
not be aware of the effects associated with this alternative, specifically deteriorating road conditions
which may impact driving conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY 2010-2011 project with no road closures
anticipated. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road closure.
These projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be
required to wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate. As there would not be any major new road repairs under the No Action
Alternative, other than cyclic maintenance, this alternative would contribute negligible, adverse impacts
on visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences 53
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would result in short-term, negligible, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience
due to inconvenience from continuing cyclic maintenance of deteriorating road conditions. Alternative A
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November 1 thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for V2- I hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Short-term traffic delays and detours would have adverse impacts on the visitor
experience for one peak visitor season as people would be inconvenienced by the change in route, extra
time it would take to follow the detour, or time spent in traffic. Visitors in approximately 570,000
vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However, the altered traffic
patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a means of
accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting may be deep enough into forest growth to open and widen the vista cut to the south of the
Lewis Fork Overlook, thus widening and opening the view to the Piedmont Valley from the overlook.
However, the view would likely be screened by large tree growth at the toe of the vista cut. Widening the
view in this location would only provide a similar experience to the viewing opportunity at the overlooks
located to the north and south of the Lewis Fork Overlook. Additional or a widened vista cuts along the
motor road would not be valued in the area and the cost to maintain existing vista cuts is already
prohibitively high. Reforestation measures to adequately prevent erosion over the anchor block system on
Parkway left would only provide a temporary vista opening. Because the anchor block system would be
covered with soils and forest when completed, there is no visual impact created from an additional
Parkway structure as in the case of the bridge installation.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. However, the anchor block system would be completely
buried once construction was completed, and therefore not visible. Revegetation of the site would allow
the area to eventually look similar to current conditions.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
Environmental Consequences 54
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative B occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, minor, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
noise, changes in visual resources, and inconvenience during construction. Alternative B would
contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year, and possibly two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
Environmental Consequences 55
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a masonry faced
safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge. The bridge
would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would obscure it in the
summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative C occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences 56
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year, and possibly two- A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface, grassy shoulders, and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a
masonry faced safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge.
The bridge would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would
obscure it in the summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair-project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
Environmental Consequences 57
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative D occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Affected Environment
The cultural landscape of the Blue Ridge Parkway incorporates both cultural and natural elements. The
cultural elements include the roadway and the historic buildings and structures along its path which were
constructed in a similar "rustic style", with native stone facades. These stone facades enable the roadway
structures to blend in with the natural environment. The natural elements include intact vegetation and
scenic vistas in the original rural settings. Although a cultural landscape inventory has not been
conducted, it is clear that the Blue Ridge Parkway constitutes a cultural landscape of which the roadway
and the historic buildings and structures are the dominating cultural features.
Principal Parkway motor road designed landscape components include shoulders, paved waterways,
constructed landforms, guardrails, guardwalls, bridges, culverts and tunnels. Design standards adopted for
these components was a compromise between the highway engineers' desire to meet modern highway
standards. for grade, curvature and safety and the landscape architects' attempt to best unify the road and
landscape in a way that minimized construction scarring on the mountainside and provided a type of
parkway with its own distinctive character.
A draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) was commissioned to evaluate the eligibility of the
Parkway for nomination as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the historical significance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, to identify the resources that contribute to
that significance, and to provide guidance on the preservation of those resources. Firth (2005) describes
the Blue Ridge Parkway as the first long-distance, scenic national parkway being not only a new type of
parkway, but also a new type of national park, one that was designed around the theme of recreational
motoring.
The Parkway was designed based on the adoption of three design principles: first, the preeminent
importance of scenery; second, the necessity of providing a safe and enjoyable experience for the
recreational motorist; and third, the importance of protecting the natural environment and gently fitting
the road and all other structures into their mountain setting so that they look as though they belong there.
Environmental Consequences 58
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The design characteristics of the main components of the Parkway according to Firth (2005):
• This is a mountain road but its location changes every few miles along the 469-mile route, in order to
avoid monotony and to capitalize fully on the scenic potential of the region.
• The road has a curvilinear alignment that appears to glide across the natural contours and fit smoothly
into the topography of the mountain slopes.
• The road is designed for a low driving speed, and there are frequent overlooks to allow the safe
enjoyment of scenery.
• Road structures are designed to fit the road to the topography, and are located and constructed in
ways that minimize the scarring of the mountain slopes.
• Most designs are guided by a rustic architectural aesthetic that places great emphasis on fitting each
structure into its landscape setting and features the use of native materials, particularly stone; however
some designs are guided by a modern aesthetic expressed in steel and concrete, but, nonetheless, are
carefully fitted into their settings.
The draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) recommends that the Parkway be nominated as a National
Historic Landmark (NHL). It meets two of the NHL criteria (one and four) for national significance and
possesses the extraordinary national importance and high degree of integrity required for landmark status.
Criteria One includes properties that are associated with events that have made a substantial contribution
to and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent the broad national patterns of United States
history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those broad patterns may be gained (NPS,
no date-b). Criteria Four includes properties that embody the distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural type or specimen exceptionally valuable. for the study of a period, style, or method of
construction, or that represent an important, distinctive, and exceptional entity whose components may
lack individual distinction.
Methodology
The impact analysis examines the potential effects on Parkway eligibility for designation as a National
Historic Landmark as a result of project implementation. NHL criteria were used to estimate the effects
of the actions in the various alternatives in this EA.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Negligible: The effect is at the lowest levels of detection- barely perceptible and not measurable. For
purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Minor: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, but would not diminish the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse
effect.
Moderate: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
Major: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall integrity
of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Environmental Consequences 59
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Short-term: Effects on the natural elements of a cultural landscape may be comparatively short-term (less
than a year) until new vegetation grows or historic plantings are restored.
Long-term: Effects on the cultural landscape would persist for more than a year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As no construction activities would be conducted, no impacts on the cultural landscape would occur under
Alternative A. Therefore, there would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative A would not contribute to cumulative effects to the
cultural landscape because no cultural resources would be impacted.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have no impacts on the cultural landscape. Alternative A would not contribute any
cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, the road would be repaired but not be altered, and 0.78 acres at the project site
would be disturbed, including vegetation removal and re-grading of the hillside below the Parkway to
install anchor blocks. However, ground disturbance would be temporary and the area would be
revegetated so that it would eventually look similar to its current appearance. There would not be any
impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the criteria for designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to temporary changes in landscape appearance from construction
activities.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences 60
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect. to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents; there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Environmental Consequences 61
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
Affected Environment
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate.
The Parkway boundary has recently been extended from. a total of 350 feet to approximately 725 feet to
the nearest private land ownership boundary located directly below the slide area. With this widened
boundary, impacts to bordering land are not as significant.
There is not a numerical safety rating that indicates the likelihood of failure for any of the alternatives.
The safety factor used in design is not indicative of failure. Instead, this safety factor can be used to
increase loads or reduce support forces to allow the design of a safe solution able to withstand all known
conditions and leave allowance for unknowns and variations. Although a numerical value cannot be
assigned to the risk for the various options, a comparative analysis of risk using engineering judgment is
as follows (FHWA, 2006):
No Action - High risk to slope, high risk to Parkway
Anchor Blocks - Very low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Environmental Consequences 62
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Bridges - Low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Methodology
Existing and potential threats to human health and safety within the project area were identified with the
help of NPS staff and evaluated in the impact analysis. The potential for project implementation to
worsen or improve existing threats, or to create new threats, to human health and safety was evaluated.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Negligible: Human health and safety would not be affected, or the effects would be at the lowest levels of
detection and would not have an appreciable effect on human health and safety.
Minor: The effect would be detectable but would not have an appreciable effect on human health and
safety. If mitigation were needed, it would be relatively simple and would likely be successful.
Moderate: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human
health and safety on a local scale. Mitigation measures would probably be necessary and would likely be
successful.
Major: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human health
and safety on a regional scale. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed, and success would not be
guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Short-term: Effects last one year or less.
Long-term: Effects last longer than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under the No Action Alternative, safety hazards would remain along the road. Visitors who drive the
section of road at MP 270.3 would continue to be at risk for auto accidents due to uneven road surfaces.
Additionally, risk of slope failure and safety of the Parkway visitor would be considerable over the long-
term. Cyclic maintenance of the road would continue to provide temporary fixes which may put off
accidents, but would not eliminate the safety hazards. There would be high risk to the slope and high risk
to the Parkway if the existing untreated slope is left as is.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Given the
Environmental Consequences 63
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
continuing hazards of the No Action, Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety on the Parkway.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on human health and safety as
road hazards would continue to exist. Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety on the Parkway.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, anchor blocks would be installed to stabilize the existing slow moving slope at MP
270.3. This improvement would increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at
MP 270.3 would have considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope
failure. Risk for this alternative is characterized as very low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
The anchor blocks would stabilize the slide area by increasing the forces resisting the slide movement.
The lower limit of the slide extent does not affect the safety factor. The current slide is occurring along a
very deep, steep interface between the overburden fill soil and the bedrock because the weight of the fill
exceeds the friction force between the soil and bedrock. The anchor blocks would press the fill soil
against the bedrock, which increases the friction to the point where the friction would support the fill.
Although this option is expected to stabilize the slide area so no further movement would occur, if there
were any continued slide movement, it would adversely affect the Parkway. Additionally, if the slope
fails, it may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the anchor block system is
expected to stabilize the entire slope and the motor road equally to the bridge alternatives, with no
additional impacts to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
The very low risk assigned to both the slope and the Parkway signifies that the risk of loss of additional
forest area would also be very low, as well as very low risk to motor road failure.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have long-term, moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and safety due
to the stabilization of the moving slope and roadway. Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 64
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts ofAlternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3 would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide,
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude. some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative C would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative C would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Impacts ofAlternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, a bridge with grassy shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3 would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
Environmental Consequences 65
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide,
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative D would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative D would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The purpose of the scoping process, as outlined in CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1501.7), is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the EA and to identify significant issues
relating to the Proposed Action. The lead agency is required to invite input from Federal, State, and local
agencies, affected Native American tribes, project proponents, and other interested parties (Section
1501.7 (a)(1)). To satisfy scoping requirements for this project, scoping letters were mailed out
requesting public and agency input on issues to be addressed in the EA. Table A-1 in Appendix A lists all
persons, agencies/organizations to whom the scoping letters were sent. The scoping letter is presented as
Figure A-1, a.scoping brochure as Figure A-2, and the news release that announces that the Parkway was
seeking public input as Figure A-3.
The public scoping period for the project began on June 1, 2006 and ended on July 3, 2006. Only one
comment was received from the public during this period. The NPS also underwent consultations with
several State and Federal agencies regarding the project. These consultation letters are presented in
Figures A-4 through A-7 in Appendix A.
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway
Phil Francis, Superintendent
Martha Bogle, Deputy Superintendent
Bob Cherry, Resource Management Specialist
Diane Foote, Contracting Officer
Allen Hess, Former NHPA Specialist
Gary Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning
Teresa McCall, Budget Officer
Lillian McElrath, Resource Management Specialist
Michael Molling, Project Leader and Acting Chief of Maintenance
Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection Specialist
Ray Shaw, Highlands Facility Manager
Bambi Teague, Chief of Resource Management
John Wilburn, Former Civil Engineer
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office
Bob Blythe, Historian
Kent Cochran, FHWA Coordinator
Lee Edwards, Regional FLHP Liason
Tracy Stakely, Historical Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Larry Hultquist, Project Manager and Landscape Architect
Consultation and Coordination 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Pat Sacks, Project Specialist
Gail Stahlecker, Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center
Steven Kidd, Archeologist and Reviewer
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Nick Finch, Compliance Specialist
Thomas Shifflett, Project Manager
Brooke Struve, Project Manager
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
Mangi Environmental Group, Inc.
Eveline Martin, Project Manager and Environmental Analyst
Consultation and Coordination 67
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Consultation and Coordination 68
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
REFERENCES CITED
(Cherry, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway. 10
July 2006. Personal communication with Bob Cherry, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(FHWA, 2005). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration.
December 2005. Subsurface Profile for Project PRA-BLRI 2E15 Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 270.3, Deep
Gap, Wilkes County, North Carolina. Minute Memo.
(FHWA, 2006). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration. 3
August 2006. Personal communication with Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer.
(Firth, 2005). Firth, Ian J.W. December 2005. Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia and North
Carolina: Historic Resource Study (draft). Unpublished report to the Superintendent. 411 pp.
(Hultquist, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
19 July 2006. Personal communication with Larry Hultquist, Road and Parkways Project Manager.
(McElrath, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
21 July 2006. Personal communication with Lillian McElrath, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(NPS, no date). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
No date. Web page. Nature and Science. Accessed on 30 June 2006 at:
htti)://www.pps.gov/blri/----p---phtml/nature.html
(NPS, no date-b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register. No
date. Web page. The National Historic Landmarks Criteria. Accessed on 12 July 2006 at:
littv://www.cr.pps.gol/iiripublications/bulletins/nrbl6a/nrbl6a appendix V.htm
(NPS, 1999). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1999. Choosing by
Advantage Process. Prepared by Sue Masica of the Denver Service Center.
(NPS, 2000). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2000. NPS
Management Policies 2001.
(NPS, 2005a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2005. Draft
Project Agreement: Blue Ridge Parkway Active Slide Repair Section 2E, MP 270.3, Project PRA-BLRI
2E15. This is an agreement among four parties: Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI), the Denver Service Center
(DSC), Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA)-Eastern
Division Office (EFLHD).
(NPS, 2005b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. June 2005. Development
Concept Plan - Environmental Assessment: Proposed Regional Destination Visitor Center. Blue Ridge
Parkway. Available at:
hqp://parkplanning.pps. gov/document. cfm?proj ectld=103 54&documentID=11701
(NRCS, no date). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. No
date. Web page. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed on 11 July 2006 at:
htW://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html
References 69
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 2703
(Valliere et. al, 2002). Valliere, W., R. Manning, S. Lawson, J. Bacon, and D. Laven. 2003.
Standards of quality for traffic congestion in parks: an empirical study of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Proceedings of the 2003 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium.GTR-NE-317. Available at:
httD://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown sauare/publications/technical reports/pdfs/2004/317papers/valliere317.
pLdf
(USFWS, 2002). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. October 2002. Species
of Concern: Cerulean Warbler. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/mid west/Endangered/birds/CERW/cerw-fctsheet.html
References .70
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SCOPING AND AGENCY
COORDINATION
Appendix A A-1
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A A-2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-l. Scoping Letter
PAM
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
0 Blue Ridge Parkway
IN RMN S: 199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 288033
L7617
PIN 10058
June 1, 2006
Dear Interested Party:
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 to 1508), and the
National Park Service (NPS) NEPA compliance guidelines (DO712), the NPS has decided to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to repair approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue
Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Proposed alternatives
include spanning the unstable area by either construction of a bridge on the Parkway or retaining the area
with an anchor block system. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway
and would include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill colluvium and
pavement.
Project Background
The roadbed movement at Milepost 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. This section of
Parkway has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic safety problem due to uneven
pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near accidents have been received as the
underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is
considered an extremely high priority. Because attempts to arrest this movement have proven to be
ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be considered.
A horizontal subsurface drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove
subsurface drainage beneath fill soils believed to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has
been patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but
movement and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. An inspection
of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average of
approximately one gallon of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of trees
along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean and geotechnical monitoring of the area indicate
continual slope movement and the slope is considered highly potential for catastrophic failure. Recent
Appendix A A-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that roadway movement is most likely caused by water movement
between fill colluviums deposits and residual soils. Because past attempts to arrest the movement have
proven to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
Project Alternatives
Four alternatives for the proposed project are currently being considered by BLRI. These include:
1. Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unstable roadway as is.
2. Alternative B (Anchor Blocks): The slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with
tendons anchored to rock beneath the slip plane.
3. Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be paved.
4. Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be grass.
The EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish the repair solution for this
unstable roadbed. Please identify any resources within your purview that may experience potential
impacts from this project and list specific mitigation measures. Please provide your written comments by
July 3, 2006 to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Molling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
If you have any concerns or questions, please contact Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at 828-271-4779 ext. 219 (Asheville, N.C.).
We welcome your involvement and encourage your input into this proposal.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Superintendent
cc: Eveline Martin, MANGI
SMolling: sm: 5-31-06
(NEPA/EA/PIN 10058/Scoping/PIN 10058-Agency Scoping Ltr.doc)
Appendix A A-4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-2. Scoping Brochure
Environmental Assessment (EA) for Repair of Resources and Concerns
Unstable Roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Initial internal project scoping identified the fallowing
i rP 270.3 resources and other concerns for consideration in the EA:
Z-!7e i"f][7 ?l C[i lYlnl'E'YNe111 S. F'o!%Sf ?70 ? 7lI H'Iiti ES
Coal"II, .-Vantl Caro ?ltlu ;1'." cfnovo SIY1re ti7e
spl7ngc?f197j. TiIrsc?aplo?:?,II?:EIr?Ciphnern"juot
SeC17O77 O{P rkivcTv has 177 ;"i poteFlii?I !;Jr
.'A?tQSl7"OI7?tIC fQIfID'C QY?C? !S 7'c.It' ?i G h'r ?C Sat?Fl'
problem day to t.1tel0r Paie,n, C Ised ht
"otl,hi;lloci SP,7: e3PieiiL t){i7eC.7"
..?. ,. E?.. F7(. C ceC7'
.? c.F Oi are _45 a i'P y r.S ,1 O.'tSl,lFT E:t "In
+n ?F tr?i3IaigTlPr?? tti' Be r en?ts to arrest
IhiS =)7OVCMC7)t;MILI9t.?'71OP J 171'e, mote
«a'i-u?lvE?d gec)tecrr.i?ar ; eY I .-rt:? rs =r,ustbe
O215ICfe2'ed.
T P ? ,ri,rai Park Sa; ? , .c? ? ` t'.?, is n1FSe11r,'r
C J. ;i:?..l?CI)1 Ltl}-_ rr?: f?f, _?_'?P_Sli: P7tt f,?3).',,"
vclesria,l,.,?-
tilelirrstablesite?ti eirz?rC„isr,-c?no;lg???brlcigewi
;ilePc7t",?"ltiClt' ol'SICt?r;?_,?rP .':t c? ? tiUF: 3Y;tiF Q7; G)R:Ilol'
,(?C, st item The pr?i?»ose. an?1?) rs ?s tisbfnt' 7
1 Cc::71' O7lt cOlnPila}"Ce e.:fJ.,lti7CT?ItiPS lindcP
1'[I)i'JIiS sQtilleS Zl:Cl?li C;7?a fi7t7 w?I l,'UJIR?
PC,acr_3Cr, ;i;tips[29,31 r':e
DC C'iti71 ??]'F;J.'F'CtS G?F :IYlI- 71'.. %.1E,.'?i! T'tSOIUCF'S
Geological Resources vegetation
Saundscape Cultural Resources
Wildlife Regional Resources
Human Health & Safety TbreaterlEd 3c Endangered
Species
What does the scopuic Period mean's .
SCOpI is bone in the uutial phase o apmleCT to s2ti-
from a vanety of sources-',Ihe input istx exltti ideutrl
issues, areas requiring -iddit on.A sit :anti topics drat 3vt?
tae analyzed in the E. prc ess'. TIItS
js? an amortualry fbr'
you to provide us mth voUr sug?F?tit3iis,`corrmrents'; and
concerns regaiding this proposed pros 'cL fo3 the Blue Riche`
Far1.???a?'.
Is Scoping my only opportunity to cpmment on the
Project? F No, once the EA 1, developed, the1doaiaieni will l?inatle
aIvnl able for public review for 3:3t3 tla pc iorl
Alternatives
The preliminary alternatives to be evaluated m the
environmental assessment are:
?4s the Sitpermtel.deiit of ?l:zz 3i17e :?rdQe Pcr"'Ilm.
I im rte Poll to-partiCl)J!:IE' 1%i %i3 SCC?U7I14T pl'QCRSS.
Sincerelt°
Plrliip.-1. 1?-Ya ;IC"S, _b
Overview of the Process
a0iect n>zlestones include:
• Public Scoping period (closes July 3, -006)
• Preparation of Environmental Assessment (EA)
• Public review of emri€onmental assessment
• Analysis ofpublic comment
• Preparation of decision document
• Announcement of decision
1) Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unstable roadway
as is_
2) Alternative B (Anchor Blocks): The slope would be
stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with tendons
anchored to rock beneath the slip plane.
3) Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct
a bridge to span the unstable area.. Some of the material
from the site would be removed when placing the bridge
and the eamsttng roadway in this section would be
obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be paved.
4) Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Constrict a
bridge to span the unstable area. Soiiie of the material from
the slide would be removed when placing the bridge and the
existing roadway in this section would be obliterated-
Bridge shoulders would be grass.
Appendix A A-5
Project Scoping June 2006
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Please let as know by Jub, 3, 2006:
1. Do you have any ideas to share about issues/concerns, or are there any issuesdconcems about the project that you think
we should considff7
2_ Are there any other alternatives that you think should be consi d?
3. Do you have other comments and suggestions foc us to consider in the environmental assessment?
We want to hear from you so that we can make the most informed decisions concerning the al atives on this project.
We appreciate your urput into this process and would like your feedback by July 3; .20w You are welcome to write to us
at the address below, but our preference would be for you to provide your comments an the National Park Service
planning, Environment & Public ?Commeia (PEPQ web site. Comments can be made directly online by going to the
following link F tt r lrpa? dcu rri?t .ra t ?4 rr i clm?pra
? 1 Id=10058.
Written comments may also be submitted to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Moiling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803-8686
If you wish to be added to the park's mailing list for this and other annaun€ernnents, please be sure to indicate that
in PEP+C or in your response
It is the practice of the NPS to make all comments, including the names and addresses of respondents uteri provide the
comments available for publcc reviewfallowing the conclusion oftae scopingprocasa. Individuals may request that the
NPS withhold their name ardor address from public disclosure, If you wish to do Vic, you must state dais proammently -at
the beginning ofyour comment Comrmentatoas using, the PEPC-vaebsite can macs such a masthy check tg the box
"keep W contact information pmhate. a Yaems wdl honer such requests to the extent allowable by law, but ycru shouts
be aware that theNPS may still be required to disclose yoaar nmw and addresspumtant to the Freedom oflnformation
Act:
Appendix A A-6
U.S. National Park Service . Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-3. News Release
National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road
ft"
U.S. Department of the Interior www.nps.gov/biri Asheville, NC 28803
Blue Ridge Parkway News Release
June 1, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact: Suzette Molling [phone] ext. 219; email Suzette Molling-cnps.gov
or Larry Hultquist [phone] ext. 247; email Larry Hultquist(d nps.gov
Parkway Seeks Input for Road Repair
Near West Jefferson
(Asheville)-The Blue Ridge Parkway is seeking public input, through July 3, to identify issues and
additional study that will be needed to develop an Environmental Assessment for the repair of a short
road section that is near West Jefferson.
Parkway officials said that the roadbed and supporting slope for a 200' section of the motor road at
Milepost 270.3 are unstable and may need to be reengineered. Efforts to repair the road have been made
intermittently for more than 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be necessary to stabilize
the section by using an anchor and block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The project scoping phase, now underway, is the initial step in the development of an Environmental
Assessment that will analyze alternatives and their potential impacts.
For more information and to comment on this project, visit the National Park Service website:
http://parkplannings.gov. Select Blue Ridge Parkway from the park dropdown menu and then click
on project title "EA Scoping to Repair Unstable Roadbed at MP 270.3." Information is also available,
and comments may be made by writing to: Blue Ridge Parkway, ATTN: Suzette Molling, 199
Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, NC 28803. Comments must be postmarked by July 3.
Comments are typically treated as a public record and made available for public review. Individuals
may request that the National Park Service withhold their name and address from disclosure. Such
requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.

Appendix A A-7
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Mr. John Thomas Mr. Ronald C. Howard
US Army Corps of Engineers District Conservationist 7Mr.Brnian P. Cole, Supervisor
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office USDA Natural Resources and Wildlife Service

6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Conservation Service
Asheville Field Office
Suite 120 Wilkesboro Service Center 160 Zillicoa Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Post Office Box 194 Asheville
North Carolina 28801
Wilkesboro, North Carolina ,
28697-0194
Mr. Dave McHenry
Ms. Mari Sue Hilliard Mr. Allen Ratzlaff Mountain Region Reviewer
Forest Supervisor Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Program
National Forests in North Carolina Asheville Field Office North Carolina Wildlife Resources
160A Zillicoa Street 160 Zillicoa Street Commission
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 20830 Great Smoky Mountain Exp
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Mr. Jeffrey H. Schwierjohann B
Ms. Chrys
Mountain Region Wildlife Mr. Curtis Smalling Environmental
Policy Act
Diversity Program Supervisor Audubon North Carolina Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Mountain Office State Clearinghouse
Commission 667 George Moretz Lane 13 Mail Service Center
271 Morgan Branch Road Boone, North Carolina 28607 North Carolina 27699-1301
Raleigh
Leicester, North Carolina 28748 ,
Mr. David Brook, Deputy Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow SHPO Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office Division of Archives & History Environmental Review Coordinator
4617 Mail Service Center 4610 Mail Service Center NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Raleigh, NC 27699-4610 109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
Ms. Nann Guthrie Ms
Linda Pearsall
Senior Field Officer, Western .
North Carolina Natural Heritage Mr. Joe Mickey
Region
NC Department of Environment, Program NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Health & Natural Resources Post Office Box 27687 155 Timberbrook Trail

59 Woodfin Place Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- State Road, North Carolina 28676

Asheville, North Carolina 28801 1615
Mr. Ron Holland Owen Anderson
Regional Supervisor Mountain Region Coordinator North Carolina Division of

Division of Archives & History Habitat Conservation Program
Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of North Carolina Wildlife Post Office Box 29535
Cultural Resources Resources Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
1 Village Lane, Suite 3 1721 Mail Service Center
Asheville, North Carolina 28803 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1721
Mr. Jim Borawa
Regional Fishery Biologist Plant Conservation Program Honorable Charles Taylor

North Carolina Wildlife Resource North Carolina Department of District Office

Commission Agriculture 22 South Pack Square

37 New Cross North Post Office Box 27647 Suite 330

Asheville, North Carolina 28805- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611- Asheville, NC 28801

9213 7647
Mr. Gene Messick Mr. Dan Pittillo Johnny G. Hensley
541 South Hamilton Street 675 Cane Creek Road 225 White Oak Circle
Appendix A A-8
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Eden, North Carolina 27288 Sylva, North Carolina 28779 Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Senator Elizabeth Dole Senator Richard Burr Honorable T. Cass Ballenger
401 North Main Street 2000 West First Street District Office
Suite 200 Suite 508 Post Office Box 1830
Hendersonville
NC 28792 Winston-Salem, NC 27104 361 10th Ave. Drive, NE
, Hickory, NC 28603
Dr. Houck Medford, Executive
Mr. Bob Gale, Ecologist Dr. Gary L. Walker Director
Western North Carolina Alliance Department of Biology Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation
29 North Market Street, Suite 610 Appalachian State University Post Office Box 10427 - Salem
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Rankin Science Building Station
Boone, North Carolina 28608 Winston-Salem, North Carolina
27108
Mr. Bill Thomas, Sierra Club Mr. Robert D. Sutter Mr. James L. Westbrook, Jr.
Chairman of Public Lands in Southeast Regional Office Nature City Manager
City of Asheville
North Carolina Conservancy Post Office Box 7148
Post Office Box 272 Post Office Box 2267 Asheville
North Carolina 28802-
Cedar Mountain, North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina ,
7148
28718 27515-2267
Mr. Andy Brown Mr. Arthur Allen Mr. Harry N. Baldwin
Equinox Environmental President, SHCG 501 Curtis Bridge Road
37 Haywood Street 207 River Ridge Road Wilkesboro
North Carolina 28697
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28803 ,
Mr. Greg Kidd Ms. Brooke Struve
Senior Program Manager Project Engineer
Mr. Jerry T. Lang Blue Ridge Field Office Federal Highway Administration
744 Grants Trail National Parks Conservation Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Centerville, OH 45459 Association Division
One Page Avenue, Suite 109 21400 Ridgetop Circle
Asheville, NC 28801 Sterling, Virginia 20166
Mr. Nicholas Finch Mr. Thomas Shifflett
Environmental Compliance Project Engineer
Specialist Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Virginia 20166 Sterling, Virginia 20166
Appendix A A-9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-4. USFS Comment Letter
USDA United -States Forest Atimal Foreos in iNorta Carolina I 60A 71itieaa street
Al Service supcr?isor Off-we !"0. Box 75,11
A A 'C 28801
8?3-??7?12ti4
Fite Cade; '91Q-2
Date. July 6, 2€ 06
Nis Sttzutte N1011ing„
In-virozuncntal Protection S-n?-,Cialist
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 I1cmphill .Knob Road
shevillt,?, NC 28803
'dear Ms Moi ing-
G?'e ha- ve r°viewed your request for cortimcnt: en O 'Il,uc Midge Parkway's intent to prepare an
t1il'Vir?_1I2"1£;nal assessment k r the proposed rgna , r f Vn - Parkway a, Milepost 270.3 {Your PIN
1005.85}. We support your proposal to repair this sic.ctipii ofroadvvay in order to improve puolic
safe .;l and reduce the potential of catastrophic failure of the fill slope.
'4 e have no specific conlT` ents to address, but if you reed any infonnation regarding the Forest':
cn,-sts, please feel frze to contact Cliff Northrop, Assistant Forest Enzineer, at 257-4234..
I'lian . you for the opportunity to Comment on your proposal, and we wish you well with this
repair.
Sincerely,
f
MAIZISUE HIE 1. D
'.
Caring for the faabnfE and Serving Pole
Appendix A A-10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-5. USFWS Comment Letter
United Cates Department o the Interior
1'15B AND W11,MWE SERNTY-iz
? cr, s ®'? t z atl F ," Office
?JS 1
-arc
1 26, 2
? S?ett? I>lnl<ir=
Blue Ridgt; Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Rte- fi
Asheville, VoTth ffo r ::j ."8803
Dear IMU. Mollirg_
Subject: Proposed l?el zits to a?otzt -,'Of") ems fUnstable, on thte Blue Ridge Parkway at
Milepost 270.3, Wilk= Count;, 'INZore Carolina
`We received Your letter dated Tame 1 2006, in which you requested our ccsmment on the subject
project, Ibc follow"ing c at?1?1t?';;'.4 providec? in. acoordince with the provisions of the Fish and
WildlifeCoortlination Act,;;, -i?a:ndcd (16 U,&C.661-667e), wzd section 7 of theEndangered
Speaes,?,ct z)#' l ?7 ?, ?.s sir 1 - {I ?r r? _?.r. l ?'31?154?) fA?:tz,
t'1?CL3rdiSl to the tt??Y_z'i'!?:ttlc?r? I?r?ri.ztLl, }?? ?].?t;?n?i ?!t? ;:???°?"1?? tl??.`?} tS j?rs~partr4?,
Environmental Assam sI cnt (EA) for {Ire subject proposedi road repairs.. The project area has had
duonioproble ns t°? v above 10,75, n multiple atLe pti to curt- et the road fai,turcha;,c failed.
Wehave no objections to the proposed project. l4owever, as with all federal proje , we
recommend that all pwject sites be survel ed or federally listed endangered and threatened
species to ensure that thesy t'm t~c_c-zrc:es are not inadvertently lost. Enclosed is a list of
foderallyendangerct ?rzti ;`: watct;.<< t °{ ? an t federal ipecics r)f c nc-ctn for Ashc and Wilkes
counties {the Proiff•t is Oil thee Co- w-c}ordance with the Act, it is the n,'sponsibility of
the Vpropriate fetle'ral a cy [t) re?iew'3 t: -s or prn_?Yram and to identify any such
activ es or programs that may affect endangeretl or J=atened species or their habitats. tf it is
determined that [hest : -opo d ti :-hies may adversely affect any spies federally listed as
endangered or threatene-4 formal -tsultation with this office must be initiated. Please note the
federal species of cora ern are not 1. ,ally protected under the Act and are not subject to ann of its
provisions, including sect on 7, r` = they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened, We are hicludin these species in our response to i e Yklu advance notification. and
t pest yottr assiszazzc:e hi prat cdu :: t'r a.
Appendix A A-11
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
We aPreci0T t Oppeattarrt y to pr'bvidl t es,? ,Qoping cosruncnts and request that you coriifinu
to keop us info ed as to the progress of "s proposed r(ject. Tf ire =i b: of assistance or if
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mt. Allen Ratz1aff of our staff at
82312:58-3939, Ext, 229_ Tn wiry future eorrespoudcnee Concem ng this prOjex?t, please sefereme
par Log'Nyurnber -2-06-325.
sinccrcly,
§ ':R
Man P.
'
1 " ? m rsor
Fld SL
Nir. David cflenry6 I'vio main RC ion Rev r ve , Carolina Wildlifc Resources
Corn mission, 20830 Gi eat Smoky Nftrr. Exp-,, t vvay, Waynesville, PAC 28786
Appendix A A-12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Smice's (I TSFWS)
County Species List for North Carolina
Foll lowing is a list of couuti,es in tali Carolina within which federally listed. and proposed endwig d,
threatened, and candidate species and federal species of aaccrn are either known or are considered probable
(but not yet documented). It Las been compiled by the USFWS from a variety of so€ est, ihelud weld
surveys, museums and hcrbaria, literature, and personal rmmunicatious.
This list contains infbmtatiorl that is a so fou ad in theN©rth Carotina Natural tferita ePro as (N)
database of rare species information. Ho ever, the list is likely to include additional information that is not
reflected in the NCN'IIP date base,
This list is intended to ssiA those, conducting sun;eys in proposed project areas, but it is not intended to seine
as a substitute for field surr,,eys, The list is subject to change as new infort!nation i received. For the tuost
current version, please consult the w,?bsite for the C-ISFWS North Carolina Ecological Services Division at
r ?. r..... ,...
Qf It r tr04
%.a, t.-
t; 4tical babitat is
b _± d s?:tif Lion of th
more detai14-.d d °iption =o
Sca turtles ow in€?vcr tit ?'- stuff,
cou aties wh = t tCY . r? Tr t:'st f
:; dc*-,gn5ated or pz g-.?owwd. l „is ri ; at on z c the i a,: co, t cd
found,
v rs And nc-st along bb; ches, tuz lisp d hem in the
(N PAVE laisiarisdr,: on ova ,r s .t, to-.tk-, in t?,,vx -strial syste=,the
iltt t?C t 31 tt g.a? C , and they PE, t Tom.. ? t E, . h .. , ?` . unties whew them
kno'4 n
,
?w'tJT1tenizatl o ?,1
;2=kL
IL
.i
;.OV°.'P T?:s?.Ilatcc?a..
?
(
'0 1 T
^
+
i
As Count

r .zt+.ghcny woodrat Nectoma ter C

? i - `
Appaln
f
` 5,}+lWlagus c scw7is C
,?.
,
.t
1.rn u, a r t e '. cle a.nys muhLC bolgTY d (S/)
:,a warbler
FSC
Appendix A A-13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Kanawha minnow Fbenwobius teretulus FSC
Pygmy salamander Damognathas wrigkti FSC
Reel crossbill (Southern Appalachian) T axia curWrostru FSC
Tnverttbrate
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria liana FSC
Gammon's stenalmis riffle beetle stmelmis gammoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigo rsubviddis FSC
Grizzled skipper P r r u"jtdot FSC
Midget snaketail Oph pgomphus how t FSC
Regal fritillary (butterfly) * SpgeHa Walla FSC
Vascular Plant
Appalachian oak fern
Giyrnna aarpium appalachianum
FSC:
Bog blue grass Poapaltafte FSC
Butternut ,1uglans cinerea F
Cuthbert turtlehead Chdone cuthbertii FSC
Darlington's spurge " Euphoria purpurerr FSC
Grays lily Linum VWJ4 FSC
Gray's saxifrage W; fra caroliniana FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatrls helleri T
Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Parnussia grandifolia FSC
:Roan mountain bluet Hedywis purpurea var. nrontana E
Spreading awns Geum rudiatum E.
Swamp pink Aretonias bullata T
Tall larkspur Delphinium exallatum FSC
Torrey's Mountain-mint * , cwnthemum towel FSC
Virginia spiraea ,Splraea virginla 'T'

Bluff mountain reindeer leichen Cladonia ps oromica FSC `
Rock gnome lichen Gynwoderma lineare E
Wilkes County
Species
yea.
Bog turtle Cl'emmys muhlenbergii T (SIA)
Ceruls*n waxlalsr l ertdra ca cerulea FSC
Eastern ill-footed bat myous leibii FSC
Invertebrate
Liana fritillary (butterfly) Spgerla tll z FSC
Regal fritillary (butterfly) * Speye?ia idal FSC
Appendix A A-14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Butternut ? J lansCmere-, F:iC
Pa3dford's St. John's-NvoTt ftedcurn spr 1 FSC
Tor_ey's A,lounttin- pint I" 11?lcnanthcrr.wn torrei 1?5
KEY-
2 #{=fi?,i Ons of Species ` 'Wrs t `odes,r
a - endangered. A, taxon "in banger of extinction throughout all or n significant portion of its range.",
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to bfz ame endaangera d within the foreweable faitaare throughout an or a
signiflcaaat portloar of its ra llge."
C = candidate. A tsxoutder cvnsideratioaa for official listing for ivla[cli there is sum
gloat infortattrra to
support listing. (Formerly "+Cl" candidate species.)
FSC ~ federal species of concern. , a species that way or may not be listed in the future (formerly C candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for whieft there is idsfaf t Information to support
listings).
`I°(Sh ) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened dine to simllarity of appearance
with anotbpr fisted species and is therefore listed for its protection. °Taxa listed as T(SIA) are not
bleloglcally eradatigtxM or threatemed and are not subject to Scedou 7 consailtation.
EXP - experimental population. A taxon whose is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimeittal, nonessential endangered species (e g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as speries proposed for listing, ou private land.
P prroposc T axa proposed for Official listing as endangered or thra atcned will be noted as "PE" or
"PT", respectively.
Tlsr. r sane tqa shpilariw of a eara nc# tT(SIA)h
In the November d, 1997, Federal register (55$22-55825), the northern populations of the brag turtle
(from New York south to Maryland) was listed as I' (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as °T(S!A) (threatened) clue to slmllarlty of appearance). The T(StA)
designation basis the collection and hiUrstate and international coin iin- :ia:l trade of bog turtles froth the
southern population. The T(' 9lA) dcsi ,nation has no effect on land manage Llm nt :activities by private
latidowhers in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species. In addition to its official
status as'T(SIA), the ta.S. Fi4i and Wildlife Service considers the southern populations of the bog turtle as
a Federal species of concerns doe to habitat loss.
notion of county records-
% A percent symbol (%) indicates that the species is regarded as probable but as of yet
andocumented in this caaunty due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat aoatllor the
proximity of confirmed observations of the species in adjacent counties.
Sommer habitat (Indiana bat county records only)
Historic record - she species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago;
** Obscure record - the date andlor )ovation of observation is a ncer#aln„
** r acidentaum rant record - the species was observe outside of its normal ram or habitat.
' Hista ric and obscure record,
***** fib re and Incidental record.
Appendix A A-15
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-6. NCDENR Comment Letter
M'EWR
North Carolina Depai tnent of Environment and Natural Resouroes
MOW F. Ea ft, QWWv darn € . Ross Jr., Ss=bry
JUL,t
TO: chrys gott
State ni FROM! Melba, McGee
` nv r .: _ . tsk Review coordinator
SU2JWT'.t 06-0364 $caping for the Proposed Repairs to the Blue lAidge
Paarlmay at Milepost 370.3, 5ect4azi 311, is Wilms Caunty
DATIE a July 6. 2006
The Deyart nt of Envirarimt and Natwml Resources lum reviewod t'# f
propoked irforaAticn, The attached c to aka for the awlicant's
info gAtlon-
Than'k you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1641 Wall Service C€ r,, Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1611 JhCAT
Pte: 911.783,49841 FAX, 819.7154W t Intemet, vuWWAnrstate ntr$IEt l
Rt f IA"Ifh%Wn€tF.eFi" -60%%r' dkNa Piet Pier`
Appendix A A-16
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Will) 0. itoa ?„ §1 reit3'
i t ft DW tTWI o1° SA*O t NaturaE RBtioWrC1lej
Alen W. K c, P.E. Okedor
d1o ?? Jt:tsa 2b, xoOeS
4 "M
i 00 0%
To: Melba Xcoee, Environixiet W Coo4na ? t,, v
From: Sue Homewood, NC' Division of Water Quality, iston-YSalem Office
ubjevt Scaging coriaarse nts on proposed repah to the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section
2E, Wilkes Ct?mty. D R #06.0354
Rcfcranva the National Park Service (TAPS) corresponden dated Juste 1. 2006, and your aorrespolade
dated Iuac 5, 2006 in which y+ requested comments for lire reed projxot. Prelua fin y analysis of
the pr*ct reveals the potential for muldplc impacts to perennial stream and jurisdictiml wetlands in
the project area. More spcciRcally, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream
Clan ficatfo g Strum tuft
Number
l?ite Swamp Creek N C 10-1.24 '
Fall Creek ''ladlsi>t C Tr 121-2 2
Tbs symbol idm ftes waters that are subjeot to a spacial managca =t strategy specineE in 15A
NCAC 2B .0225 the Outstanding R=o=c Water (ORW) bole, in order t0 protect dowtrstmarn
vat designated as ORW.
FmIhor investigations at a It Ow resolution should be undertaken to veri the presence of other streams
enftr juris6ctional vwedands in the area. In the event that any jttx dicftW arm are identiO4 the
Division of Water Quality requests. that the applicant consider the following environmental issues far the
proposed project;
Project Spec Comments:
I. Fall Creek and its tributaries are olasi sC; Tr ww= of the state. IJW Q re ds dart the mast
protective sedimcat and crostod control BlOs be imisl tc to sedge the risk of turbidity
violations in trout wa ws. In additi<m, al l di oes within from buffers should be opnduoW ire.
accordance with NC Division of Lend Rates and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
reeluiramenm
2, Review of tbeproj Oct reveals the presence of surface waters d*,drain der ady into waters classified
as Outst dixtg resource Waters of the State in the project study area. 7be waW quality
classiAos n of ORW is one of the bi st clsssf oadons in the Slaw:. DWQ is at acnWy concctiacd
with any impacts that my occur toy streams w this classification. It is prefhrted that these resomm
be avoided if at all possible, If it is not poesible fo avoid these rese w, ire itnpacts should he
mini? to the greatest atent passible. Given thepotent for impacts to these resources during 64
project iftVler entadon, the DW1Q requests iltat the %Vliceard strictly adhere to North Mina
tegulat s am4tled "Design Stara lards in Sensitive Watersheds" (SA NCAC 042.0124) duau&ut
deign and construction of the project,
'frarnPrmY?nged?
=tit $ade,wd, s, as 0, Rat N rm
ftr4:819-0.177allSAY,413^733 f1E#Ti h ?JR97Rlt#tt?- t26tfi?i
?6gwoEQPVr?.n r.,?rr?e??a?e+Fr?`?0%?ertlttiPaitIelr,er.
Appendix A A-17
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
3. Gig !last the s regvir repa because of natural . it is likely that thmare jurisdictional
we an& that may be inVaote d by t project. Cwe ful identific rz ofjurisdictional wodat , atad
,ftnpaots to any wetlands will be ce siary.
General Project Comments.
4. The ewonmental document should provide a detailed and itt ed presentation of ilte pearl,
ftqmo to wetlands and strews with coffin !tag ppin& If rdfiggion is necessary rs
by I SA NCAC 2H.0505(h , it is pre#"e able to art a carte (itnot ffiWLT d j mid plans
with the documentation. Appropriate ruti ion pI will =qufttd prior to
issuume of a 401 Water Quality Calification.
5.. Levi tal assewnent tives should consider design criteria that reduce impacts to
strew ud weUaWs ftom storm wad runoff. These altett ttves should include road designs that
allow fbr treater of tho steann water nnwff through best management ptactioes as detafled in this
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwer, M ana ;tedees, such as grassed swales,
buff areas. pmibnn scour holes, ntloa b . , etc.
Afta the stleagoaa of the pref d al 'vG and prior to an ' e of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NPS is respoc*lly r=iTLded that they ?wil1 need to de mmst avoidance atna
minimization of ivipwts to waft ads (and auums) to the n=imuffi aftt practice. °bi accordanci
with the Envh i' tagernent Commissions Rules (I $A CAC 211-0506(h)), mitiation will
be retired for impacts greater the 1 for wends" in event that rni on is repired, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost hnadow and values. The NC
Ecvsysftm Enhancement ProSram may be available for use as wedand ra tiptiom
7, In aacordan+ce with the Enviror tea Ma g ent ?axumissioWs Rotes { 15A `NCAC 2ILO5t16(ls)},
mitigation will rewired for impacts of greater than 150 lint fir to any single perennial Strom
In the a ;t fat rnitigat is Tccj hvd, the mitigsstilon plan should designzcd to ropla,ee app prfste
lost Aotiom and values, The NC Ecosystem thantc nt Program my be available fort as
sum mi?ttiort.
8. DWQ is very xtcerne d with sediment ad erosion inWts ?t told result ltnarn this PA&UL MS
s'bould addr s these omens by desakmg the Wentiai irvacts that may occur to the aquatic
eaviromnetc and any mitigatinf facto ftt ouldreduce the ; ctn.
9. If fbwIdAdOn test bOrings art zt toy, it should ba noted sit tie dock;, Ciaotechrtdcal work is
apgarovad undu Cleneral 401 C oation Number 3494/Katieas ide Permit No. fs for Survey
Activities.
14" S i and erosion control menures st loie to protest Water mouneg ttaust be itnple=t
tarot d in accmdance with tt most rft+mt versi of North Cali Sea=t and lion
Control P lazing and t igrs Manual and the most recent version * NCSW0250.
11. All weave. in or 49ctnt tea stream waster should be cxartdutcUd in a dry work area unless otherwise
approvedby b1C DWQ.
12. Sediment and erosion control meals should not be planed in % .and sue.
Appendix A A-18
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
orf Carolina wildly Resources Commission 0
Rich aed B, HsmHW% &em ive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Bnvl metal Coild nuff
-Office of 49181Wn and %WWYerMental Aftr%DM.
FROM: Marla Mr?bm Wastern NOWT PerMit GoordinaW rte. t
Hbltat Con yatlon Pragrarn, NCWRC
DATE: Tune 30,2M -
SUI CT: Scopiang review of ft N'tdmal Purl S v ce's proposed prgJzct to repair a section
of stable roadbed on the Blue Ridge sway at rest 2703, won ,
Wilkes County, NC. O Project No. 06-OU, due J um 30, 2006.
The N om Parr Set-Am is planning to pre pate an Environmental AssLument for the
prrposed ltq North Carolloa Wfldlife Ropmes Cr=a3ioo (KCWRQ has reviewed the
inforroadon proAdod for conpoms regarding p to fish and vvllclt fe vwces resulbg fora
the subject i?roJect. Staff biologists have the following preliminary cagier a. These corownts
are provided in aco . with the provisions of the National Fmviiromnental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and t lash d Wdff `c o iz adore Act (48 5tat. 401, as amended; ld
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The Nat oral Park Service propows to repair ` oximsresly 200 linear fern of unstable
roadbed on rho Blue Ridge sway at milepost 270.3, Section 2E. A npte to SnW the . -
roadbed movement that bWa in 1975 have proven to be ineffe dives and now more adore !
geotehnionl solutions are being cowidevuL Ahernatives include concrete anchor blocks and
replacing the seodon with a bridge that has either paved or Vassed slhwiders.
The project appem to be am the headwaters of Pine Swamp Creseslr, Claw C+, dw flcaww
into A; County, or Fall Cmek, Class C Tr., which flowe Into Wig Cry. l k uW are
known to inhabit a and o'ther hoWw ins in ft =a. Pine Strap Crk joins the
South Poxk Nov River doww team, which apps to be tlutowding oum Wor and is
inhabited by the Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius menu:), a Federal Species oaf Cwwe m and
state Spew Concvern. ContmIlinS of- sile sedirxaeatatian will be very important forthis project
#t Admit Divis of ?d Pis6 sec • 17211Q Serve Center lisle , NC 2'71 1721
T bones (919)7(Y7-0220 • F1070e [phone]
Appendix A A-19
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Bi- RWV P&*-Y-P*
WD O CO"
-PAGE 2-
hat 30,20
S:xtimepat and crmlon control mumn should adh to the desip standu4s for sensitive
wllt+l:AStie?.
It is Likely that wetlands sn pramt at the pv*d site and that the roadway was 6 nilt on
wedo , leadinS to the existt pmbkm. Bag tuxdes, (ftxmp muiilenbervii), state
Thmatened end federal' l.'hreatened.du s tQ Similarity of App mace, ark known from the Vxteral
at+ea! RM s ' ders may Woo a at the 1roj site. Sump sboWd be conducted to
deminine the potential impacts to rare and listed sp ies. Impacts. to wedands siaoWd be avoided
or mbftliud to tree a Xtent prOCO" , Them may be an oppor#ei#y restom wetlands in the
if a bddp alternative is ftlected, w", gives the mnut in onuti , will likely be. the
solution we'd recommend.
In addition,, to help ftoil we done t propsttti wW: thin review proc,, *% ' al
i tion m' ds out ed bolm
1. Dfmriptiots of fishery ad wildlife" rest within the p je a are, including a listing 4
federally or state designated flweaft4 en . d, or special comm species. Poftntial
bonow areas to be , ft project eoostr cticm stud be hwh d in the inveatories. A
of des i plan s .es a be plod thmuo eo ltedom with the
Wowing proms:
*
The NWA4 ,, `tags Ptogron
1 i Allah service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1601
NMA Plant Conservation Pro&
P. Q. Box 2764'
Pidaigh,
3 3Q10 27611
2. Descripdon of any streams or wedands meted the gject. 'dale, i ludn thrs.t
h r fed of stresm that will be cbannelized or relocated.
3. Cover type map owing wetland acreage impacw d by she pmject. Watland amp
should include all pr oJed relaccid a that may undergo hydrologic dram as a result of
duetting, otlardrainago, c c filling forpwj conshwti%L 'W+edand,id dficationy
be accomplished damtagh coordination with U. S. Army Caps of t4neers
(USACE), If the USAC8 is not consul , the PGxsba &heating wobad s should
identified and c6terin listed.,
4. over type nup showing aeea of upland wildlife habitat impamd by the Proposed
pto jea. tentia! borrow sites and waste should be included,
Appendix A A-20
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
BhW RAP k
WMM qty PACE 3 - l X 2DD6
5. Shaw ft extent to which the pr jest will toult in loss, de `o, or fbWentation 0
wildUfu habitat (wodmdB cw up ).
+5, LWU& ffie mitig4on plan for avoiding, minimizing or composating for di= and
indi mt degr o in habitat quality a well as qtumfitative IOSWL
7. Address t ovora11 eriviromrrattal dfocts of die, p el t t t tl+Clion wi4 +w'tify the
contnbt don of this individual pro, ed to envimm ltel depdation.
8. WoYW a dimmsian of the ,bable impacts on natural rewu , which will refit from
wwn dery de°velopm r„ l ilit by the impfove i mad esL
9. If cxrnatnwflon of this facility is to to cowffin d with other date, m=dciPRI, or private
davel t sj , a descdpaon th pm is sold be irclucbd in the
envito tai do t, and all pried spmsots should be idendfie&
'Ili you ft oppgrttutity to provide twat in the early llaming steep of dft ptt t.
It you hoe any q stio regardl#j tbw =mnenta, p se owt to at (704) 5453841.
cc. Malta l3?ielr, IlmS
Sue HvmawODd,1°1C7WQ
An , NOW
Appendix A A-21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-7. Wilkes County Comment Letter
R :QVY,$I FOR MEW
?Igat review Ike r i "d&Vk i your reeq?ors0, It YM + =Y r=juIr,X tidr ';'^nai l ztipa, c.?t t ,
3iotaa wit lieu asr' t~ t?rri< rr .a; r se tp troey bew?
vgzwdlw- or tau
the dne ste tw4t;A6wI
1 lwf sip and ltitum
TbIr file Only'ro!
14a;wmt Tbis r*v ci = Fcgtt= ant of t%w fAvw* sec=z-N A, %(7 (r,itr t apptopddo
rasp vfA ire no en ohedor )
No comm
? pe bza. ',Mgr h I Agrt==t'X* tht pall 3:14 4.tivaz l _.. _
L rt s ^ebk. " l it not to wwalm with IbV gob ad Ot6OwVc *f $ a lai.
poi-':?: ?tttbl?n (Y? `
tt

Appendix A A-22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX B: CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGE
Appendix B B-1
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Choosing by Advantage
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
During the period of July 26-28, 2005, a value analysis panel convened at the Holiday Inn Express in
Boone, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting was to select a preferred alternative to address the
slide and unstable roadbed at MP 270.3. The Value Analysis (VA) team consisted of 14 participants:
Blue Ridge Parkway
John Gentry, Chief of Maintenance & Engineering
Gary Johnson, Supervisory Landscape Architect
Suzette Molling, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Mike Molling, Facility Manager
John Wilburn, Supervisory Civil Engineer
Larry Hultquist, Landscape Architect
Denver Service Center
Pat Sachs, VA Facilitator, Project Specialist
Leon Clifford, Project Manager
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration
Tom Shifflett, Project Manager
Mark Clabaugh, Bridge Engineer
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
The CBA was completed and later the graphs and charts were amended when more detailed geotechnical
analysis reports for the slide area and updated Class C estimates for all three alternatives being proposed
Appendix B B-2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
were attained (Figures B-1 and B-2). With the new geotechnical analysis F1 WA was able to better
define conceptual design and cost estimates for all three alternatives in 2008 dollars.
The VA/CBA process indicates that with weighting of factors such as construction and life-cycle costs,
resolution of slide stability and risk rating, environmental impact issues, and other VA/CBA factors, the
anchor block system is considered the preferred design solution.
Appendix B B-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of. Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-l. CBA Chart
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY SLIDE MITIGATION
Choosing by Advantages
COM"ONENT; FUNMON:
FACTOR ALTERNr1=S
CBA - Version 1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative: C
Re-aligtnnent with Aliment as is with anchor Bridge spanning slide
upslope cut walls black slope area
stabilization
•
?OTECT CL TL P '.L AND
NATU ALR£SULRC'ES
FACTOR I - iSfin,ume impacts to forest

Attributes Disturbs .25 acres Disturbs 1.25 acres No disturbance to forest
amount of eleatring and vegetation
rubbig r t alsed............ ._- ...
J °•°.° ..................•-_.._.
Advantages Less dis?bance than B 70 V Much ksa dkttabaace tla?n N j
FACTOR 2 - Avoid impacts to cukand
landscape at site
Attributes • Changes road . Maintains existing alignment • maintains existing
i Degree of change to historic aligumentand crops • No new materials to site alignment
desi section of parkway section • Changes road sectisui
+ Introduction of new materials • Introduces upskape Inffoduces a bridge
cutwalls, fill walls and
_.•___._.•_:.•..._...__..._..._....,.._........_ .... s°..IF................... .. ....__. . .....?....... ...... --••-_°_ --------------------- .__.
Advantages Q Signifreantly Better than A 95 1Jluch better than A Q
FACTOR 3 -Compatible with design
featareslcharacteaisam of parkway
develo ment, in rnl
Attributes . Upslope tut walls not • Compatible Compatible
t Degree to which solution is used anywhere on
sinular to historic parkway parkway
design featrires • similar curveslbreken
back carves are used on
the parkway where
nece smy
N
bl
•
ot compati
e
-
Advantages 0 uth more compatible than A ch more compatible fl=
A go
Appendix B B-4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COI+IPONENT: FUNC17ON:
F kCTOR ALTERNkM ES
CBA-- version 1 Alremative A Alrcruatat-e B Alteniative C
tae-atigtutienc with Alipuueut as is i.irh anchor Bridge apawiing Aide
upslope Cur .Valls Mork slops area
stabilization
PROVIDE FOR VFS OR
?idO??iEYT
LkCTOR i- cfiasisCei dsir a
exverieatt
t ibatea + C11rvallsand zt.-ardn•:1l • `Isitttatnse?perierre Brittlec4ang"
Long rer:n?p? to dnt•ini( chsnge eaprrie?t

?,
..
"
? •
w
.
' l ., ..> .
idtauta es ti ?~
ucil better than r Better lhsu-? 80

7ACTOR 5 -; a '?srn *e' of
wL?a?
nt?Ibutes somiiclor"Le • Notlosure ! C!,skw*!ordutation,ul'
• Du m=o+fpazh' 'IT dto%+re C an?ttt ction d ration at + Consauttton du-atioa of i pmtct
3 steno season * Cous:rucaeu dnra n of

Ad- aegis Be-Ter- tka C
55

LiucL be.ter tin C

4 .

A

WPRO tT EFFtCEKCk OF PARK
?r ?iTE i y? GE OPEP-MONS
FACTOR 5 - mkiei a=ual
=Wenau t re ud:°L*'''rts=
AMbnres •. sppr3fiaua?lr + kpproxLna:ei} ? trasicaately
Apptcxt to sa ud::cos: cf
v
._.._.a ...
tfta??g Sa?reLat b?et:er .lion L 30 ettez thatl C 35

FACTOR r tccx :orze Heali2.
Safer anti Welrara oflk s?*m att1
Set'e?
Facto: '.?-E£xras9encssa'_zamatirc
a? sxbia?it s:e e•raadbed
Ar;I tes , Avoids M037 of Wed . Stabilizes toad to preen: SFW- t'a tl area
urea catastrophic jablu:e

........ • Road ? uill eecle
.......
.................................
I

....>
..
Appendix B B-5
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
C0h1F'0N'T: Fn-'CTION:
FACTOR ALTERNATIVES
CBS -- Version I Alteruatiw A Alreruative B AlternatiZ'e C
Re-ahgainew uitli Alimuent as is tvidi anchor Bridge spanning slide
oslope cur wills block sloe area

.
_ ._.._... .• stabilizatioa
• s r_.
1d stitages littc§ 6ttter han B $S ?y S4ra'Teati4y berer than 3 93 '

PROVIDE CUSP-E"ECT T?
Ec'C?rIRUA-1iE1tTkLLi'
RESPONSIBLL AND OTHERUME
IMITSIML DRILdPE104T FUR
THE NP5
Facto: TO - Mabiltz ofmtdway
Ode ee of -III-)
A buses • NI;w lose do-'ms:oge fill • wL?v Icser.ad + Nctltkely m Icie road
but tot toad sow risk • tiledera:e isl ?r n`a ri l
dt=tages sigmficaatly t•errer taan B ? %pi'Luntiv be :e: than B 100
_
FACTOR S -1'ra:ide O:lu: A an>agts
to the' adanal Park Ss?-tem and 4t ;ors
£acmr Sa - NiiuLWzas ip:cts to ltuai
N$4'_neiie4 ca=uo:nes
?t?G :es Nlinor neeanve =pact
• Con:t=w-v likeh, to a No impu:
. Comraunin la:e:r to suppart a Negasi:•e irapac-
• Comu:t -Im less U-4v to
srppzrt Piv ec. p:?iect iuppm dca to dwa-10n f
t
._.-.. ," .-..
:-iucb Leiter 0131: t-` -_ Cc?D4tIttCTfdii petiQi
......
.....

T4i ALLRIPCtPT.a4CES OF 373 -tlb :33

Iukod Castt'4r

s"te-iirslg» Cast . mouai Oeotecb needed. No gaa:ath ueedad. re-dni_Qn Snem geotedi nn be needed
et tnattd as se 3estgu
cast not app:i;abte COVI wt applicab t for badge abutlarwi.
esttau:ed at re-clestzn
ec-ts noI a ltcable
1
CONIPONEN?: FUNCTION:
FACTOR ALTIMpLkTWES
CBS - Version 1 Alrernative A Alrentamv B Altttnative C
Re-alignaient with AJigmuear as is ividi anchor Bridge spattnutg slide
upsiope cat wall$ block slope area
stabtliaatiou
oa 323ute Full scale tA not be
uecessaly romp:-bnte
Section 106 compliauce wouid
be regnt:ed. park cauld hautdlc
Se im 116 wtenla:ly .

L' e Cycle Ca>: diet}
TOTALT

Appendix B B-6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-2. CBA Graph
Figure B ?L 1,1 Z,". Gi?i+
Slue Ridge Parkway - Slide Mitigation
Initial Evaluation

0C

$g
V$= 64 0

4
EE'' 33
14= 164.0
z
410
378
G
GL.

d G .

Q
fl

Appendix B B-7
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B B-8

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
Wilkes County, North Carolina
REPAIR OF UNSTABLE ROADBED AT
MILEPOST 270.3
Environmental Assessment
February 2007
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway
Wilkes County, North Carolina
SUMMARY
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the repair of
approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3. This
project consists of the remediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent
instability since approximately the mid-1970's. The intent of this project is to develop corrective
measures that will either arrest the slide movement to. stabilize the slope using a system of anchor blocks
or to stabilize the road bed by spanning the slide with.a bridge. The project will alleviate continuing
safety concerns and maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway. The purpose of this
Environmental Assessment is to describe the affected environment and analyze potential impacts
associated with a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives.
The preferred alternative, which would construct an anchor block system to stabilize the slope, would
have no impact on air quality, floodplains, soundscape, archeological resources, ethnographic resources,
historic and prehistoric structures, museum collections, socioeconomic environment, prime and unique
farmlands, and environmental justice. Impacts to soils would be minor and adverse in the short-term and
negligible and adverse in the long-term. Impacts to water resources, including wetlands, would be minor
and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to vegetation would be minor and adverse in the short-term.
Impacts to wildlife would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to visitor use and experience
would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to cultural landscapes would be negligible and
adverse in the short-term. Impacts to human health and safety would be moderate and beneficial in the
long-term.
Note Regarding Public Comment
If you wish to comment on the Environmental Assessment, you may do so online (our preference) at the
National Park Service website "Planning, Environment, and Public Comment"
http://parkplanniiig.nps.gov, or you may mail comments to: Blue Ridge Parkway, Attn: Suzette Molling,
Environmental Protection Specialist;; 199 Hemphill Knob Road; Asheville, North Carolina 28803.
This Environmental Assessment will be on public review for 30 days. Our practice is to make comments,
including names, home, addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available
for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home
addresses, etc., but if you wish to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comments. Commentators using the website can make such a request by checking
the box "keep my contact information private." Comments are typically treated as a public record and
made available for public review. Individuals may request that the National Park Service withhold their
name and address from disclosure. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.
Summary ii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item --- Page
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... ........v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... ...... vi
Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................................. ........1
Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................. ........1
Project Background ................................................................................................................. ........1
Park Purpose and Significance ................................................................................................ ........4
Law, Regulations, and Policies ............................................................................................... ........5
Scoping ................................................................................................................................... ........6
The Environmental Assessment .............................................................................................. ........6
Impact Topics .......................................................................................................................... ........6
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment ..................................... ........7
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration .............................................. ........8
Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................................... ......10
Alternative A: No Action ........................................................................................................ ......10
Alternative B: Anchor Blocks .........................................:....................................................... ......11
Alternative C: Bridge with. paved shoulders ........................................................................... ......14
Alternative D: Bridge with grassy shoulders .......................................................................... ......16
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed .................................................................................. :.....16
Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................... ......18
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... ......19
Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... ......22
Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................................... ......26
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... ......26
General Impact Definitions ........................................................................................ ......26
Cumulative Impact Scenario ...................................................................................... ......27
Impairment of Park Resources ................................................................................... ......28
Soils and Geology .................................................................................................................. ......29
Affected Environment ................................................................................................ ......29
Methodology .............................................................................................................. ......3 0
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ........................................................................ ......31
Impacts of Alternative B ............................................................................................ ......31
Impacts of Alternative C ............................................................................................ ......32
Impacts of Alternative D ............................................................................................ ......33
Water Resources, Including Wetlands .................................................................................... ......34
Affected Environment ................................................................................................ ......34
Methodology .........................:.................................................................................... ......3 5
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ........................................................................ ......36
Impacts of Alternative B ............................................................................................ ......37
Impacts of Alternative C ............................................................................................ ......38
Impacts of Alternative D ............................................................................................ ......39
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... ......41
Affected Environment ................................................................................................ ......41
Table of Contents iii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 41
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 42
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 43
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 44
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 44
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. 45
Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 45
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 46
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 47
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 48
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 49
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 50
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources ................................... 52
Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 52
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 52
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 53
Impacts of Alternative B ................................................................................................... 54
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 55
Impacts of Alternative D ..................................................................................................57
Cultural Landscapes ...................................................................................................................... 58
Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... .58
Methodology ................................................................................................................... .59
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..............................................................................60
Impacts of Alternative B ................................................................................................. .60
Impacts of Alternative C ................................................................................................. .61
Impacts of Alternative D ................................................................................................. .61
Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................................ .62
Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... .62
Methodology ................................................................................................................... .63
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ............................................................................. .63
Impacts of Alternative B ................................................................................................. .64
Impacts of Alternative C ................................................................................................. .65
Impacts of Alternative D ................................................................................................. .65
Consultation and Coordination ..............................................................................................................66
Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................66
Preparers and Contributors ...........................................................................................................66
References Cited .......................................................................................................................................69
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Scoping and Agency Coordination ....................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Choosing by Advantage ....................................................................................................B-1
Table of Contents iv
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location .............................................. 2
2 Land Tract Number 39-147 ....................................................................................................... ...... 3
3 The No Action Alternative: current road condition at MP 270.3 .............................................. .... 11
4 Alternative B: example of anchor block system ........................................................................ .... 12
5 Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................. .... 15
6 Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................ .... 17
A-1 Scoping Letter ........................................................................................................................... ..A-3
A-2 Scoping Brochure ..................................................................................................................... .. A-5
A-3 News Release ............................................................................................................................ .. A-7
A-4 USFS Comment Letter .............................................................................................................. A-10
A-5 USFWS Comment Letter .......................................................................................................... A-11
A-6 NCDENR Comment Letter ....................................................................................................... A-16
A-7 Wilkes County Comment Letter ............................................................................................... A-22
B-1 CBA Chart ................................................................................................................................. .. B-4
B-2 CBA Graph ................................................................................................................................ .. B-7
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 22
2 Summary Comparison of Impacts ................................................................................................. 23
A-1 Persons Who Received the Scoping Letter ..................................................................................A-7
Table of Contents v
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BLRI Blue Ridge Parkway
BMP Best Management Practices
CBA Choosing by Advantages
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DSC Denver Service Center
DO NPS Director's Order
EA Environmental Assessment
EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division
FHWA Federal Highways Administration
FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FY Fiscal Year
MP Milepost
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
OL Overlook
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters
SERO Southeast Regional Office
T&E Threatened and Endangered
USC United States Code
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VA Value Analysis
Table of Contents vi
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
PURPOSE AND NEED
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
repair of approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI or
Parkway). The site is approximately six miles north of US 421 and Deep Gap at Milepost (MP) 270.3,
Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina near West Jefferson (Figure 1). This project consists of the
remediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent instability since
approximately the mid-1970's. This EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish
the repair solution for this unstable roadbed.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the most frequently visited National Park Service area with an annual
visitation of over 21 million visitors. The Parkway road inventory consists of over 525 lineal miles of
asphalt pavement located at elevations that in some areas exceed 5,000 feet above sea level. All road
areas are subject to extreme weather conditions, including freezing and thawing, which causes rockslides
and other surface failures. As the slide area that is the cause of the unstable road bed at MP 270.3
continues to move, the roadway embankment shifts, thus causing the roadbed to settle and to damage the
pavement surface. The two reasons the fill is moving are that the fill is placed on an existing steep rock
slope without proper benching of the rock slope, and that the existing rock slope is yielding subsurface
water at the interface of the fill and the rock slope, lubricating the fill material and causing the fill to
move at the interface of the existing rock slope and the fill As water continues to penetrate the structural
foundation of the road base, deterioration is accelerated.
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is considered an extremely high priority. Efforts to repair the
road have been made intermittently for the past 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be
necessary to stabilize the section by using an anchor block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The intent of this project is to develop. corrective measures that will either arrest the slide movement to
stabilize the slope or stabilize the road embankment, and will alleviate continuing safety concerns and
maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The two lanes of pavement at this location are supported by a deep embankment fill placed during the
original Parkway construction. The site borders on a major hillside with more than 100-feet of relief
between the top and bottom of the embankment fill slope and has a slope angle of approximately 1.5
horizontal to 1.0 vertical.
The travel way is located on a relatively level bench near elevation 3,300 feet with the hillside continuing
upward starting about 50-feet west of the Parkway pavement. The top of the slide opens up approximately
20 feet west of the Parkway pavement. A steep downhill slope starts approximately 5-feet east of the
pavement and extends to well beyond the project limits. The bottom of the slide is reported to be
approximately 150 feet down the slope at an elevation approximately 80 to 90-feet lower than the
Parkway (NPS, 2005a). Based on the cracking observed on the pavement, it is estimated that the
horizontal length of the slide area is approximately 190-feet near the top at the roadway.
Purpose and Need
U.S. National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway Environmental Assessment
Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

?? 16 Air awr_1yft
81 `\
? 227 13 Cdlb
?
S 93 /xoch' 18
Go
u
h
to
n Park
-
a Ig
113
D
®
D
O
O

^ ?raun[q?iu n 1 6 Liwel Sprk?z
to in4td 8+,8ho porn / \
` \ 15 -
wpnul • Gminon121 nd.
Stab hrk 221 - 24
- IR0wry 421
/ _ -
O /WNtero MO2 +rt.Rn 192

- \
{ 'V 1S NORTH WILKESBORO
-
1
`r??sa v 16 1316 llorehw.a fl,taaproa Project IOCatIOn WILKESBORO
Q1 Glendale Songr )~narr ate,, 3225tt at MP 270.3
¦ MWIRMIh60f 11

\ 54N Mk--'= -
192 163 SCOT!
- WEST _ T_I Ratsrvmr 16
JEFFERSON 11.00 zb
?oams s Z ,a V 270 B. Jeff ress ark
_ sa $ OAT 83 - 269
.21
-
a???tc? 91 o I ? 5,
2'L
9 G
D
G

«55
w .pp
F? deep
aP
eep
av
MOUNTAIN S `nFF. A
iy

- 280
C 9
/

1\ CHEROIEE
+11
1 NATIONAL o BOONE d2,
-- 7
_ 421 1 $ .

`
290
f4? ose5. one
south
NdStan ?' 2 W Me Off' Ceota BLOWING ROCK
64
V(y 1
? ti
/.O
e v Cra/tCMlt 2G 321

105
c
1 z rice «21=
Julian P
` Memorial Park
321
ul.u?s4 LENOIR
? ? Lke i94 t3
i 1 z 1 300
' 11 = 321
f earner Ek 13a Stan Linn Cove
warn. C .W
Figure 1. Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location.
A tract of land bordering the Parkway which was recently acquired expands the boundary in the location
of the slide at MP 270.3 from 350 feet to a total of approximately 750 feet to bordering private land. The
entire tract would expand the boundary much wider, but there is a "donut hole" of private land contained
within the newly acquired tract (Figure 2).
The roadbed movement at MP 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. A horizontal subsurface
drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove subsurface drainage
beneath fill soils, believed at the time to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has been
patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but movement
and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaftihorizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division (EFLHD) personnel conducted an inspection of the
landslide in May 1997. At that time, of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 as part of the drainage
gallery, four were running water and three were dripping. Recommendations were given to seal the
pavement cracks and restore the Parkway grade by placing an asphaltic concrete patch. Further
recommendations were given to install piezometers to measure water levels and to drill into one of the
drainage shafts to determine if they were becoming clogged. EFLHD personnel installed piezometers in
July 1997. Drainage shafts have not been drilled.
Purpose and Need 2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
• 35G5
r
v
,3684 -
.1.
SEE LAND STATUS MAP 3
00
Prl7ll.? ??.
/,254 tCA o'F
?l 1

1 ¢S
Vapo. rg
11
53
r ? t
? I
VJ
11
r[ V t I
39T 144 39-147
rl \
Figure 2. Land Tract Number 39-147 recently transferred to Parkway ownership from the
Conservation Land Trust.
l
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. Both patched
areas are the full width of the roadway. The south and north patches are approximately 25 feet and 60 feet
long, respectively. Another patch, 6 feet wide by 56 feet long, extends south from the north patch. An
inspection of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average
of approximately two gallons of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of
trees along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean, geotechnical monitoring of the area indicates
continual slope movement, and catastrophic failure of the slope is considered highly possible.
Purpose and Need 3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Recent geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that water movement at the interface of bedrock and soil
is a critical contributing cause of roadway movement since it cats reduce frictional resistance of the
embankment thus aiding in its instability. However, the weight of the material on the interface between
bedrock and soil exceeds the frictional resistance of that interface and is believed to be a major cause of
slide movement. If it were not for the existing rock slope yielding subsurface water at its interface with
the fill, it is likely that the fill would not be moving. As past attempts to arrest the movement have proven
to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
The legislated purpose of BLRI, under the Act of June 30, 1936, is to link Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee by way of a
recreation-oriented motor road intended for public use and enjoyment. Under the provisions of the
Organic Act approved by Congress on August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535) creating the National Park Service,
the intended purpose of the BLRI is to provide an elongated park to conserve, interpret, and exhibit the
unique natural and cultural resources of the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, as well as
provide for leisure motor travel through a variety of scenic environments.,
The general interpretation of BLRI's purpose has been further refined into the following more specific
purpose statements:
• Connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks by way of a "national rural
parkway" - a recreational, destination-oriented motor road traveling through a variety of scenic ridge,
mountainside, and pastoral farm landscapes.
• Conserve the scenery and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Parkway's designed and
natural area to preserve the integrity of resources and to provide a quality visitor experience.
• Influence the protection of the scenic, natural and cultural resources within the corridor composed of
those lands that are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and/or situated adjacent to the boundary.
• Provide for public enjoyment and understanding of the natural resources and cultural heritage of the
central and southern Appalachian Mountains.
• Provide opportunities for high quality scenic and recreational experiences along the Blue Ridge
Parkway and within the corridor through which it passes.
The route of the Blue Ridge Parkway follows mountain and valley landscapes to link Shenandoah and
Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. Its location was selected to provide the best in a variety of
scenic, historic, and natural features that evoke the regional image of the central and southern
Appalachian Mountains. In order to maximize scenic views and give Blue Ridge Parkway visitors the
impression that they are in a park with boundaries to the horizon, the Blue Ridge Parkway was located in
mountainous terrain that normal roads would have avoided. The Blue Ridge Parkway was the first
national rural parkway and is widely recognized as an international example of landscape and engineering
design achievements with a roadway that lies easily on the land and blends into the existing scene. The
Blue Ridge Parkway also was the first national rural parkway to be conceived, designed, and constructed
as a leisure-type driving experience.
Purpose and Need 4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Blue Ridge Parkway follows the crests and ridges of the Blue Ridge, Black, Great Craggy, Great
Balsam and Plot Balsam Mountains. These five major mountain ranges are part of the central and
southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile Parkway encompasses several geographic and vegetative
zones, with altitudes ranging from approximately 650 feet at James River in Virginia to nearly 6,050 feet
at Richland Balsam in North Carolina. The Blue Ridge Parkway is known for spectacular mountain and
valley vistas, quiet pastoral scenes, sparkling waterfalls, colorful flowers and foliage displays, and
interpretation of mountain history and culture. Its varied topography and numerous vista points offer easy
public access to views of southern Appalachian rural landscapes and forested mountains. Designed for
recreational driving, the Blue Ridge Parkway provides visitors with quiet, leisure travel, free from
commercial traffic and the congestion of high-speed highways. As its All-American Road status indicates,
it is one of the most diverse and high quality recreational driving experiences in the world.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the highest and longest continuous route in the Appalachian area. Because of
its long length, proximity to large Eastern Ujiited States urban areas, numerous access points, quality
design and diversity of scenic, natural and cultural resources, the Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited
National Park Service area.
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
The following laws and associated regulations provided guidance for the development of this EA, design
of the preferred alternative and alternatives, analysis of impacts, and creation of mitigation measures to be
implemented as part of the preferred alternative.
The NPS Organic Act (1916) and the General Authorities Act (1970) prohibit impairment of park
resources and values. The NPS 2001 Management Policies uses the terms "resources and values" to mean
the full spectrum of tangible and intangible attributes for which the park was established and is managed,
including the Organic Act's fundamental purpose and any additional purposes as stated in the park's
establishing legislation. The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed unless directly
and specifically provided by statute. The primary responsibility of the NPS is to ensure that park
resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have
present and future opportunities to enjoy them.
The evaluation of whether impacts of a preferred alternative would lead to an impairment of park
resources and values is included in this EA. Impairment is more likely when there are potential impacts to
a resource or value whose conservation is:
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park;
essential to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park;
or
• identified as a goal in the park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents.
NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS, 2000) addresses transportation systems, including park roads,
emphasizing that the NPS must find transportation solutions that preserve the natural and cultural
resources while providing a high-quality visitor experience.
Section 9.2 Transportation Systems "If a decision is made to construct, expand, or reconstruct a park
transportation system, the Service will address the need for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife corridor
crossings and other accommodations to avoid or mitigate harm to individual animals, the fragmentation of
plant and animal habitats, and the disruption of natural systems."
Purpose and Need
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Section 9.2.1.1 Park Roads "Park roads will be well constructed, sensitive to natural and cultural
resources, reflect the highest principles of park design, and enhance the visitor experience. Park roads are
generally not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation; rather, they are intended to enhance
the quality of a visit, while providing for safe and efficient travel, with minimal 106 or no impacts on
natural and cultural resources."
SLOPING
Scoping is an open process that determines the breadth of environmental issues and alternatives to be
addressed in an EA. Scoping involves obtaining internal and external input on project-related issues from
resource specialists and the public, respectively. The Park conducted internal scoping with appropriate
NPS (BLRI, SERO, and DSC) and FHWA staff and external scoping with the public, including interested
and affected groups or individuals and non-NPS agency personnel.
An interdisciplinary team comprising BLRI, SERO, DSC, and FHWA staff members contributed to the
internal scoping process. This process resulted in definition of the purpose and need, identification of
potential actions to address the need, and determination of what the likely issues and impact topics would
be.
For external scoping, a public scoping letter, a public scoping brochure, and a news release (see Figures
A-1 through A-3 in Appendix A) describing the project and requesting public input on the proposed
alternatives was issued to private parties and State, Federal, and local agencies on June 1, 2006.
Appendix A provides a list of individual and agencies/organizations that were sent the scoping letter
(Table A-1). The external scoping period ended on July 3, 2005. Comments received during the Scoping
period can be found in Figures A-4 to A-7 of Appendix A.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from the
alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative. This EA has been prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1500 through 1508) for implementing NEPA, and the NPS NEPA compliance guidance handbook (DO-
12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making).
IMPACT TOPICS
Issues and concerns with this project are grouped into distinct impact topics to aid in analyzing
environmental consequences, which allows for a standardized comparison of alternatives based on the
most relevant information. The impact topics were identified on the basis of federal laws, regulations and
orders, NPS Management Policies 2001, and NPS knowledge of potentially affected resources. A brief
rationale for selecting or dismissing each topic is provided below.
Purpose and Need 6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment
Soils and Geology
Construction activities, such as excavation and the use of heavy equipment, would disturb soils and
potentially cause soil compaction and erosion in the project area. Soil grading and other construction
related activity could permanently change the character of the soil.
Water Resources, Including Wetlands
NPS Management Policies 2001 requires protection of water quality consistent with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to prohibit or regulate, through
a permitting process, the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters. Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands, NPS Management Policies 2001, Section 4.6.5, Wetlands, and.NPS DO #77-1,
Wetland Protection, require an examination of impacts to and protection of wetlands. A small perennial
stream with adjoining wetlands occurs below the road at MP 270.3. Construction activities have the
potential to affect water quality and wetlands in the project area.
Vegetation
Vegetation along the roadside could be impacted both from clearing and from trampling during
construction. The spread of invasive plants may occur. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered plants in the vicinity of MP 270.3.
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species
Clearing vegetation could. potentially reduce or alter wildlife habitat. Construction activities could
temporarily displace wildlife from the immediate vicinity. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered animals in the vicinity of MP 270.3. However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea) a
federal species of concern, and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.5 miles
of this site.
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources
Visitor use and experience could be affected through noise, aesthetic, and traffic-related effects during
construction. Visual resources would be affected by construction activities and after construction by
changes to the road configuration. Recreational opportunities could be affected by changes in traffic
patterns and conditions along the roadway.
Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes are defined by the NPS as "a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural
resources and is often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use,
systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is
defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting
cultural values and traditions" (DO #28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, 1998). Although the
project area is not located in an historic district, the Parkway itself is considered historically significant
and is eligible for designation as a National Historic Landmark. This project could replace historic
features/elements in kind.
Human Health and Safety
Safety along the Parkway at MP 270.3 would improve with road repairs as the current safety hazards
would be eliminated.
Purpose and Need 7
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration
Air Quality
Air quality could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however, impacts would be
temporary and minor in intensity. Overall, there could be a slight and temporary degradation of local air
quality due to dust generated by activities and emissions from construction equipment. These effects
would last only during construction activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to
limit dust generation and dispersal. To keep equipment emissions down, equipment would be properly
maintained. Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.
Floodplains
Executive. Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires all Federal agencies to take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, and
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. The proposed project area is not
located near or in any floodplains; therefore this topic was dismissed from consideration.
Soundscave
In accordance with NPS Management Policies 2001, the Parkway strives to preserve the natural
soundscape. The soundscape could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however,
impacts would be temporary and minor in intensity. The proposed action would not affect natural ambient
sound in the long-term. Therefore, soundscape was dismissed as an impact topic in this EA.
Archeological Resources
The National Park Service is required to, "preserve collections of prehistoric and historic material
remains, and associated records, recovered under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-
433), the Reservoir Salvage Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c), section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2), or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm)" (36 CFR
Part 79). These regulations, promulgated under the authority of the Secretary of Interior, apply to
findings made by historic preservation professionals that meet qualification standards for Federal
projects. As no archaeological sites are located in the project area, archaeological resources were
dismissed as an impact topic in the EA.
Ethnographic Resources
The National Park Service must be respectful of ethnographic resources, those cultural and natural
features that are of traditional significance to traditionally associated peoples. These are contemporary
peoples whose interest in the park began prior to its establishment (1936) and who have associated with
the park for more than two generations (40 years) (Management Policies 2001, Sec. 5.3.5.3). The
proposed project would not affect any ethnographic resources currently known to park staff, and thus will
not be discussed as an impact topic.
Historic and Prehistoric Structures
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended in 1992 (16 USC 470 et seq.); NEPA of
1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.); NPS DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, NPS Management
Policies 2001, and NPS DO #12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision
Making require the consideration of impacts on historic structures and buildings listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No structures, historic or prehistoric, are directly
involved in this project, and thus, this topic has been dismissed.
Purpose and Need 8
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Museum Collections
The NPS' Management Policies, 2001 and DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline require
the consideration of impacts on museum collections (historic artifacts, natural specimens, and archival
and manuscript material). There are no museum objects that would be affected by this proposal, and thus
was dismissed as an impact topic.
Socioeconomic Environment
Construction activities associated with the action alternative would have short-term, negligible impacts on
the local economy due to short-term increases in employment opportunities and revenues for local
businesses and government during construction. A private construction contractor would be hired by the
FHWA to conduct construction activities. The construction contract would be administered by FHWA
with representation by the National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Construction-related benefits to
the local economy through wages, overhead expenses, material costs, and profits would last only the
duration of construction, and would be minimal. Parkway closure and detour routes during construction
may have an adverse impact to local businesses. No long-term impacts on the local economy would
occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.
Prime and Unigue Farmlands
In August 1980, the CEQ directed that Federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on
farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops,
such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops, such as
fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Since the project area does not meet the definition of farmland as stated in
Title 7, Chapter 73, Section 4201 (c)(1) of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), it is not applicable
to the FPPA. Therefore, the topic of prime and unique farmlands was dismissed as an impact topic in this
EA.
Environmental Justice
Presidential Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental
justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations.
and communities. The proposed project would not have disproportionate health or environmental effects
on minorities or low-income populations or communities as defined in the US EPA's Draft
Environmental Justice Guidance (July 1996). Therefore, Environmental Justice was dismissed as an
impact topic in this EA.
Purpose and Need 9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Park"av Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 2703
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives to the preferred alternative, and to briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating
any alternatives that were not considered in detail. This chapter describes a range of reasonable
alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, Preferred Alternative, two other action alternatives, and
an alternative that was considered and eliminated from further analysis.
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
The CBA process was conducted at the Holiday Inn Express in Boone, North Carolina July 26-28, 2005.
The details and outcome of the CBA process are described in Appendix B.
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, the unstable roadway at MP 270.3 would be left as is (Figure 3),
roadbed movement would continue due to the slow moving slide, and the road would not be substantially
repaired. However, this alternative would require continued cyclic maintenance to keep the road
operational. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require the assessment of the No Action Alternative in
NEPA documents. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the management direction
and environmental consequences of the other action alternatives and must be considered in every EA.
Alternatives 10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkwav Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ALTERNATIVE B - ANCHOR BLOCKS
(NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Under Alternative B, the area around the unstable roadbed would be retained with an anchor block
system. The active slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with tendons anchored to rock
beneath the slip plane. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway and
may include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill embankment and
pavement. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is S2.7M.
Anchor blocks would be completely buried and placed in a zone below the Parkway to the east between
30 and 200 feet from the road edge. The conceptual design for the anchor block system has not been
completed other than the representation of the area of disturbance (Figure 4). A conceptual description of
the anchor block system, subject to revision, follows. Placement could involve placing four or five rows
of evenly spaced concrete anchor blocks located one-third to one-half way up the slope from the toe of the
slide. There could be a total of eighty-eight to ninety-six 8'x8' or 10'x 10' blocks. Each row could be
approximately 25 to 40 feet apart and the area of coverage could be 200 feet long by 150 feet deep. Each
row could likely have 20 to 24 anchor blocks. The anchor blocks would be placed in a wedge excavated
from the slope so that a leveled bench can be created. Once the anchor blocks are placed in rows in an
upright position with rock anchor cables in place, the slope wedges with the anchor blocks would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass. Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy
cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock outside of the slide zone.
Alternatives 11
Figure 3. The No Action Alternative: current road conditions at MP 270.3.
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Al
Figure 4. Alternative B: example of anchor block system installed at other slide area sites with
similar geotechnical analysis.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary
in diameter, with most being V to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it
is believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping is meant to collect the water
from this plane of flow and redirect it to daylight on the face of the slope or into spring boxes then to the
face of the slope. The underdrain pipes that discharge in the spring boxes are directionally drilled towards
34 each 36 inch diameter vertical shafts which are backfilled with aggregate that aide in directing water
flow to the underdrain piping.
The existing under-drain piping system may need to be upgraded and/or replaced in the anchor block
system alternative because drainage relief is inadequate to prevent slide movement. An observed flow rate
from individual outlet pipes has been observed to be approximately 2 gallons per minute. The proposed
anchor blocks to be installed would likely damage or completely destroy the existing piping and outlet
distribution of the existing system of piping since the location of this piping is not known. If additional
subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the existing system. There
would only be piping installed to collect and redirect. subsurface drainage at the fill slope slip plane
(between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system and there shall be no aggregate filled
trenches that feed the under drain piping, which is not considered. geotechnically feasible. Additional
drainage piping may need to be installed on both the cut (Pkwy R) and fill slopes (Pkwy L) depending on
updated and final geotechnical analysis and design development of the anchor block system. If
geotechnical analysis can validate that the anchor block system can completely subside further slide
movement with repairs to the existing subsurface piping system alone, then the anchor block system
Alternatives 12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would be installed retaining the existing subsurface drainage pipe system, making repairs to pipe only
where necessary. However, every effort would be made to retain the integrity of the existing subsurface
drainage.
Subsurface drainage relief is considered an asset and facilities to.capture surface drainage may be
included in detailed design of the anchor block system if deemed necessary and could contribute to the
future stability of the slope. However, it is not at this time considered a geotechnical necessity in the
anchor block system design. If the subsurface drainage system is extended, replaced, or repaired,
additional excavation or area disturbance would not be expanded.
The subsurface drainage system would continue to be evaluated with the design of the anchor block
system to ensure a sustainable geotechnical solution to stabilizing the slide from further movement. A
means of reducing the contributing causes for slide movement should provide the ideal geotechnical
engineering solution. The anchor block system would retain the slope embankment and the subsurface
drainage piping would redirect and reduce subsurface water flow at the plain of movement between the
embankment and bedrock. Additional geotechnical analysis would be necessary to demonstrate that the
anchor block system is in itself an adequate solution to stabilizing slide movement. Additional analysis
would determine any need to increase the amount of or otherwise make improvements to the existing
subsurface drainage piping system.
Surface drainage would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow, much as it is in most other
areas on the Parkway. For the anchor block system, culverts beneath. the Parkway would channel run off
from natural drainage swales. The existing culvert system design (size, construction, material, and
placement) may be adequate, but replacing defective culvert may be necessary.
The roadway is to be reconstructed within the slide zone. The existing pavement is in disrepair due to
continued settling and movement of the slide. Additionally, the approaches to the reconstructed pavement
would be milled. Reconstruction would involve repaving the road surface with little disturbance to
roadway subgrade, although it would be subject to erosion for a short time. The asphalt would be
disposed of properly.
Because of the weight, anchor.blocks would be staged and stored off the Parkway. The contractor. would
stockpile the anchor blocks off of US 421 and transport the blocks to be used that day to the construction
site. When delivered to the site, the blocks would be placed along one lane of the Parkway ready for
installation.
Construction would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November 1 thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for '/2 -1 hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Single lane closure would be controlled with flagmen, lights, and signs.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. Native tree sprigs would be planted over the covered anchor blocks, between
the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Alternatives 13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Most waste material to be excavated would be clean fill dirt and rock. Some of this material could be
used to construct an access road to the site where anchor blocks would be placed. Other excavated
material could be used to cover anchor blocks. It is anticipated that there would be minimal to no
excavated waste that would need to be exported. Approximately 100 yards of topsoil material from an
offsite borrow pit may need to be imported, but some topsoil could likely be reserved for use from forest
clearing.
ALTERNATIVE C - BRIDGE WITH PAVED SHOULDERS
Under Alternative C a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to span the unstable slide area.
Installation of the bridge requires some slope excavation that would unload some of the unstable fill
material when placing the bridge and obliterating the existing roadway. The 2008 cost estimate for this
alternative is $4.4M. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and
slope excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to deep bedrock and there
would be a traditional concrete deck.
The bridge would be placed in the same alignment and footprint as the existing road. Just as other bridges
on the Parkway, this bridge would be constructed completely within the straight section of the road
alignment between curves to the north and south. The proposed length of the bridge would not exceed
200 feet. Pavement reconstruction would involve removal and reconstruction of approximately 75 linear
feet of Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (or the entire depth including all courses of existing asphalt
pavement) and Compacted Aggregate Base (or the crushed stone material and gravel that are placed
beneath the asphalt surfacing) to both the north and south approaches of the bridge for a total of 150 feet.
Additionally, there would be milling and overlaying of approximately another 200 linear feet of area
outside the slide scarp.
Based on the available subsurface information from recent geotechnical survey tests (FHWA, 2005) and
the variability of the depth to the top of rock, a deep foundation consisting of drilled shafts would be
required for the support of a bridge at this location. The embedment depth of the shafts would vary
considerably parallel and perpendicular to the roadway centerline. Based on seismic results, the average
shaft length would exceed 60-ft to meet the load requirements. The excavation depth measured from the
existing ground along the Parkway centerline to the grade beneath the proposed structure would be
approximately 20 feet for a length of approximately 100 feet centered in the middle of the 200 foot bridge
span.
The bridge would be a single-span structure containing abutments with pile foundations (Figure 5). The
abutments would be designed to withstand lateral loads since they would be located 5 feet outside of the
slide area. The abutments would be designed to reach bedrock, which is on average 60 feet below finish
grade of the Parkway in the locations where they would be installed. Additional geotechnical analysis
would be required for final cast in place abutment and pile foundation at the bridge abutments design.
The concrete or steel girders would have an open design with no boxed in area beneath for road or stream
clearance; ground clearance would be 10-14 feet maximum. The bridge would also have class B masonry
granite parapet walls.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. There is no reason the existing drainage
system would not continue to work with the bridge. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary in
diameter, with most being 1" to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it is
believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping intercepts gravel column drains
Alternatives 14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
and are placed at each one of the horizontal drain installations. They are meant to collect the water from
the plane of flow and direct it to the toe of the slope.
This bridge alternative would likely have little affect on this system and is less dependent on its existence
than the anchor block alternative since spanning the slide area negates the need for the function it
provides. If additional subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the
existing system. There would only be piping installed to collect and direct subsurface drainage at the fill
slope slip plane (between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system.
Figure 5. Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge.
The proposed bridge would be a single span bridge between supporting abutment piers placed at either
end. In contrast to the above photograph, the proposed structure would be single-span with no mid-span
supports. It would have steel support girders rather than precast concrete girders as is shown here, cast in
place concrete abutments, and similar ground clearance. The class B masonry granite parapet wall
construction is similar to the proposed bridge. The parapet walls form the shoulder and guardwall
protection all the way across the bridge span.
The bridge would be open allowing sheet flow to continue to flow naturally under the bridge. Any
concentrated flows would need to be collected and transported down the slope through swales or pipes.
There would be drainage scuppers or ports placed beneath the parapet wall so that sheet drainage on the
bridge deck can drain through. Pipes would be installed beneath the roadway approaches to the bridge.
Surface drainage could flow naturally beneath the bridge or through culverts.
Alternatives 15
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one year, and possibly
two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The contractor would be able to stage
construction materials from the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook (OL). The overlook pavement and
stone curb, along with the Parkway pavement between the overlook and the slide, would be reconstructed
as part of this project due to likely damage during construction.
It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Little to no forest area would
be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create
ground clearance for the bridge. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and rock material would be
exported and disposed of off site. Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be
salvaged from the site would be imported from an outside source, mixed with grass seed, and placed
along the road shoulder approaches on either side of the bridge. Any grassed or forested area cleared of
vegetation would be seeded to fescue grasses as per the Parkway standard.
This bridge in this alternative would not stop the continuing movement of the slide; it only isolates the
roadway from the slide. There would be minor benefits of relieving mass by excavation and removal of
embankment necessary to construct the bridge. The pile foundation of the abutment would support the
structure on underlying bedrock and relieve the loads borne by the slope. The major benefit of the bridge
is to span and minimally stabilize the slope.
ALTERNATIVE D - BRIDGE WITH GRASS SHOULDERS
Under Alternative D a bridge would be constructed to span the unstable slide area similar to the bridge
described in Alternative C but with grassy shoulders. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is
$5.OM. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and slope
excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to the deep bedrock. The cost
also includes a bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway across the bridge.
This requires an additional steel beam to support the additional weight.
The bridge would be constructed with grassed shoulders (Figure 6), class B masonry guardwalls, and
concrete abutments that could support lateral slope movement and would be supported for 200 feet by
steel girders. Timing of construction, road closures, area of disturbance and all other aspects other than
bridge shoulders would be the same as the description in Alternative C.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives, and briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating any alternatives that were not
considered in detail. This section describes four alternatives that were considered and eliminated from
further study. The rationale for elimination is given below.
Road Realignment
This concept would realign the roadway outside of the failure scarp, removing some of the material from
the slide by obliterating the existing road. Realignment would move the road into the ridge to the north
and a soldier pile wall socketed into rock would be installed. Excavation of slopes would be required for
realigning the road. This realignment would be feasible only if steep rock cuts could be achieved with
realignment of the Parkway into the ridge. In addition, the realignment alternative would further only be
feasible if the depth to rock under the fill embankment was reasonable, which would require a limited
length for the soldier piles.
Alternatives 16
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Geotechnical survey test results (FHWA, 2005) indicate that competent rock is located at an approximate
depth of 56-ft to 76-ft below the ground surface at the locations of the cut slopes that would result from
realigning the Parkway into the ridge to the north. The preferred steep rock cuts would not be realized at
these cut slope locations. Realignment of the road towards the uphill side of the Parkway would require
extensive stabilization along the downhill side consisting of retaining walls with an anchoring structure
because of the depth to competent rock. A soldier pile wall at this location would require a ground
anchoring system in addition to extending 5 feet, as a minimum, into competent rock. Based on the
subsurface boring and geophysical testing results at the slide location, a cantilevered soldier pile wall
would not have the capacity to withstand the lateral forces without an anchoring system.
This alternative was dismissed due to the gcotechnical test results that indicate such a proposal is not
practical, as well as cost (S6.4 M in 2008 dollars).
Figure 6. Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would
look most like this bridge along the roadway with class B masonry parapet walls and guardwall
approaches. The bridge in the photo has grassed shoulders over the bridge span and along the guardwall
approaches. The proposed bridge would have class B masonry parapet and guardwall approaches with
grassy shoulders that would be continuous.
Alternatives 17
th- 'tom-
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Embankment Excavation
This concept would excavate the embankment to near bedrock level, and reconstruct with benches and
gravel drainage layers. This approach alleviates the buildup of pore pressures in the embankment and
improves soil conditions along the existing slip surface. This proposal may extend beyond the NPS right-
of-way boundaries. It was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because the treatment of
slope grading would appear very unnatural requiring massive vegetation removal and the appearance of
angular sculpted slopes never before used to such as extent on the Parkway.
Rock Buttresses
This concept would construct rock buttresses near the toe of the slide to provide stability. This alternative
was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and as rock buttresses would require significant
excavation and tree clearing for installation. Additionally, their limits may extend beyond the present NPS
right-of-way. This option might be considered a new design element in the cultural landscape if
implemented on the cut slope of the Parkway, although such structures have been used on the fill slopes
of the Parkway in other locations.
Retaining Walls
This concept would construct retaining walls either near the roadway or part way down the slope to
provide stability. Retaining walls would need to be massive due to the anticipated depth to rock (30 to 60-
feet) and would need to be constructed along several levels. It is likely that micropyles or soil nail walls
drilled and grouted into bedrock, or some other anchorage system, would be necessary to provide lateral
resistance for the wall. This option was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because slope
clearing would be massive on both cut and fill slopes. The use of retaining walls on the cut slope side of
the Parkway is an option not used on the Parkway in any other location to date. Geotechnical studies and
calculations would determine the final feasibility of this option.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with DO-12, the NPS is required to identify the "environmentally preferred alternative" in
all environmental documents, including EAs. The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by
applying the criteria suggested in NEPA, which is guided by the CEQ. As stated in Section 2.7 (D) of the
NPS DO-12 Handbook, "The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best
promote the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101(b))." This environmental
policy is stated in six goal statements, which include:
1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health
and safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources (NEPA, 42 USC 4321-4347).
Alternatives 18
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In sum, the environmentally-preferred alternative is the alternative that, not only results in the least
damage to the biological and physical environment, but also that best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources.
As evaluated against the CEQ regulations, Alternative B is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.
The No Action Alternative represents the current situation of an unstable roadbed, has high potential for
catastrophic failure, and is a traffic safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued
settlement. This alternative would not uphold the NPS mandate to administer and protect the Park for the
enjoyment of natural, cultural, and, scientific resources in a manner that leaves these resources
unimpaired, while maintaining the Parkway as a safe road.
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is Alternative B because it surpasses the No-Action
Alternative and the other action alternatives in realizing the full range of national environmental policy
goals as stated in § 101 of NEPA. Alternative B would stabilize the moving slope with an anchor block
system and effectively eliminate the public safety issues associated with the area. The estimated area of
disturbance would be greater under Alternative B than Alternatives C and D (0.78 vs. 0.33 acres);
however, a difference of less than half an acre would not be considered biologically significant for this
area. Additionally, slide movement after implementation of Alternative B is very low, thus no additional
natural resources would be impacted, while slide movement would still be possible after implementation
of Alternatives C and D, thus disturbing additional forested areas. More potentially significant is the
possible disturbance of the cerulean warbler during two breeding seasons under Alternatives C and D,
compared to possibly only one breeding season under Alternative B. Alternative B would also have the
least visual impact on the cultural landscape as the road would not be altered and the forest would
eventually return to similar current conditions. Finally, risk factors under Alternative B (very low for
both slope and Parkway) would be more favorable than under the No Action (high for both slope and
Parkway) and Alternatives C and D (low for slope, and very low for Parkway).
In conclusion, Alternative B provides the highest level of protection of natural and cultural resources
while supporting the transportation requirements of the Parkway.
MITIGATION MEASURES
For all action alternatives, best management practices and mitigation measures would be used to prevent
or minimize potential adverse effects associated with road repairs at MP 270.3. These practices and
measures would be incorporated to reduce the magnitude of impacts and ensure that major adverse
impacts would not occur. Mitigation measures undertaken during project implementation would include,
but would not be limited to, those listed below. The impact analysis in the "Environmental
Consequences" section was performed assuming that these best management practices and mitigation
measures would be implemented as part of all action alternatives.
Soils, Vegetation, and Wildlife
• Limiting the area of disturbance. For example, heavy construction equipment would be kept on the
road surface to the extent possible (i.e., when performing excavation adjacent to the roadway).
• Construction areas would be identified by and fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some
similar material prior to any construction activity. The fencing would define the construction zone
and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. All protection measures would be
clearly stated in the construction specifications, and workers would be instructed to avoid
Alternatives 19
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
construction activities beyond the construction zone, as delineated by the construction zone fencing.
Construction materials would be stored in previously disturbed areas.
• Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent soil erosion due to
wind and rain. The erosion prevention practices would include using silt screening around any
disturbed areas, mulching all exposed slopes, placing staked hay bales in drainages, and sprinkling
exposed soil to prevent wind erosion. Upon completion of the construction project, all disturbed soils
would be revegetated to prevent erosion.
• If erosion matting/netting is required, a biodegradable type with mesh that is small enough (1/2" or
less) to not entangle snakes and other animals shall be used.
• Removing and stockpiling topsoil for reapplication to disturbed areas when construction is complete.
• Restoring disturbed areas to natural contours to the extent possible to reduce the potential for erosion
and revegetating with native species from genetic stocks originating in the Park, or from plants
previously removed from the construction area whenever possible. Revegetation efforts would be
designed to reconstruct the natural spacing, abundance, and diversity of native plant species.
• Subsequent to project completion, Park staff would monitor and require removal of any invasive
species observed.
• Mitigation for the minor loss of habitat would include the use of native plants in revegetation and
removing the nuisance exotic vegetation in the remaining habitat.
• Obtaining gravel and fill for construction or maintenance from certified noxious weed-free sources.
Gravel pits and fill sources would be inspected to identify weed-free sources. There would be no
quarrying of construction materials from inside the park.
• To the extent possible, construction activities would be timed to avoid sensitive wildlife periods, such
as breeding season.
• Construction vehicles could leak fluids into the soil, introduce noise pollution, and emit pollutants to
the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, equipment would be checked frequently to identify and
repair any leaks, mufflers would be checked for.proper operation, and only equipment that is within
proper operating specifications would be used.
• Providing fuel and oil services for construction machinery in a designated area away from channels or
drainages. This would include secondary containment for all fuel storage tanks and on-site
availability of a specialized "spill kit" with capacity to contain a 95 gallon fuel spill.
• Construction activities could introduce dust to the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, best
management practices for dust control, such as covering piles of excavated material with fabric and
using water to limit dust during excavation activities, would be used.
• All debris would be removed from the park for legal and proper disposal.
Alternatives . 20
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Slue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Visitor Use and Experience and Human Health and Safety
• Providing signs to warn travelers about road construction and traffic delays; the use of alternative
routes and destinations may be encouraged.
• Using well-tuned construction equipment with properly operating mufflers and performing work
during low visitation periods.
• During construction activities, traffic flows and safety would be maintained by keeping construction
equipment as far off the road as possible and by providing flag bearers to assist traffic negotiating
through construction areas.
• Minimizing adverse impacts to visitor use and experience of the natural landscape. These measures
could include the use of rock facing on bridge abutments, and the use of coloring on constructed
elements to blend their appearance with the surrounding landscape.
• Monitoring the slide area for movement during construction and reacting to any unexpected
movements.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation measures for the cultural landscape would include minimal disruption and disturbance of local
vegetation, dust abatement, and re-planting and re-landscaping any areas affected. by construction
activities.
If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the
immediate vicinity (600 feet) of the discovery shall be halted until the resources are identified and
documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent
laws and regulations, including the stipulations of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement Among the
National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
Alternatives 21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 1 compares actions and attributes associated with the alternatives.
Table 1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
No Action Anchor Blocks
(Preferred
Alternative Bridge with paved
shoulders Bridge with grass
shoulders
Total Cost * $2.7M $4.4M $5.OM
Area of Disturbance N/A 0.78 0.33 0.33
# of lanes closed none 1 all all
Tourist seasons none 1 2 2
Slide addressed no yes partly part y
Road affected by
continued movement yes yes no no
Visual impact no Tree loss Bridge appearance Bridge appearance
Revegetation none Tree sprigs and grass
seed Grass seed Grass seed
Risk factors High slope / high
Parkway very low slope / very
low Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway
*The no-action alternative is likely to have the highest cost level since it would require continued cyclic
maintenance at considerable cost that would only increase with time.
Table 2 compares the potential environmental impacts resulting from the alternatives. Potential impacts
are provided according to environmental resource topic. The Environmental Consequences section of this
EA contains a detailed discussion of these potential impacts by resource topic.
Alternatives 22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Table 2. Summary Comparison of Impacts
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Soils and Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Geology term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts to adverse impacts to adverse impacts to
impacts to soils soils from soils from soils from
and geology from compaction, compaction, compaction,
continued erosion erosion, and erosion, and erosion, and
and continued removal during removal during removal during
cyclic construction construction construction
maintenance. activities, and activities. activities.
negligible, long- Negligible, long- Negligible, long-
term, localized term, localized term, localized
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
impacts on impacts on impacts on
geology from geology from geology from
drilling of drilling of drilling of
bedrock. bedrock. bedrock.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils
and eolo . and eolo and eolo . and eolo .
Water Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Resources term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to water water resources water resources water resources
resources from from possible from possible from possible
continued erosion sedimentation and sedimentation and sedimentation and
and sedimentation contamination contamination contamination
due to slide during during during
movement. construction construction construction
activities. activities. activities.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water
resources. resources. resources. resources.
Vegetation Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to the vegetation from vegetation from vegetation from
vegetation due to trampling and trampling and trampling and
continued cyclic clearing during clearing during clearing during
maintenance of the construction construction construction
road. activities. activities. activities.
Alternatives . 23
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
(Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
vegetation. vegetation. vegetation. vegetation.
Wildlife Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor to Minor to
term, localized, localized, direct moderate, short- moderate, short-
direct adverse adverse impacts on term, localized, term, localized,
impacts on wildlife and direct adverse direct adverse
wildlife and habitat from impacts on impacts on
habitat from disturbance during wildlife and wildlife and
disturbance during construction habitat from habitat from
continued cyclic activities. disturbance during disturbance during
maintenance. construction construction
. activities, with activities, with
Negligible adverse Minor adverse possible impacts possible impacts
cumulative cumulative on cerulean on cerulean
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife. warblers for more warblers for more
than one breeding than one breeding
season. season.
Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife.
Visitor Use Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Moderate, short- Moderate, short-
and term, direct, direct adverse term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts on impacts on visitor adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
Experience visitor use and use and experience visitor use and visitor use and
experience due to from noise, experience from experience from
inconvenience changes in visual road closure road closure
during continuing resources, and during during
cyclic maintenance inconvenience construction for up construction for up
of deteriorating during to two peak tourist to two peak tourist
road conditions. construction. seasons and seasons and
negligible, long- negligible, long-
term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts adverse impacts
due to visual due to visual
changes in road changes in road
configuration. configuration.
Negligible adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor
use and use and use and use and
experience. experience. experience. experience.
Alternatives 24
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A:
No Action Alterative B:
Anchor Blocks
Preferred Alt.) Alternative C:
Bridge w/ Paved
Shoulders Alternative D:
Bridge w/Grass
Shoulders
Cultural No impacts on the Negligible, short- Negligible, short- Negligible, short-
Landscapes cultural landscape. term, localized, term, localized, term, localized,
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
effects on the effects on the effects on the
cultural landscape cultural landscape cultural landscape
from vegetation from vegetation from vegetation
removal and removal and removal and
construction construction construction
grading. grading and minor, grading and minor,
long-term, long-term,
localized, direct localized, direct
adverse effects adverse effects
from changing a from changing a
section of road section of road
into a bridge. into a bridge.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
No cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
cultural cultural cultural cultural
landscapes. landscapes. landscapes. landscapes.
Human Moderate, long- Moderate, long- Minor to Minor to
Health and term, adverse, term, beneficial, moderate, long- moderate, long-

Safety direct impacts on
h direct impacts on term, beneficial, term, beneficial,
uman health and human health and direct impacts on direct impacts on
safety, as road safety due to the human health and human health and
hazards would stabilization of the safety due to the safety due to the
continue to exist moving slope and stabilization of the stabilization of the
roadway. roadway. roadway.
Moderate adverse
cumulative Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
impacts on human cumulative cumulative cumulative
health and safety. impacts to human impacts to human impacts to human
health and sae . health and sae health and sae .
Alternatives 25
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences associated with the
alternatives. It is organized by impact topic, which distills the issues and concerns into distinct topics for
discussion analysis. These topics focus on the presentation of the affected environment and environmental
consequences and allow a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant topics.
METHODOLOGY
NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity, and duration of impacts, direct or indirect impacts,
cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate for impacts. NPS policy also requires that "impairment" of
resources be evaluated in all environmental documents.
Overall, the NPS based the following impact analyses and conclusions on the review of existing literature
and Blue Ridge Parkway studies, information provided by experts within the NPS and other agencies,
professional judgments and park staff insights, and public input.
General Impact Definitions
Potential impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse), context, duration, intensity, and
impairment. The following general definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, and
cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives. Impairment is discussed below. The
specific criteria used to rate the intensity and duration of potential impacts for each resource topic are
presented within each resource area impact analysis in this chapter.
Context of Impact
Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as local, park-wide, or regional. CEQ
requires that impact analysis include discussions of context. Localized impacts are those that affect the
resource area only on the project site or its immediate surroundings, and would not extend park-wide or
into the region.
Intensitv of Impact
Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely affected by an
action. Impact intensities are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Resource-specific
criteria used to rate the intensity of project impacts are presented within each resource area impact
analysis.
Duration of Impact
The duration of impact is analyzed independently for each resource because impact duration is dependent on
the resource being analyzed. Depending on the resource, impacts may last as long as construction takes
place, or a single year or growing season, or longer. For purposes of analysis, impact duration is measured
in short-term and long-term. Resource-specific criteria used to rate the anticipated duration of resource
impacts are presented within each resource area impact analysis.
Environmental Consequences 26
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Direct verses Indirect Impacts
Direct effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as the
action. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or farther in
distance than the action, but still reasonably foreseeable. An indirect impact could occur because of a
change to another resource or impact topic.
Cumulative Impact Scenario
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making
process for Federal projects. A cumulative impact is an impact on the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal), organization, or person undertakes such
other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions
taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives and are presented at the end of each impact topic
discussion analysis. To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects in the vicinity of the proposed
project site were identified. Potential projects identified as cumulative actions included any planning or
development activity that was currently being implemented or that would be implemented in the
reasonably foreseeable future.
These cumulative actions are evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis in conjunction with the impacts
of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on natural resources, cultural
resources, or visitor use. Because some of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, the
evaluation of cumulative effects was based on a general description of the project. Known past, current,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions in the vicinity of the project area are described
below.
Roair/Resurface Deteriorated Road Section 2D. MP 248-261
This project consists of milling and resurfacing and rehabilitating approximately 13.3 miles of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, Section 2D, from Milepost 247.9 (ramp on State Route 18) to MP 261.2 (at SR 16).
Milling and resurfacing, and rehabilitating appurtenant overlooks, parking areas, developed areas, spurs
and access roads are also included. There are three parking and overlooks along this section. The project
includes pavement removal, milling, pavement patching, asphalt paving, shoulder stabilization, stone curb
removal and replacement, concrete curb removal, drainage work, guardrail replacement and
miscellaneous work. Drainage work consists of inspecting and evaluating culverts, inlets and ditches for
the need for reconditioning or replacement. Safety design and recommendations for safety improvements
will be considered as necessary. Replacement of existing or providing new provisions for handicapped
accessibility according to current ADA guidelines will also be required. This is a FY 2009-2010 project
and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour.
Repair/Resurface Road Section 2H&J, MP 299.4-317.5 (2H13,J16)
The project limits extend between MP 299.0 at Cold Prong Pond Overlook and MP 317.5 at US 221 at the
end of Section 2J and beginning of Section 2K. This project would provide pavement patching in areas of
subgrade distress or where pavement is severely deteriorated; mill and overlay or overlay entire Parkway
within project limits; clean and overlay all asphalt ditches not requiring reconstruction; repoint and/or
reset stone in rubble ditches requiring rehabilitation; and regrade all shoulders with aggregate-topsoil to
within '/2 inch of edge of pavement final grade. The Parkway would be analyzed for safety
improvements, including locations requiring placement of guardrail, signs, provide breakaway sign
Environmental Consequences 27
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
supports as required and replacement of old or damaged sign panels not meeting current MUTCD
standards for size, legend, color or retro-reflectivity. Pavement markings would be restriped, evaluated
and corrected for sight distance and passing zone. Concrete bridge decks would have all cracks sealed.
There are no road closures anticipated for this project. This is a FY 2010-2011 project that should not
overlap the MP 270.3 project time schedule.
Repair Goshen Creek Bridge, MP 286.3 QF22)
This project consists of rehabilitation of the Goshen Creek Bridge. This bridge is located in North
Carolina approximately 5 miles north of the intersection with US 321 at Milepost 286.29 and carries the
Parkway over North Carolina State Route (SR) 1514 and Goshen Creek. The project proposed to replace
he deck and possibly the bridge railings with rehabilitation to the other elements of the bridge. The
general work items of this project include: repairing various cracking in the concrete bridge supports,
abutments, and wing walls; cleaning and re-pointing the stone masonry joints; cleaning and repairing the
stone approach walls north and south of the bridge; removing the existing bridge overlay and installing a
new wearing course; rehabilitating the asphalt pavement at the bridge approaches; and other
miscellaneous repairs and improvements. This is a 2007 project that would likely require road closure 16
miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. U.S. Highway 321/221 in
Boone NC, to U.S. Highway 421 in Deep Gap would be a likely detour around the bridge. If the MP
270.3 project requires a detour then the above detour could be extended along U.S. Highway 221 at Deep
Gap to S.R. 163 where it would reconnect with the Parkway at MP 261 near Jumping Off Rocks OL.
Another potential detour route would be U.S. Highway 421 at Deep Gap to S.R. 16 also connecting to the
Parkway at MP 261.
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate at MP 294
The Moses H. Cone Memorial Park is located on the north side of the town of Blowing Rock in Watauga
County, North Carolina, and lies between mileposts 292 and 295 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. It is a
designed historic landscape 3,516 acres in extent, administered by the Blue Ridge Parkway, including 20
room manor house with three constructed lakes, hundreds of acres of apple orchards, pastures, a deer park
and an extensive carriage road system. A Memorial Park Developed Area Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment to address current resource and visitor use issues is currently being prepared.
Project planning objectives include 1) developing natural and cultural resource management strategies; 2)
defining the diverse range of resource-based visitor experience opportunities; 3) analyzing potential
visitor services (carriage rides, horseback riding, art and craft sales, interpretive exhibits, personnel
services, etc.) to identify potential visitor demands and needs; and 4) determining compatible uses,
identifying appropriate locations for new facilities, and defining interpretation programs and services to
be provided.
Impairment of Park Resources
In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and other alternatives,
the NPS Management Policies 2001 and DO-12 require analysis of potential effects to determine if
actions would impair a park's resources.
The fundamental purpose of the National Park System, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by
the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values.
NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest degree practicable adverse
impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give NPS management discretion to allow
impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as
long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although
Congress has given NPS management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is
Environmental Consequences 28
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
limited by statutory requirement that the NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a
particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that,
in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources
or values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or
values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. However, an impact
would more likely constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation
is:
Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation
of the park;
Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the
park; or
Identified as a goal in the park's Master Plan or General Management Plan (GMP) or other
relevant NPS planning documents.
Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities
undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. In this section, a
determination on impairment is made in the conclusion statement of each resource area for each
alternative. The NPS does not analyze the potential for impairment of recreational values/visitor
experience (unless impacts are resource based), socioeconomic values, or park operations.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Affected Environment
Based on review of plans and previous investigations, the landslide at MP 270.3 is. through a large hillside
fill. The fill is in a natural landslide area with colluviums (landslide debris) deposits overlying residual
soils and ultimately bedrock. The colluviums consist of boulders with sand and silt, and the residual soils
consist of micaceous silty sands and sandy silts formed by in-place weathering of the parent mica gneiss
and schist bedrock. Geophysical survey test results performed along the proposed fill wall alignment and
cut walls alignment indicates that depth to competent rock varies between 56-ft and 76-ft (FHWA, 2005).
It has not yet been determined how far down slope from the Parkway the toe of movement or drainage
release actually is.
Wilkes County soils in the vicinity of the project site are characterized as the Evard-Cowee-Chestnut
complex. To the south side of the Parkway (downhill), the soils series that may occur are Chestnut,
Edneyville, and Ashe. To the north side of the Parkway (uphill), the Cowee and Saluda series may occur
(NRCS, no date).
The Chestnut series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges
and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly loam soil formed in residuum that is affected by soil
creep in the upper part, and weathered from felsic or mafic igneous or high-grade metamorphic rocks
such as granite, hornblende gneiss, granodiorite, biotite gneiss, and high-grade metagraywacke. It has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact. Most of the
soil is in forest.
Environmental Consequences 29
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Edneyville series consists of very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This fine sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut series soil. It also has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is very low on gentle slopes, low on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and medium on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact.
The Ashe series consists of moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on gently sloping to
very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut
series soil. It also has moderately rapid permeability. Runoff is similar to the Chestnut series and is
much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Cowee series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly sandy loam formed in residuum affected by soil creep in the
upper part, and weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Runoff class
is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff .
is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Saluda series consists of shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in weathered
granite, gneiss, or schist. This sandy loam allows for rapid surface runoff. Most areas are forested.
Methodology
Information on soils was based on recent geophysical testing conducted within the project area, NRCS
soils surveys, and on previous projects conducted within the same area. The impact analysis examines the
potential changes to soils that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Ne 1? i iible: Soils would not be affected or the effects on soils would be below or at the lower levels of
detection. Any effects to soils would be slight and would return to normal shortly after completion of
project activities.
Minor: The effects on soils would be detectable, but effects on soil productivity, fertility, or area would
be small. Mitigation may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be relatively simple to implement
and likely be successful.
Moderate: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and result in a change to the soil character over a
relatively wide area. Mitigation measures would be necessary to offset adverse effects and likely be
successful.
Maior: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and substantially change the character of the soils
over a large area in and out of the Park. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed,
extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in less than three years.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Environmental Consequences . 30
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no new impacts on soils or geology as there would not be any new
actions. There would be no construction and, therefore, no need for earthwork activities, such as filling,
grading, or excavation. No new causes for erosion would occur and there would not be any loss of soil
fertility. However, the slide would continue to move slowly over the long-term, with possible continuing
negative effects on soils, such as erosion. Continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could
cause soil compaction or erosion along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Although no new construction would occur under the No Action
Alternative, there would be negligible, adverse cumulative effects on soils and geology as a result of
continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils and geology
from continued erosion and continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would entail disturbing soils temporarily during installation of anchor blocks. The site
preparation would require grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was
previously disturbed consisting of roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway.
Some previously undisturbed soils may be disturbed toward the bottom of the slide by compaction from
heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. As the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock,
thus impacting the bedrock. Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the
small area of the project site and would be buried.
Environmental Consequences 31
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would be alteration of soil function from construction activities. If any natural soil horizons exist,
they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the structure and
function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased runoff and
erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or minimize
soil erosion due to wind and rain.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional soil impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of the
Parkway, along with numerous other past and future road work projects, implementation of Alternative B
would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities. Alternative B would likely result in
long-term, negligible, localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because
there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to
fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a
goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the
Park's resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative C would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled into bedrock would be required for the support of a bridge,
with the average shaft length exceeding 60 feet to meet the load requirements. Holes drilled into bedrock
would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
Environmental Consequences 32
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. All disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, implementation of
Alternative C would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative C would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative C would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative D would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be salvaged from the site would be
imported from an outside source for the grassy shoulders. A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled
into bedrock would be required for the support of the bridge, with the average shaft length exceeding 60
feet to meet the load requirements. A bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway
across the bridge requires an additional steel beam drilled into bedrock to support the additional weight.
Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
Environmental Consequences 33
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. All disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, implementation of
Alternative D would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative D would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative D would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMT or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
WATER RESOURCES, INCLUDING WETLANDS
Affected Environment
Designed as a scenic drive, the Blue Ridge Parkway motor road tends to run along the ridge tops looking
down on neighboring lands. Unlike downstream areas that receive pollution and discharges from activities
at upstream sites, the Parkway owns the sources of many of its streams and they are generally clean and
free of common pollutants. Being up on top also means that the Parkway has many headwater streams,
such as the small perennial stream located about 20 feet below the surface of the road on the downhill
side of the Parkway in the project area. Springs at the base of the rock cut develop into a stream from
groundwater under the slide. Otherwise, the project area is a dry site (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006).
The surface waters of the small perennial stream could then drain into lower elevation waters classified as
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) of the State in which water quality has one of the highest
classifications.
Environmental Consequences 34
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Adjacent to the stream is a very small wetland area. This wetland is best described as a perennial seep. It
is partially fed by a pipe coming out of the bank. It is narrow, not more than 4 feet wide on the slope, but
extends more than 100 feet to the base of the slope. Plants dominating the seep were Impatiens during a
July visit (McElrath, 2006).
A recent geotechnical analysis (FHWA, 2005) indicates that the slide at MP 270.3 is most likely caused
from the weight of the material on the slip plane that pushes material down the slope. Subsurface
drainage occurring between the fill plane and the subsurface bedrock is a contributing factor. The
downward forces are resisted by the friction at the interface between soil and bedrock. Subsurface water
increases the soil weight and acts as a lubricant along the interface between soil and bedrock, thus
contributing to the slide. A subsurface drainage collector piping system was installed to divert seepage of
water from beneath the Parkway fill plane.
Currently there is a rubble paved waterway that runs along the bottom of the cut slope to pipes on either
side of the slide area. This system intercepts surface runoff and directs it away from the slide area. This
system would need to remain in place for all alternatives to redirect surface water. If the ditch was
removed in the bridge alternatives, grading underneath the bridge would concentrate the water into a
swale and would cause erosion after leaving the regraded area since there is no existing natural channel.
This system could remain in place without modification for the anchor block system. The inlet of the
pipe culvert on the north end of the slide would need to be moved for bridge parapet construction to take
place.
While some seepage water has been diverted, only a few of the drainage pipes installed continue to have
significant water flow, and many pipes do not carry water at all. Monitoring of the drainage rate from the
existing drainage system piping recorded drainage of approximately 1-gallon per minute emitting from all
piping combined. However, the drainage rate could be considerably higher during the winter and spring
wet season. Some years after the installation of this drainage system records indicate the slide continues
to move downward towards the fill slope.
Methodology
Impact analyses on water resources, including wetlands, were based on recent assessments of the site by
park and other NPS staff, previous studies or projects conducted within the same area, and assessment of
potential changes in surface water and hydrology caused by road modifications.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Negligible: Impacts would not be detectable. Water quality parameters would be well below all water
quality standards for the designated use of the water. No vegetation or wildlife effects associated with
altered water quality would be evident. Action would cause no change in wetland area or function.
Wetlands would not be affected or effects would be below or at the lower levels of detection. No long-
term effects to wetlands would occur and any detectable effects would be considered slight, local, and
would likely be short-term.
Minor: Impacts would be measurable, but water quality parameters would be well within all water
quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and anti-degradation policy would not be
violated. Changes in vegetation or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be slight
but measurable. Action would cause no change in wetland area and function. The action would affect a
few individuals of plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area. The change would
Environmental.Consequences 35
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
require considerable scientific effort to measure and have barely perceptible consequences to wetland or
riparian habitat function. Effects to wetlands would be detectable and relatively small in terms of area
and the nature of the change, and would likely be short-term.
Moderate: Changes in water quality would be measurable and readily apparent, but water quality
parameters would be within all water quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and
antidegradation policy would not be violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health
associated with water quality would be measurable and readily apparent. Mitigation would be necessary
to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful. Action would change an existing wetland area or
function, but the impact could be mitigated by the creation of artificial wetlands. The action would have a
measurable effect on plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area, but all species
would remain indefinitely viable within the park. The alternative would result in effects to wetlands that
would be readily apparent, including a long-term effect on wetland vegetation. Wetland or floodplain
functions would not be affected in the long-term.
Maior: Changes in water quality would be readily measurable, and some parameters would periodically
be approached, equaled, or exceeded. State water quality regulations and antidegradation policy may be
violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be
measurable and readily apparent, even to a casual observer. Extensive mitigation measures would be
necessary and their success would not be assured. Action would have drastic and permanent
consequences for an existing wetland area or function which could not be certainly mitigated. Wetland
and riparian species dynamics would be upset, and species would be at risk of extirpation from the park.
Effects to wetlands would be observable over a relatively large area (regional scale) and would be long-
term. The character of the wetland would be changed so that the functions typically provided by the
wetland would be substantially changed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Short-term: Following implementation activities, recovery would take less than one year.
Lon -tg erm: Following implementation activities, recovery would take greater than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no,new impacts on water resources. No new causes for erosion,
sedimentation, or surface water runoff would occur. However, any adverse impacts currently occurring
would continue over the long-term, such as possible soil erosion due to slide movement with subsequent
sedimentation of the stream. Additionally, water flow along the slide during storms could be causing
siltation of groundwater. Overall, water quality would not change from current conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given that implementation of Alternative A
Environmental Consequences 36
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would have very little if any impacts on water resources, Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative A would likely result in long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to water
resources from continued erosion and sedimentation due to slide movement. Alternative A would
contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
installation of anchor blocks increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small
perennial stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but
may or may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would
be utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be revegetated after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
install the anchor blocks and repaving of the road; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel or
chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage over the long-term would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For the
anchor block system, culverts beneath the Parkway would channel run off from natural drainage swales.
As the anchor blocks would not alleviate sub-surface water flow during storms, siltation of the small
stream and of groundwater would continue, contributing to long-term intermittent adverse effects on
water quality which may or may not be detectable.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
Environmental Consequences 37
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative B would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Environmental Consequences 38
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative C would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative C
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short- term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
Environmental Consequences 39
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative D would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative D
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Environmental Consequences . 40
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VEGETATION
Affected Environment
There are 14 major vegetation types identified at the Parkway with currently over 1,400 species of
vascular plants, though this number may well likely approach 2,000 species as the park begins an
extensive inventory of all plants and animals (NPS, no date). The flora of the Blue Ridge Parkway.is so
diverse for reasons such as climatic variability, large north-south geographic range, diverse geologic
substrate, and many different micro-habitats.
The project area is located in a deciduous mixed hardwood cove forest community with a full canopy,
shrub layer and herb layer (McElrath, 2006). On the slope below the road, the vegetation is more open
where previous work has been performed. The dominant tree species is tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Other canopy species include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), oaks (Quercus spp.),
hickories (Carya spp.), sweet birch (Betula lenta), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), red maple (Acer
rubra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white pine (Pinus strobus).
Dominant understory species include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), striped maple (Acer
pensylvanicum), hickories (Carya spp.), and wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens). Common
herbaceous stratum plants include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Virginia creeper,
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), impatiens (Impatiens spp.), tall bellflower (Campanula americana),
common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), beebalm (Monarda spp.),
wild grapes (Vitus spp.), Virginia spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana), tall thimbleweed (Anemone
virginiana), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), dayflower (Commelina communis), asters (Aster spp.),
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), black bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa), jack in the pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), sumac (Rumex spp.), milkweed (Asplenium spp.), and rattlesnake fern (Botrychium
virginianum).
Four non-native exotic plants species have been observed at the project site (McElrath, 2006). Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) is abundant in the area covering more than 10 meters square with
fairly high (25-50%) coverage in places. There are two clumps of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora); one
covering an area greater than 10 meters square, the other (on Parkway Right) is smaller. One patch of
coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) covers approximately 5 meters square. Crown vetch (Coronilla varia) is
somewhat scattered with the largest patch less than five meters square. Any further soil disturbance may
contribute to the spread of these species in the area.
There are no federally listed plant species in the project area.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on vegetation that is considered most likely to be affected by the project.
Information on vegetation was derived from observations made in the field, previous projects conducted
within the same area, and consultation with park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential
changes to vegetation that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Negligible: No native vegetation would be affected or some individual native plants could be affected as
a result of the alternative, but measurable or perceptible changes in plant community size, integrity, or
continuity would not occur. The effects would be short-term and on a small scale. Impacts would be well
within the range of natural fluctuations.
Environmental Consequences 41
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Minor: Effects to native plants would be measurable or perceptible, but would be localized within a small
area. The viability of the plant community would not be affected and the community, if left alone, would
recover quickly. Impacts would not be expected to be outside the natural range of variability and would
not be expected to have any long-term effects on native species, their habitats, or the natural processes
sustaining them.
Moderate: The alternative would affect some individual native plants and would also affect a sizeable
segment of the species' population in the long-term and over a relatively large area. A change would
occur to the native community over a relatively large area that would be readily measurable in terms of
abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality. Impacts could be outside the range of natural variability for
short periods of time. Mitigation measures to offset/minimize adverse effects would be necessary and
would likely be successful.
Major: The alternative would have a considerable long-term effect on native plant populations and affect
a relatively large area in and out of the park. Impacts would be expected to be outside the natural range of
variability for long periods of time or to be permanent. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed
to offset any adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any new impacts on
vegetation. There would be no need to clear the vegetation, and the surrounding forest would continue to
exist as it is. However, continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could cause short-term
vegetation damage, such as trampling or clearing, along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot
traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Although no new construction would occur under the No
Action Alternative, there would be short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative effects on vegetation a
result of continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
There would be short-term, negligible, local, direct adverse impacts to the vegetation as a result of the No
Action Alternative due to continued cyclic maintenance of the road. Alternative A would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts
to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences 42
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with Alternative B would necessitate removal of plants located at the
project site for installation of anchor blocks. Trees and ground cover would be removed from the slide
area for site preparation. Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic)
during construction in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of
the vegetation mat.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or topsoil. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional vegetation impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative B would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Environmental Consequences 43
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities associated with the Alternative C would disturb an estimated total of 0.33
acres of unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be
removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances
would be temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, the area would be reseeded in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As there
would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative C would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative C would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with the Alternative D would disturb an estimated total of 0.33 acres of
unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
Environmental Consequences 44
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances would be
temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, bridge shoulders would be seeded with grass as well as any other areas disturbed by
construction activities. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should
not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment or topsoil. New
introductions could allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where
the ground is disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also
become established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that
imported material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative D would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative D would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
WILDLIFE
Affected Environment
Over 50 species of mammals, more than 40 species of reptiles, almost 50 species of amphibians, and more
than 50 species of fish can be found on Parkway lands. Over 150 species of birds are known to nest here
with dozens of others passing through during fall and spring migrations (NPS, no date). Wildlife use
habitat in the vicinity of the project area for a variety of purposes: shelter, cover and concealment, forage,
and nesting/roosting sites.
Environmental Consequences 45
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The site is not considered to be biologically significant (Cherry, 2006), although many common species
occur there. Commonly seen mammals include white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, fox, raccoon, gray
squirrel, groundhog, eastern cottontail, and Virginia opossum (McElrath, 2006). Numerous salamanders
can be found in the seep below the road, as well as several species of caddisfly. Salamanders at the
wetland area are mostly the Allegheny mountain dusky salamander. The project site is too dry for frogs
and many species of turtles and salamanders. Reptiles observed at the site include the eastern box turtle,
black snakes, and garter snakes (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). There are no fish in the small perennial
stream.
Characteristic bird species observed in the area include black-throated green warbler, ruby-throated
hummingbird, eastern wood pewee, red-eyed vireo, American goldfinch, white-breasted nuthatch,
American robin, eastern or rufous-sided towhee, northern cardinal, blue jay, pileated woodpecker, tufted
titmouse, ovenbird, dark-eyed Junco, Carolina chickadee, indigo bunting, black and white warbler, scarlet
tanager, rose-breasted grosbeak (McElrath, 2006).
According to BLRI staff, there are no federally listed threatened or endangered animals or rare species at
the project site (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea), a
federal species of concern and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.2 to 0.5
miles of this site (Cherry, 2006). The cerulean warbler, a small neotropical migratory bird, nests and
raises young in large tracts of deciduous hardwood forests that have tall, large diameter trees with an open
understory (USFWS, 2002). The breeding season is from April to August. From mid-April into May,
male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates. Females build nests in the mid and upper branches of
deciduous trees and eggs are laid in May and June. Cerulean warblers are experiencing population
declines in parts of its range and habitat loss. As they do not occur on small tracts of forest, many
remaining forested lands are no longer suitable habitat because they have been fragmented into a
patchwork of small wooded islands.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on wildlife and wildlife habitat that are considered most likely to be affected
by the project. Information on wildlife habitats and species potentially present was derived from
observations made in the field, previous projects conducted within the same area, and consultation with
park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential changes to wildlife, habitat and use of the project
area that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on wildlife are defined as follows:
Nealiaible: Wildlife and their habitats would not be affected or the effects would be at or below the level
of detection, would be short-term, and the changes would be so slight that they would not be of any
measurable or perceptible consequence to wildlife populations. Impacts would be well within the range
of natural fluctuations.
Minor: Effects on wildlife or habitats would be measurable or perceptible, but localized within a small
area. While the mortality of individual animals might occur, the viability of wildlife populations would
not be affected and the community, if left alone, would recover. Impacts would not be expected to be
outside the natural range of variability and would not be expected to have any long-term effects on native
species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Sufficient habitat would remain functional
to maintain viability of all species.
Environmental Consequences 46
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Moderate: A change in wildlife populations or habitats would occur over a relatively large area. Effects
to wildlife would be readily detectable, long-term, and with consequences at the population level. The
change would be readily measurable in terms of abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality of
population. Mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival can be expected on an
occasional basis, but is not expected to threaten the continued existence of the species in the park unit.
Impacts could be outside the natural range of variability for short periods of time. Sufficient habitat would
remain functional to maintain variability of all native wildlife species. Mitigation measures would be
necessary to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful.
Maia: Effects on wildlife populations or habitats would be readily apparent, long-term, and would
substantially change wildlife populations over a large area in and out of the national park. Impacts would
be expected to be outside the natural range of variability for long periods of time or to be permanent.
Loss of habitat may affect the viability of at least some native species. Extensive mitigation would be
needed to offset adverse effects, and the success of mitigation measures could not be assured.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on wildlife and habitat are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any impacts on wildlife or
wildlife habitat. There would not be additional human activity in the area for construction activities, so
wildlife would not be affected beyond current disturbance from regular vehicle traffic. Cyclic
maintenance activities that would continue periodically under this alternative would have temporary
impacts on wildlife as animals may get displaced during human activity.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from continued cyclic maintenance in Alternative A would likely produce negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 47
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would likely result in short-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife
and habitat from continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts to wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value
whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or
proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for
enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning
documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities for installation of the anchor blocks and human presence would cause temporary
displacement and disturbance of resident wildlife for the seven months duration of construction. Species
are expected to return to the area after construction is completed. Some species may be prevented from
using the resources on the project site due to habitat alteration until the cleared forest is reestablished.
However, a large forested area surrounds the project site which would provide appropriate habitat. These
impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres of wildlife habitat would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is
forested. Although the anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth.
Therefore, of the total disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not
grow again directly over set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be
planted over the covered anchor blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
As construction would be scheduled to occur between November 1 and June 1, there could be some
disturbance of cerulean warblers at the start of their breeding season. From mid-April into May male
cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the season. As
the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is still
possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for part of one breeding season. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would be additional
vehicle traffic to transport materials to the project site. This louder than usual traffic (i.e., big trucks)
would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto the Parkway up
to the project site. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only last for small portions of work days
during the seven month construction period.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Environmental Consequences 48
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative B would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife and
habitat from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
Environmental Consequences 49
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and'can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative C would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
Environmental Consequences . 50
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative D would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 51
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING RECREATION AND VISUAL
RESOURCES
Affected Environment
A trip down the Parkway provides stunning, long range vistas and close-up looks at the natural and
cultural history of the southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile drive is designed as a drive-awhile
and stop-awhile experience intended to encourage leisurely progress and frequent stops.
The Blue Ridge Parkway offers a diversity of recreational activities for people with a wide range of
interests, physical abilities, and time available. Popular activities for vehicle-based visitors include
sightseeing, picnicking, viewing wildflowers and fall color, photography, hiking, bird watching, and
Ranger guided programs. It is also possible to rock climb, hang glide, fish for trout, and bicycle.
Camping is also allowed at designated sites.
There have been over 20 million visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway every year since 1997 (NPS, 2005b).
As the Parkway is 469 miles long, not all visitors travel the entire length of the Parkway. According to a
recent survey of visitors to the Parkway (Valliere et. al, 2002), the most popular activities reported were
scenic driving/ stopping at overlooks (88.1%), visiting visitor centers (60.5%), hiking (59.0°/x), picnicking
(39%), purchasing something at visitor center stores (37.2%), and visiting historic sites (33.7%).
In 2005 there were approximately 570,000 vehicles that are estimated to have passed MP 270.3 (adding
numbers from the nearest traffic counters MP 270. at SR 421 to the south and SR 16 to the north). The
project area is not in a commuter zone and there is never any traffic congestion (Hultquist, 2006).
The Blue Ridge Parkway draft Vista Management Plan describes that the Lewis Fork Overlook has a
view toward farm land spread out over the Piedmont valley. It looks over several farms in a distant view
of this valley with panoramic mountains views in the far background. Views to the Piedmont Valley are
considered very picturesque. This view has a moderate rating compared to other Piedmont valley views in
the Doughton Park and Plateau Districts. Betsey's Rock Falls Overlook to the north at MP 267.7 has a
more wide open and more highly rated view to Piedmont valley, within Wilkes County. Similarly,,
Cascades Falls Overlook to the south at MP 272 has a more wide open and highly rated view to Piedmont
Valley than the Lewis Fork Overlook. Within 4.7 miles of Lewis Fork Overlook there are approximately
10 vista cuts on Parkway left looking toward Wilkes County and the Piedmont Valley. The Lewis Fork
Overlook has a narrower perspective and is more highly screened with tree growth than the other two
overlooks. Many of the vista cuts along the Parkway motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork
Overlook are similarly being screened from view with large tree growth.
Methodology
Public scoping input and observation of visitation patterns, combined with assessment of what is available
to visitors under current management, were used to estimate the effects of the actions in the various
alternatives in this EA. The impact on the ability of the visitor to experience a full range of park
resources was analyzed by examining resources and objectives presented in the park significance
statement.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Environmental Consequences 52
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Negligible: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual
resources, would be below or at the level of detection. The visitor would not likely be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative.
Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be detectable, although the changes would be slight. The visitor would be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative, but the effects would be slight.
Moderate: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and
would likely be able to express an opinion about the changes.
Major: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent and severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial. The visitor would be aware of
the effects associated with the alternative and would likely express a strong opinion about the changes. '
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Short-term: Occurs only during project implementation activities.
Long-term: Extend beyond project implementation activities.
Impacts of the No Action. Alternative
Impacts Analysis
The No Action Alternative would maintain conditions in their present state. Although the visitor
experience would not change from current conditions, visitor complaints of near accidents, or actual
accidents, would go on as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces
deteriorate. While there would be no disturbances to traffic flow during construction or changes in visual
resources, there would also be no long-term road improvements. Continued cyclic maintenance of the
road at MP 270.3 may cause some short-term impacts on visitor experience if traffic is periodically
slowed down to accommodate the repairs. As there would be no major new road repairs, visitors would
not be aware of the effects associated with this alternative, specifically deteriorating road conditions
which may impact driving conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY 2010-2011 project with no road closures
anticipated. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road closure.
These projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be
required to wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate. As there would not be any major new road repairs under the No Action
Alternative, other than cyclic maintenance, this alternative would contribute negligible, adverse impacts
on visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences . 53
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would result in short-term, negligible, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience
due to inconvenience from continuing cyclic maintenance of deteriorating road conditions. Alternative A
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November 1 thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for '/2 -1 hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Short-term traffic delays and detours would have adverse impacts on the visitor
experience for one peak visitor season as people would be inconvenienced by the change in route, extra
time it would take to follow the detour, or time spent in traffic. Visitors in approximately 570,000
vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However, the altered traffic
patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a means of
accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting may be deep enough into forest growth to open and widen the vista cut to the south of the
Lewis Fork Overlook, thus widening and opening the view to the Piedmont Valley from the overlook.
However, the view would likely be screened by large tree growth at the toe of the vista cut. Widening the
view in this location would only provide a similar experience to the viewing opportunity at the overlooks
located to the north and south of the Lewis Fork Overlook. Additional or a widened vista cuts along the
motor road would not be valued in the area and the cost to maintain existing vista cuts is already
prohibitively high. Reforestation measures to adequately prevent erosion over the anchor block system on
Parkway left would only provide a temporary vista opening. Because the anchor block system would be
covered with soils and forest when completed, there is no visual impact created from an additional
Parkway structure as in the case of the bridge installation.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. However, the anchor block system would be completely
buried once construction was completed, and therefore not visible. Revegetation of the site would allow
the area to eventually look similar to current conditions.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
Environmental Consequences 54
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative B occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back- .
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, minor, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
noise, changes in visual resources, and inconvenience during construction. Alternative B would
contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year, and possibly two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to.
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
Environmental Consequences 55
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a masonry faced
safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge. The bridge
would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would obscure it in the
summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative C occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences 56
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year,. and possibly two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near..the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface, grassy shoulders, and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a
masonry faced safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge.
The bridge would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would
obscure it in the summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated. and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
Environmental Consequences 57
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative D occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Affected Environment
The cultural landscape of the Blue Ridge Parkway incorporates both cultural and natural elements. The
cultural elements include the roadway and the historic buildings and structures along its path which were
constructed in a similar "rustic style", with native stone facades. These stone facades enable the roadway
structures to blend in with the natural environment. The natural elements include intact vegetation and
scenic vistas in the original rural settings. Although a cultural landscape inventory has not been
conducted, it is clear that the Blue Ridge Parkway constitutes a cultural landscape of which the roadway
and the historic buildings and structures are the dominating cultural features.
Principal Parkway motor road designed landscape components include shoulders, paved waterways,
constructed landforms, guardrails, guardwalls, bridges, culverts and tunnels. Design standards adopted for
these components was a compromise between the highway engineers' desire to meet modern highway
standards for grade, curvature and safety and the landscape architects' attempt to best unify the road and
landscape in a way that minimized construction scarring on the mountainside and provided a type of
parkway with its own distinctive character.
A draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) was commissioned to evaluate the eligibility of the
Parkway for nomination as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the historical significance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, to identify the resources that contribute to
that significance, and to provide guidance on the preservation of those resources. Firth (2005) describes
the Blue Ridge Parkway as the first long-distance, scenic national parkway being not only a new type of
parkway, but also a new type of national park, one that was designed around the theme of recreational
motoring.
The Parkway was designed based on the adoption of three design principles: first, the preeminent
importance of scenery; second, the necessity of providing a safe and enjoyable experience for the
recreational motorist; and third, the importance of protecting the natural environment and gently fitting
the road and all other structures into their mountain setting so that they look as though they belong there.
Environmental Consequences 58
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3.
The design characteristics of the main components of the Parkway according to Firth (2005):
• This is a mountain road but its location changes every few miles along the 469-mile route, in order to
avoid monotony and to capitalize fully on the scenic potential of the region.
• The road has a curvilinear alignment that appears to glide across the natural contours and fit smoothly
into the topography of the mountain slopes.
• The road is designed for a low driving speed, and there are frequent overlooks to allow the safe
enjoyment of scenery.
• Road structures are designed to fit the road to the topography, and are located and constructed in
ways that minimize the scarring of the mountain slopes.
• Most designs are guided by a rustic architectural aesthetic that places great emphasis on fitting each
structure into its landscape setting and features the use of native materials, particularly stone; however
some designs are guided by a modern aesthetic expressed in steel and concrete, but, nonetheless, are
carefully fitted into their settings.
The draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) recommends that the Parkway be nominated as a National
Historic Landmark (NHL). It meets two of the NHL criteria (one and four) for national significance and
possesses the extraordinary national importance and high degree of integrity required for landmark status.
Criteria One includes properties that are associated with events that have made a substantial contribution
to and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent the broad national patterns of United States
history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those broad patterns may be gained (NPS,
no date-b). Criteria Four includes properties that embody the distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural type or specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of
construction, or that represent an important, distinctive, and exceptional entity whose components may
lack individual distinction.
Methodology
The impact analysis examines the potential effects on Parkway eligibility for designation as a National
Historic Landmark as a result of project implementation. NHL criteria were used to estimate the effects
of the actions in the various alternatives in this EA. .
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Negligible: The effect is at the lowest levels of detection- barely perceptible and not measurable. For
purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Minor: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, but would not diminish the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse
effect.
Moderate: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
Major: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall integrity
of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Environmental Consequences 59
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Short-term: Effects on the natural elements of a cultural landscape may be comparatively short-term (less
than a year) until new vegetation grows or historic plantings are restored.
Long-term: Effects on the cultural landscape would persist for more than a year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As no construction activities would be conducted, no impacts on the cultural landscape would occur under
Alternative A. Therefore, there would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative A would not contribute to cumulative effects to the
cultural landscape because no cultural resources would be impacted.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have no impacts on the cultural landscape. Alternative A would not contribute any
cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMT or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, the road would be repaired but not be altered, and 0.78 acres at the project site
would be disturbed, including vegetation removal and re-grading of the hillside below the Parkway to
install anchor blocks. However, ground disturbance would be temporary and the area would be
revegetated so that it would eventually look similar to its current appearance. There would not be any
impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the criteria for designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to temporary changes in landscape appearance from construction
activities.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences . 60
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair ,_.-csurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2..:: i` through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Environmental Consequences 61
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
Affected Environment
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate.
The Parkway boundary has recently been extended from a total of 350 feet to approximately 725 feet to
the nearest private land ownership boundary located directly below the slide area. With this widened
boundary, impacts to bordering land are not as significant.
There is not a numerical safety rating that indicates the likelihood of failure for any of the alternatives.
The safety factor used in design is not indicative of failure. Instead, this safety factor can be used to
increase loads or reduce support forces to allow the design of a safe solution able to withstand all known
conditions and leave allowance for unknowns and variations. Although a numerical value cannot be
assigned to the risk for the various options, a comparative analysis of risk using engineering judgment is
as follows (FHWA, 2006):
No Action - High risk to slope, high risk to Parkway
Anchor Blocks - Very low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Environmental Consequences 62
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Bridges - Low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Methodology
Existing and potential threats to human health and safety within the project area were identified with the
help of NPS staff and evaluated in the impact analysis. The potential for project implementation to
worsen or improve existing threats, or to create new threats, to human health and safety was evaluated.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Negligible: Human health and safety would not be affected, or the effects would be at the lowest levels of
detection and would not have an appreciable effect on human health and safety.
Minor: The effect would be detectable but would not have an appreciable effect on human health and
safety. If mitigation were needed, it would be relatively simple and would likely be successful.
Moderate: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human
health and safety on a local scale. Mitigation measures would probably be necessary and would likely be
successful.
Major: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human health
and safety on a regional scale. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed, and success would not be
guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Short-term: Effects last one year or less.
Lon -tg erm: Effects last longer than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under the No Action Alternative, safety hazards would remain along the road. Visitors who drive the
section of road at MP 270.3 would continue to be at risk for auto accidents due to uneven road surfaces.
Additionally, risk of slope failure and safety of the Parkway visitor would be considerable over the long-
term. Cyclic maintenance of the road would continue to provide temporary fixes which may put off
accidents, but would not eliminate. the safety hazards. There would be high risk to the slope and high risk
to the Parkway if the existing untreated slope is left as is.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to. an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Given the
Environmental Consequences 63
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
continuing hazards of the No Action, Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety on the Parkway.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on human health and safety as
road hazards would continue to exist. Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety.on the Parkway.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, anchor blocks would be installed to stabilize the existing slow moving slope at MP
270.3. This improvement would increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at
MP 270.3 would have considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope
failure. Risk for this alternative is characterized as very low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
The anchor blocks would stabilize the slide area by increasing the forces resisting the slide movement.
The lower limit of the slide extent does not affect the safety factor. The current slide is occurring along a
very deep, steep interface between the overburden fill soil and the bedrock because the weight of the fill
exceeds the friction force between the soil and bedrock. The anchor blocks would press the fill soil
against the bedrock, which increases the friction to the point where the friction would support the fill.
Although this option is expected to stabilize the slide area so no further movement would occur, if there
were any continued slide movement, it would adversely affect the Parkway. Additionally, if the slope
fails, it may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the anchor block system is
expected to stabilize the entire slope and the motor road equally to the bridge alternatives, with no
additional impacts to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
The very low risk assigned to both the slope and the Parkway signifies that the risk of loss of additional
forest area would also be very low, as well as very low risk to motor road failure.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have long-term, moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and safety due
to the stabilization of the moving slope and roadway. Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 64
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved. shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3. would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide;
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative C would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative C would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, a bridge with grassy shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3 would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
Environmental Consequences 65
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide,
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative D would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative D would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The purpose of the scoping process, as outlined in CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1501.7), is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the EA and to identify significant issues
relating to the Proposed Action. The lead agency is required to invite input from Federal, State, and local
agencies, affected Native American tribes, project proponents, and other interested parties (Section
1501.7 (a)(1)). To satisfy scoping requirements for this project, scoping letters were mailed out
requesting public and agency input on issues to be addressed in the EA. Table A-1 in Appendix A lists all
persons, agencies/organizations to whom the scoping letters were sent. The scoping letter is presented as
Figure A-1, a scoping brochure as Figure A-2, and the news release that announces that the Parkway was
seeking public input as Figure A-3.
The public scoping period for the project began on June 1, 2006 and ended on July 3, 2006. Only one
comment was received from the public during this period. The NPS also underwent consultations with
several State and Federal agencies regarding the project. These consultation letters are presented in
Figures A-4 through A-7 in Appendix A.
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway
Phil Francis, Superintendent
Martha Bogle, Deputy Superintendent
Bob Cherry, Resource Management Specialist
Diane Foote, Contracting Officer
Allen Hess, Former NHPA Specialist
Gary Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning
Teresa McCall, Budget Officer
Lillian McElrath, Resource Management Specialist
Michael Molling, Project Leader and Acting Chief of Maintenance
Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection Specialist
Ray Shaw, Highlands Facility Manager
Bambi Teague, Chief of Resource Management
John Wilburn, Former Civil Engineer
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office
Bob Blythe, Historian
Kent Cochran, FHWA Coordinator
Lee Edwards, Regional FLHP Liason
Tracy Stakely, Historical Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Larry Hultquist, Project Manager and Landscape Architect
Consultation and Coordination 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Pat Sacks, Project Specialist
Gail Stahlecker, Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center
Steven Kidd, Archeologist and Reviewer
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Nick Finch, Compliance Specialist
Thomas Shifflett, Project Manager
Brooke Struve, Project Manager
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
Mangi Environmental Group, Inc.
Eveline Martin, Project Manager and Environmental Analyst
Consultation and Coordination 67
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Consultation and Coordination 68
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
REFERENCES CITED
(Cherry, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway. 10
July 2006. Personal communication with Bob Cherry, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(FHWA, 2005). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration.
December 2005. Subsurface Profile for Project PRA-BLRI 2E15 Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 270.3, Deep
Gap, Wilkes County, North Carolina. Minute Memo.
(FHWA, 2006). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration. 3
August 2006. Personal communication with Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer.
(Firth, 2005). Firth, Ian J.W. December 2005. Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia and North
Carolina: Historic Resource Study (draft). Unpublished report to the Superintendent. 411 pp.
(Hultquist, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
19 July 2006. Personal communication with Larry Hultquist, Road and Parkways Project Manager.
(McElrath, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
21 July 2006. Personal communication with Lillian McElrath, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(NPS, no date). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
No date. Web page. Nature and Science. Accessed on 30 June 2006 at:
littp://evww.tips. gov/btri/pplittiil/iiature.htnil
(NPS, no date-b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register. No
date. Web page. The National Historic Landmarks Criteria. Accessed on 12 July 2006 at:
htt.:/;i,,-ww.cr.n s.=aov/nr/ riblication>,-''bulletins/nrbl.6a;"nrbl.6a appendix V.htm
(NPS, 1999). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1999. Choosing by
Advantage Process. Prepared by Sue Masica of the Denver Service Center.
(NPS, 2000). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2000. NPS
Management Policies 2001.
(NPS, 2005a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2005. Draft
Project Agreement: Blue Ridge Parkway Active Slide Repair Section 2E, MP 270.3, Project PRA-BLRI
2E15. This is an agreement among four parties: Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI), the Denver Service Center
(DSC), Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA)-Eastern
Division Office (EFLHD).
(NPS, 2005b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. June 2005. Development
Concept Plan - Environmental Assessment: Proposed Regional Destination Visitor Center. Blue Ridge
Parkway. Available at:
ham:/r iarkplanninp-.n)s.gov/dociime.rit.cfni?proicctld-10354&doctimentlD-1.1.701
(MRCS, no date). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. No
date. Web page. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed on 11 July 2006 at:
htt-o::`/soils.usda.=Lov/techt3ical/cla>si ftcatiottiosd/index.html
References 69
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
(Valliere et. al, 2002). Valliere, W., R. Manning, S. Lawson, I Bacon, and D. Laven. 2003.
Standards of quality for traffic congestion in parks: an empirical study of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Proceedings of the 2003 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium.GTR-NE-317. Available at:
ht! /fwww.fs.fed.us`ne;`Blewtown sciuare/'t)u iications/tee.hnical ret7ctirts;'odfs%2004,1317n<toersivalliere3l.7.
Vdf
(USFWS, 2002). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. October 2002. Species
of Concern: Cerulean Warbler. Available at:
htt.:%%tkTww.f-vvs. ov!rni.dwest,'Endan ered.,bi.rds/CERW/cenr ,-fcts.hect.html
References 70
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SCOPING AND AGENCY
COORDINATION
Appendix A A-1
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A A_2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-l. Scoping Letter
? r?x oc r
v
United States Department of the Interior SERY C£
National Park Service
N'3 ?$ Blue Ridge Parkway
IN UTLY I MftTO: 199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
L7617
PIN 10058
June 1, 2006
Dear Interested Parry:
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 to 1508), and the
National Park Service (NPS) NEPA compliance guidelines (DO-12), the NPS has decided to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to repair approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue
Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Proposed alternatives
include spanning the unstable area by either construction of a bridge on the Parkway or retaining the area
with an anchor block system. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway
and would include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill colluvium and
pavement.
Project Background
The roadbed movement at Milepost 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. This section of
Parkway has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic safety problem due to uneven
pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near accidents have been received as the
underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is
considered an extremely high priority. Because attempts to arrest this movement have proven to be
ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be considered.
A horizontal subsurface drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove
subsurface drainage beneath fill soils believed to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has
been patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but
movement and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. An inspection
of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average of
approximately one gallon of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of trees
along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean and geotechnical monitoring of the area indicate
continual slope movement and the slope is considered highly potential for catastrophic failure. Recent
Appendix A A-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that roadway movement is most likely caused by water movement
between fill colluviums deposits and residual soils. Because past attempts to arrest the movement have
proven to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
Proiect Alternatives
Four alternatives for the proposed project are currently being considered by BLRI. These include:
1. Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unstable roadway as is.
2. Alternative B (Anchor Blocks): The slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with
tendons anchored to rock beneath the slip plane.
3. Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be paved.
4. Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be grass.
The EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish the repair solution for this
unstable roadbed. Please identify any resources within your purview that may experience potential
impacts from this project and list specific mitigation measures. Please provide your written comments by
July 3, 2006 to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Molling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
If you have any concerns or questions, please contact Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at 828-271-4779 ext. 219 (Asheville, N.C.).
We welcome your involvement and encourage your input into this proposal.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Superintendent
cc: . Eveline Martin, MANGI
SMolling: sm: 5-31-06
(NEPA/EA/PIN 10058/Scoping/PIN 10058-Agency Scoping Ltr.doc)
Appendix A A-4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-2. Scoping Brochure
Environmental Assessment (EA) for Repair of Resources and Concerns
I'n.stable Roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parka ay at Initial internal project scoping identified the follotvina
'NIP 270.3 resources and other concesms for consideration in the EA:

.;Tt13

aa.?fiIkfodts ss iCFw-

ii?qi, p7to?4,n 61 71
? f7?1r'ar..I`?i:1f?'Z?t ,I'Ei ,? f`e?IyP e_ :iL)^r.:
..? .ti??21 ?'.._ e :?,^i:r t_(I,-,•el sLr.,s: r ._ ?1<SF??

€ o4

--,,-nSSE 3n Vn. C??,.f:r

77E s' ':2QT2+'?:: ri,FCl .i:-' -:')
;?L?r£ rr- ??? t at , car, r .:` r•;: _?.zr?c?s

Over ew of the Process
Pro*t milestones include-
* Public scoping period (closes ltd §' 3.: 006)
• Preparation of Eng. ironnierital Assessment 1
• Public review of environmental assessment
• Analysis of public con lent.
• Preparation of decision doac€ rrient
• Aa€nour cemtent of decision
Geological Resources Vegetation
Sotindscape Cultural Resources
'kVildlife Reereational Resources
H€ nian Health & Safety Threatened & Endangered
Species
Z? hat £k,r. th n? p(- riott IneAII"
a_ I:i >? ^f .1 ..cje s I: s ptl.
. .e..ar .
-,'€TJ%-.x1clt:pic?:111tr:f..
Jll_V11",% YC_' It: -,, _ t(3tct. _ r J f?,i 311 it F-d.?e
i ,..
sc< pmg my ojii5 oppm t€auir? to comment o€t thr
fc%It-- t i pf.1- E
Alternatives
The piel3sr a-y alternatives, to be evaluated in the
environmental assessment are:
1) Alternative A (N7o Action): Lei Ke the i msOble roadum_V
as is.
2) Alternative B (.=1nchor Blocks): The slope would be
stabilized usnre concrete anchor blocks tkith ter€dons
anchored to rock- beneath the slip plane.
3) Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct
a. bridge to span the unstable area. Some of the material
from the site would be removed when placing the bridge
and the existi€ ge road way in this section would be
obliterated- Bridge shoulde would be gay ed_
a1 Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Construct a
badge to span the unstable: area. '-Some of the material from
the slide would be removed when placing the bridge and the
existing roadttW in this section would be obliterated.
Bridge shoulders .vould be grass.
Appendix A A-5
Project Scopincg June 2006
U.S: National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Please let us know by July 3, 2006:
1. Do yon have any ideas to share: about is&ue:sicoricerns, or are there atiN= tssuesrconcerns about the project that =on flunk
we shtruld ceider?
- Are the ae: any other alte natives that. you think should be considered?
3. Do gran have other comments :and suggestions for us. to consider in the enviroianental assesunent?
We want to bear fiom vott so that we can make the most informed decisions concerning the alternamTs on this project.
'We appreciate your input into this process. and would tike your feedback by . y4v 3, 2006. You are welcome to laxite to its
at the address bela , but our preference would be for you to provide your cainti is on the National Park: Service
Planning, Emn.ronnient & Public C ornnient (PEPQ web site- C ominents can be nuide directly online by yonig to the
following hitlc: l2 :.. xX 3 xTYr lfty.35 P3'. ?Tc7ltr ? ' f'ea r l .£ ? _ ?C'P t_ Cr=t` ? 3u.
Whitten coniunents inav also be submitted. to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Moiling .
199 liei-iiplull Knob Read
Ashe-,ille. North Carolina 218803-8686
If you wish to be added to the parka's mailing list for this and other announcements, pleasr be sure to indicate that
in PEPC or in your response.
It is the practice of dye ATS to make .atl cs+rat wents, inchiding the names and addresses gfrespondents who provide, the
connner x^ tea; laha air pubarc review 40M;%ttg he canclusion Oy'.d e sLcpingprocess. DTs:d.*vrdraa s .tam r .est ".rat the
ry 'S isitlahra d t reir narrr ?aarra: ar ?i r ss Pig=?z pral lic iscl rra= . If vots -tvish to do }:gas, you gist state dsir pra mineFfy at
the b -turarr g gfyonr comment. C'amine ztatars easing the p 'C weebsite can marke strop a r€€pea bill cheaking the boa:
"keep mu, ronract ia?tonmation praxsate.' The PS is=::di honafi such requests to the € xient chewable 6 aw, but you should
be.ail aare rtrat ti'^.e PS Daay' still be required to disclose y our name and address pazrsikant to tale Fret-dom gfblforwatiwt
-4ct.
Appendix A A-6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-3. News Release
National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road
MAiEONAi
U.S. Department of the Interior www.nps.gov/blri Asheville, NC 28803
Blue Ridge Parkway News Release
June 1, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact: Suzette Molling [phone] ext. 219; email SlIzette Moll.inggta,Us.gov
or Larry Hultquist [phone] ext. 247; email Larn, Hultguist-Oltips.gov
Parkway Seeks Input for Road Repair
Near West Jefferson
(Asheville)-The Blue Ridge Parkway is seeking public input, through July 3, to identify issues and
additional study that will be needed to develop an Environmental Assessment for the repair of a short
road section that is near West Jefferson.
Parkway officials said that the roadbed and supporting slope for a 200' section of the motor road at
Milepost 270.3 are unstable and may need to be reengineered. Efforts to repair the road have been made
intermittently for more than 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be necessary to stabilize
the section by using an anchor and block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The project scoping phase, now underway, is the initial step in the development of an Environmental
Assessment that will analyze alternatives and their potential impacts.
For more information and to comment on this project, visit the National Park Service website:
htt.-s:L,, ark lanning.n s.gov. Select Blue Ridge Parkway from the park dropdown menu and then click
on project title "EA Scoping to Repair Unstable Roadbed at MP 270.3." Information is also available,
and comments may be made by writing to: Blue Ridge Parkway, ATTN: Suzette Molling, 199
Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, NC 28803. Comments must be postmarked by July 3.
Comments are typically treated as a public record and made available for public review. Individuals
may request that the National Park Service withhold their name and address from disclosure. Such
requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.

Appendix A A-7
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Mr. John Thomas Mr. Ronald C. Howard

US Army Corps of Engineers District Conservationist
Mr. Brian P. Cole, Supervisor

Raleigh Regulatory Field Office USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, o Asheville Field Office
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Wilkesbor
Service Center
Post Office Box 194 160 Zillicoa Street
E
€ Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Wilkesboro, North Carolina
28697-0194 E
Mr. Dave McHenry
Ms. Mari Sue Hilliard I Mr. Allen Ratzlaff Mountain Region Reviewer f
•: Forest Supervisor Fish and Wildlife Service ? Habitat Conservation Program
National Forests in North Carolina Asheville Field Office North Carolina Wildlife Resources E
160A Zillicoa Street 160 Zillicoa Street Commission
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 = 20830 Great Smoky Mountain Exp E
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Mr. Jeffrey H. Schwierjohann E
Mountain Region Wildlife Mr. Curtis Smalling Ms. Chrys Baggett
;E
i
t
l P
li
A

Diversity Program Supervisor
Audubon North Carolina nv
ronmen
a
o
cy
ct,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Mountain Office Coordinator
€
Commission 667 George Moretz Lane
State Clearinghouse
f
271 Morgan Branch Road Boone, North Carolina 28607 E 1301 Mail Service Center
Leicester, North Carolina 28748 ; Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301
i ....................................... ................... ............................ .....................................

Mr. David Brook, Deputy .. ....................... _................................ ......................... ....................
...................

Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow SHPO
.......;.............................. ......................... ........................ ............ _...................................

€ Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley

.
........
I
State Historic Preservation Office Division of Archives & History Environmental Review Coordinator
4617 Mail Service Center 4610 Mail Service Center NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Raleigh, NC 27699-4610 109 East Jones Street
i = Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
Ms. Nann Guthrie Ms
Linda Pearsall f
Senior Field Officer, Western
Region .

North Carolina Natural Heritage

Mr. Joe Mickey

NC Department of Environment, Program € NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Health & Natural Resources Post Office Box 27687 E 155 Timberbrook Trail

1. 59 Woodfin Place Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- State Road, North Carolina 28676 E
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 1615
Mr. Ron Holland Owen Anderson
M
i
R
i
di I
s Regional Supervisor ounta
n
eg
on Coor
nator
Habitat Conservation Program North Carolina Division of
Division of Archives & History
North Carolina Wildlife Environmental Management f
North Carolina Department of Post Office Box 29535

Cultural Resources Resources Commission
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
E
E
1 Village Lane, Suite 3 11721 Mail Service Center E
Asheville, North Carolina 28803 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1721
Mr. Jim Borawa
Regional Fishery Biologist = Plant Conservation Program Honorable Charles Taylor

s North Carolina Wildlife Resource North Carolina Department of ;District Office

Commission Agriculture 22 South Pack Square

37 New Cross North Post Office Box 27647 Suite 330
=
Asheville, North Carolina 28805- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611- Asheville, NC 28801
9213 7647 E
Mr. Gene Messick Mr. Dan Pittillo ` Johnny G. Hensley.
541 South Hamilton Street 675 Cane Creek Road 225 White Oak Circle €
Appendix A A-8
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Eden, North Carolina 27288 Sylva, North Carolina 28779 ' Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
....................... ........... ._......_...._........._.................. .............................. ......

Senator Elizabeth Dole ..................................................._.............._................................. .............................

1 Senator Richard Burr
...................... ............................................. ........_........... ............................... ................._
.....
€ Honorable T. Cass Ballenger
2000 West First Street ' District Office
401 North Main Street i Suite 508 Post Office Box 1830
Suite 200
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Winston-Salem, NC 27104 361 10th Ave. Drive, NE

......................_.................._......._. Hickory, NC 28603
Dr. Houck Medford, Executive
Mr. Bob Gale, Ecologist 3 Dr. Gary L. Walker € Director
Western North Carolina Alliance Department of Biology Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation
29 North Market Street, Suite 610 Appalachian State University ` Post Office Box 10427 - Salem
s Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Rankin Science Building < Station
Boone, North Carolina 28608 ` Winston-Salem, North Carolina
27108

E Mr. Bill Thomas, Sierra Club
Mr. Robert D. Sutter Mr. James L. Westbrook, Jr.
;Cit
M

E Chairman of Public Lands in
Southeast Regional Office Nature y
anager
North Carolina ' Conservancy :City of Asheville
Post Office Box 7148
Post Office Box 272 Post Office Box 2267 Asheville
North Carolina 28802-
Cedar Mountain, North Carolina ; Chapel Hill, North Carolina ,
7148
28718 27515-2267
Mr. Andy Brown Mr. Arthur Allen Mr. Harry N. Baldwin
i Equinox Environmental
37 Ha
wood St
eet President, SHCG
207 River Rid
e Road 501 Curtis Bridge Road
y
r
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 g
Asheville, North Carolina 28803 Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697
Mr. Greg Kidd Ms. Brooke Struve
Senior Program Manager Project Engineer
Mr. Jerry T. Lang Blue Ridge Field Office Federal Highway Administration
744 Grants Trail National Parks Conservation Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Centerville, OH 45459 Association Division
One Page Avenue, Suite 109 21400 Ridgetop Circle
Asheville, NC 28801 Sterling, Virginia 20166
Mr. Nicholas Finch
E
i
t
l C
li ' Mr. Thomas Shifflett
nv
ronmen
a
omp
ance Project Engineer
Specialist Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration = Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Eastern Federal Lands Highway ;Division
Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling,
21400 Ridgetop Circle
E
Virginia 20166 I Sterling, Virginia 20166
Appendix A A-9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A=4. USFS Comment Letter
D° .mtstaui' I € s 1-4 Street.
t o ? :r o rvisor3s £ .tier I-

C
L
I Road
As' NIC 28803
-gar er
xr y€ ;6r cormt.met. e :.. ... e. ue W,'dg.,. rp.mr
ez r . n vsxmet. ; tRAa p:? s ed .rte E r ° 1i v p m•?:x: :.8 f s 1 p?, t 21"', (YO mPUN
10 5€ a -ort your I ?posal w repair this ?..,.%:m gat re.I ozd. improve pu iic
sa et:). and reduce the pots mti al of catastrophic fi
rye.
We 110 cor but I "I"
Cliff Northrop, ort ro?p, Y'l 0'-'234.
mtzrmte t on.. your pr p al, snd i ( A well With this
; ;prey,
rev'
OwCera? for the i rVing People tip
Appendix A A-10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-5. USFWS Comment Letter
NT OF
t
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDI,IFE SERVICE
4RCN a tia?° Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 26, 2006
Ms. Suzette Molling
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28843
Dear Ms. Molling.
Subject: Proposed Repairs to about 200 Feet of Unstable Roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at
Milepost 270.3, Wilkes County, North Carolina
We received your letter dated June 1, 2006, in which you requested our comments on the subject
project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject proposed road repairs. The project area has had
chronic problems since about 1975, and multiple attempts to correct the road failure have failed.
We have no objections to the proposed project. However, as with all federal projects, we
recommend that all project sites be surveyed for federally listed endangered and threatened
species to ensure that these rare resources are not inadvertently lost. Enclosed is a list of
federally endangered and threatened species and federal species of concern for Ashe and Wilkes
Counties (the project is on the county line). In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of
the appropriate federal agency to review its activities or programs and to identify any such
activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is
determined that these proposed activities may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated. Please note that
federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subjcct to any of its
provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them.
Appendix A A-11
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this proposed project. If we can be of assistance or if
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2.06.325.
Sin?prely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Appendix A A-12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
(I T k_- u
Jl
The . m Fi,,Ji and i"' I ervice's SFWS)
Y
,,s List for North:"arol'
ilia
m° 1 a iii , ,..
l 1 -bale
st, , n s3 _ris .-. c and per-: .:i1 nn
` .in .. list w, ai zz fc nEY?. ,... ,< „ .. Caro Via} ;
il)
:....,1( a c1 >. S Am! .I.a. )T"I't 'F- c o>1. H.
as a ....; LL.- Fox- Uo
isaar-,es`,, c " '?.?s L a g'€;vsisTF ;'J
2L-11 111.
clefBEFPradzr- ll 1
Appendix A A-13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge. Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Kanawha mm ow P'henacabius leretulu.s FSC
Pygmy salamander Dewmo lhus wrighd PSC
Red crossbtll (Southern Appalachian) Loxia rvir ita PSC:
Iny=gbralt,
Diana ffitiltary (butterfly)
? eyer darann
FSC
Gammon's ,stenelmts riffle beetlt ? &enelmis gaamman FSC
Green floater Laasmigon a subviWU F
Grizzled skipper Pyrgas m yait dof FSC
Midget stt
.
ak-etail O hiogam
p
dim howei FSC
'
?
9y
Regal fxttill y (butterfly) f
> ?
Speyer?ira idalida FSC
yhamlal Flint:
Appalachian oak fern
Gymnocarpiwn appal hrrrrrum
FSC
Bog blue grass p p alu gena F SC
uttemut Juglaw cii3Lrea FSC
Cathbert turdehead Chelt ne curhbazrtii FSC
Darlington's spurge Euphorirtaa purpurea FSC.
Gray's lily Lilluin gruyr FSC
gay`s clffage Saaxifrarga caralianirana FSC
Fieller's blazing star Liatris ke1keri T
l..arge-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Par'nassia gnitrrlaftrliaa FSC
Roan mountain blurt Ha<avoas p pares vat`. monraana E.
Spreading aw ns Ge€xm raad,iatum E.
Swamp pink elonlas bullata T
Tail larkspur Delphinium rftaatum FSC
Tc y'sMountain-mint * Pycnawhernum torm FSC
Virginia spiraea Spiraaea virginionaa T
Lklhm
Bluff mountain reindeer lexchen Cladotnia psoromica FSC
Rock pnnonae lichen Cryrrrt wIer raa lineare E
Wilkes County
Species
Bag ttartle Clemmys muhdenbergii T (S/A),
Cowl= warbl € Dendroii'.aa a rula a FSC
EWX1140 00 bAt Mytttts lentil FSC
Invertebrate
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Spey ria d axriaa FSC
Regal fritillary (butterfly) Speyerta idralia FSC
Appendix A A-14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VaLrEjaT
Toa PY u?f s S'`S C
f)etinitierrs of S2-ec x Statue Cedes.
endangered. Ataxon "s danger of extinction t °ourb it all or a si ni cana imrdon of Its range."
T- --. threatotted. A C2 In "likely becowe er€danger°? a the forese*4 l " a< o€rghout all or a
srcalt'lcaat portion ?t Its ran "p
candidate. 4, a W en, tion for raffia:. 1 " r i ` Y M t information b
Irt g.4.?« lv. a€ne t . Sp*Oes)
SSC rat s rr u-'- :r species that may or u a rt_ be listed in the future (,,arwearly C2 __rr.__
consideratro€r for 1180;g (01 P there b insufficient information to .supp4

(S A C o2i;a 4:?€: duo ' 2rity of ? ).m are A taxo r t* eater€ l due to simitartty of appraraa :
n-athr r US,., mid mf re
e d 7
.?•. ? ; ! t t a` e %esserrtisl;l.
sir 'n ;l on part rc, l rd<for

_.
.1 ?? ••t:
<
era

. 1;: i .: Lait€:.

.A "^.
P= gM
:; $,$ ?L.?•r _R g a..? "PEI! or

P
g$ . , abe 7, Weral 5 1,04S 2y a. 1,4e northern l: f a of the be- is
(xr r3: erw lixorl 0 _ ` r e is teal ms T (th ,.•? .r AV . .. popularttur€ ( ,
t" a ,Ftrth to Ti 1A) t .r aterab l due izrril; ranee , b°
hares tat r to errri ir? > s rte, the
r as rr4 en
there pop a l
St its as 'f'(S. a ;?), e U. glee earrt ` S r rp: : of a" e as
a Feeieral sped", of crarra t€s
cc Vj`.:__.....
A ire
___...#d! __ a 4xtecs _ :'<x..aca £, eiz UT di
praxin. y of wa_ ... qbT: - 40ons :r w rc it rar+.le a.
(S) Summer baW ba ( ?f3an feat conuty records
? ?zsrlra r?ccor?r ;,a, rr??:ie? ?rar:s leaf srbser :,_? t°?? c.?arr.rety xr€r?rc ihan:gti years agree
c bocu : s record =? e date and/or location of o rvation k wer~tarin,
L C IC Vr =lgrant recor= ° he Species Was observed or A • ;g fiarrrts ` V habitat,
r k?.`e3 r olawa c rec ar.
{: lrs€ >n and facld€ w'd r ?d,
Appendix A A-15
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-6. NCDENR Comment Letter
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
MOW F. Easley, VWW 'Wiliam GF Ross Jr.. Swaim
*41 ? L ?
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba Mc
Sk"Crironmr.ta), tceview COO dizmtor
SM?WTI 46-0354 Scaring. for the Proposed Repairs to the Blue Ridge
Psxkway at Milepost 270.3, sectaou 2% ir. Wilk-64 taunty
DATE, July 6, 2006
The Deyart:ant of Enviro=ant and Xatara3 Resources t ''roview0d the
pr:&Jj"osod infori&5'?tior. The attach a to are for the aWlic&nt'5
irifQt;i?
Thank y*u for the opportunity to review.
Xttachmenta
1601 idall Servica Center, Raleigh, North Caroline 276&1611
Now 919-7334950 FAX: 91 31 ??? ? in#emet: v&nr.stz*.nc usjEN
m4ubloppukV
-JON Kam, -a
'Y4 i . y
Appendix A A-16
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
?V
"NO??'It)R,1<i 1rT
To: Nedra. McGee, Envirorbtnetital
William e3, Rces 0.. S w"Aty
NOT+,q fir: Depsrina^t orLttO Mt ORI aW N&%Wst RONV
Alan W. Kl tK, P.E. O r
. 4, A 70 1111 C'a^siMP of water gravity
tat ?j?
1=4 ao, aood
Fr+azrt: Sue Homewood NC DiN*is to of Water Qwality, G{ittstmtl•Salexn Ctf c
Sv. i ;; Secpi onur?ents Ott paused repairs to the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 2703, 5eotio
2E, Wilkes Co=ty. D3 1!1R #06-035#
Re'*== -= Nationa Park Service; (N?S) con-eesponclencc dare; J= e 1, 2006, and tuw a s?rresP?ct3cc
datcd Ta= 5, 2006 in which you requested comments for the referenced prr jest. Ptel ntit€ary analysis of
the project reveals the puteniial ftrr moldpic unpacts to pem l streams and jwisdictiOral wi is
the project L-OlL Nf a speacally, impacts to-
Stream lame. ? i r Basin Stream Stre Index
Clessi5catitautal Number
ew
This sy?u Ql id itif es wales that are s€.bje tog sptaiai s gag== s?-at specified in 35,0
'INC ;AC 2B.0225 the Outs=dung Resomot eater (OTM" Role, in order to p test dowratxe i
w ate de;tis"ted as 0"'.
u d tc iave sti gati on s at a k,igher reseIu,,.% on. shmil 1. undmken to verify the wens. o f r< hor s rtes
an;v c?? jt r v itr wetl ds in the area. in the event that e„ny au sdicti*ml as are ide:a#ifled, the
srision ofWamr Qubjt mquttu t1lat the applicant consider the btlaw44 aTMMnM=tai issues for the
proposed prC4ect:
Project Spetlfk Comments-,
1. Fa Cr=k and its tributaries are clas siC, "Tr waters of the State. DwQ r co-nmoAds t the xnost
protective sedi ,mt and erouon control BMPs he irMlententcd W xeduze the Mask of turbidity
? o`igt ass in =u wetm. In addition. all disti ate s wit i;t trots buffers should be ct ndum in
accordance with, NC Division of Land sources and NC Wildlife Re umes Cot mission
~eq's? mMen1 .
2. Review of re projNt r:veals the prt§ence of s€ufke graters *,atdrain d€rectly into waters classi,,ied
as Oulste»^ diag Resource Watem., of the State in the project study at . The water quality
cisskficat on of CaRW is = o the higl st: elassi9catiori s in Lhe State. DWQ is elttaet ly eonsemed
with ar)• impacts that = occur to atreama with th classification. It is ; f d t the esastTte-,
he avoided fat ail poss;fbwe. if it is note l;. a fbLeto avoid tMse resources, tltt nVactx should to
rstinima zed to tie greatest Mont possible. Giv this potant for impac o these its es du dw
protect irap men;T,a.ior:., she ?OWq requests itat tic appliC.ant str;dtlyr adhere to Sortie Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Startda . in Sensitive %ratersh W (15A. NC AC 04B.0124) thro tg'i ut
design and cons uctan of due project,
PIE
ta5a rsnrvf?ee :i *0Ct a 16M
Ut 40i M,
Piton! 019-733-1790 t FAX M9.733?W i W%;34 n :? h` r. sae n?.i; 'ncv tSatstis
.a ?a?F 6?srs€tA!Estn?ti?A?sr gmp?;rer-?w74sl??1t fl?e?ie?tr.?r?xa?'
Appendix A A-17
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
I. ven teat the ea ragvimv repan be uaa of natural ads, it is likely that thr a junsdictional,
wetlands: that may be, impacted by tds erect. Cared idtatil"icatimi ofjurisdictional watlaWs, and
tnWacts to any wedgy will be nece.sW .
General Project Comments:
4. Tae en ron=ntal doc ent sh ld provide a detailed and item ed pr tion ofthe, proposed
=W. to tl ds and,trearns wife convond ng gapping. If rnit Uo<n is rtecesswy required
by 15A NC AC it is preft le to present a concep ani (ifnvt fitzlized) initiption plan
with the v ro per &I d entadon, Ap ropnate mitigation ply will be nquin4 prior vo
iss ace of a4 l atcrQuaity CeMilcatiod,
aJvirett a tal rice rn t alt ti iiould id dea erifa*ria tit t?cµ t? nip-cts to
s s and wet ands liom storm wat r --no ff. These alternatives should tnclu wad designs ilmt
1l w for treat of the sto %M xinr ?- tbrough best rna Mgamment praticcs do led in the
most recer t won of N-C D Srormwa,ar ; as geme fte s, such as gr m s es,.
buffer $ms, pref'=ned samr holes, retention b , eta,
6, after the sci tan of the prefer d albernativc and prior to an ias.-, ce of the 4x01 Water Quality
Certification, the 1PS is respeoftiy mdcd that the WU1 n=8 to darnonstrW the avGidanee an
=nftti=tion of impacts tc vmt1ftd,a (and stream) to the n irr ae practaeal, 1h azcordarx
with the Bw r*nk =tat M=&gerner9 bmnassiun's. ides 13a. N CAC 2H.0506 (h)), w111
-quired fw ir. pacts of+g ater than 5 acre to wetlands, h the event that miti ation is reriui: ed, the
ti tic plan should l desiped to replace appropriate lost functions and kes. The N
Ecosystem nh cemertt:lrogra y avsilalaie for use as woe d t tiption.
7. In accordance ' iii`: the nvirom tal Mwag=ent Commission's Rules (I 5A ITC AC 2H.05 (h)),
rr?ii ti %Q be 7regt ad for impacts of peatcr tlmn 150 lincar feet to, and' single perenn =
In the assert that iti radon is -mimed, the ti tion plan should of desig;cd to replace ap "mate
lost function and values, The NC Eoosyste tuban==t Frogram=y be a i able for use as
stream ruription.
4: DVVQ is verb o+ariccnaed with s en€ stid osion irmpacts shat could result fivim fts project. NFS
sbould ad ress these ounce s by describ3q the poterltial impacts that may occur to the aguft
etnNim= s an any, mitigating factors that would reduce the acts.
9, If ouDdadon test brit,. axe nee ary; it should be noted in the doc=tent: Goottehrlicf.1 work is
approved de-w Ganem 401 CertMoat cnn lgtunber 3494/N- mion ide Permit No. 6 r Survey
.activities.
10. Sedime t. and srosion. control cures sut oient to prc*bect water teso :es must be impleimtod and
mahata :ed an accordance with c no ruent version of 'North Carol ma edln=t and ion
Con=l planning and si r€ Manual and the mom tent msion of NCS000250.
1.1. All wd& in Tar adJacent to watem sl..ould be conducted a dry work am unless otberwiac
approved by NC DNVQ.
12, Sedinz w and erosion con ftl mem s should not be placed in wrinds and it==.
Appendix A A-18
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Nom Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Riches R. Hamilton, Executive Dhutor
TO- Melba McGee, hnviroru ntal Coo tinator
Office of Legislative and lntqpver ental Affaim DL
FROM: Marla Chambers. bleat= NC DOT P it Coordinator
Habitat Conwvsbon Progr , NCWRC
DATE- June tl, M „.
SUMECT; SoQpi,ng review the lwrat in l Park S vice`s propo d project to repair a section
of unstable rotes on the Blue Ridge p way at milepost, 270.3, Seen 22,
Wilkes County., NC. O A Project No. W0354, due June 30, 2006.
no National Parr Service is planning to prepare an Environmental Asseument for the
proposed project. Nom C=h Wildlife l e=es Commission (NC" RQ has reviewed ft
information provid for coarans regarding impact to fish ad voildl a rosowc twultisS from
the subject pro, t, Std biologists have tho f*11owing preliminary commits. Those comments
are provided in accordance v4th the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
US.C. 4332(2)(e)) and tine Fish and 'Wildlife Coordination Art (48 Stat. 401, as xnende, Ib
US-C, 661- 667,d).
`l'hew National Park Service proposes to repair approxizs ely 2W linear fee of ratable
roadbed the Blue lfiid sway at milepost 270.3, Section 2E. Attempts to amt the .
roadbed movement that Wigan in 1M have proven to ineffective and now more 4dvanocd
pore chni l solutions aim being coasidnredi Alternativ include concrete anchor blocks and
replacing the section with a bridge that has either paved a grassed shoulders,
The ijcct app to be near the headwaters of Pine Swamp Creek, Class C+, t $t fimvs
into Artie Cotmty, or Tali t :ale, Class C Tr., which flaws Into Will Care y, Il k unit
awn to inhabit these a other hea orator wearas in the arm. Pine Swamp Crec)t joins the
South Fork New Riven dovits"am, which appe to be Outstanding Resource Wgter and is
inbabited by tho Kanawha € ow (Phena bias tereudus), a dal Species of Comm and
state Special Concern. Controlling off-sit a %rmt on will be very important for this project.
Milling Asst Division of Inland 71"sh"MrZ • 17721 Mail Service Gmw * RaI b4, NC 27699-1721
"peer (919)707-02W-Raw- [phone]
Appendix A A-19
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Niue kk?p Pw- Y raprk
w lkm caullt -PAGE 2 - Igoe sa, yll
Sediment and erosion oentrol measua s should. adhere to the design stand ds for sitive
'??aterslr?.
It is likely that wedands pr nt at Ow project site and that the roadway as built on
wetlands, leading to the existing prubl s, Bog tort s, (Gl?pxmys muWenbergii), state
Md"twod and. federal Three led d to Similarity of Appellg°attce, ate known from the Smeral
am. Ram sabmande may also exist at the project site. Sut ys should be conducted to
determine the potential impacts to. t and listed species. Impacts to wetlands should be avoided
or minimiud to the extent p titabk, Them nay be an opportunity to 'bare wetlat in the
area if a bridge alternative is sel .ted, whi , given the current information, will likely be the
s u€ion ,we'd recommend.
In w1dition, to lhalp f?ailltat* doouvw nt pry o" and the ravinw pror , our general
nformadon needs are outlined below,
I Deserigdoa of fishery and wildlife rewtroes within the project area, ludiug, a listing of
feda ;lly car state designated mead, en d, or special M m sp'e ea Flawtial
b ate atoms to be aced for project o st ction s Wd be included in the inventories. A
liltir o destnated plazt species can be developed thmu$h consultation. with. do
following ptograms;
mail service canter
Raleigh, N. C; 27699-1+601
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation ftogram
P0. Bost 2764'
Raleigh., X Q 27611
[phone]
Descdpdon of any sums or wedgy affected by the eject, If applicable, include OW,
linear fee of stmam that will . channe zed or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland screw impa ed by the project. Wetland acreage
old inclu& all project related ate that may undergo hydrologic change as a molt +
ditcWng, other drainage, or falling for project constiuction. Wedand ident Cation try
be accemplished through too taation with the U. S, Amy Oocps of Engitiem
(USAC; E). If the SACE is not consulted, the paw delineating wtdan s should
identified and esiteria listed,
4. Cover type ttapsshowing = age of upland wildlife h tat impa+ d by the prq*sed
project, Potential barrio sites and waste areas should be included,
Appendix A A-20
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Blue x l way tev
5. Show the extent to which the pajeaet w'fl resent: . loss, de daasac . or iragmenjtation tit
wildfi& habitat (wr4arada or upland$)..
6. fnclitdc the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for d art and
indirect de aatio n in habitat a ty as well as qlt titafive losses.
7 Adams the QveraH env a ncntal effo of the ppmjw.t caution d quantify the
contribution of thin tzdividual project to environment degmdati m
8, l vide s discussion of the prone impacts natural rescarcts, which will result from
secEandvy d eloietjtx f ilite by tlte: i.mnpreved mad tress.
9. If rxsttstnwt car, of this f ihty is to be coordinatW with trdw ctato, rn %c lpal, Or Private
dmvlopment pttjects, a description oftbm p%qJ" should be included the
envi wmtal d .tmnt, and all projw sponsors sho}ttid be idwi ifi .
Thank you fm the opportunity to provide input in ft early planning Ataf t of s projea
if you have any questions regarding these comments, pleat contact to at [phone],
c I Ila BuriciQk! IJSl 'S
Sue Ho wood, NC D Q
An Rutgers, NI C NIV
Appendix A A-21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-7. Wilkes County Comment Letter
SUE " FOR VTEW
8 i ti °tr trt 34 f45t `t?7C;° TA
IWA L-4-a*t yoa rekApx mt, '?IY IgK S a 2E 1 1 11"f 4l
'rte` ??,.. i?'r3}s?.a ? .' ,. •,,
Jut
i
r
CMUM
.... ss
1 . t 01 u 1tt jL t ,. and 01 f,*f
t- . b >fly. I
Appendix A A_22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX B: CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGE
Appendix B . B-1
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Choosing by Advantage
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
During the period of July 26-28, 2005, a value analysis panel convened at the Holiday Inn Express in
Boone, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting was to select a preferred alternative to address the
slide and unstable roadbed at MP 270.3. The Value Analysis (VA) team consisted of 14 participants:
Blue Ridge Parkway
John Gentry, Chief of Maintenance & Engineering
Gary Johnson, Supervisory Landscape Architect
Suzette Molling, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Mike Molling, Facility Manager
John Wilburn, Supervisory Civil Engineer
Larry Hultquist, Landscape Architect
Denver Service Center
Pat Sachs, VA Facilitator, Project Specialist
Leon Clifford, Project Manager
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration
Tom Shifflett, Project Manager
Mark Clabaugh, Bridge Engineer
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
The CBA was completed and later the graphs and charts were amended when more detailed geotechnical
analysis reports for the slide area and updated Class C estimates for all three alternatives being proposed
Appendix B B-2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
were attained (Figures B-1 and B-2). With the new geotechnical analysis FHWA was able to better
define conceptual design and cost estimates for all three alternatives in 2008 dollars.
The VA/CBA process indicates that with weighting of factors such as construction and life-cycle costs,
resolution of slide stability and risk rating, environmental impact issues, and other VA/CBA factors, the
anchor block system is considered the preferred design solution.
Appendix B B-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-1. CBA Chart
BLUE RIDGE PART NTAY - SLID MITIGATION
Choosing b Advantages
COMPONE:N ; FUNTCTIOM
FACTOR ALTERNATI-.TES
CBA- Version 1 Aitem-Mime A Utematj e B Altennt e C
Re-akwinient -with Ahgnment as is xidth anchor Bridge spanning slide
t_apslope cut Watts block slope area
stabilization

1TL. I 5a'L t E5
FACTOR 1 - Minimize -4 c-s to &re t£
c e adon
-Attribu-es L°i nirEs .2? aces Disturbs 1.25 acres No dLauUance ?o forest
4 wunt of cleaning and vevetation
?211'2kLsYSI r26zlnr+efl......_....
Ada anta s
Less disn:rbartce than B
'Much less distnrnance than B ?
$(#?
FACTOR 2 -Avoid imparts to cultst: al
lan&ca at site
At-tributes Changes road . iaiutaius existing aliemneant . Maintains editing
! Degree efchanse to historic alignmentand crow, No new nuatesials to site alignment
designed section of parkway section Changes road Edon
! mtrodtiction of new materials • Introduces upslope . lntroduce
a brid-;?e
can ails, fill walls and
.... ..,.............

A& autaees
..... ....................
.........
a
. ?. .... ............... ..
Sagnitnbnt€y Better than A
......
tt?
.......
..
"_ luch better than A .... ......

_90
FACTOR 3 - Compatible with design „ .. __-
fea=es chsta teris e of'park,, ay
development, in generai
Ktttil ites • Upslope alas rtialls not Compatible Compatible
! Degree to which solution is used anywhere ou
similar to historic parkway
Parkway
design features . Similar cu-sm- broketn.
back cranes are used on
the parkwwy ;here
anecefisay
• Not compatible ~
adtantaees 0 °°a!!! h anr&e compatible than fi 96'\ . it hmore compatible tha n.:''-1 96
Appendix B . B-4
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COhIPONE-NT. _ FUNCTION:
F aSTOk -ALTERNATIVES
CB .A -• Version I A lternati'i e A Altemative B A6ltM1atsFe C
L'£wX F?311ISCF1£ with _AhgIFI23ent a F5'llah,anchor Budge spatwidlg slide
ttpslope Otte .Fails block sites area
3€at3tltzatxoa!
PROME FOR V ISTIOR
EN.T 7 WEN
FACTOR 4 - ZSairitains ss emc d'11
e. eaieace
tsFbares » cutwA1 s and szsaaYl , A • Nldutaw,o e?Penence Eritlae rho ste,s
Long :erm trapa.r: to duvinlt ehaner eventace
ettnetie.... ....<... ,...

.idtantaFes ctaer.e?#:tR
;t:m

,....'
...

ii=•
... ..: , . _.

°/- " Ineh better than X Y

34?
..............................
.....
Better than A

4,

ACTOR MtW=i-" dcwc acre" of ?., .. _ .._.
parlivaV
-
Ambaw * Some closu."$.... + No ctesure • C.,*%Ve for duration of
+ s?tU"attOn of 1333biyai Cl?stvr + c onsw-coon t'i=xion of - Conmatzctton duration of I Project
t ,eason seaM + Consxnellonda£nwsnof

... 'seasons
_
Ssd4 nta£LS _ Be -ter than ?. '"
M, UC F better €i= C F 11"„? Q
UPR.O`VE EFFICIENCY OF PARK

FACTOR b - # ri=zer annual
raamemuce reg ntrerxw;
?t?ib,.Fres . raeitFFatt1?•
_..1=i' + t
.'i?ii3Stxtd?tSS". ..?....?........?....
• S^j`?»6S7£aatei4
? :?.j:?rvY. i`.IESt? SntitiattaT: Wf
main er once a? ttie ?i e
....-.....-.. ..........._,...
s lsaata es .. __. _..,_. ...
Sts?xeal'ar bemr -I= C .......
h ..... .„.. -__,_,.._ ._
'$etrer &i1 ...,.:,
3 , ...-..-.,...
0

F: it TOP Prezeer Fes: ,Fee Health.
Safety atcd tt'et an of rut:ors atA
eat':arses
Factor 'A-Efaecti mess of al-ernadve
a: -abi king w o a;roadbed
Atmimes . A -Voids Mow of faded • Stabthze. road to Prerea: • Sp aus fatted area
area catastrophic faze
• Ra3dntsrstitt setrEe
Appendix B B-5
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COWONENT. FU CT 0NI T:
FACTOR ALT F tAT ES
C B: - L'Prsxati t Ake five A Alte atwe B Altemtire C•
Re-ahgtituent Stith Aligiunew as is wide anchor Sedge spanning slide
tipslc=pe cut walls lark slope area
stablizatiou __ -
A9,azitage•. ` ltxlitieii r fax ..•• ... ._ .»....... jl . `*M.4tclatly better *ADD
? gg
PROVIDE COST-EFFECTAS
M9RC NIMS" IALLI
RESPOXSMU. AXD GTHERLtM
BENT ML,.L Dn ELOPI ENT FOP.
THE N?s
'facto. - b - Rtbabihty of raades iy
tde ee e; *isk;
Axaxbti%K .May :aye downsxpt fill. May lose road • Net u-t a :o low road.
but rot raid. wu* risk . Modesa:t m &i6 risk
A3,•autages SipificwIF bener roan B S?."* 0 ani eatitl btttr tiaau i3 100

FACTCiIt S . srcxi3e t? ke: ? d au:ages
co the e':aiaonal Fail Swem and 46en
Facto: $a - tnuinitnes =p icK to WA
hatsinrsst. eam.3itn::tie,
?:cnbutes . Minor negau a watt . No iii pa . • titgag.e iir.?+act
• C'oxumni t sl e1F to C'mmuztty Y l e? to sEtpgctt • Ca iitet:'zi less S l elT to
st ppm gra_ecr project guWn due to dtun; u of
... .... .... ........... .........,.. .., ...<
$d- Sniagti . .. ...................
ti.t..4i .........
'_fix It bez{er 2 aL' t
q:;
«»

TOTAL tl'<I MT.AXCES OF 378 410 ?3$
.ADD NTAM
Twual tat e

1Qa-d?.3Z7Y CL?9t Addiu+snas i"JeCtt.^h uee&d, Na _eeowh t•.eeded. te.decgen Satnt jeateeh my be tie ed
es lasted at re-&' 1p &05-- wt awliC:iWa foI'tFmst- abti(inew-iS
M H not app i;-.Itle esunta:ed at re;.cleup
costs not. licable

COMPONENT, FlN-MONY
FACTOR ALTEM4?IVESF
C:BA -- lVersion 1 Altematit-e A Al€>~nuitav B Alteroati-m C"
Rid-altgantent "61h Altpuww as is v ath anchor Bridge spauning slide
14*1ope rut ells black slope axea
stabilization
to liatser TWI ca:e EA =q not be EA. inclnittng and tecd
W>r 146
EA incltttiins Secti^ix 1 Od
?tcessai;?
Se -im I46 complinucewoul3 :outp:iiu,:t
be requ"d. PA could Handle
Spttit,Sti 1061StS8;i3 ih?

Lee CTc1e Co tae:;
TOTAL
talon 121 Los
Appendix B B-6

U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-2. CBA Graph

tE ll?
7€;C
LU
Q
0 4U
2E
3 .a;
24i
IC C
W
Figure B-2. BA C.
Blue Ridge f 41 tation
LIFE CYCLE COST(Net FY 2007 Dollars)
Appendix B B-7
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B B_g
U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkwa.
Wilkes County, North Carolina
REPAIR OF UNSTABLE ROADBED AT
MILEPOST 270.3
Environmental Assessment
February 2007
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway
Wilkes County, North Carolina
SUMMARY
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the repair of
approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3. This
project consists of the remediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent
instability since approximately the mid-1970's. The intent of this project is to develop corrective
measures that will either arrest the slide movement to stabilize the slope using a system of anchor blocks
or to stabilize the road bed by spanning the slide with a bridge. The project will alleviate continuing
safety concerns and maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway. The purpose of this
Environmental Assessment is to describe the affected environment and analyze potential impacts
associated with a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives.
The preferred alternative, which would construct an anchor block system to stabilize the slope, would
have no impact on air quality, floodplains, soundscape, archeological resources, ethnographic resources,
historic and prehistoric structures, museum collections, socioeconomic environment, prime and unique
farmlands, and environmental justice. Impacts to soils would be minor and adverse in the short-term and
negligible and adverse in the long-term. Impacts to water resources, including wetlands, would be minor
and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to vegetation would be minor and adverse in the short-term.
Impacts to wildlife would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to visitor use and experience
would be minor and adverse in the short-term. Impacts to cultural landscapes would be negligible and
adverse in the short-term. Impacts to human health and safety would be moderate and beneficial in the
long-term.
Note Regarding Public Comment
If you wish to comment on the Environmental Assessment, you may do so online (our preference) at the
National Park Service website "Planning, Environment, and Public Comment"
http://parkplannitig.nps.gov, or you may mail comments to: Blue Ridge Parkway, Attn: Suzette Molling,
Environmental Protection Specialist;; 199 Hemphill Knob Road; Asheville, North Carolina 28803.
This Environmental Assessment will be on public review for 30 days. Our practice is to make comments,
including names, home, addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available
for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home
addresses, etc., but if you wish to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comments. Commentators using the website can make such a request by checking
the box "keep my contact information private." Comments are typically treated as a public record and
made available for public review. Individuals may request that the National Park Service withhold their
name and address from disclosure. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.
Summary ii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Page
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. vi
Purpose and Need .......................................................................................:..............................................1
Purpose and Need for Action ..........................................................................................................1
Project Background ..............................:..........................................................................................1
Park Purpose and Significance ........................................................................................................4
Law, Regulations, and Policies .......................................................................................................5
Scoping ..............................................................................................................:...........................6
The Environmental Assessment ......................................................................................................6
Impact Topics .................................................................................................................................6
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment .............................................7
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration ......................................................8
Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................:...............................................10
Alternative A: No Action ..............................................................................................................10
Alternative B: Anchor Blocks .......................................................................................................1.1
Alternative C: Bridge with paved shoulders .................................................................................14
Alternative D: Bridge with grassy shoulders ................................................................................16
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................................16
Environmentally Preferred Alternative .........................................................................................18
Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................................................19
Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................................................................................22
Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................................26
Methodology ................................................... ..............................................................................26
General Impact Definitions ................ ..............................................................................26
Cumulative Impact Scenario .............. .............................................................................27
Impairment of Park Resources ........... ..............................................................................28
Soils and Geology ........................................... ..............................................................................29
Affected Environment ........................ ..............................................................................29
Methodology ....................:................. ..............................................................................30
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..............................................................................31
Impacts of Alternative B .................... .............................................................................31
Impacts of Alternative C .................... ..............................................................................32
Impacts of Alternative D .................... ..............................................................................33
Water Resources, Including Wetlands ............ ..............................................................................34
Affected Environment ........................ ..............................................................................34
Methodology ...................................... ..............................................................................3 5
Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..............................................................................36
Impacts of Alternative B .................... ...............:..............................................................37
Impacts of Alternative C .................... ..............................................................................38
Impacts of Alternative D .................... ..............................................................................39
Vegetation ....................................................... ..............................................................................41
Affected Environment ........................ ..............................................................................41
Table of Contents iii
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 41
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 42
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 43
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 44
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 44
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. 45
Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 45
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 46
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 47
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 48
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 49
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 50
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources ................................... 52
Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 52
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 52
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 53
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 54
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 55
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 57
Cultural Landscapes ...................................................................................................................... 58
Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 58
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 59
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 60
Impacts of Alternative B .................................................................................................. 60
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 61
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 61
Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................................. 62
Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 62
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 63
Impacts of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................. 63
Impacts of Alternative B .:................................................................................................ 64
Impacts of Alternative C .................................................................................................. 65
Impacts of Alternative D .................................................................................................. 65
Consultation and Coordination ..............................................................................................................66
Public Involvement .......................................................................................................................66
Preparers and Contributors ...........................................................................................................66
References Cited .......................................................................................................................................69
Appendices
Appendix A: Public Scoping and Agency Coordination ....................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Choosing by Advantage ....................................................................................................B-1
Table of Contents iv
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location .............................................. 2
2 Land Tract Number 39-147 ....................................................................................................... ...... 3
3 The No Action Alternative: current road condition at MP 270.3 .............................................. .... 11
4 Alternative B: example of anchor block system ........................................................................ .... 12
5 Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................. .... 15
6 Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge ................................................ .... 17
A-1 Scoping Letter ........................................................................................................................... .. A-3
A-2 Scoping Brochure ..................................................................................................................... .. A-5
A-3 News Release ............................................................................................................................ .. A-7
A-4 USFS Comment Letter .............................................................................................................. A-10
A-5 USFWS Comment Letter ..........................:............................................................................... A-11
A-6 NCDENR Comment Letter ....................................................................................................... A-16
A-7 Wilkes County Comment Letter ............................................................................................... A-22
B-1 CBA Chart ................................................................................................................................. .. B-4
B-2 CBA Graph ................................................................................................................................ .. B-7
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 22
2 Summary Comparison of Impacts ................................................................................................. 23
A-1 Persons Who Received the Scoping Letter ..................................................................................A-7
Table of Contents v
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BLRI Blue Ridge Parkway
BMP Best Management Practices
CBA Choosing by Advantages
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DSC Denver Service Center
DO NPS Director's Order
EA Environmental Assessment
EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division
FHWA Federal Highways Administration
FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FY Fiscal Year
MP Milepost
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHL National Historic Landmark
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
OL Overlook
ORW Outstanding Resource Waters
SERO Southeast Regional Office
T&E Threatened and Endangered
USC United States Code
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VA Value Analysis
Table of Contents vi
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
PURPOSE AND NEED
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The National Park Service (NPS) has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
repair of approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI or
Parkway). The site is approximately six miles north of US 421 and Deep Gap at Milepost (MP) 270.3,
Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina near West Jefferson (Figure 1). This project consists of the
remediation of an active fill embankment slide that has experienced frequent instability since
approximately the mid-1970's. This EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish
the repair solution for this unstable roadbed.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the most frequently visited National Park Service area with an annual
visitation of over 21 million visitors. The Parkway road inventory consists of over 525 lineal miles of
asphalt pavement loc-r:aed at elevations that in some areas exceed 5,000 feet above sea level. All road
areas are subject to extreme weather conditions, including freezing and thawing, which causes rockslides
and other surface failures. As the slide area that is the cause of the unstable road bed at MP 270.3
continues to move, the roadway embankment shifts, thus causing the roadbed to settle and to damage the
pavement surface. The two reasons the fill is moving are that the fill is placed on an existing steep rock
slope without proper benching of the rock slope, and that the existing rock slope is yielding subsurface
water at the interface of the fill and the rock slope, lubricating the fill material and causing the fill to
move at the interface of the existing rock slope and the fill. As water continues to penetrate the structural
foundation of the road base, deterioration is accelerated.
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is considered an extremely high priority. Efforts to repair the
road have been made intermittently for the past 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be
necessary to stabilize the section by using an anchor block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The intent of this project is to develop corrective measures that will either arrest the slide movement to
stabilize the slope or stabilize the road embankment, and will alleviate continuing safety concerns and
maintenance efforts on this portion of the Parkway.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The two lanes of pavement at this location are supported by a deep embankment fill placed during the
original Parkway construction. The site borders on a major hillside with more than 100-feet of relief
between the top and bottom of the embankment fill slope and has a slope angle of approximately 1.5
horizontal to 1.0 vertical.
The travel way is located on a relatively level bench near elevation 3,300 feet with the hillside continuing
upward starting about 50-feet west of the Parkway pavement. The top of the slide opens up approximately
20 feet west of the Parkway pavement. A steep downhill slope starts approximately 5-feet east of the
pavement and extends to well beyond the project limits. The bottom of the slide is reported to be
approximately 150 feet down the slope at an elevation approximately 80 to 90-feet lower than the
Parkway (NPS, 2005a). Based on the cracking observed on the pavement, it is estimated that the
horizontal length of the slide area is approximately 190-feet near the top at the roadway.
Purpose and Need
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure 1. Blue Ridge Parkway and vicinity map showing the project location.
A tract of land bordering the Parkway which was recently acquired expands the boundary in the location
of the slide at MP 270.3 from 350 feet to a total of approximately 750 feet to bordering private land. The
entire tract would expand the boundary much wider, but there is a "donut hole" of private land contained
within the newly acquired tract (Figure 2).
The roadbed movement at MP 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. A horizontal subsurface
drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove subsurface drainage
beneath fill soils, believed at the time to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has been
patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but movement
and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Eastern Federal Lands and Highway Division (EFLHD) personnel conducted an inspection of the
landslide in May 1997. At that time, of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 as part of the drainage
gallery, four were running water and three were dripping. Recommendations were given to seal the
pavement cracks and restore the Parkway grade by placing an asphaltic concrete patch. Further
recommendations were given to install piezometers to measure water levels and to drill into one of the
drainage shafts to determine if they were becoming clogged. EFLHD personnel installed piezometers in
July 1997. Drainage shafts have not been drilled.
Purpose and Need 2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
3545
v
'F!
/'0 t
(,684
f
" SEE LAND STATUS MAP 3
1 3 I t 5
i
a?
•
r, ,.:aa
i
Yips
r
f
r
ll
! 1f '
I t
?S
39r t44 1 39-147 -ti
"?F 3
Figure 2. Land Tract Number 39-147 recently transferred to Parkway ownership from the
Conservation Land Trust.
r
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. Both patched
areas are the full width of the roadway. The south and north patches are approximately 25 feet and 60 feet
long, respectively. Another patch, 6 feet wide by 56 feet long, extends south from the north patch. An
inspection of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average
of approximately two gallons of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of
trees along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean, geotechnical monitoring of the area indicates
continual slope movement, and catastrophic failure of the slope is considered highly possible.
Purpose and Need 3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Recent geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that water movement at the interface of bedrock and soil
is a critical contributing cause of roadway movement since it can reduce frictional resistance of the
embankment thus aiding in its instability. However, the weight of the material on the interface between
bedrock and soil exceeds the frictional resistance of that interface and is believed to be a major cause of
slide movement. If it were not for the existing rock slope yielding subsurface water at its interface with
the fill, it is likely that the fill would not be moving. As past attempts to arrest the movement have proven
to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
PARK PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
The legislated purpose of BLRI, under the Act of June 30, 1936, is to link Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee by way of a
recreation-oriented motor road intended for public use and enjoyment. Under the provisions of the
Organic Act approved by Congress on August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535) creating the National Park Service,
the intended purpose of the BLRI is to provide an elongated park to conserve, interpret, and exhibit the
unique natural and cultural resources of the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, as well as
provide for leisure motor travel through a variety of scenic environments.
The general interpretation of BLRI's purpose has been further refined into the following more specific
purpose statements:
• Connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks by way of a "national rural
parkway" - a recreational, destination-oriented motor road traveling through a variety of scenic ridge,
mountainside, and pastoral farm landscapes.
• Conserve the scenery and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Parkway's designed and
natural area to preserve the integrity of resources and to provide a quality visitor experience.
• Influence the protection of the scenic, natural and cultural resources within the corridor composed of
those lands that are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and/or situated adjacent to the boundary.
• Provide for public enjoyment and understanding of the natural resources and cultural heritage of the
central and southern Appalachian Mountains.
• Provide opportunities for high quality scenic and recreational experiences along the Blue Ridge
Parkway and within the corridor through which it passes.
The route of the Blue Ridge Parkway follows mountain and valley landscapes to link Shenandoah and
Great Smoky Mountains National Parks. Its location was selected to provide the best in a variety of
scenic, historic, and natural features that evoke the regional image of the central and southern
Appalachian Mountains. In order to maximize scenic views and give Blue Ridge Parkway visitors the
impression that they are in a park with boundaries to the horizon, the Blue Ridge Parkway was located in
mountainous terrain that normal roads would have avoided. The Blue Ridge Parkway was the first
national rural parkway and is widely recognized as an international example of landscape and engineering
design achievements with a roadway that lies easily on the land and blends into the existing scene. The
Blue Ridge Parkway also was the first national rural parkway to be conceived, designed, and constructed
as a leisure-type driving experience.
Purpose and Need 4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway. Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Blue Ridge Parkway follows the crests and ridges of the Blue Ridge, Black, Great Craggy, Great
Balsam and Plot Balsam Mountains. These five major mountain ranges are part of the central and
southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile Parkway encompasses several geographic and vegetative
zones, with altitudes ranging from approximately 650 feet at James River in Virginia to nearly 6,050 feet
at Richland Balsam in North Carolina. The Blue Ridge Parkway is known for spectacular mountain and
valley vistas, quiet pastoral scenes, sparkling waterfalls, colorful flowers and foliage displays, and
interpretation of mountain history and culture. Its varied topography and numerous vista points offer easy
public access to views of southern Appalachian rural. landscapes and forested mountains. Designed for
recreational driving, the Blue Ridge Parkway provides visitors with quiet, leisure travel, free from
commercial traffic and the congestion of high-speed highways. As its All-American Road status indicates,
it is one of the most diverse and high quality recreational driving experiences in the world.
The Blue Ridge Parkway is the highest and longest continuous route in the Appalachian area. Because of
its long length, proximity to large Eastern United States urban areas, numerous access points, quality
design and diversity of scenic, natural and cultural resources, the Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited
National Park Service area.
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
The following laws and associated. regulations provided guidance for the development of this EA, design
of the preferred alternative and alternatives, analysis of impacts, and creation of mitigation measures to be
implemented as part of the preferred alternative.
The NPS Organic Act (1916) and the General Authorities Act (1970) prohibit impairment of park
resources and values. The NPS 2001 Management Policies uses the terms "resources and values" to mean
the full spectrum of tangible and intangible attributes for which the park was established and is managed,
including the Organic Act's fundamental purpose and any additional purposes as stated in the park's
establishing legislation. The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed unless directly
and specifically provided by statute. The primary responsibility of the NPS is to ensure that park
resources and values will continue to exist in a condition that will allow the American people to have
present and future opportunities to enjoy them.
The evaluation of whether impacts of a preferred alternative would lead to an impairment of park
resources and values is included in this EA. Impairment is more likely when there are potential impacts to
a resource or value whose conservation is:
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park;
essential to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park;
or
• identified as a goal in the park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents.
NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS, 2000) addresses transportation systems, including park roads,
emphasizing that the NPS must find transportation solutions that preserve the natural and cultural
resources while providing a high-quality visitor experience.
Section 9.2 Transportation Systems "If a decision is made to construct, expand, or reconstruct a park
transportation system, the Service will address the need for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife corridor
crossings and other accommodations to avoid or mitigate harm to individual animals, the fragmentation of
plant and animal habitats, and the disruption of natural systems."
Purpose and Need 5
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Section 9.2.1.1 Park Roads "Park roads will be well constructed, sensitive to natural and cultural
resources, reflect the highest principles of park design, and enhance the visitor experience. Park roads are
generally not intended to provide fast and convenient transportation; rather, they are intended to enhance
the quality of a visit, while providing for safe and efficient travel, with minimal 106 or no impacts on
natural and cultural resources."
SCOPING
Scoping is an open process that determines the breadth of environmental issues and alternatives to be
addressed in an EA. Scoping involves obtaining internal and external input on project-related issues from
resource specialists and the public, respectively. The Park conducted internal scoping with appropriate
NPS (BLRI, SERO, and DSC) and FHWA staff and external scoping with the public, including interested
and affected groups or individuals and non-NPS agency personnel.
An interdisciplinary team comprising BLRI, SERO, DSC, and FHWA staff members contributed to the
internal scoping process. This process resulted in definition of the purpose and need, identification of
potential actions to address the need, and determination of what the likely issues and impact topics would
be.
For external scoping, a public scoping letter, a public scoping brochure, and a news release (see Figures
A-1 through A-3 in Appendix A) describing the project and requesting public input on the proposed
alternatives was issued to private parties and State, Federal, and local agencies on June 1, 2006.
Appendix A provides a list of individual and agencies/organizations that were sent the scoping letter
(Table A-1). The external scoping period ended on July 3, 2005. Comments received during the Scoping
period can be found in Figures A-4 to A-7 of Appendix A.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT'
This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from the
alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative. This EA has been prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1500 through 1508) for implementing NEPA, and the NPS NEPA compliance guidance handbook (DO-
12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making).
IMPACT TOPICS
Issues and concerns with this project are grouped into distinct impact topics to aid in analyzing
environmental consequences, which allows for a standardized comparison of alternatives based on the
most relevant information. The impact topics were identified on the basis of federal laws, regulations and
orders, NPS Management Policies 2001, and NPS knowledge of potentially affected resources. A brief
rationale for selecting or dismissing each topic is provided below.
Purpose and Need 6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental Assessment
Soils and Geology
Construction activities, such as excavation and the use of heavy equipment, would disturb soils and
potentially cause soil compaction and erosion in the project area. Soil grading and other construction
related activity could permanently change the character of the soil.
Water Resources, Including Wetlands
NPS Management Policies 2001 requires protection of water quality consistent with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to prohibit or regulate, through
a permitting process, the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters. Executive Order 11990,
Protection of Wetlands, NPS Management Policies 2001, Section 4.6.5, Wetlands, and NPS DO #77-1,
Wetland Protection, require an examination of impacts to and protection of wetlands. A small perennial
stream with adjoining wetlands occurs below the road at MP 270.3. Construction activities have the
potential to affect water quality and wetlands in the project area.
Vegetation
Vegetation along the roadside could be impacted both from clearing and from trampling during
construction. The spread of invasive plants may occur. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered plants in the vicinity of MP 270.3.
Wildlife, Including Threatened and Endangered Species
Clearing vegetation could potentially reduce or alter wildlife habitat. Construction activities could
temporarily displace wildlife from the immediate vicinity. There are no federally listed threatened or
endangered animals in the vicinity of MP 270.3. However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea) a
federal species of concern, and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.5 miles
of this site.
Visitor Use and Experience, Including Recreation and Visual Resources
Visitor use and experience could be affected through noise, aesthetic, and traffic-related effects during
construction. Visual resources would be affected by construction activities and after construction by
changes to the road configuration. Recreational opportunities could be affected by changes in traffic
patterns and conditions along the roadway.
Cultural Landscapes
Cultural landscapes are defined by the NPS as "a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural
resources and is often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use,
systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is
defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting
cultural values and traditions" (DO #28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, 1998). Although the
project area is not located in an historic district, the Parkway itself is considered historically significant
and is eligible for designation as a National Historic Landmark. This project could replace historic
features/elements in kind.
Human Health and Safety
Safety along the Parkway at MP 270.3 would improve with road repairs as the current safety hazards
would be eliminated.
Purpose and Need 7
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration
Air Ouality
Air quality could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however, impacts would be
temporary and minor in intensity. Overall, there could be a slight and temporary degradation of local air
quality due to dust generated by activities and emissions from construction equipment. These effects
would last only during construction activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to
limit dust generation and dispersal. To keep equipment emissions down, equipment would be properly
maintained. Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.
Floodplains
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires all Federal agencies to take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, and
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. The proposed project area is not
located near or in any floodplains; therefore this topic was dismissed from consideration.
Soundscape
In accordance with NPS Management Policies 2001, the Parkway strives to preserve the natural
soundscape. The soundscape could be impacted during the construction phase of the project; however,
impacts would be temporary and minor in intensity. The proposed action would not affect natural ambient
sound in the long-term. Therefore, soundscape was dismissed as an impact topic in this EA.
Archeological Resources
The National Park Service is required to, "preserve collections of prehistoric and historic material
remains, and associated records, recovered under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-
433), the Reservoir Salvage Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c), section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2), or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm)" (36 CFR
Part 79). These regulations, promulgated under the authority of the Secretary of Interior, apply to
findings made by historic preservation professionals that meet qualification standards for Federal
projects. As no archaeological sites are located in the project area, archaeological resources were
dismissed as an impact topic in the EA.
Ethnographic Resources
The National Park Service must be respectful of ethnographic resources, those cultural and natural
features that are of traditional significance to traditionally associated peoples. These are contemporary
peoples whose interest in the park began prior to its establishment (1936) and who have associated with
the park for more than two generations (40 years) (Management Policies 2001, Sec. 5.3.5.3). The
proposed project would not affect any ethnographic resources currently known to park staff, and thus will
not be discussed as an impact topic.
Historic and Prehistoric Structures
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended in 1992 (16 USC 470 et seq.); NEPA of
1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.); NPS DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, NPS Management
Policies 2001, and NPS DO #12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision
Making require the consideration of impacts on historic structures and buildings listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No structures, historic or prehistoric, are directly
involved in this project, and thus, this topic has been dismissed.
Purpose and Need 8
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Museum Collections
The NPS' Management Policies, 2001 and DO #28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline require
the consideration of impacts on museum collections (historic artifacts, natural specimens, and archival
and manuscript material). There are no museum objects that would be affected by this proposal, and thus
was dismissed as an impact topic.
Socioeconomic Environment
Construction activities associated with the action alternative would have short-term, negligible impacts on
the local economy due to short-term increases in employment opportunities and revenues for local
businesses and government during construction. A private construction contractor would be hired by the
FHWA to conduct construction activities. The construction contract would be administered by FHWA
with representation by the National Park Service, Denver Service. Center. Construction-related benefits to
the local economy through wages, overhead expenses, material costs, and profits would last only the
duration of construction, and would be minimal. Parkway closure and detour routes during construction
may have an adverse impact to local businesses. No long-term impacts on the local economy would
occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.
Prime and Unique Farmlands
In August 1980, the CEQ directed that Federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on
farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops,
such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops, such as
fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Since the project area does not meet the definition of farmland as stated in
Title 7, Chapter 73, Section 4201 (c)(1) of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), it is not applicable
to the FPPA. Therefore, the topic of prime and unique farmlands was dismissed as an impact topic in this
EA.
Environmental Justice
Presidential Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental
justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations
and communities. The proposed project would not have disproportionate health or environmental effects
on minorities or low-income populations or communities as defined in the US EPA's Draft
Environmental Justice Guidance (July 1996). Therefore, Environmental Justice was dismissed as an
impact topic in this EA.
Purpose and Need 9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives to the preferred alternative, and to briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating
any alternatives that were not considered in detail. This chapter describes a range of reasonable
alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, Preferred Alternative, two other action alternatives, and
an alternative that was considered and eliminated from further analysis.
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
The CBA process was conducted at the Holiday Inn Express in Boone, North Carolina July 26-28, 2005.
The details and outcome of the CBA process are described in Appendix B.
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, the unstable roadway at MP 270.3 would be left as is (Figure 3),
roadbed movement would continue due to the slow moving slide, and the road would not be substantially
repaired. However, this alternative would require continued cyclic maintenance to keep the road
operational. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require the assessment of the No Action Alternative in
NEPA documents. The No Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the management direction
and environmental consequences of the other action alternatives and must be considered in every EA.
Alternatives 10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ALTERNATIVE B - ANCHOR BLOCKS
(NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Under Alternative B, the area around the unstable roadbed would be retained with an anchor block
system. The active slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with tendons anchored to rock
beneath the slip plane. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway and
may include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill embankment and
pavement. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is S2.7M.
Anchor blocks would be completely buried and placed in a zone below the Parkway to the east between
30 and 200 feet from the road edge. The conceptual design for the anchor block system has not been
completed other than the representation of the area of disturbance (Figure 4). A conceptual description of
the anchor block system, subject to revision, follows. Placement could involve placing four or five rows
of evenly spaced concrete anchor blocks located one-third to one-half way up the slope from the toe of the
slide. There could be a total of eighty-eight to ninety-six 8'x8' or 10'x10' blocks. Each row could be
approximately 25 to 40 feet apart and the area of coverage could be 200 feet long by 150 feet deep. Each
row could likely have 20 to 24 anchor blocks. The anchor blocks would be placed in a wedge excavated
from the slope so that a leveled bench can be created. Once the anchor blocks are placed in rows in an
upright position with rock anchor cables in place, the slope wedges with the anchor blocks would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass. Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy
cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock outside of the slide zone.
Alternatives 11
Figure 3. The No Action Alternative: current road conditions at MP 270.3.
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Figure 4. Alternative B: example of anchor block system installed at other slide area sites with
similar geotechnical analysis.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain.
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary
in diameter, with most being V to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it
is believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping is meant to collect the water
from this plane of flow and redirect it to daylight on the face of the slope or into spring boxes then to the
face of the slope. The underdrain pipes that discharge in the spring boxes are directionally drilled towards
34 each 36 inch diameter vertical shafts which are backfilled with aggregate that aide in directing water
flow to the underdrain piping.
The existing under-drain piping system may need to be upgraded and/or replaced in the anchor block
system alternative because drainage relief is inadequate to prevent slide movement. An observed flow rate
from individual outlet pipes has been observed to be approximately 2 gallons per minute. The proposed
anchor blocks to be installed would likely damage or completely destroy the existing piping and outlet
distribution of the existing system of piping since the location of this piping is not known. If additional
subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the existing system. There
would only be piping installed to collect and redirect subsurface drainage at the fill slope slip plane
(between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system and there shall be no aggregate filled
trenches that feed the under drain piping, which is not considered geotechnically feasible. Additional
drainage piping may need to be installed on both the cut (Pkwy R) and fill slopes (Pkwy L) depending on
updated and final geotechnical analysis and design development of the anchor block system. If
geotechnical analysis can validate that the anchor block system can completely subside further slide
movement with repairs to the existing subsurface piping system alone, then the anchor block system
Alternatives 12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would be installed retaining the existing subsurface drainage pipe system, making repairs to pipe only
where necessary. However, every effort would be made to retain the integrity of the existing subsurface
drainage.
Subsurface drainage relief is considered an asset and facilities to capture surface drainage may be
included in detailed design of the anchor block system if deemed necessary and could contribute to the
future stability of the slope. However, it is not at this time considered a geotechnical necessity in the
anchor block system design. If the subsurface drainage system is extended, replaced, or repaired,
additional excavation or area disturbance would not be expanded.
The subsurface drainage system would continue to be evaluated with the design of the anchor block
system to ensure a sustainable geotechnical solution to stabilizing the slide from further movement. A
means of reducing the contributing causes for slide movement should provide the ideal geotechnical
engineering solution. The anchor block system would retain the slope embankment and the subsurface
drainage piping would redirect and reduce subsurface water flow at the plain of movement between the
embankment and bedrock. Additional geotechnical analysis would be necessary to demonstrate that the
anchor block system is in itself an adequate solution to stabilizing slide movement. Additional analysis
would determine any need to increase the amount of or otherwise make improvements to the existing
subsurface drainage piping system.
Surface drainage would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow, much as it is in most other
areas on the Parkway. For the anchor block system, culverts beneath the Parkway would channel run off
from natural drainage swales. The existing culvert system design (size, construction, material, and
placement) may be adequate, but replacing defective culvert may be necessary.
The roadway is to be reconstructed within the slide zone. The existing pavement is in disrepair due to
continued settling and movement of the slide. Additionally, the approaches to the reconstructed pavement
would be milled. Reconstruction would involve repaving the road surface with little disturbance to
roadway subgrade, although it would be subject to erosion for a short time. The asphalt would be
disposed of properly.
Because of the weight, anchor blocks would be staged and stored off the Parkway. The contractor would
stockpile the anchor blocks off of US 421 and transport the blocks to be used that day to the construction
site. When delivered to the site, the blocks would be placed along one lane of the Parkway ready for
installation.
Construction would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November l thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for '/2 -1 hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Single lane closure would be controlled with flagmen, lights, and signs.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. Native tree sprigs would be planted over the covered anchor blocks, between
the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Alternatives 13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Most waste material to be excavated would be clean fill dirt and rock. Some of this material could be
used to construct an access road to the site where anchor blocks would be placed. Other excavated
material could be used to cover anchor blocks. It is anticipated that there would be minimal to no
excavated waste that would need to be exported. Approximately 100 yards of topsoil material from an
offsite borrow pit may need to be imported, but some topsoil could likely be reserved for use from forest
clearing.
ALTERNATIVE C - BRIDGE WITH PAVED SHOULDERS
Under Alternative C a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to span the unstable slide area.
Installation of the bridge requires some slope excavation that would unload some of the unstable till
material when placing the bridge and obliterating the existing roadway. The 2008 cost estimate for this
alternative is S4.4M. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and
slope excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to deep bedrock and there
would be a traditional concrete deck.
The bridge would be placed in the same alignment and footprint as the existing road. Just as other bridges
on the Parkway, this bridge would be constructed completely within the straight section of the road
alignment between curves to the north and south. The proposed length of the bridge would not exceed
200 feet. Pavement reconstruction would involve removal and reconstruction of approximately 75 linear
feet of Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (or the entire depth including all courses of existing asphalt
pavement) and Compacted Aggregate Base (or the crushed stone material and gravel that are placed
beneath the asphalt surfacing) to both the north and south approaches of the bridge for a total of 150 feet.
Additionally, there would be milling and overlaying of approximately another 200 linear feet of area
outside the slide scarp.
Based on the available subsurface information from recent geotechnical survey tests (FHWA, 2005) and
the variability of the depth to the top of rock, a deep foundation consisting of drilled shafts would be
required for the support of a bridge at this location. The embedment depth of the shafts would vary
considerably parallel and perpendicular to the roadway centerline. Based on seismic results, the average
shaft length would exceed 60-ft to meet the load requirements. The excavation depth measured from the
existing ground along the Parkway centerline to the grade beneath the proposed structure would be
approximately 20 feet for a length of approximately 100 feet centered in the middle of the 200 foot bridge
span.
The bridge would be a single-span structure containing abutments with pile foundations (Figure 5). The
abutments would be designed to withstand lateral loads since they would be located 5 feet outside of the
slide area. The abutments would be designed to reach bedrock, which is on average 60 feet below finish
grade of the Parkway in the locations where they would be installed. Additional geotechnical analysis
would be required for final cast in place abutment and pile foundation at the bridge abutments design.
The concrete or steel girders would have an open design with no boxed in area beneath for road or stream
clearance; ground clearance would be 10-14 feet maximum. The bridge would also have class B masonry
granite parapet walls.
Subsurface drain piping has been installed in the past that remains in place today, with the intent to drain
off some of this subsurface water from beneath the Parkway. There is no reason the existing drainage
system would not continue to work with the bridge. The current under-drainage PVC pipes vary in
diameter, with most being 1" to 2", and are placed over bedrock and beneath the fill soil layer where it is
believed most of the subterranean water flow is. This system of piping intercepts gravel column drains
Alternatives 14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
and are placed at each one of the horizontal drain installations. They are meant to collect the water from
the plane of flow and direct it to the toe of the slope.
This bridge alternative would likely have little affect on this system and is less dependent on its existence
than the anchor block alternative since spanning the slide area negates the need for the function it
provides. If additional subsurface drainage piping is to be included it would be of a design similar to the
existing system. There would only be piping installed to collect and direct subsurface drainage at the fill
slope slip plane (between fill and competent rock) as does the existing piping system.
The proposed bridge would be a single span bridge between supporting abutment piers placed at either
end. In contrast to the above photograph, the proposed structure would be single-span with no mid-span
supports. It would have steel support girders rather than precast concrete girders as is shown here, cast in
place concrete abutments, and similar ground clearance. The class B masonry granite parapet wall
construction is similar to the proposed bridge. The parapet walls form the shoulder and guardwall
protection all the way across the bridge span.
The bridge would be open allowing sheet flow to continue to flow naturally under the bridge. Any
concentrated flows would need to be collected and transported down the slope through swales or pipes.
There would be drainage scuppers or ports placed beneath the parapet wall so that sheet drainage on the
bridge deck can drain through. Pipes would be installed beneath the roadway approaches to the bridge.
Surface drainage could flow naturally beneath the bridge or through culverts.
Alternatives 15
Figure 5. Alternative C: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge.
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkvrav Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one year, and possibly
two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The contractor would be able to stage
construction materials from the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook (OL). The overlook pavement and
stone curb, along with the Parkway pavement between the overlook and the slide, would be reconstructed
as part of this project due to likely damage during construction.
It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Little to no forest area would
be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create
ground clearance for the bridge. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and rock material would be
exported and disposed of off site. Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be
salvaged from the site would be imported from an outside source, mixed with grass seed, and placed
along the road shoulder approaches on either side of the bridge. Any grassed or forested area cleared of
vegetation would be seeded to fescue grasses as per the Parkway standard.
This bridge in this alternative would not stop the continuing movement of the slide; it only isolates the
roadway from the slide. There would be minor benefits of relieving mass by excavation and removal of
embankment necessary to construct the bridge. The pile foundation of the abutment would support the
structure on underlying bedrock and relieve the loads borne by the slope. The major benefit of the bridge
is to span and minimally stabilize the slope.
ALTERNATIVE D - BRIDGE WITH GRASS SHOULDERS
Under Alternative D a bridge would be constructed to span the unstable slide area similar to the bridge
described in Alternative C but with grassy shoulders. The 2008 cost estimate for this alternative is
S5.OM. The cost for this option includes bridge construction, roadway approach work, and slope
excavation below the bridge. The bridge would be built on long piles due to the deep bedrock. The cost
also includes a bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway across the bridge.
This requires an additional steel beam to support the additional weight.
The bridge would be constructed with grassed shoulders (Figure 6), class B masonry guardwalls, and
concrete abutments that could support lateral slope movement and would be supported for 200 feet by
steel girders. Timing of construction, road closures, area of disturbance and all other aspects other than
bridge shoulders would be the same as the description in Alternative C.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives, and briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating any alternatives that were not
considered in detail. This section describes four alternatives that were considered and eliminated from
further study. The rationale for elimination is given below.
Road Realignment
This concept would realign the roadway outside of the failure scarp, removing some of the material from
the slide by obliterating the existing road. Realignment would move the road into the ridge to the north
and a soldier pile wall socketed into rock would be installed. Excavation of slopes would be required for
realigning the road. This realignment would be feasible only if steep rock cuts could be achieved with
realignment of the Parkway into the ridge. In addition, the realignment alternative would further only be
feasible if the depth to rock under the fill embankment was reasonable, which would require a limited
length for the soldier piles.
Alternatives 16
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Geotechnical survey test results (FHWA, 2005) indicate that competent rock is located at an approximate
depth of 56-ft to 76-ft below the ground surface at the locations of the cut slopes that would result from
realigning the Parkway into the ridge to the north. The preferred steep rock cuts would not be realized at
these cut slope locations. Realignment of the road towards the uphill side of the Parkway would require
extensive stabilization along the downhill side consisting of retaining walls with an anchoring structure
because of the depth to competent rock. A soldier pile wall at this location would require a ground
anchoring system in addition to extending 5 feet, as a minimum, into competent rock. Based on the
subsurface boring and geophysical testing results at the slide location, a cantilevered soldier pile wall
would not have the capacity to withstand the lateral forces without an anchoring system.
Figure 6. Alternative D: example of a bridge similar to proposed bridge. The proposed bridge would
look most like this bridge along the roadway with class B masonry parapet walls and guardwall
approaches. The bridge in the photo has grassed shoulders over the bridge span and along the guardwall
approaches. The proposed bridge would have class B masonry parapet and guardwall approaches with
grassy shoulders that would be continuous.
Alternatives 17
This alternative was dismissed due to the geotcchnical test results that indicate such a proposal is not
practical, as well as cost (S6.4 M in 2008 dollars).
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Embankment Excavation
This concept would excavate the embankment to near bedrock level, and reconstruct with benches and
gravel drainage layers. This approach alleviates the buildup of pore pressures in the embankment and
improves soil conditions along the existing slip surface. This proposal may extend beyond the NPS right-
of-way boundaries. It was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because the treatment of
slope grading would appear very unnatural requiring massive vegetation removal and the appearance of
angular sculpted slopes never before used to such as extent on the Parkway.
Rock Buttresses
This concept would construct rock buttresses near the toe of the slide to provide stability. This alternative
was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and as rock buttresses would require significant
excavation and tree clearing for installation. Additionally, their limits may extend beyond the present NPS
right-of-way. This option might be considered a new design element in the cultural landscape if
implemented on the cut slope of the Parkway, although such structures have been used on the fill slopes
of the Parkway in other locations.
Retaining Walls
This concept would construct retaining walls either near the roadway or part way down the slope to
provide stability. Retaining walls would need to be massive due to the anticipated depth to rock (30 to 60-
feet) and would need to be constructed along several levels. It is likely that micropyles or soil nail walls
drilled and grouted into bedrock, or some other anchorage system, would be necessary to provide lateral
resistance for the wall. This option was dismissed after completing the Value Analysis and because slope
clearing would be massive on both cut and fill slopes. The use of retaining walls on the cut slope side of
the Parkway is an option not used on the Parkway in any other location to date. Geotechnical studies and
calculations would determine the final feasibility of this option.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
In accordance with DO-12, the NPS is required to identify the "environmentally preferred alternative" in
all environmental documents, including EAs. The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by
applying the criteria suggested in NEPA, which is guided by the CEQ. As stated in Section 2.7 (D) of the
NPS DO-12 Handbook, "The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best
promote the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Section 101(b))." This environmental
policy is stated in six goal statements, which include:
1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health
and safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;
4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of
depletable resources (NEPA, 42 USC 4321-4347).
Alternatives 18
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In sum, the environmentally-preferred alternative is the alternative that, not only results in the least
damage to the biological and physical environment, but also that best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources.
As evaluated against the CEQ regulations, Alternative B is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.
The No Action Alternative represents the current situation of an unstable roadbed, has high potential for
catastrophic failure, and is a traffic safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued
settlement. This alternative would not uphold the NPS mandate to administer and protect the Park for the
enjoyment of natural, cultural, and scientific resources in a manner that leaves these resources
unimpaired, while maintaining the Parkway as a safe road.
The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is Alternative B because it surpasses the No Action
Alternative and the other action alternatives in realizing the full range of national environmental policy
goals as stated in § 101 of NEPA. Alternative B would stabilize the moving slope with an anchor block
system and effectively eliminate the public safety issues associated with the area. The estimated area of
disturbance would be greater under Alternative B than Alternatives C and D (0.78 vs. 0.33 acres);
however, a difference of less than half an acre would not be considered biologically significant for this
area. Additionally, slide movement after implementation of Alternative B is very low, thus no additional
natural resources would be impacted, while slide movement would still be possible after implementation
of Alternatives C and D, thus disturbing additional forested areas. More potentially significant is the
possible disturbance of the cerulean warbler during two breeding seasons under Alternatives C and D,
compared to possibly only one breeding season under Alternative B. Alternative B would also have the
least visual impact on the cultural landscape as the road would not be altered and the forest would
eventually return to similar current conditions. Finally, risk factors under Alternative B (very low for
both slope and Parkway) would be more favorable than under the No Action (high for both slope and
Parkway) and Alternatives C and D (low for slope, and very low for Parkway).
In conclusion, Alternative B provides the highest level of protection of natural and cultural resources
while supporting the transportation requirements of the Parkway.
MITIGATION MEASURES
For all action alternatives, best management practices and mitigation measures would be used to prevent
or minimize potential adverse effects associated with road repairs at MP 270.3. These practices and
measures would be incorporated to reduce the magnitude of impacts and ensure that major adverse
impacts would not occur. Mitigation measures undertaken during project implementation would include,
but would not be limited to, those listed below. The impact analysis in the "Environmental
Consequences" section was performed assuming that these best management practices and mitigation
measures would be implemented as part of all action alternatives.
Soils, Vegetation, and Wildlife
• Limiting the area of disturbance. For example, heavy construction equipment would be kept on the
road surface to the extent possible (i.e., when performing excavation adjacent to the roadway).
• Construction areas would be identified by and fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some
similar material prior to any construction activity. The fencing would define the construction zone
and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. All protection measures would be
clearly stated in the construction specifications, and workers would be instructed to avoid
Alternatives 19
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
construction activities beyond the construction zone, as delineated by the construction zone fencing.
Construction materials would be stored in previously disturbed areas.
• Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent soil erosion due to
wind and rain. The erosion prevention practices would include using silt screening around any
disturbed areas, mulching all exposed slopes, placing staked hay bales in drainages, and sprinkling
exposed soil to prevent wind erosion. Upon completion of the construction project, all disturbed soils
would be revegetated to prevent erosion.
• If erosion matting/netting is required, a biodegradable type with mesh that is small enough (1/2" or
less) to not entangle snakes and other animals shall be used.
• Removing and stockpiling topsoil for reapplication to disturbed areas when construction is complete.
• Restoring disturbed areas to natural contours to the extent possible to reduce the potential for erosion
and revegetating with native species from genetic stocks originating in the Park, or from plants
previously removed from the construction area whenever possible. Revegetation efforts would be
designed to reconstruct the natural spacing, abundance, and diversity of native plant species.
• Subsequent to project completion, Park staff would monitor and require removal of any invasive
species observed.
• Mitigation for the minor loss of habitat would include the use of native plants in revegetation and
removing the nuisance exotic vegetation in the remaining habitat.
• Obtaining gravel and fill for construction or maintenance from certified noxious weed-free sources.
Gravel pits and fill sources would be inspected to identify weed-free sources. There would be no
quarrying of construction materials from inside the park.
• To the extent possible, construction activities would be timed to avoid sensitive wildlife periods, such
as breeding season.
• Construction vehicles could leak fluids into the soil, introduce noise pollution, and emit pollutants to
the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, equipment would be checked frequently to identify and
repair any leaks, mufflers would be checked for proper operation, and only equipment that is within
proper operating specifications would be used.
• Providing fuel and oil services for construction machinery in a designated area away from channels or
drainages. This would include secondary containment for all fuel storage tanks and on-site
availability of a specialized "spill kit" with capacity to contain a 95 gallon fuel spill.
• Construction activities could introduce dust to the atmosphere. To minimize this possibility, best
management practices for dust control, such as covering piles of excavated material with fabric and
using water to limit dust during excavation activities, would be used.
• All debris would be removed from the park for legal and proper disposal.
Alternatives 20
LJ.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Visitor Use and Experience and Human Health and Safety
• Providing signs to warn travelers about road construction and traffic delays; the use of alternative
routes and destinations may be encouraged.
• Using well-tuned construction equipment with properly operating snufflers and performing work
during low visitation periods.
• During construction activities, traffic flows and safety would be maintained by keeping construction
equipment as far off the road as possible and by providing flag bearers to assist traffic negotiating
through construction areas:
• Minimizing adverse impacts to visitor use and experience of the natural landscape. These measures
could include the use of rock facing on bridge abutments, and the use of coloring on constructed
elements to blend their appearance with the surrounding landscape.
• Monitoring the slide area for movement during construction and reacting to any unexpected
movements.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation measures for the cultural landscape would include minimal disruption and disturbance of local
vegetation, dust abatement, and re-planting and re-landscaping any areas affected by construction
activities.
If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the
immediate vicinity (600 feet) of the discovery shall be halted until the resources are identified and
documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed, if necessary, in accordance with pertinent
laws and regulations, including the stipulations of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement Among the
National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
Alternatives 21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 1 compares actions and attributes associated with the alternatives.
Table 1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
No Action Anchor Blocks
(Preferred
Alternative Bridge with paved
shoulders Bridge with grass
shoulders
Total Cost * $2.7M $4.4M $5.OM
Area of Disturbance N/A 0.78 0.33 0.33
# of lanes closed none 1 all all
Tourist seasons none 1 2 2
Slide addressed no es partly partly
Road affected by
continued movement yes yes no no
Visual impact no Tree loss Bridge appearance Bridge appearance
Revegetation none Tree sprigs and grass
seed Grass seed Grass seed
Risk factors High slope / high
Parkway very low slope / very
low Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway low slope / very low
Parkway
*The no-action alternative is likely to have the highest cost level since it would require continued cyclic
maintenance at considerable cost that would only increase with time.
Table 2 compares the potential environmental impacts resulting from the alternatives. Potential impacts
are provided according to environmental resource topic. The Environmental Consequences section of this
EA contains a detailed discussion of these potential impacts by resource topic.
Alternatives . 22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Table 2. Summary Comparison of Impacts
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Soils and Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Geology term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts to adverse impacts to adverse impacts to
impacts to soils soils from soils from soils from
and geology from compaction, compaction, compaction,
continued erosion erosion, and erosion, and erosion, and
and continued removal during removal during removal during
cyclic construction construction construction
maintenance. activities, and activities. activities.
negligible, long- Negligible, long- Negligible, long-
term, localized term, localized term, localized
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
impacts on impacts on impacts on
geology from geology from geology from
drilling of drilling of drilling of
bedrock. bedrock. bedrock.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils impacts on soils
and Bolo . and eolo . and eolo . and eolo .
Water Negligible, long- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
Resources term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to water water resources water resources water resources
resources from from possible from possible from possible
continued erosion sedimentation and sedimentation and sedimentation and
and sedimentation contamination contamination contamination
due to slide during during during
movement. construction construction construction
activities. activities. activities.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water impacts on water
resources. resources. resources. resources.
Vegetation Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term, Minor, short-term,
term, localized, localized, direct localized, direct localized, direct
direct adverse adverse impacts on adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
impacts to the vegetation from vegetation from vegetation from
vegetation due to trampling and trampling and trampling and
continued cyclic clearing during clearing during clearing during
maintenance of the construction construction construction
road. activities. activities. activities.
Alternatives 23
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A: Alterative B: Alternative C: Alternative D:
No Action Anchor Blocks Bridge w/ Paved Bridge w/Grass
Preferred Alt. Shoulders Shoulders
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
vegetation. vegetation. vegetation. vegetation.
Wildlife Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Minor to Minor to
term, localized, localized, direct moderate, short- moderate, short-
direct adverse adverse impacts on term, localized, term, localized,
impacts on wildlife and direct adverse direct adverse
wildlife and habitat from impacts on impacts on
habitat from disturbance during wildlife and wildlife and
disturbance during construction habitat from habitat from
continued cyclic activities. disturbance during disturbance during
maintenance. construction construction
activities, with activities, with
Negligible adverse Minor adverse possible impacts possible impacts
cumulative cumulative on cerulean on cerulean
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife. warblers for more warblers for more
than one breeding than one breeding
season. season.
Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative
impacts to wildlife. impacts to wildlife.
Visitor Use Negligible, short- Minor, short-term, Moderate, short- Moderate, short-
and term, direct, direct adverse term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts on impacts on visitor adverse impacts on adverse impacts on
Experience visitor use and use and experience visitor use and visitor use and
experience due to from noise, experience from experience from
inconvenience changes in visual road closure road closure
during continuing resources, and during during
cyclic maintenance inconvenience construction for up construction for up
of deteriorating during to two peak tourist to two peak tourist
road conditions. construction. seasons and seasons and
negligible, long- negligible, long-
term, direct term, direct
adverse impacts adverse impacts
due to visual due to visual
changes in road changes in road
configuration. configuration.
Negligible adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor impacts on visitor
use and use and use and use and
experience. experience. experience. experience.
Alternatives 24
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impact Topic Alternative A:
No Action Alterative B:
Anchor Blocks
(Preferred Alt. Alternative C:
Bridge w/ Paved
Shoulders Alternative D:
Bridge w/Grass
Shoulders
Cultural No impacts on the Negligible, short- Negligible, short- Negligible, short-
Landscapes cultural landscape. term, localized, term, localized, term, localized,
direct adverse direct adverse direct adverse
effects on the effects on the effects on the
cultural landscape cultural landscape cultural landscape
from vegetation from vegetation from vegetation
removal and removal and removal and
construction construction construction
grading. grading and minor, grading and minor,
long-term, long-term,
localized, direct localized, direct
adverse effects adverse effects
from changing a from changing a
section of road section of road
into a bridge. into a bridge.
Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse
No cumulative cumulative cumulative cumulative
impacts on impacts on impacts on impacts on
cultural cultural cultural cultural
landscapes. landscapes. landscapes. landscapes.
Human Moderate, long- Moderate, long- Minor to Minor to
Health and term, adverse, term, beneficial, moderate, long- moderate, long-

Safety direct impacts on
h
h direct impacts on term, beneficial, term, beneficial,
uman
ealth and human health and direct impacts on direct impacts on
safety as road safety due to the human health and human health and
hazards would stabilization of the safety due to the safety due to the
continue to exist moving slope and stabilization of the stabilization of the
roadway. roadway. roadway.
Moderate adverse
cumulative Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial .
impacts on human cumulative cumulative cumulative
health and safety. impacts to human impacts to human impacts to human
health and safety. , health and safety. , health and sa et j.
Alternatives 25
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the affected environment and environmental consequences associated with the
alternatives. It is organized by impact topic, which distills the issues and concerns into distinct topics for
discussion analysis. These topics focus on the presentation of the affected environment and environmental
consequences and allow a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant topics.
METHODOLOGY
NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity, and duration of impacts, direct or indirect impacts,
cumulative impacts, and measures to mitigate for impacts. NPS policy also requires that "impairment" of
resources be evaluated in all environmental documents.
Overall, the NPS based the following impact analyses and conclusions on the review of existing literature
and Blue Ridge Parkway studies, information provided by experts within the NPS and other agencies,
professional judgments and park staff insights, and public input.
General Impact Definitions
Potential impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse), context, duration, intensity, and
impairment. The following general definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, and
cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives. Impairment is discussed below. The
specific criteria used to rate the intensity and duration of potential impacts for each resource topic are
presented within each resource area impact analysis in this chapter.
Context of Impact
Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as local, park-wide, or regional. CEQ
requires that impact analysis include discussions of context. Localized impacts are those that affect the
resource area only on the project site or its immediate surroundings, and would not extend park-wide or
into the region.
Intensity of Impact
Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely affected by an
action. Impact intensities are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. Resource-specific
criteria used to rate the intensity of project impacts are presented within each resource area impact
analysis.
Duration of Impact
The duration of impact is analyzed independently for each resource because impact duration is dependent on
the resource being analyzed. Depending on the resource, impacts may last as long as construction takes
place, or a single year or growing season, or longer. For purposes of analysis, impact duration is measured
in short-term and long-term. Resource-specific criteria used to rate the anticipated duration of resource
impacts are presented within each resource area impact analysis.
Environmental Consequences 26
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Direct verses Indirect Impacts
Direct effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as the
action. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or farther in
distance than the action, but still reasonably foreseeable. An indirect impact could occur because of a
change to another resource or impact topic.
Cumulative Impact Scenario
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making
process for Federal projects. A cumulative impact is an impact on the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal), organization, or person undertakes such
other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions
taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives and are presented at the end of each impact topic
discussion analysis. To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects in the vicinity of the proposed
project site were identified. Potential projects identified as cumulative actions included any planning or
development activity that was currently being implemented or that would be implemented in the
reasonably foreseeable future.
These cumulative actions are evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis in conjunction with the impacts
of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on natural resources, cultural
resources, or visitor use. Because some of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, the
evaluation of cumulative effects was based on a general description of the project. Known past, current,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions in the vicinity of the project area are described
below.
Repair/Resurface Deteriorated Road Section 2D. MP 248-261
This project consists of milling and resurfacing and rehabilitating approximately 13.3 miles of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, Section 2D, from Milepost 247.9 (ramp on State Route 18) to MP 261.2 (at SR 16).
Milling and resurfacing, and rehabilitating appurtenant overlooks, parking areas, developed areas, spurs
and access roads are also included. There are three parking and overlooks along this section. The project
includes pavement removal, milling, pavement patching, asphalt paving, shoulder stabilization, stone curb
removal and replacement, concrete curb removal, drainage work, guardrail replacement and
miscellaneous work. Drainage work consists of inspecting and evaluating culverts, inlets and ditches for
the need for reconditioning or replacement. Safety design and recommendations for safety improvements
will be considered as necessary. Replacement of existing or providing new provisions for handicapped
accessibility according to current ADA guidelines will also be required. This is a FY 2009-2010 project
and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour.
Repair/Resurface Road Section 2H&J, MP 299.4-317.5 (21-113,J10
The project limits extend between MP 299.0 at Cold Prong Pond Overlook and MP 317.5 at US 221 at the
end of Section 2J and beginning of Section 2K. This project would provide pavement patching in areas of
subgrade distress or where pavement is severely deteriorated; mill and overlay or overlay entire Parkway
within project limits; clean and overlay all asphalt ditches not requiring reconstruction; repoint and/or
reset stone in rubble ditches requiring rehabilitation; and regrade all shoulders with aggregate-topsoil to
within '/a inch of edge of pavement final grade. The Parkway would be analyzed for safety
improvements, including locations requiring placement of guardrail, signs, provide breakaway sign
Environmental Consequences 27
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
supports as ' required and replacement of old or damaged sign panels not meeting current MUTCD
standards for size, legend, color or retro-reflectivity. Pavement markings would be restriped, evaluated
and corrected for sight distance and passing zone. Concrete bridge decks would have all cracks sealed.
There are no road closures anticipated for this project. This is a FY 2010-2011 project that should not
overlap the MP 270.3 project time schedule.
Repair Goshen Creek Bridge, MP 286.3 QF22)
This project consists of rehabilitation of the Goshen Creek Bridge. This bridge is located in North
Carolina approximately 5 miles north of the intersection with US 321 at Milepost 286.29 and carries the
Parkway over North Carolina State Route (SR) 1514 and Goshen Creek. The project proposed to replace
he deck and possibly the bridge railings with rehabilitation to the other elements of the bridge. The
general work items of this project include: repairing various cracking in the concrete bridge supports,
abutments, and wing walls; cleaning and re-pointing the stone masonry joints; cleaning and repairing the
stone approach walls north and south of the bridge; removing the existing bridge overlay and installing a
new wearing course; rehabilitating the asphalt pavement at the bridge approaches; and other
miscellaneous repairs and improvements. This is a 2007 project that would likely require road closure 16
miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. U.S. Highway 321/221 in
Boone NC, to U.S. Highway 421 in Deep Gap would. be a likely detour around the bridge. If the MP
270.3 project requires a detour then the above detour could be extended along U.S. Highway 221 at Deep
Gap to S.R. 163 where it would reconnect with the Parkway at MP 261 near Jumping Off Rocks OL.
Another potential detour route would be U.S. Highway 421 at Deep Gap to S.R. 16 also connecting to the
Parkway at MP 261.
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate at MP 294
The Moses H. Cone Memorial Park is located on the north side of the town of Blowing Rock in Watauga
County, North Carolina, and lies between mileposts 292 and 295 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. It is a ,
designed historic landscape 3,516 acres in extent, administered by the Blue Ridge Parkway, including 20
room manor house with three constructed lakes, hundreds of acres of apple orchards, pastures, a deer park
and an extensive carriage road system. A Memorial Park Developed Area Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment to address current resource and visitor use issues is currently being prepared.
Project planning objectives include 1) developing natural and cultural resource management strategies; 2)
defining the diverse range of resource-based visitor experience opportunities; 3) analyzing potential
visitor services (carriage rides, horseback riding, art and craft sales, interpretive exhibits, personnel
services, etc.) to identify potential visitor demands and needs; and 4) determining compatible. uses,
identifying appropriate locations for new facilities, and defining interpretation programs and services to
be provided.
Impairment of Park Resources
In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and other alternatives,
the NPS Management Policies 2001 and DO-12 require analysis of potential effects to determine if
Actions would impair a park's resources.
The fundamental purpose of the National Park System, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by
the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values.
NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest degree practicable adverse
impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give NPS management discretion to allow
impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as
long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although
Congress has given NPS management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is
Environmental Consequences 28
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
limited by statutory requirement that the NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a
particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that,
in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources
or values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or
values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. However, an impact
would more likely constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation
is:
• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation.
of the park;
• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the
park; or
• Identified as a goal in the park's Master Plan or General Management Plan (GMP) or other
relevant NPS planning documents.
Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities
undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park.' In this section, a
determination on impairment is made in the conclusion statement of each resource area for each
alternative. The NPS does not analyze the potential for impairment of recreational values/visitor
experience (unless impacts are resource based), socioeconomic values, or park operations.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
Affected Environment
Based on review of plans and previous investigations, the landslide at MP 270.3 is through a large hillside
fill. The fill is in a natural landslide area with colluviums (landslide debris) deposits overlying residual
soils and ultimately bedrock. The colluviums consist of boulders with sand and silt, and the residual soils
consist of micaceous silty sands and sandy silts formed by in-place weathering of the parent mica gneiss
and schist bedrock. Geophysical survey test results performed along the proposed fill wall alignment and
cut walls alignment indicates that depth to competent rock varies between 56-ft and 76-ft (FHWA, 2005).
It has not yet been determined how far down slope from the Parkway the toe of movement or drainage
release actually is.
Wilkes County soils in the vicinity of the project site are characterized as the Evard-Cowee-Chestnut
complex. To the south side of the Parkway (downhill), the soils series that may occur are Chestnut,
Edneyville, and Ashe. To the north side of the Parkway (uphill), the Cowee and Saluda series may occur
(MRCS, no date).
The Chestnut series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges
and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly loam soil formed in residuum that is affected by soil
creep in the upper part, and weathered from felsic or mafic igneous or high-grade metamorphic rocks
such as granite, hornblende gneiss, granodiorite, biotite gneiss, and high-grade metagraywacke. It has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact. Most of the
soil is in forest.
Environmental Consequences 29
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The Edneyville series consists of very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This fine sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut series soil. It also has
moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is very low on gentle slopes, low on strong or moderately
steep slopes, and medium on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact.
The Ashe series consists of moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on gently sloping to
very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This sandy loam was formed as was the Chestnut
series soil. It also has moderately rapid permeability. Runoff is similar to the Chestnut series and is
much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Cowee series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and
side slopes of the Blue Ridge. This gravelly sandy loam formed in residuum affected by soil creep in the
upper part, and weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Runoff class
is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff
is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.
The Saluda series consists of shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in weathered
granite, gneiss, or schist. This sandy loam allows for rapid surface runoff. Most areas are forested.
Methodology
Information on soils was based on recent geophysical testing conducted within the project area, NRCS
soils surveys, and on previous projects conducted within the same area. The impact analysis examines the
potential changes to soils that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Negligible: Soils would not be affected or the effects on soils would be below or at the lower levels of
detection. Any effects to soils would be slight and would return to normal shortly after completion of
project activities.
Minor: The effects on soils would be detectable, but effects on soil productivity, fertility, or area would
be small. Mitigation may be needed to offset adverse effects and would be relatively simple to implement
and likely be successful.
Moderate: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and result in a change to the soil character over a
relatively wide area. Mitigation measures would be necessary to offset adverse effects and likely be
successful.
Major: The effect on soil would be readily apparent and substantially change the character of the soils
over a large area in and out of the Park. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed,
extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on soils are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in less than three years.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Environmental Consequences 30
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no new impacts on soils or geology as there would not be any new
actions. There would be no construction and, therefore, no need for earthwork activities, such as filling,
grading, or excavation. No new causes for erosion would occur and there would not be any loss of soil
fertility. However, the slide would continue to move slowly over the long-term, with possible continuing
negative effects on soils, such as erosion. Continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could
cause soil compaction or erosion along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Although no new construction would occur under the No Action
Alternative, there would be negligible, adverse cumulative effects on soils and geology as a result of
continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils and geology
from continued erosion and continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would entail disturbing soils temporarily during installation of anchor blocks. The site
preparation would require grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was
previously disturbed consisting of roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway.
Some previously undisturbed soils may be disturbed toward the bottom of the slide by compaction from
heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. As the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Anchor blocks would be stabilized by a heavy cable that would be drilled down and into competent rock,
thus impacting the bedrock. Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the
small area of the project site and would be buried.
Environmental Consequences 31
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would be alteration of soil function from construction activities. If any natural soil horizons exist,
they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the structure and
function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased runoff and
erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or minimize
soil erosion due to wind and rain.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional soil impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through 2011. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of the
Parkway, along with numerous other past and future road work projects, implementation of Alternative B
would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities. Alternative B would likely result in
long-term, negligible, localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because
there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to
fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a
goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the
Park's resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative C would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled into bedrock would be required for the support of a bridge,
with the average shaft length exceeding 60 feet to meet the load requirements. Holes drilled into bedrock
would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
Environmental Consequences 32
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. Ali disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, implementation of
Alternative C would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative C would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative C would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative D would entail disturbing soils during bridge construction. The site preparation would require
grading, excavation, and filling, but this would occur in soil that was previously disturbed consisting of
roadbase material placed during the construction of the Parkway. Some previously undisturbed soils may
be disturbed by compaction from heavy equipment, soil removal, or soil erosion. It is estimated that a
total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed. Approximately 250 yards of excavated soil and
rock material would be exported and disposed of off site. As the bridge would be placed in the same
alignment and footprint as the existing road and as the majority of disturbance would occur in previously
disturbed areas, adverse soil impacts would be minimized.
Approximately 30 yards of topsoil beyond the material that can be salvaged from the site would be
imported from an outside source for the grassy shoulders. A deep foundation consisting of shafts drilled
into bedrock would be required for the support of the bridge, with the average shaft length exceeding 60
feet to meet the load requirements. A bridge deck that continues the grassy shoulder and asphalt roadway
across the bridge requires an additional steel beam drilled into bedrock to support the additional weight.
Holes drilled into bedrock would be permanent but would be located in the small area of the project site.
Environmental Consequences 33
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
In addition to the complete removal of 250 yards of excavated soils, there would be alteration of soil
function from construction activities to remaining soils that are impacted. If any natural soil horizons
exist, they would likely be lost during the earthwork. Construction would compact and destroy the
structure and function of the organic soil horizon and mineral soils, potentially resulting in increased
runoff and erosion. Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent or
minimize soil erosion due to wind and rain. All disturbed areas would be reseeded to prevent further
erosion. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be
necessary.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of soils adjacent to the paved surfaces
would be compacted from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Soils along the Parkway are subject to damage from road maintenance activities, natural processes (such
as flooding), and visitor access. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and
another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These
projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on soils, such as compaction and erosion. The
Developed Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and
construction of new facilities that would also affect soils. Given the significant soil impacts from original
construction of the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, implementation of
Alternative D would contribute negligible, negative cumulative impacts to soils and geology.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts to soils from
compaction, erosion, and removal during construction activities; however, soil that is excavated and
removed would constitute a permanent impact. Alternative D would likely result in long-term, negligible,
localized direct adverse impacts on geology from drilling of bedrock. Alternative D would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to soils and geology along the Parkway. Because there would be
no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to soils and geology.
WATER RESOURCES, INCLUDING WETLANDS
Affected Environment
Designed as a scenic drive, the Blue Ridge Parkway motor road tends to run along the ridge tops looking
down on neighboring lands. Unlike downstream areas that receive pollution and discharges from activities
at upstream sites, the Parkway owns the sources of many of its streams and they are generally clean and
free of common pollutants. Being up on top also means that the Parkway has many headwater streams,
such as the small perennial stream located about 20 feet below the surface of the road on the downhill
side of the Parkway in the project area. Springs at the base of the rock cut develop into a stream from
groundwater under the slide. Otherwise, the project area is a dry site (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006).
The surface waters of the small perennial stream could then drain into lower elevation waters classified as
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) of the State in which water quality has one of the highest
classifications.
Environmental Consequences 34
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Adjacent to the stream is a very small wetland area. This wetland is best described as a perennial seep. It
is partially fed by a pipe coming out of the bank. It is narrow, not more than 4 feet wide on the slope, but
extends more than 100 feet to the base of the slope. Plants dominating the seep were Impatiens during a
July visit (McElrath, 2006).
A recent geotechnical analysis (FHWA, 2005) indicates that the slide at MP 270.3 is most likely caused
from the weight of the material on the slip plane that pushes material down the slope. Subsurface
drainage occurring between the fill plane and the subsurface bedrock is a contributing factor. The
downward forces are resisted by the friction at the interface between soil and bedrock. Subsurface water
increases the soil weight and acts as a lubricant along the interface between soil and bedrock, thus
contributing to the slide. A subsurface drainage collector piping system was installed to divert seepage of
water from beneath the Parkway fill plane.
Currently there is a rubble paved waterway that runs along the bottom of the cut slope to pipes on either
side of the slide area. This system intercepts surface runoff and directs it away from the slide area. This
system would need to remain in place for all alternatives to redirect surface water. If the ditch was
removed in the bridge alternatives, grading underneath the bridge would concentrate the water into a
swale and would cause erosion after leaving the regraded area since there is no existing natural channel.
This system could remain in place without modification for the anchor block system. The inlet of the
pipe culvert on the north end of the slide would need to be moved for bridge parapet construction to take
place.
While some seepage water has been diverted, only a few of the drainage pipes installed continue to have
significant water flow, and many pipes do not carry water at all. Monitoring of the drainage rate from the
existing drainage system piping recorded drainage of approximately 1-gallon per minute emitting from all
piping combined. However, the drainage rate could be considerably higher during the winter and spring
wet season. Some years after the installation of this drainage system records indicate the slide continues
to move downward towards the fill slope.
Methodology
Impact analyses on water resources, including wetlands, were based on recent assessments of the site by
park and other NPS staff, previous studies or projects conducted within the same area, and assessment of
potential changes in surface water and hydrology caused by road modifications.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Negligible: Impacts would not be detectable. Water quality parameters would be well below all water
quality standards for the designated use of the water. No vegetation or wildlife effects associated with
altered water quality would be evident. Action would cause no change in wetland area or function.
Wetlands would not be affected or effects would be below or at the lower levels of detection. No long-
term effects to wetlands would occur and any detectable effects would be considered slight, local, and
would likely be short-term.
Minor: Impacts would be measurable, but water quality parameters would be well within all water
quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and anti-degradation policy would not be
violated. Changes in vegetation or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be slight
but measurable. Action would cause no change in wetland area and function. The action would affect a
few individuals of plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area. The change would
Environmental Consequences . 35
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
require considerable scientific effort to measure and have barely perceptible consequences to wetland or
riparian habitat function. Effects to wetlands would be detectable and relatively small in terms of area
and the nature of the change, and would likely be short-term.
Moderate: Changes in water quality would be measurable and readily apparent, but water quality
parameters would be within all water quality standards for the designated use. State water quality and
antidegradation policy would not be violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health
associated with water quality would be measurable and readily apparent. Mitigation would be necessary
to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful. Action would change an existing wetland area or
function, but the impact could be mitigated by the creation of artificial wetlands. The action would have a
measurable effect on plant or wildlife species within an existing wetland or riparian area, but all species
would remain indefinitely viable within the park. The alternative would result in effects to wetlands that
would be readily apparent, including a long-term effect on wetland vegetation. Wetland or floodplain
functions would not be affected in the long-term.
Maior: Changes in water quality would be readily measurable, and some parameters would periodically
be approached, equaled, or exceeded. State water quality regulations and antidegradation policy may be
violated. Changes in vegetation and/or wildlife use and health associated with water quality would be
measurable and readily apparent, even to a casual observer. Extensive mitigation measures would be
necessary and their success would not be assured. Action would have drastic and permanent
consequences for an existing wetland area or function which could not be certainly mitigated. Wetland
and riparian species dynamics would be upset, and species would be at risk of extirpation from the park.
Effects to wetlands would be observable over a relatively large area (regional scale) and would be long-
term. The character of the wetland would be changed so that the functions typically provided by the
wetland would be substantially changed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on water resources are defined as follows:
Short-term: Following implementation activities, recovery would take less than one year.
Long-term: Following implementation activities, recovery would take greater than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative A, there would be no new impacts on water resources. No new causes for erosion,
sedimentation, or surface water runoff would occur. However, any adverse impacts currently occurring
would continue over the long-term, such as possible soil erosion due to slide movement with subsequent
sedimentation of the stream. Additionally, water flow along the slide during storms could be causing
siltation of groundwater. Overall, water quality would not change from current conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given that implementation of Alternative A
Environmental Consequences 36
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would have very little if any impacts on water resources, Alternative A would contribute negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative. A would likely result in long-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts to water
resources from continued erosion and sedimentation due to slide movement. Alternative A would
contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no major
adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's
GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or
values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
installation of anchor blocks increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small
perennial stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but
may or may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would
be utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be revegetated after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
install the anchor blocks and repaving of the road; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel or
chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage over the long-term would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For the
anchor block system, culverts beneath the Parkway would channel run off from natural drainage swales.
As the anchor blocks would not alleviate sub-surface water flow during storms, siltation of the small
stream and of groundwater would continue, contributing to long-term intermittent adverse effects on
water quality which may or may not be detectable.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
Environmental Consequences 37
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative B would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative B
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Environmental Consequences 38
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative C would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative C
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation, grading, and recontouring during
bridge construction increases the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the small perennial
stream. The effects to local water quality and hydrology would be adverse and short- term, but may or
may not be detectable. Best management practices to control erosion and sediment release would be
utilized during all construction activities. Identifying and staking the limits of clearing and grading,
installing silt fences, establishing a controlled area for construction material and equipment, and preparing
a sediment and erosion control plan would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality,
hydrology, and wetlands. Erosion control measures would be roughly equal since the down slope
Environmental Consequences 39
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
perimeter of disturbance requiring protection would be similar for both anchor block and bridge
alternatives. With use of erosion control measures, it is not anticipated that potable surface water
resources would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas would be reseeded after construction to
stabilize soils, reducing long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Fuel products (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) would be needed to operate some of the equipment used to
remove the old section of road and construct the bridge; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel
or chemical spill, which could adversely affect water quality if the spill were to enter ground or surface
water. To prevent accidental fuel or chemical spills, no fuels would be stored at the construction site and
no refueling would occur near the stream. The fueling operation would be closely monitored, and an
emergency spill kit, containing absorption pads, absorbent material, a shovel or rake, and other cleanup
items, would be readily available on-site in the event of an accidental spill.
Surface drainage for this project would be handled by a system of culverts to channel flow. For this
bridge alternative, flow could naturally occur beneath the bridge or through culverts placed beneath the
Parkway.
The subsurface piping that would be maintained and/or improved upon under this alternative would
continue to divert water from beneath the slide area or slope where the slide is occurring and where this
water affects slope instability. This subsurface piping would divert the water from beneath the slide slope
and direct it to the toe of the slope. When released at the toe of the slope (where it cannot impact slope
instability), the subsurface water collected would be released as surface drainage. However, the
subsurface piping would not divert a significant amount of water from area streams or wetlands. Water
quality of collected water or water released to surface drainage would not be impacted.. It is assumed that
water released to surface drainage at the toe of the slide area slope would not contribute to slope erosion
on the slopes below the slide area. A percentage of the water released at surface at the toe of the slide
would again be absorbed into the subsurface ground water flow which also replenishes streams and
wetland areas. Thus, the area and function of the wetland near the stream would remain unchanged.
Cumulative Effects
Water resources and wetlands in the Parkway are subject to damage from visitor access and natural
processes. Past development, such as the construction of the Parkway, has resulted in impacts to water
sources. Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as highway maintenance actions and visitor activity, could
also affect water resources. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another
to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects
could contribute adverse impacts on water resources if erosion occurs near water sources. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect water resources and wetlands. Given the larger impacts to water resources
from past and future projects, implementation of Alternative D would have few impacts on water
resources and would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on water
resources from possible sedimentation and contamination during construction activities. Alternative D
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to water resources. Because there would be no
major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the
Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's
resources or values with respect to water resources.
Environmental Consequences 40
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VEGETATION
Affected Environment
There are 14 major vegetation types identified at the Parkway with currently over 1,400 species of
vascular plants, though this number may well likely approach 2,000 species as the park begins an
extensive inventory of all plants and animals (NPS, no date). The flora of the Blue Ridge Parkway is so
diverse for reasons such as climatic variability, large north-south geographic range, diverse geologic
substrate, and many different micro-habitats.
The project area is located in a deciduous mixed hardwood cove forest community with a full canopy,
shrub layer and herb layer (McElrath, 2006). On the slope below the road, the vegetation is more open
where previous work has been performed. The dominant tree species is tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Other canopy species include black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), oaks (Quercus spp.),
hickories (Carya spp.), sweet birch (Betula lenta), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), red maple (Acer
rubra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white pine (Pinus strobus).
Dominant understory species include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), striped maple (Acer
pensylvanicum), hickories (Carya spp.), and wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens). Common
herbaceous stratum plants include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Virginia creeper,
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), impatiens (Impatiens spp.), tall bellflower (Campanula americana),
common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), beebalm (Monarda spp.),
wild grapes (Vitus spp.), Virginia spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana), tall thimbleweed (Anemone
virginiana), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), dayflower (Commelina communis), asters (Aster spp.),
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), black bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa), jack in the pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), sumac (Rumex spp.), milkweed (Asplenium spp.), and rattlesnake fern (Botrychium
virginianum).
Four non-native exotic plants species have been observed at the project site (McElrath, 2006). Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) is abundant in the area covering more than 10 meters square with
fairly high (25-50%) coverage in places. There are two clumps of multiflora rose (Rosa multiora); one
covering an area greater than 10 meters square, the other (on Parkway Right) is smaller. One patch of
coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) covers approximately 5 meters square. Crown vetch (Coronilla varia) is
somewhat scattered with the largest patch less than five meters square. Any further soil disturbance may
contribute to the spread of these species in the area.
There are no federally listed plant species in the project area.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on vegetation that is considered most likely to be affected by the project.
Information on vegetation was derived from observations made in the field, previous projects conducted
within the same area, and consultation with park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential
changes to vegetation that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Negligible: No native vegetation would be affected or some individual native plants could be affected as
a result of the alternative, but measurable or perceptible changes in -plant community size, integrity; or
continuity would not occur. The effects would be short-term and on a small scale. Impacts would be well
within the range of natural fluctuations.
Environmental Consequences 41
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Minor: Effects to native plants would be measurable or perceptible, but would be localized within a small
area. The viability of the plant community would not be affected and the community, if left alone, would
recover quickly. Impacts would not be expected to be outside the natural range of variability and would
not be expected to have any long-term effects on native species, their habitats, or the natural processes
sustaining them.
Moderate: The alternative would affect some individual native plants and would also affect a sizeable
segment of the species' population in the long-term and over a relatively large area. A change would
occur to the native community over a relatively large area that would be readily measurable in terms of
abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality. Impacts could be outside the range of natural variability for
short periods of time. Mitigation measures to offset/minimize adverse effects would be necessary and
would likely be successful.
Maior: The alternative would have a considerable long-term effect on native plant populations and affect
a relatively large area in and out of the park. Impacts would be expected to be outside the natural range of
variability for long periods of time or to be permanent. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed
to offset any adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on vegetation are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any new impacts on
vegetation. There would be no need to clear the vegetation, and the surrounding forest would continue to
exist as it is. However, continued cyclic maintenance of the road at MP 270.3 could cause short-term
vegetation damage, such as trampling or clearing, along the roadside from heavy equipment or foot
traffic.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Although no new construction would occur under the No
Action Alternative, there would be short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative effects on vegetation a
result of continued cyclic maintenance.
Conclusion
There would be short-term, negligible, local, direct adverse impacts to the vegetation as a result of the No
Action Alternative due to continued cyclic maintenance of the road. Alternative A would contribute
negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts
to a resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences . 42
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with Alternative B would necessitate removal of plants located at the
project site for installation of anchor blocks. Trees and ground cover would be removed from the slide
area for site preparation. Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic)
during construction in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of
the vegetation mat.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is forested. Although the
anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth. Therefore, of the total
disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not grow again directly over
set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be covered over with fill soils,
topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be planted over the covered anchor
blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or topsoil. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would not be any
additional vegetation impacts from this activity.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative B would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Environmental Consequences 43
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities associated with the Alternative C would disturb an estimated total of 0.33
acres of unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be
removed on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances
would be temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, the area would be reseeded in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As there
would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment. New introductions could
allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where the ground is
disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also become
established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that imported
material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative C would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative C would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities associated with the Alternative D would disturb an estimated total of 0.33 acres of
unpaved area. Little to no forest area would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
Environmental Consequences 44
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. All disturbances would be
temporary from construction impacts.
Repeated disturbance of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction in areas
where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of the vegetation mat.
However, the majority of disturbance would occur in previously disturbed areas, and as roadside
vegetation is often sparse, adverse vegetation impacts would be minimized. Upon completion of bridge
construction, bridge shoulders would be seeded with grass as well as any other areas disturbed by
construction activities. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest revegetation should
not be necessary.
Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with construction equipment or topsoil. New
introductions could allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas where
the ground is disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the area can also
become established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation to ensure that
imported material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented.
Construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook. Although materials
would be staged on paved surfaces, it is possible that a small area of vegetation adjacent to the paved
surfaces would be trampled from foot traffic or heavy equipment.
Cumulative Effects
Plants along the Parkway are subject to damage from natural processes, visitor access, and road
maintenance. Past and future exotic plant control efforts beneficially contribute toward restoring habitat
for native species. Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair
the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would
contribute adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation, such as trampling and clearing. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect vegetation. Given the significant soil impacts from original construction of
the Parkway, along with numerous other road work projects, the few adverse impacts on vegetation from
Alternative D would likely produce negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on vegetation.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on vegetation
from construction activities. Alternative D would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on
vegetation. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation
is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to vegetation.
WILDLIFE
Affected Environment
Over 50 species of mammals, more than 40 species of reptiles, almost 50 species of amphibians, and more
than 50 species of fish can be found on Parkway lands. Over 150 species of birds are known to nest here
with dozens of others passing through during fall and spring migrations (NPS, no date). Wildlife use
habitat in the vicinity of the project area for a variety of purposes: shelter, cover and concealment, forage,
and nesting/roosting sites.
Environmental Consequences . 45
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The site is not considered to be biologically significant (Cherry, 2006), although many common species
occur there. Commonly seen mammals include white-tailed deer, black bear, bobcat, fox, raccoon, gray
squirrel, groundhog, eastern cottontail, and Virginia opossum (McElrath, 2006). Numerous salamanders
can be found in the seep below the road, as well as several species of caddisfly. Salamanders at the
wetland area are mostly the Allegheny mountain dusky salamander. The project site is too dry for frogs
and many species of turtles and salamanders. Reptiles observed at the site include the eastern box turtle,
black snakes, and garter snakes (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). There are no fish in the small perennial
stream.
Characteristic bird species observed in the area include black-throated green warbler, ruby-throated
hummingbird, eastern wood pewee, red-eyed vireo, American goldfinch, white-breasted nuthatch,
American robin, eastern or rufous-sided towhee, northern cardinal, blue jay, pileated woodpecker, tufted
titmouse, ovenbird, dark-eyed Junco, Carolina chickadee, indigo bunting, black and white warbler, scarlet
tanager, rose-breasted grosbeak (McElrath, 2006).
According to BLRI staff, there are no federally listed threatened or endangered animals or rare species at
the project site (McElrath, 2006; Cherry, 2006). However, cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea), a
federal species of concern and significantly rare in North Carolina, are known to breed within 0.2 to 0.5
miles of this site (Cherry, 2006). The cerulean warbler, a small neotropical migratory bird, nests and
raises young in large tracts of deciduous hardwood forests that have tall, large diameter trees with an open
understory (USFWS, 2002). The breeding season is from April to August. From mid-April into May,
male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates. Females build nests in the mid and upper branches of
deciduous trees and eggs are laid in May and June. Cerulean warblers are experiencing population
declines in parts of its range and habitat loss. As they do not occur on small tracts of forest, many
remaining forested lands are no longer suitable habitat because they have been fragmented into a
patchwork of small wooded islands.
Methodology
This impact analysis focuses on wildlife and wildlife habitat that are considered most likely to be affected
by the project. Information on wildlife habitats and species potentially present was derived from
observations made in the field, previous projects conducted within the same area, and consultation with
park staff. The impact analysis examines the potential changes to wildlife, habitat and use of the project
area that may occur as a result of project implementation.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on wildlife are defined as follows:
Neal, igible: Wildlife and their habitats would not be affected or the effects would be at or below the level
of detection, would be short-term, and the changes would be so slight that they would not be of any
measurable or perceptible consequence to wildlife populations. Impacts would be well within the range
of natural fluctuations.
Minor: Effects on wildlife or habitats would be measurable or perceptible, but localized within a small
area. While the mortality of individual animals might occur, the viability of wildlife populations would
not be affected and the community, if left alone, would recover. Impacts would not be expected to be
outside the natural range of variability and would not be expected to have any long-term effects on native
species, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Sufficient habitat would remain functional
to maintain viability of all species.
Environmental Consequences 46
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Moderate: A change in wildlife populations or habitats would occur over a relatively large area. Effects
to wildlife would be readily detectable, long-term, and with consequences at the population level. The
change would be readily measurable in terms of abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality of
population. Mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival can be expected on an
occasional basis, but is not expected to threaten the continued existence of the species in the park unit.
Impacts could be outside the natural range of variability for short periods of time. Sufficient habitat would
remain functional to maintain variability of all native wildlife species. Mitigation measures would be
necessary to offset adverse effects, and would likely be successful.
Maior: Effects on wildlife populations or habitats would be readily apparent, longterm, and would
substantially change wildlife populations over a large area in and out of the national park. Impacts would
be expected to be outside the natural range of variability for long periods of time or to be permanent.
Loss of habitat may affect the viability of at least some native species. Extensive mitigation would be
needed to offset adverse effects, and the success of mitigation measures could not be assured.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on wildlife and habitat are defined as follows:
Short-term: Recovers in one to three years or less.
Long-term: Takes more than three years to recover.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As there would not be any new actions under Alternative A, there would not be any impacts on wildlife or
wildlife habitat. There would not be additional human activity in the area for construction activities, so
wildlife would not be affected beyond current disturbance from regular vehicle traffic. Cyclic
maintenance activities that would continue periodically under this alternative would have temporary
impacts on wildlife as animals may get displaced during human activity.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from continued cyclic maintenance in Alternative A would likely produce negligible,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 47
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would likely result in short-term, negligible, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife
and habitat from continued cyclic maintenance. Alternative A would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts to wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value
whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or
proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for
enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning
documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Construction activities for installation of the anchor blocks and human presence would cause temporary
displacement and disturbance of resident wildlife for the seven months duration of construction. Species
are expected to return to the area after construction is completed. Some species may be prevented from
using the resources on the project site due to habitat alteration until the cleared forest is reestablished.
However, a large forested area surrounds the project site which would provide appropriate habitat. These
impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site.
It is estimated that a total of 0.78 acres of wildlife habitat would be disturbed, of which 0.68 acres is
forested. Although the anchor blocks would be buried, they would probably impact future tree growth.
Therefore, of the total disturbed area, 0.32 acres would be permanently impacted where trees could not
grow again directly over set in place anchor blocks. The slope wedges with the anchor block would be
covered over with fill soils, topsoil, and seeded with grass to prevent erosion. Native trees would be
planted over the covered anchor blocks, between the rows, to revegetate the forested area.
As construction would be scheduled to occur between November 1 and June 1, there could be some
disturbance of cerulean warblers at the start of their breeding season. From mid-April into May male
cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the season. As
the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is still
possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for part of one breeding season. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As the anchor blocks would be stored and staged outside of the Parkway, there would be additional
vehicle traffic to transport materials to the project site. This louder than usual traffic (i.e., big trucks)
would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto the Parkway up
to the project site. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only last for small portions of work days
during the seven month construction period.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Environmental Consequences 48
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative B would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative B would likely result in short-term, minor, localized, direct adverse impacts on wildlife and
habitat from construction activities. Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
Environmental Consequences 49
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative C would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative C would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Bridge construction activities and human presence would cause temporary displacement and disturbance
of resident wildlife for the one to two year duration of construction. Species are expected to return to the
area after construction is completed. It is estimated that a total of 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be
disturbed. Little to no forest habitat would be disturbed, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed
on the cut slope side of the Parkway to create ground clearance for the bridge. The forested area
surrounding the project site would provide appropriate habitat for any habitat that is temporarily lost.
These impacts would be localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. All disturbed
areas would be reseeded after construction. As there would be little to no impact on forested areas, forest
revegetation should not be necessary for restoration of forested habitat.
As construction would take at least one year and possible two, there could be some disturbance of
cerulean warblers during one or two breeding seasons (mid-April through August). From mid-April into
May male cerulean warblers are singing to attract mates and are more easily disturbed than later in the
Environmental Consequences 50
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
season. As the nests are built and eggs laid the birds are increasingly less likely to be disturbed but this is
still possible if noise and disturbance is excessive. While these birds do put up with traffic noises from the
road, they have also been known to be disturbed at times by excessive noise (such as motorcycles).
Therefore, excessive noise as could be produced by heavy equipment used in construction could
temporarily disturb cerulean warblers for one or two breeding seasons. However, given that the closest
cerulean warblers are known to breed 0.2 to 0.5 miles away from the project site, disturbance may be
lessened as noise attenuates with distance from the source.
As construction materials would be staged at the adjacent Lewis Fork Parking Overlook, there would be
additional vehicle traffic used to transport materials to the staging area. This louder than usual traffic
(i.e., big trucks) would disturb wildlife along several miles of the road corridor from the entry point onto
the Parkway up to the overlook. Disturbance would be temporary as it would only occur occasionally
during the construction period. Vehicles moving between the overlook and the project site would also
cause wildlife disturbance, but the distance would be short and can be considered part of the overall
construction activities.
Cumulative Effects
Wildlife and habitat along the Parkway are subject to disturbance and damage from natural processes,
visitor access, road maintenance, and traffic. There would be continued adverse effects on wildlife from
vehicles using the roadway. Vehicles passing along the road cause short- term, local disturbance or
displacement of wildlife directly in the road corridor. Effects of the road on wildlife include mortality,
restricted movement, introduction of exotic plants that could affect wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation
and edge effect, and increased human access to wildlife habitats.
Wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the project area has been previously disturbed by the construction of the
Parkway, previous efforts to stabilize the road, and continuing human activity, especially vehicular traffic,
all of which contribute to the disturbed nature of the existing habitat.
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. These projects would contribute adverse
cumulative impacts on wildlife, such as temporary displacement and habitat damage. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect wildlife. Given these past, present, and future actions, the temporary
impacts on wildlife from installation of anchor blocks in Alternative D would likely produce minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife.
Conclusion
Alternative D would likely result in short-term, minor to moderate, localized, direct adverse impacts on
wildlife and habitat from construction activities, with special emphasis on impacts of cerulean warblers
for more than one breeding season. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to
wildlife. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is
1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the
park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or
3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to wildlife.
Environmental Consequences 51
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING RECREATION AND VISUAL
RESOURCES
Affected Environment
A trip down the Parkway provides stunning, long range vistas and close-up looks at the natural and
cultural history of the southern Appalachian Mountains. The 469 mile drive is designed as a drive-awhile
and stop-awhile experience intended to encourage leisurely progress and frequent stops.
The Blue Ridge Parkway offers a diversity of recreational activities for people with a wide range of
interests, physical abilities, and time available. Popular activities for vehicle-based visitors include
sightseeing, picnicking, viewing wildflowers and fall color, photography, hiking, bird watching, and
Ranger guided programs. It is also possible to rock climb, hang glide, fish for trout, and bicycle.
Camping is also allowed at designated sites.
There have been over 20 million visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway every year since 1997 (NPS, 2005b).
As the Parkway is 469 miles long, not all visitors travel the entire length of the Parkway. According to a
recent survey of visitors to the Parkway (Valliere et. al, 2002), the most popular activities reported were
scenic driving/ stopping at overlooks (88.1°/x), visiting visitor centers (60.5%), hiking (59.0%), picnicking
(39%0), purchasing something at visitor center stores (37.2%), and visiting historic sites (33.7%).
In 2005 there were approximately 570,000 vehicles that are estimated to have passed MP 270.3 (adding
numbers from the nearest traffic counters MP 270 at SR 421 to the south and SR 16 to the north). The
project area is not in a commuter zone and there is never any traffic congestion (Hultquist, 2006).
The Blue Ridge Parkway draft Vista Management Plan describes that the Lewis Fork Overlook has a
view toward farm land spread out over the Piedmont valley. It looks over several farms in a distant view
of this valley with panoramic mountains views in the far background. Views to the Piedmont Valley are
considered very picturesque. This view has a moderate rating compared to other Piedmont valley views in
the Doughton Park and Plateau Districts. Betsey's Rock Falls Overlook to the north at MP 267.7 has a
more wide open and more highly rated view to Piedmont valley, within Wilkes County. Similarly,
Cascades Falls Overlook to the south at MP 272 has a more wide open and highly rated view to Piedmont
Valley than the Lewis Fork Overlook. Within 4.7 miles of Lewis Fork Overlook there are approximately
10 vista cuts on Parkway left looking toward Wilkes County and the Piedmont Valley. The Lewis Fork
Overlook has a narrower perspective and is more highly screened with tree growth than the other two
overlooks. Many of the vista cuts along the Parkway motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork
Overlook are similarly being screened from view with large tree growth.
Methodology
Public scoping input and observation of visitation patterns, combined with assessment of what is available
to visitors under current management, were used to estimate the effects of the actions in the various
alternatives in this EA. The impact on the ability of the visitor to experience a full range of park
resources was analyzed by examining resources and objectives presented in the park significance
statement.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Environmental Consequences . 52
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Negligible: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual
resources, would be below or at the level of detection. The visitor would not likely be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative.
Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be detectable, although the changes would be slight. The visitor would be aware of the effects
associated with the alternative, but the effects would be slight.
Moderate: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent. The visitor would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative and
would likely be able to express an opinion about the changes.
Major: Changes in visitor use and/or experience, including changes in recreation and visual resources,
would be readily apparent and severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial. The visitor would be aware of
the effects associated with the alternative and would likely express a strong opiniori about the changes.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on visitor use and experience are defined as
follows:
Short-term: Occurs only during project implementation activities.
Lon -t erm: Extend beyond project implementation activities.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
The No Action Alternative would maintain conditions in their present state. Although the visitor
experience would not change from current conditions, visitor complaints of near accidents, or actual
accidents, would go on as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces
deteriorate. While there would be no disturbances to traffic flow during construction or changes in visual
resources, there would also be no long-term road improvements. Continued cyclic maintenance of the
road at MP 270.3 may cause some short-term impacts on visitor experience if traffic is periodically
slowed down to accommodate the repairs. As there would be no major new road repairs, visitors would
not be aware of the effects associated with this alternative, specifically deteriorating road conditions
which may impact driving conditions.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY 2010-2011 project with no road closures
anticipated. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road closure.
These projects would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be
required to wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate. As there would not be any major new road repairs under the No Action
Alternative, other than cyclic maintenance, this alternative would contribute negligible, adverse impacts
on visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences 53
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Conclusion
Alternative A would result in short-term, negligible, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience
due to inconvenience from continuing cyclic maintenance of deteriorating road conditions. Alternative A
would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Alternative B would occur over a period of seven months between November 1 and June 1. The Parkway
at the project site would be closed, with a detour, during the winter months (November 1 thru April 15),
consequently expediting the work. From April 15 until project completion (less than 2 months),
construction would require a single lane closure of the Parkway. Complete Parkway closure would be
required daily for 1/2 -1 hour to transport anchor blocks from storage to the slope location where they
would be installed. Short-term traffic delays and detours would have adverse impacts on the visitor
experience for one peak visitor season as people would be inconvenienced by the change in route, extra
time it would take to follow the detour, or time spent in traffic. Visitors in approximately 570,000
vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However, the altered traffic
patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a means of
accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting may be deep enough into forest growth to open and widen the vista cut to the south of the
Lewis Fork Overlook, thus widening and opening the view to the Piedmont Valley from the overlook.
However, the view would likely be screened by large tree growth at the toe of the vista cut. Widening the
view in this location would only provide a similar experience to the viewing opportunity at the overlooks
located to the north and south of the Lewis Fork Overlook. Additional or a widened vista cuts along the
motor road would not be valued in the area and the cost to maintain existing vista cuts is already
prohibitively high. Reforestation measures to adequately prevent erosion over the anchor block system on
Parkway left would only provide a temporary vista opening. Because the anchor block system would be
covered with soils and forest when completed, there is no visual impact created from an additional
Parkway structure as in the case of the bridge installation.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. However, the anchor block system would be completely
buried once construction was completed, and therefore not visible. Revegetation of the site would allow
the area to eventually look similar to current conditions.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
Environmental Consequences 54
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative B occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative B would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, minor, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
noise, changes in visual resources, and inconvenience during construction. Alternative B would
contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year, and possibly two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
Environmental Coa:_z,•ciaences . 55
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a masonry faced
safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge. The bridge
would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would obscure it in the
summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative C occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Environmental Consequences 56
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, construction would require complete closure of the road at the project site for one
year, and possibly two. A Parkway detour would be in place for that time period. The detour would have
adverse impacts on the visitor experience for up to two peak visitor seasons as people would be
inconvenienced by the change in route and extra time it would take to follow the detour. Visitors in
approximately 570,000 vehicles could be impacted (approximately 3% of Parkway visitation). However,
the altered traffic patterns would be temporary during construction and visitors would be provided with a
means of accessing their planned destinations.
Road closure would affect recreational use of the adjoining Lewis Fork Overlook for scenic viewing as it
would not be accessible to visitors during that period. However, visitors would have ample opportunity
to view the Piedmont valley from numerous vistas to the north and south of the project site. The six vista
cuts along the motor road to the north and south of Lewis Fork Overlook would be considered sufficient
to provide repetitive views of the same valley and mountain views within the area. The Lewis Fork
Overlook provides the lowest rated and least open views to the Piedmont Valley than do the overlooks to
the north and south, which are approximately 2 miles in distance.
Forest cutting due to this bridge alternative would not open views to the Piedmont valley because the
forest cover is too wide in the area and the depth of cut too narrow. The bridge itself might be considered
a visual impact since it introduces a structure on the Parkway that is presently not in existence in that
location. This would be true even though the bridge would be constructed very similar to other bridge
structures on the Parkway.
The sight of construction activities and the clearing of trees and vegetation from the embankment slope
would reduce the sense of naturalness in the area and thus may detract from visitor enjoyment as visual
resources would be impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, a bridge would replace 200 linear feet of
road, giving it a different appearance. Bridge engineers have been directed to design a bridge that would
have minimal visual impact to the site. The proposed bridge would simulate a bridge recently constructed
across SR 58 near the Meadows of Dan, on the Parkway. This alternative would carry the existing asphalt
surface, grassy shoulders, and roadway prism across the bridge. From the Parkway, a driver would see a
masonry faced safety barrier on both sides. Most likely a driver would not realize they were on a bridge.
The bridge would likely be visible from the adjacent overlook during winter, but vegetation would
obscure it in the summer months.
Noise from traffic and construction would occur during the construction period due to the use of heavy
equipment and traffic build up. These impacts would be noticeable in the area where the construction
activities are occurring. Visitors driving by in their vehicles would only be subject to the noise for a short
time. Visitor recreating nearby would hear the noise throughout their picnic, hike, or whatever activity
they engage in. However, these noises would be less noticeable as the distance increases from the
construction site because noise decreases with distance from the source.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for FY 2007 through FY 2011. One road repair project is a FY 2009-2010
project and could overlap the project at MP 270.3 but would not likely require a detour. The other is a FY
2010-2011 project with no road closures anticipated and that should not overlap the MP 270.3 project
time schedule. The Goshen Creek Bridge repair is a FY 2007 project that would likely require road
closure 16 miles to the south of the MP 270.3 project with a possible schedule overlap. These projects
Environmental Consequences 57
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
would contribute adverse cumulative impacts on the visitor experience as visitors would be required to
wait in traffic at construction sites or go out of their way to use detours. The Developed Area
Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate.
If construction under Alternative D occurs at the same time as other improvements on the Parkway in the
vicinity, visitors may experience exceptionally long traffic delays or multiple detours. Significant back-
ups may cause impatient visitors to travel to nearby recreation areas. Additionally, construction impacts
on visual resources observed by visitors at multiple locations could also diminish the visitor experience.
Overall, Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on visitor use and experience from
road closure during construction for up to two peak tourist seasons and long-term, negligible, adverse
impacts due to visual changes in road configuration. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse
cumulative impacts to visitor use and experience.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Affected Environment
The cultural landscape of the Blue Ridge Parkway incorporates both cultural and natural elements. The
cultural elements include the roadway and the historic buildings and structures along its path which were
constructed in a similar "rustic style", with native stone facades. These stone facades enable the roadway
structures to blend in with the natural environment. The natural elements include intact vegetation and
scenic vistas in the original rural settings. Although a cultural landscape inventory has not been
conducted, it is clear that the Blue Ridge Parkway constitutes a cultural landscape of which the roadway
and the historic buildings and structures are the dominating cultural features.
Principal Parkway motor road designed landscape components include shoulders, paved waterways,
constructed landforms, guardrails, guardwalls, bridges, culverts and tunnels. Design standards adopted for
these components was a compromise between the highway engineers' desire to meet modern highway
standards for grade, curvature and safety and the landscape architects' attempt to best unify the road and
landscape in a way that minimized construction scarring on the mountainside and provided a type of
parkway with its own distinctive character.
A draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) was commissioned to evaluate the eligibility of the
Parkway for nomination as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). The purpose of the study was to
evaluate the historical significance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, to identify the resources that contribute to
that significance, and to provide guidance on the preservation of those resources. Firth (2005) describes
the Blue Ridge Parkway as the first long-distance, scenic national parkway being not only a new type of
parkway, but also a new type of national park, one that was designed around the theme of recreational
motoring.
The Parkway was designed based on the adoption of three design principles: first, the preeminent
importance of scenery; second, the necessity of providing a safe and enjoyable experience for the
recreational motorist; and third, the importance of protecting the natural environment and gently fitting
the road and all other structures into their mountain setting so that they look as though they belong there.
Environmental Consequences 58
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The design characteristics of the main components of the Parkway according to Firth (2005):
• This is a mountain road but its location changes every few miles along the 469-mile route, in order to
avoid monotony and to capitalize fully on the scenic potential of the region.
• The road has a curvilinear alignment that appears to glide across the natural contours and fit smoothly
into the topography of the mountain slopes.
• The road is designed for a low driving speed, and there are frequent overlooks to allow the safe
enjoyment of scenery.
• Road structures are designed to fit the road to the topography, and are located and constructed in
ways that minimize the scarring of the mountain slopes.
• Most designs are guided by a rustic architectural aesthetic that places great emphasis on fitting each
structure into its landscape setting and features the use of native materials, particularly stone; however
some designs are guided by a modern aesthetic expressed in steel and concrete, but, nonetheless, are
carefully fitted into their settings.
The draft Historic Resource Study (Firth, 2005) recommends that the Parkway be nominated as a National
Historic Landmark (NHL). It meets two of the NHL criteria (one and four) for national significance and
possesses the extraordinary national importance and high degree of integrity required for landmark status.
Criteria One includes properties that are associated with events that have made a substantial contribution
to and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent the broad national patterns of United States
history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those broad patterns may be gained (NPS,
no date-b). Criteria Four includes properties that embody the distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural type or specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of
construction, or that represent an important, distinctive, and exceptional entity whose components may
lack individual distinction.
Methodology
The impact analysis examines the potential effects on Parkway eligibility for designation as a National
Historic Landmark as a result of project implementation. NHL criteria were used to estimate the effects
of the actions in the various alternatives in this EA.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Negligible: The effect is at the lowest levels of detection- barely perceptible and not measurable. For
purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Minor: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, but would not diminish the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse
effect.
Moderate: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall
integrity of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
Major: Features or patterns of the cultural landscape would be altered, diminishing the overall integrity
of the landscape; for purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on cultural landscapes are defined as follows:
Environmental Consequences 59
U:S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Short-term: Effects on the natural elements of a cultural landscape may be comparatively short-term (less
than a year) until new vegetation grows or historic plantings are restored.
Long-term: Effects on the cultural landscape would persist for more than a year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
As no construction activities would be conducted, no impacts on the cultural landscape would occur under
Alternative A. Therefore, there would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative A would not contribute to cumulative effects to the
cultural landscape because no cultural resources would be impacted.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have no impacts on the cultural landscape. Alternative A would not contribute any
cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, the road would be repaired but not be altered, and 0.78 acres at the project site
would be disturbed, including vegetation removal and re-grading of the hillside below the Parkway to
install anchor blocks. However, ground disturbance would be temporary and the area would be
revegetated so that it would eventually look similar to its current appearance. There would not be any
impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the criteria for designation.
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to temporary changes in landscape appearance from construction
activities.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse
cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a
resource or value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park
Environmental Consequences 60
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with
respect to cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge.. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative C would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, the road would be altered according to design guidelines that have been developed
to,meet historic design goals in construction of the bridge. The bridge would be placed in the exact
footprint of the existing road. Additionally, an estimated 0.33 acres of unpaved area would be disturbed.
Little to no forest area would be affected, though a few trees (.05 acres) may be removed for bridge
construction. However, ground disturbance would be temporary as the area would be reseeded and it
would eventually look similar to its current appearance. As there would be little to no impact on forested
areas, forest revegetation should not be necessary.
Environmental Consequences 61
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
There would not be any impact on eligibility for NHL designation as the Parkway would still meet the
criteria for designation as the bridge would be placed in the landscape in a way that is environmentally
sound and matches historic design intent. The draft NHL emphasizes landscape architecture (which
highlights placement in the landscape) rather than historical structures (which highlights fabric and
materials).
Cumulative Effects
Two future projects to repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen
Creek Bridge are planned for 2007 through 2011. It is unlikely that these projects would contribute
adverse cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape as they would not alter the historic character of the
Parkway or the integrity of the landscape. Alternative B would contribute negligible, adverse cumulative
effects to the cultural landscape due to changes in road configuration, albeit they would meet historic
design goals.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have short-term, negligible, localized direct adverse effects on the cultural landscape
from vegetation removal and construction grading and minor, long-term, localized adverse effects from
changing a section of road into a bridge. Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse cumulative
impacts on the cultural landscape. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or
value whose conservation is 1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or proclamation of the park; 2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or 3) identified as a goal in the Park's GMP or other relevant
NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park's resources or values with respect to
cultural landscapes.
HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY
Affected Environment
The short section of Parkway at MP 270.3 has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic
safety problem due to uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near
accidents have been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road
surfaces deteriorate.
The Parkway boundary has recently been extended from a total of 350 feet to approximately 725 feet to
the nearest private land ownership boundary located directly below the slide area. With this widened
boundary, impacts to bordering land are not as significant.
There is not a numerical safety rating that indicates the likelihood of failure for any of the alternatives.
The safety factor used in design is not indicative of failure. Instead, this safety factor can be used to
increase loads or reduce support forces to allow the design of a safe solution able to withstand all known
conditions and leave allowance for unknowns and variations. Although a numerical value cannot be
assigned to the risk for the various options, a comparative analysis of risk using engineering judgment is
as follows (FHWA, 2006):
No Action - High risk to slope, high risk to Parkway
Anchor Blocks - Very low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Environmental Consequences 62
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Bridges - Low risk to slope, very low risk to Parkway
Methodology
Existing and potential threats to human health and safety within the project area were identified with the
help of NPS staff and evaluated in the impact analysis. The potential for project implementation to
worsen or improve existing threats, or to create new threats, to human health and safety was evaluated.
The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Negligible: Human health and safety would not be affected, or the effects would be at the lowest levels of
detection and would not have an appreciable effect on human health and safety.
Minor: The effect would be detectable but would not have an appreciable effect on human health and
safety. If mitigation were needed, it would be relatively simple and would likely be successful.
Moderate: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human
health and safety on a local scale. Mitigation measures would probably be necessary and would likely be
successful.
Manor: The effects would be readily apparent and result in substantial, noticeable effects to human health
and safety on a regional scale. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed, and success would not be
guaranteed.
The thresholds of change for the duration of an impact on human health and safety are defined as follows:
Short-term: Effects last one year or less.
Lon -tg erm: Effects last longer than one year.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Impacts Analysis
Under the No Action Alternative, safety hazards would remain along the road. Visitors who drive the
section of road at MP 270.3 would continue to be at risk for auto accidents due to uneven road surfaces.
Additionally, risk of slope failure and safety of the Parkway visitor would be considerable over the long-
term. Cyclic maintenance of the road would continue to provide temporary fixes which may put off
accidents, but would not eliminate the safety hazards. There would be high risk to the slope and high risk
to the Parkway if the existing untreated slope is left as is.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Given the
Environmental Consequences 63
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost. 270.3
continuing hazards of the No Action, Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety on the Parkway.
Conclusion
Alternative A would have long-term, moderate, direct adverse impacts on human health and safety as
road hazards would continue to exist. Alternative A would contribute moderate, adverse cumulative
impacts on human health and safety on the Parkway.
Impacts of Alternative B (Anchor Blocks)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative B, anchor blocks would be installed to stabilize the existing slow moving slope at MP
270.3. This improvement would increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at
MP 270.3 would have considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope
failure. Risk for this alternative is characterized as very low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
The anchor blocks would stabilize the slide area by increasing the forces resisting the slide movement.
The lower limit of the slide extent does not affect the safety factor. The current slide is occurring along a
very deep, steep interface between the overburden fill soil and the bedrock because the weight of the fill
exceeds the friction force between the soil and bedrock. The anchor blocks would press the fill soil
against the bedrock, which increases the friction to the point where the friction would support the fill.
Although this option is expected to stabilize the slide area so no further movement would occur, if there
were any continued slide movement, it would adversely affect the Parkway. Additionally, if the slope
fails, it may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the anchor block system is
expected to stabilize the entire slope and the motor road equally to the bridge alternatives, with no
additional impacts to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
The very low risk assigned to both the slope and the Parkway signifies that the risk of loss of additional
forest area would also be very low, as well as very low risk to motor road failure.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim. road repairs may reduce safety risks in'the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative B would have long-term, moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and safety due
to the stabilization of the moving slope and roadway. Alternative B would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 64
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Impacts of Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative C, a bridge with paved shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3 would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide,
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative C would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative C would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative C would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Impacts of Alternative D (Bridge with grassy shoulders)
Impacts Analysis
Under Alternative D, a bridge with grassy shoulders would be constructed to stabilize the road at MP
270.3. The bridge would protect the Parkway by spanning over the active slide. This improvement would
increase the safety of the road; visitors who drive the section of road at MP 270.3 would have
considerably reduced risk for auto accidents from to uneven road surfaces or slope failure. Risk for this
alternative is characterized as low to the slope and very low to the Parkway.
This alternative highly stabilizes the motor road from failure by installing a bridge but does not insure the
slope itself would not fail and move beneath the bridge. If the slope fails, the bridge (footings would be
Environmental Consequences 65
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
anchored to bedrock and designed for lateral movement) and the motor road would remain stable since
the bridge would be designed not to move or to fail in the event of slope failure.
Although material would be removed from the top of the slide area and lessen the load driving the slide,
this alternative does not stabilize the slide area and the slide may continue to move. If the slope fails, it
may denude some more forest area further down the slope. However, the low risk assigned to the slope
indicates that the risk of loss of additional forest area would also be low, without any additional impacts
to environmental resources other than during construction as previously described.
Cumulative Effects
Routine maintenance and interim road repairs may reduce safety risks in the short-term. In the long-term,
road conditions could continue to deteriorate or the slope may fail altogether. Two future projects to
repair and resurface nearby road sections and another to repair the nearby Goshen Creek Bridge are
planned for 2007 through 2011. These projects would contribute beneficial cumulative impacts on human
health and safety as the repairs would likely eliminate any associated safety hazards. The Developed
Area Management Plan for the Cone Estate could identify additional visitor uses and construction of new
facilities that could also affect visitor use and experience by increasing traffic along the Parkway as more
visitors may visit the estate, leading to an increased probability of motor vehicle accidents. Along with
these other repair projects, implementation of an anchor block system to stabilize the slope under
Alternative D would contribute moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts to human health and safety in the
park.
Conclusion
Alternative D would have long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impacts on human health and
safety due to the stabilization of the roadway. Alternative D would contribute minor, beneficial
cumulative impacts to human health and safety.
Environmental Consequences 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The purpose of the scoping process, as outlined in CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1501.7), is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the EA and to identify significant issues
relating to :i1e Proposed Action. The lead agency is required to invite input from Federal, State, and local
agencies, fected Native American tribes, project proponents, and other interested parties (Section
1501.7(a)(.1)). To satisfy scoping requirements for this project, scoping letters were mailed out
requesting public and agency input on issues to be addressed in the EA. Table A-1 in Appendix A lists all
persons, agencies/organizations to whom the scoping letters were sent. The scoping letter is presented as
Figure A-1, a scoping brochure as Figure A-2, and the news release that announces that the Parkway was
seeking public input as Figure A-3.
The public scoping period for the project began on June 1, 2006 and ended on July 3, 2006. Only one
comment was received from the public during this period. The NPS also underwent consultations with
several State and Federal agencies regarding the project. These consultation letters are presented in
Figures A-4 through A-7 in Appendix A.
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway
Phil Francis, Superintendent
Martha Bogle, Deputy Superintendent
Bob Cherry, Resource Management Specialist
Diane Foote, Contracting Officer
Allen Hess, Former NHPA Specialist
Gary Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning
Teresa McCall, Budget Officer
Lillian McElrath, Resource Management Specialist
Michael Molling, Project Leader and Acting Chief of Maintenance
Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection Specialist
Ray Shaw, Highlands Facility Manager
Bambi Teague, Chief of Resource Management
John Wilburn, Former Civil Engineer
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office
Bob Blythe, Historian
Kent Cochran, FHWA Coordinator
Lee Edwards, Regional FLHP Liason
Tracy Stakely, Historical Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Larry Hultquist, Project Manager and Landscape Architect
Consultation and Coordination 66
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Pat Sacks, Project Specialist
Gail Stahlecker, Landscape Architect
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center
Steven Kidd, Archeologist and Reviewer
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Nick Finch, Compliance Specialist
Thomas Shifflett, Project Manager
Brooke Struve, Project Manager
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
Mangi Environmental Group, Inc.
Eveline Martin, Project Manager and Environmental Analyst
Consultation and Coordination 67
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Consultation and Coordination 68
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
REFERENCES CITED
(Cherry, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway. 10
July 2006. Personal communication with Bob Cherry, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(FHWA, 2005). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration.
December 2005. Subsurface Profile for Project PRA-BLRI 2E15 Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 270.3, Deep
Gap, Wilkes County, North Carolina. Minute Memo.
(FHWA, 2006). United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highways Administration. 3
August 2006. Personal communication with Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer.
(Firth, 2005). Firth, Ian J.W. December 2005. Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia and North
Carolina: Historic Resource Study (draft). Unpublished report to the Superintendent. 411 pp.
(Hultquist, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
19 July 2006. Personal communication with Larry Hultquist, Road and Parkways Project Manager.
(McElrath, 2006). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
21 July 2006. Personal communication with Lillian McElrath, Natural Resource Management Specialist.
(NPS, no date). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway.
No date. Web page. Nature and Science. Accessed on 30 June 2006 at:
littp:/.,,;w ?w.tips.goviblri/pphtnnl%paturc.l Intl
(NPS, no date-b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register. No
date. Web page. The National Historic Landmarks Criteria. Accessed on 12 July 2006 at:
htt_:i,'?N-ww.cr.n. S.=,IoV!n?'/ ublication`/;bulletins,'nrbl6a,`nrbl.6a a pendix V.htm
(NPS, 1999). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1999. Choosing by
Advantage Process. Prepared by Sue Masica of the Denver Service Center.
(NPS, 2000). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2000. NPS
Management Policies 2001.
(NPS, 2005a). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. December 2005. Draft
Project Agreement: Blue Ridge Parkway Active Slide Repair Section 2E, MP 270.3, Project PRA-BLRI
2E15. This is an agreement among four parties: Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI), the Denver Service Center
(DSC), Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA)-Eastern
Division Office (EFLHD).
(NPS, 2005b). United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. June 2005. Development
Concept Plan - Environmental Assessment: Proposed Regional Destination Visitor Center. Blue Ridge
Parkway. Available at:
httl2:,`,parkpl.an..i.a.ing.Us.govrdoe-Lime.lit.et`na?12rojcctld=1.0354&docti.mentlD 11.701
(MRCS, no date). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. No
date. Web page. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed on 11 July 2006 at:
htt-o:%i'soils.visda. aov;'technical!classi fication:'osd/index.htm1
References 69
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
(Valliere et. al, 2002). Valliere, W., R. Manning, S. Laws< s. Bacon, and D. Laven. 2001
Standards of quality for traffic congestion in parks: an eml:,i <,.:al study of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Proceedings of the 2003 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium. GTR-NE-317. Available at:
ttP-:;i'?vw?v.is.4ed.usilne/newtown square/publications/technical rel)orts/Ddfs/2004/317Dzi-oer`/valliere3l.7.
pdf
(USFWS, 2002). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. October 2002. Species
of Concern: Cerulean Warbler. Available at:
btt.:r/tN,ww.f,vs. ovlmidi&,estiEndangcred/bi.rds%CERW/ce.n?'-fcts.heet.htni.l.
References 70
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SCOPING AND AGENCY
COORDINATION
Appendix A A-1
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A A_2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-1. Scoping Letter
v
United States Department of the Interior $R«`
National Park Service
ON 3' , Blue Ridge Parkway
IN "'PLY ILM)t TO" 199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
L7617
PIN 10058
June 1, 2006
Dear Interested Parry:
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 to 1508), and the
National Park Service (NPS) NEPA compliance guidelines (DO-12), the NPS has decided to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to repair approximately 200 linear feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue
Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section 2E, in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Proposed alternatives
include spanning the unstable area by either construction of a bridge on the Parkway or retaining the area
with an anchor block system. The anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway
and would include installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill colluvium and
pavement.
Project Background
The roadbed movement at Milepost 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. This section of
Parkway has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic safety problem due to uneven
pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near accidents have been received as the
underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces deteriorate. As a result this area is
considered an extremely high priority. Because attempts to arrest this movement have proven to be
ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be considered.
A horizontal subsurface drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's to remove
subsurface drainage beneath fill soils believed to be the main cause of the movement. The pavement has
been patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips caused by settlement, but
movement and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was installed
and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but movement was
reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. An inspection
of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an average of
approximately one gallon of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However, a number of trees
along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean and geotechnical monitoring of the area indicate
continual slope movement and the slope is considered highly potential for catastrophic failure. Recent
Appendix A A-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that roadway movement is most likely caused by water movement
between fill colluviums deposits and residual soils. Because past attempts to arrest the movement have
proven to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
Proiect Alternatives
Four alternatives for the proposed project are currently being considered by BLRI. These include:
1. Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unstable roadway as is.
2. Alternative B (Anchor Blocks): The slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with
tendons anchored to rock beneath the slip plane.
3. Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be paved.
4. Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area. Some
of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the existing roadway in this
section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be grass.
The EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish the repair solution for this
unstable roadbed. Please identify any resources within your purview that may experience potential
impacts from this project and list specific mitigation measures. Please provide your written comments by
July 3, 2006 to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Molling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
If you have any concerns or questions, please contact Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at 828-271-4779 ext. 219 (Asheville, N.C.).
We welcome your involvement and encourage your input into this proposal.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Superintendent
cc: Eveline Martin, MANGI
SMolling: sm: 5-31-06
(NEPA/EA/PIN 10058/Scoping/PIN 10058-Agency Scoping Ltr.doc)
Appendix A A-4
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-2. Scoping Brochure
Environmental Alssessment (EA) for Repair of Resources and Concerns
Unstable Roadbed on the Blare Ridge Parkway at Initial internal project scoping identified the following
IIP 270.3 resource- and other concerns for consideration in the EA:
T _ tt - i?1,
al",,Z Is fen,
r
vs? M,
._l.h?'c. F>_? ST€? ,e>f'i3.T.. C7, tf?t... sc td'eta ?_ ?3?F:.r, ?.r?
.a73an ZP?., E '4
tt x,. ; its ptr?<??4s? : .. gas 4 '~
t°3 zc,
.??`€' 3377# ?? 1at''2a lzc?i?al t c to ;?7
r
Over-,zew of the Process
Project. nulestones u1clude:.
• Public scoping period (closes Jul,, 3, 2,006";t
• Prepai=on of EiivnImmierttal Assessment (TA Ii
• Public. review of en-,,-i€onmental assessment
• Analysis ofpublic connnent:
• Preparation of decision docuntent
• Announcement of decision
Gxeological Rewurces Vegetation
Somidscape Cultural Resources
IVildlife Recreational Resources
Etonian Health flk Safet f Threatened & Endangered
Specie'
What tktt- tite -.coping pyeriod ineall"
?? ?lx i?> i 11x-11 ?}? ,e t ?to?r a ,:, elC;ri?h1`
tI ?._ ? >>af: r.:.at to°:rs .... ?t?? 1 .;1I>z3 t.. ??,Ltlrt?.
:?lt;_efil+, Ir=af?I_:.= tlx:, l,I, t •?d t',.iz?t ror r;F Bha. f.:.1?e
scol-flnz Irn oill? (,ppoi tuuit? to rviflcnenE vu the
lital=le -„i
Alternatives
The prehniitiary alternatives to be evaluated in the
em-ironmental assessment are:
1) Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unst le roadway
as LIS.
2) Alternative B (Anchor Blocks) : The slope woiild be
stabilized using concrete anchor blocks with tendons
anchored to rock beneath the slip plane_
3} Alternative C kBridge with paved shoulders): Cmstruct
a bridge to span the unstable area. Some of the material
from the site would be removed When placing the bridge
and the em sting roadway in this section would be
obliterated- Bridge shoulders would be paved-
4) Alternative D (Bridge with glass shoulders): Construct a
bridge to span the utistable: area. Sonie of the material from
the slide would be removed when placing the bridge and the
existing roadway in this section would, be obliterated.
Bridge phouldeis would be grass.
Appendix A A-5
Project Scoping June 2006
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Please let us know by Juh 3,2006:
I _ Do you have any ideas to :share about isstaevIconcern,. or are there any" isstaesiconcenis about d)e uraject that you tl €k
we should consider?
?. Are there. any otheralteinatives that . you think should be considered?
3. Do you have other connnent s -and suggestions for us to consider in the enim- onmental assevs€neniP
We want to hear Erwin yogis so that we can make the most informed decisions coticen ung the alternatives on this project..
tie appreciate your input into this process and would like your feedback by .arty 3, 2006. . Tou are v.,eleonle to write to us
at the address below, but our preference would be for you to provide, your ominents an the National Park: 8en-ice
Plmmllrg, Emironinent & Public Comment (PEPQ web site- C:onments can be made directly online by going to dw
following fink: Lz
I-ntten connnents tmm, also be subinitted to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attu: Suzette 4iolling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville. North Carolisrr 28803-8686
If yon wish to be added to the park's mailing list for this and other announcements, please be sure to indicate that
in PEPC or in your response.
It is the practice of foie JNTS to make all cona rents, including the names and addresses of respor dent, who prcal7de the
Canartae.ts, a€wilable )brp€zb?ic rewdm &IFcvt srG the cone usion of the s?_apts:?p??PS?. Individuals mma request that the
s ttla X21 flue#r° aware Barra` r car r Tess ratapaaby?ic. iscy xra. ? vov u 1sh to C.10 this, you august state this Pa,Vmjnewzy at
the beginning gfyour comment Conimentaatars rasing the PEP imbsite cmi tnake such a re nest ky rhech. -ng the boy:
keep a cos.tazt j; .,14'
pnvare. " The .VPS-it-d1 honor such mquests to the extent a lineable In, law, but you should
be ware that the NTS may sali be required to disclose your name ap address paarsuant to flue Freea?ate q `I7tfbrauVfora
k_ t.
Appendix A A-6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-3. News Release
awr[owat National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road
P.A.
U.S. Department of the Interior Asheville NC 28803
www.nps.gov/biri
Blue Ridge Parkway News Release
June 1, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact: Suzette Molling [phone] ext. 219; email Suzette o l.ingtx n.ps.gov
or Larry Hultquist [phone] ext. 247; email Larry; Hultguist<ri?nps.gov
Parkway Seeks Input for Road Repair
Near West Jefferson
(Asheville) =The Blue Ridge Parkway is seeking public input, through July 3, to identify issues and
additional study that will be needed to develop an Environmental Assessment for the repair of a short
road section that is near West Jefferson.
Parkway officials said that the roadbed and supporting slope for a 200' section of the motor road at
Milepost 270.3 are unstable and may need to be reengineered. Efforts to repair the road have been made
intermittently for more than 30 years. None has proven effective, and it may be necessary to stabilize
the section by using an anchor and block system or by constructing a short bridge.
The project scoping phase, now underway, is the, initial step in the development of an Environmental
Assessment that will analyze alternatives and their potential impacts.
For more information and to comment on this project, visit the National Park Service website:
htq2://12aLkplanning.nps.gov. Select Blue Ridge Parkway from the park dropdown menu and then click
on project title "EA Scoping to Repair Unstable Roadbed at MP 270.3." Information is also available,
and comments may be made by writing to: Blue Ridge Parkway, ATTN: Suzette Molling, 199
Hemphill Knob Road, Asheville, NC 28803. Comments must be postmarked by July 3.
Comments are typically treated as a public record and made available for public review. Individuals
may request that the National Park Service withhold their name and address from disclosure. Such
requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law.

Appendix A A-7
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

M M 8 : $ < e $ C
Mr. John Thomas Mr. Ronald C. Howard
US Army Corps of Engineers District Conservationist Mr. Brian P. Cole, Supervisor
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office USDA Natural Resources E U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Conservation Service
` Asheville Field Office
Suite 120 Wilkesboro Service Center 160 Zillicoa Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Post Office Box 194
Wilkesboro, North Carolina Asheville, North Carolina 28801 E
28697-0194
Mr. Dave McHenry
Ms. Mari Sue Hilliard Mr. Allen Ratzlaff = Mountain Region Reviewer
Forest Supervisor Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Program
National Forests in North Carolina Asheville Field Office E North Carolina Wildlife Resources
160A Zillicoa Street 160 Zillicoa Street Commission i
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 ` 20830 Great Smoky Mountain Exp
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Mr. Jeffrey H. Schwier ohann
Mountain Region Wildlife I Mr. Curtis Smalling € Ms. Chrys Baggett
Diversity Program Supervisor Audubon North Carolina ;Environmental Policy Act E
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Mountain Office I Coordinator
Commission 1667 George Moretz Lane State Clearinghouse
271 Morgan Branch Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748 Boone, North Carolina 28607 ' 1301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301 E
l
?. .............................................
E Mr. David Brook, Deputy ..................................... .................................... ................ ........._......
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow SHPO ......
............................................ ...... _............. _................. ............................ ..........................;
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office i Division of Archives & History ' Environmental Review Coordinator
4617 Mail Service Center 4610 Mail Service Center NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
[ Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 ' Raleigh, NC 27699-4610 109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
Ms. Nann Guthrie
Ms. Linda Pearsall
€.
Senior Field Officer, Western
North Carolina Natural Heritage
€ Mr. Joe Mickey
Region
NC Department of Environment, Program NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Health & Natural Resources Post Office Box 27687 155 Timberbrook Trail
59 Woodfin Place Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- i State Road, North Carolina 28676
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 1615
Mr. Ron Holland Owen Anderson

Regional Supervisor Mountain Region Coordinator i
s North Carolina Division of ;
Division of Archives & History Habitat Conservation Program Environmental Management

i North Carolina Department of North Carolina Wildlife
R
m
i
i
C
I Post Office Box 29535
Cultural Resources esources
m
o
ss
on I Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 i
1 Village Lane, Suite 3 1721 Mail Service Center E
Asheville, North Carolina 28803 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1721
Mr. Jim Borawa
i Regional Fishery Biologist Plant Conservation Program Honorable Charles Taylor

North Carolina Wildlife Resource North Carolina Department of ? District Office i

Commission Agriculture 22 South Pack Square
E
37 New Cross North Post Office Box 27647 E Suite 330
i Asheville, North Carolina 28805- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611- ? Asheville, NC 28801
9213 7647
Mr. Gene Messick Mr. Dan Pittillo Johnny G. Hensley
541 South Hamilton Street 675 Cane Creek Road 225 White Oak Circle

Appendix A A-8
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

Eden, North Carolina 27288 Sylva, North Carolina 28779 E Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
.................. .:........... ........._...........................
.. .. ........ ................ .................
Senator Elizabeth Dole .................................__......__....................... ......_......._....__.........._........_........_.......

Senator Richard Burr
_ :..............
_.............__....................
Honorable T. Cass Ballen ger
401 North Main Street j 2000 West First Street District Office
Suite 200 I Suite 508 Post Office Box 1830
Hendersonville
NC 28792 1 Winston-Salem, NC 27104 € 361 10th Ave. Drive, NE
,

E........ ............._....,.......,............:...............,,.............,................,...............,,.
_ ..

...........,..,............,,,...............,,....................,...............,....,._......._,........... ........._..._.,.. Hickory, NC 28603

_..b, ......_......,... ...........,.,.............................,..,........,E
Dr. Houck Medford, Executive
Mr. Bob Gale, Ecologist Dr. Gary L. Walker Director I
Western North Carolina Alliance Department of Biology € Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation
29 North Market Street, Suite 610 Appalachian State University € Post Office Box 10427 - Salem
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 1 Rankin Science Building € Station E
Boone, North Carolina 28608 € Winston-Salem, North Carolina
1
27108
Mr. Bill Thomas, Sierra Club Mr. Robert D. Sutter Mr. James L. Westbrook, Jr.
`City Manager
Chairman of Public Lands in Southeast Regional Office Nature `City of Asheville
North Carolina
Post Office Box 272 Conservancy
Post Office Box 2267 Post Office Box 7148
Cedar Mountain, North Carolina ' Chapel Hill, North Carolina Asheville, North Carolina 28802-
7148
28718 27515-2267
Mr. Andy Brown Mr. Arthur Allen
€ Mr. Harry N. Baldwin
E Equinox Environmental President, SHCG :501 Curtis Bridge Road
37 Haywood Street 207 River Ridge Road North Carolina 28697
Wilkesboro
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28803 ,
€
Mr. Greg Kidd Ms. Brooke Struve E
Senior Program Manager I Project Engineer
Mr. Jerry T. Lang Blue Ridge Field Office Federal Highway Administration
744 Grants Trail National Parks Conservation = Eastern Federal Lands Highway
E Centerville, OH 45459 Association Division
One Page Avenue, Suite 109 € 21400 Ridgetop Circle
Asheville, NC 28801 Sterling, Virginia 20166
Mr. Nicholas Finch Mr. Thomas Shifflett
Environmental Compliance
Project Engineer
•`: Specialist
Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Eastern Federal Lands Highway

Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, Division

21400 Ridgetop Circle
Virginia 20166 Sterling, Virginia 20166
Appendix A A-9
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-4. USFS Comment Letter
USDA t ats : above "er U in North Carolina 1 4,; t
Departaw t of ? Is Office f .? s. .
i r tiftgrt A 2
?8-_ ,.. b2t+0

Vii: :fin
Envh, I Pv)tM- tion Spe ialist:
BI e T -L- 5w
19') is grad

'e ' :ve revie ed your request R com"Irer, < : r?? 1 e Per vvky",? intent to prepare, Sri
en, nnm€<nu ass e=r enl for f r yVnsed rgxa; {. , z , k ay at .fvfj T,-o t 270.3 (Your IN
.. Vie support your pri -pair t1w M mad a in order to improve public
sw t• ° and rediwe the pot: t I tmvrl:c fail t ? ....: ?.
I I- F'
'e b vv no eei c ? r: :r :ss? but if -y g We, t °` °e g's
f : tere f f M --7
« . jrrh p? A , 0 J, n 4234,
t cor [ ,. s: t nn NV yo a well wit?1 i3
p F '
LF
t. arn for the r ;srVin Peop1t
Appendix A A-10
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure A-5. USFWS Comment Letter
NT OF
p United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4RCM a 1e°n Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 26, 2006
Ms. Suzette Molling
Blue Ridge Parkway
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28843
Dear Ms. Molling:
Subject: Proposed Repairs to about 200 Feet of Unstable Roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at
Milepost 270.3, Wilkes County, North Carolina
We received your letter dated Tune 1, 2006, in which you requested our comments on the subject
project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject proposed road repairs. The project area has had
chronic problems since about 1975, and multiple attempts to correct the road failure have failed.
We have no objections to the proposed project. However, as with all federal projects, we
recommend that all project sites be surveyed for federally listed endangered and threatened
species to ensure that these rare resources are not inadvertently lost. Enclosed is a list of
federally endangered and threatened species and federal species of concern for Ashe and Wilkes
Counties (the project is on the county line). In accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of
the appropriate federal agency to review its activities or programs and to identify any such
activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If it is
determined that these proposed activities may adversely affect any species federally listed as
endangered or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated. Please note that
federal species of concern 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. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them.
Appendix A A-11
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping cornrnents and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this proposed project. If we can be of assistance or if
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Plumber 4-2-06-325.
Sin?,erely, (/"//
Brian P. Cole
Meld Supervisor
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 24830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Appendix A A-12
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
The U, S. A Service (USFWS)
County e l S List for Northu""arolina
`•_ 4"
y are s.
'e
by 1.
?vSAY.Y g
L? ? ? ;:<....tlrY tl•?. :: ? 5A.l.A .. .... .:.d 1.....1 .4+:4 y TF 0..FAFr1 t> 4 €V.1:
I =X?u £ E£'.. ? -u''bb 0 U :.Orls.
lnislist cA nu, X 0 f6undInti v vt,r A Car. 1, at ,.,_.<:i. {[ £_.; ar°
d t ? owever, the i,t =, mclud.e a i1 l inf6r salon t
re et>te- --
This, 1) T
.. s : Mewed, or i t a?a;
as a ata; s..sue: e n t,> s, a: r s S iva a•w 9? ?1'I.wt't3'. :;a

Appendix A A-13
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Kanawha minnow phen acobiu teretulw F SC
Pygmy salamander Desmognalhus wrighd F'SC
Red cimsbill (Southern Appalachian) Laxia trvir tra W,
lnrjj,bmte
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
'Zpey to dian a
FSC
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetlt * anelmis gtarnrtrnorre l SC`-
Green floater Larmigana subviridis FSC
C'ri=led skipper P),rguv wyandof FSC
Midget: sn tail Uphiogomph howex FSC
Regal fntilhuy (butterfly) Speyeria idapiaz FSC
?F3S? .t??i? i+lflxat
Appalachian oak fern
Gymnocearpiwi., appalaachianum
F'SC
Bog blip grass Poa paludigena FSC
:ButtM.ut .Tuglants cinerm F'SC
Cuthbert ttwdehea+d chelone cuthberm FSC
Darlington's spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Gray's lily .Lilium grayi FSC
Gray's saxifrage Saxtf a earohniarra FSC
Hellees blazing star Liatris helleri T
7.Arge-leaved Caws-of parnassus ar'riania gran&fol d PSC.
Roan mountain bluer Hedywis paarpurea var. n onlana E
Spreading atcns Geum radialum E.
Swamp pink Helonias bsdlata T
Tall larkspur Deirrhinium ewltatum FSO
Tun y's Mountain-miTit Pyc hemum tear rei FSC"
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginirirra T
LdM
Bluffmountain reindeer leichen ladonia psaromic°a FSC
Rode gnome lichen Gymnoderm a lineare E
Wilkes County
species
Y&AkbMft
Bog turtle t:;lemmys muhlembergii T (/A)
Cc l garble Dendroica ceruleo FSC
?llt gt ,alrtY&is lejtaii FSC
Invertebrate
Diana : itiltary (butterfly) gSpeyeriaz dian a FSC
Regal fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria idaiia FSC
Appendix A A-14
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
S
?ceaJa,€?d?,???d?€: ,°€2Fu? r.£E ?°?r..
a
&cttnittorts oftieri
er rf 1, tic i'in danger of exthictlon throughout all or it significant portion of its ra?e."
= tart yr " "lief In-: :,,Lowe eta ° lac forest Ale f ?i:turs throughout 91 ow a
i st "it's rats "
.`' cant H, a a
1 ?? ,tr which there ts sufficient Information to
d
an F
'
Y
Yb
S
S -T°ua .A a spe.cjf" t = 15 ty or ix _ i . e H sted in the fntnri . 'w erly C, c i idate
,, a€ considera'M for %!<<, th e Is 1 n tioa to: w
"t dAt tc i,, tarity of i A tax" F t ::.i t d t T. ari of app-....F w m
r : r q xpe-" d ' protection. fain <t as ` (S i) are not
blot:

hXP for

' Q .A.e northern p ulntion of the, bop to .,
erg, star A I othern populat .°° f
V to Gr to sii it ` appearane'61 T* 63
d? ?Aaaa boas thy,
: ,
Io of bog I be,

s arts as f, A q the f<y et $ x e southr' 1 .:: ar t° tle. a's
a l! tderal specles of lonco e a t, ton.
Denota n+ Qf coanty F
% Apers fit ,-c._x_- -'s iesisr r_, ?ssirr ')ble° €ttas fyet
tEndo.-.... ...;:.iudle'.r the
praximit ' of l bser al- r' w °e is adj ecent cf antics..
(S) Summer b ao r..ii : -i bat county r ( --.,
* 116, tonic recd d ., 4 was last observe . ^ the county more than 50 years: ago.
C are retai d - a dior location of of 'rvation is uncertain.
1 tal,`m ra, e pecies was observed outside o its as tnai r< n,,e or habitat,
and obst 1
t. Punre and incidew Ire 'dn
Appendix A .A-15
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-6. NCDENR Comment Letter
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Moser F. Easley, $= g p Nam 0, Phase jr.. rW
R? F(
.ll L
SAL%
TO- cbrys wets
??atQ C":.eixsQhs??.oe
OH: Melba XOGea
snv wan rtm' Review Coordinator
3tM TI 46-0354 Scaping for the Propoa Ptepairs to the 81ue Ridge
Parkwxaiy at iileps.st 270.3, Section 2Z, in WiIkOA t6untV
DATE z July 6. 2006
The Depaartnout of Envirowmat and Natural Aeaourcea has reviewed the
prrsjpose f.nforx. atior.< The attached c to are for the wl.icant's
'l wnk you for the opportunit-v to review.
Xt t.aohmenta
1601 I al; rvim meter, Raleigh, North sro[ina 276W1601
PIo : 918-7334964'4I~AX: 919.715. 6Of lnWM: www&nratate.r c usIEN '
??ei?iFcl? rai?amxts. r ?.?ta? • ts? 96 ?4 h?tt?Pa?°
) IL
Ircam
a=a
Appendix A A-16
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3

AMA NZ.r
'To, Melba McGee, Eirnronrnenta;.
9?fiQll??3 fi3, F#c?? Je., Ba:Y
P ai 8 del r . aarsretrpt of Efrom oni Ond Natwral tReM1' "
Alan W Kknex, P.L.€ er
O,Mian of Water G a4ity
%JUL O
From- Sue Homewood, NC Dhision of Water Quality, Winma-Salem Office
Fuare 20, 2006
suktoct; coping. toe t nts WI Proposed repairs to the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, getti
2E, Wiik i°:ia=tY, DFNR. -0?54
Reicrenc•e --he Nation 'ark ?"S iez MS) ccrreVonderrce dated J =e 1, 2006, and w c;oa"poatden=
dated Juror 5, 2006 jr, Which you requestcd comments for the ref=.ced projeOL Prelimhlw y analysis Of
the project reveals the put-F-?Zl for natsldpla °rttp=a to perennial streams and jutisd:c€ti ai wrlli s in
the project L°el. Nfore Specifically, impacts to-
Strewn Name ? River Basin Stream >tre= lisd
Clas?lzca?tt.n ;t ?Tit?tber
Svtatm3 t"rertr E N r l 1 ti-' =24
This symbol identifies waters that are subitc, to a special rnmagernen sisatet;v specified in ; 5ti
: AC:' ZB,0225 zht utstax€d: ng Rosow-ce Wattr C F . am
`, " e-, in order to protect d06 9
wat t?tsa aatt as OXW.
u-sh r i m?est g:tians at a higher msol tioa. should. i u d naken to verily, the presence of vAer Sass
and: or jut isdictionai weda ds in the area. in the event that ; ?y %;;?: sdicti*r4 areas am identified, the
N-6si of IN= Quality re€quest? that tlihe applicant j:.emsider t6 =?sl irtg artvironmentai issues for the
proposed project:
Projeet Sp uk Co meu ;
Fat' heck and its tributaries clan sC, Tr waters of the State, D Q reccsarirrc ds fat the zrtisst
protec;ti ve sedime nt and erosion control BMPs he implemented w T --d= '"rte r Wk of turbidity
vi latisns in trout ma en. In addition. sll dirt en s within tm buffers should be rouduet i::.
accordance ,v&--, C flit1isirn of L=d Resources And tN-.C Wildlife Rest..;ces Corm lissian
z'ecimam=s,
2. Review of the projj cot reveals the Presence of s=fac e waters *,at drain dire lye into wirers Classified
as € utawndint Resource Watws of the State in the pt nett study ar . The %%ter (lt:ality
classification of OR.W is oftho hallhest clasaif cati.cri in the State. DNVQ. is ' r. lye =Oemed
With ar )' iM acts ftl MAY oPrcuM strew is with this classification, lr p?fe d tit these :?so-urccs
be avo ded .fat all possib?e. if' it is tins udble fo avoid these resm=es, tht impacts should be
mirarnizecl to the greatest wem passible. Givtta the potent for irnpac ro these resources daing the
prl?ect itnpte atatior;, the WQ nege ests z3tat ate applic t sir;ctly adhere to North Carolina
:egiala saris entitled 9'Dati?: Standards in Sensitive %Ywershe '. (15A CAC 0413.4:24) ih ngl?Otnt
des gi =d construction of fait pr+aj t.
Tfamm=
tG????t?veN#Ce?&tp/t: #l?`E,SSSti15?.iffi ?iJ1?50
, ° Ana
232t cmw oa s t $ ' AMP
'"6?b ": `: & a w« Y #39 •73 33.t (?sretz?aG :1 2a.enr site net rcv?et ar cs
Rn9-q?m t0PP?dWeyl tANI AOW4gmp?7,44V-50%Resgraa:ftMPay, alt4MWhow
Appendix A A-17
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
liver, f6t dw area regvveg repairv beca o} eatlaral seeps. k is likely that the am oarisdicfio l
uIefl ds thaa may be, lm040by this erect. rsYftil idim0wation o jurisdictional wetlands, and
impacts to any wetlands will Lk- neceso yr
General Project Comments.-
4. The rortrsten l docu= ft should ;ov°ide a &tz-led and iterr ed pre nattion of r proposed
i=ts W wetlands and atreams wif" -la p ins. I rctifiPri is necessary as roe u d
by lS A 14'1xA 2H-.0506(h), it is p fo ,3te to present a conooptual (if not fi lm,. t tiom pl.an
fb the vir0=2MItal d"Umentatiom Awopria r atiota plans Kill quiff prior to
issuance of a 4 11 Water amity Ccaficatiort.
Enviro=en l assessment altermti: Should rider deli rn items that reduce the : nnp zts to
S S And Mann ion std water r=off. Thee alternattves should tnOwIc road designs fbxtt
allnw for trea=e of the starm uratcrmoo' through best nmixgernent pmctices defiled in the
=st rocenz version o N 'f'or Stot water,hest 3 rr gew rza Iraoric+ar, such as grassed soles,.
bum atoms, preformed scour holes-, retention bWm, ete.
After the sel ton of the prefe d alternative and prior to an Mt=ce of the 401 'dater Quality
Ccrtsfioation, the NPS is mp ftit v=#ded that they wUl treed to demonstue the evoidmee an4
minimization of impacts to watUmds (and strowns) to the alt m ea nt practical, ,Ift woardar ce
with the Env °onm tal nay rent of ;nissicr's Wiles (I$ANCAC 2H.0?555 }), tt t ti will
be ne-quired f*r im 3pacts of mater than. o are to we'LIn ?pis. In the evexft t t V?ti t trn is required, the
mtti ton plan should be desired to replace appropriate lost Motions and values. Tbc N
Boas tern ha-cemant.Proorsm . may be aevailabie for use as wetland irdtiption.
7, In accorda=c vr-i the Lrwiroranental Mara meat Carnmissio n's Rutes (15.A NCw`AC 2H.0 5%(h)),
zniti?on %ill be requircd for aTMacts of greater thou 150 linear feet to any single pe=w a c
the event that ititizarim is =quia ¢ ttre nail tion plan should cashed to replace a.Pp me
log fUncdom and values. The NC Ecosystem trd:anee nt Program may be available for a as
stern zrad ti on.
DW is very concerned wfth tedimeot and erosion impacts 'ftt miald result fly ftsprojoct, N
sbo t, .d adt+ttss ttaesa cone s by rl i bin the po tm ial impacts that may moor tm3 the a u
enVironmerfs and y znitigat g factors tat would redace the IrepcM
9, If bundation test borings am new: ', it should be tote W' . the doac:==t: Geot lmic work is
approved =,der Gen 14 1 Certiftcation Number 94 at%onwide Pamm No. 6 &r Survey
Acf vities.
M 8edimant and erosion control u suits mdfioio t to protect w resources =St be bnPIeMMW ad
ttt ihtt in acoordame v . the most r tt version o North t rolii a edit and E on
t*ol Fianatht and Design Mtta1 and a mor, recent v rslo € ofN S tI {3.
I l . All sTA in or z4?,acent to strew water shopld be conducted a dry wort area unless othem se
app. vedby C- DWQ.
12. Sediment and cros mi control measo s should not be p!-ced in uvlands.and atruiiis.
Appendix A A-18
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
i North Carolina Wildlife wares Commission
'Richard R. Hamilton, Executive Dirwor
TO; M 1be McGee, l Vitowrental COonbnatar
Cffioc of Izoladve and Frtlgcavemmentai Affairs., DENR
FROM: Marla Cbam'e . West= NCDO ' Pte[ moor ,
:habitat Ccc rvadon Prograrr4 CRC
DATE: June 30,2W n
Sf.SMM S000,09 xev ew tl National Park Savice"s proposed prof t to repair a section
of unstable road on the Blue Rid Ps€ way at nest 270.3, Sermon ,
Wilkes County. NC, OLIA PrMjeat O, tl O3 4, due 1 , 21 36,
7ke National Parke Service is planning to prepare en Environmmttal A,ss ament for the
proposed project North Cetolia Wildlife Resources Comillission C RC had reviewed the
inkwnm ion provided for owerns regarding impacts to fish uO,%rildlife ru es resulting from
the snl?ect pioject. Staff biologists have the following preliminary cc7mmms. 'lbw dents
am, provi d in accordance with the pmvisions of the National virgin mental. PN)licy Act (42
US-C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;1
` ',S.C.661-667d),
T National Park Service proposes to repair approximately 200 linear feet of =stable
roadbed on the Blue fudge sway at milepost 2.70.3, Section 2E. Aftrapts to arrest the .
road movement that began in 1975 have proven to lac ineff°eWve and now more advanced
geotedoal solutions a bring oox rdereA.. Altertnattw include concrete anchor blocks and
replacing the section wvi. a bridge that has either paved or grassed shoulders.
The e ject apps to be near the headwatm of Pine Sump Deck Cuss C+, that flays
into Aft County, or Full Creek, Clan C T!r., whieb flows Into Wilkes Catty, Brook trout
loO%'n to inhabit these and Odw headw r stieams in the arcs:, Pine Swamp Cretk joins the
South Pork New Raver downstream, wWCh app to be Outstanding Reaatt= Watr attd to
inbalnited by the Kona ha minnow (Phen ac bias ter°etuba ), a Fadmttll Species of Conte and
state Special Concern. Controlling off-site settkawntation will be very important for this project,
1l Ilittg Address: leM7n of biM Pisl70rift -'1721 MQ Saviee Ceuta * hale , K 276994721
` tlepho to [phone] = F Ax- (910) 707 $
Appendix A A-19
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Blue Ruip pak y repair
Wilkes cbtlnty -PAGE 7, - Juat 14, 2M
S treat and+ ion oontrol measures should. adh tD tlr design standards ft t n tive
watersheds.
It is lilmly that wedanda a pint at the project site and ftt We roadway a4 built on
wetlands, ling to tho existing p laps, Bog turdm (GtypremX nuddenbergia), state
Tfavatmed and federal Threatened due to Si iladty of A mance, are known from the goneml
area. Ram salamanders may also exist at the project site. Surveys should conducted to
deterrnine the potential mpa to ram and listed species. Impacts to wetlands should be avoided
or tninhnized t the extent practica le.. There my be an opportunity to restore wetlands in the
m if a midge alternative is selected, whirl , given the current infbnnatim will likely be the
solution we'd recommend.
In &Mtion, to help facilitate docun at propaation zd the rsvizw mod", r s al
information needs a outlined below.
I Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a fisting of
fed+ ly or stye designated thmatened, andan , or special concern spa des, Vidal
brow ass to be used for project constraction shoWd be included in the invcatories. A
lung of deserted p1 rt species can develo* through oons tation with f
following prat
The Nail Heritage Program
htt ° #?.c; , nh
1601 Service meter
Raleigh, N. C 27699-1601
and,
NCDA Plaint Conservation Program
P. Q, Box 27647
Raleigh-, E , 27611
(919) 733-361D
Description of any stcea or wedands affected by the project, it applicable, include fte ,
linear fed of Oft= that wi l channelized or located.
3. Cover type snaps showing wetland acreage impacted by the a ject. Wetland a=VW
old Include all project- 1ated arm that May eD hyal logic, dhallp 28 4 Melt Of
ditching, otl drainage, or flung for pro* construction. Wetland i4mificati ri tip
be smompl hed tltiouOicoor nation with ft U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(U'SACE). If the SACS is not consulted, the ptrsoz delineating wetlands should be
ident od and csiteria listed,
4. Cover type mapshov ing ao go of upland wildlife haWtat impa d by th o proposed
project.. Potential borrow sites and waste areas should be included,
Appendix A A-20
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
B€X RAP Perk y MOT
Wlks CaunIy -PAGE S - line X 2DOO
Show the extent to which the projoct will result h) loss, degraWOn. or fragmentation 0
Wildlifo habitat (4a oft- s or uplands)..
b, lncludc the mitigation plan for avwding, minimizing or compensating Re direct and
indirect dc gradation in habitat qw-&ty as well as quotit lAre lasses.
7 Add ms the ov i env n=ntd effete Of the p jtCt CstrUCtiOU d =tif;Y the
contribution of this ndiAdu prq ect to envir ntal de dation.
Provides a diwussion of the p a le impacts on natural two s, which will result from
sewnda:ry developmr, facilitated ky the improved rml mess;
9. If c.ontmicti n of this facility is to be coor&nrited with other state, t°n is ipai, or private
tic loptnent ptk i ts, a description of tbooc projects should l included in the
emn Mall de pt, and all project sptwrs should be ideatified.
'hank you foT the op m ity to provide input in the early plnninS staj w `this project.
If you liar=e may questions reaming timse co ents, gleam contact at (704) 545=384L
cc: Maredla Du idk; USFWS
S Hones ii, NCDWQ
Angie R.ndgera, aICNHF
Appendix A A-21
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
A-7. Wilkes County Comment Letter
S FOR RVMw
1by
s^ {. e Rim., as'#dLde€ ! aa7"...£?affi 5# `IY? c w'
the ?11 m .aid.
Flu. : {;Ga . a. +t3aA
1"Wwwo SIB %Ad -Rot m
Tbu1t e 06h Tw,
gb fQ=Oy ;job of vaa :
ma~:, :ems'

Owy Y,(" vrium co" ,.
ak aF
'Amt. 7tA
f?
iwpmempm d= too can altae o)
E
° -Sol- avemb-, I.

j n resml with tl god$ Od Oi mw o il>la Ismy's wVMps
TbA ts??`
dF:?
DittW
e
Appendix A A-22
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
APPENDIX B: CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGE
Appendix B B-1
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3 "
Choosing by Advantage
In an effort to select the best alternative the National Park System uses a selection and ranking process
that is based on the relative advantages and costs of each project in accomplishing service-wide goals and
objectives. This process is called Choosing by Advantage (NPS, 1999). In using the Choosing by
Advantage (CBA) process, the National Park Service asks itself "what and how large are the advantages
of each project" proposed for consideration, "how important are the advantages of the projects", and
finally "are those advantages worth their associated cost". Projects then compete against each other in the
CBA process that evaluates all the projects relative to the following factors, which reflect the National
Park Service mission:
• Protect cultural and natural resources
• Provide for visitor enjoyment
• Improve efficiency of park operations
• Provide cost-effective, environmentally responsible, and otherwise beneficial development
for the National Park Service.
The results reflect total benefits of each project toward achieving the National Park Service mission. Cost
is then introduced to the priority setting process, establishing an importance to cost ratio. The resulting
priorities represent those projects which provide the greatest benefit to the National Park Service for each
dollar spent.
During the period of July 26-28, 2005, a value analysis panel convened at the Holiday Inn Express in
Boone, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting was to select a preferred alternative to address the
slide and unstable roadbed at MP 270.3. The Value Analysis (VA) team consisted of 14 participants:
Blue Ridge Parkway
John Gentry, Chief of Maintenance & Engineering
Gary Johnson, Supervisory Landscape Architect
Suzette Molling, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Mike Molling, Facility Manager
John Wilburn, Supervisory Civil Engineer
Larry Hultquist, Landscape Architect
Denver Service Center
Pat Sachs, VA Facilitator, Project Specialist
Leon Clifford, Project Manager
Al Hollister, Landscape Architect
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration
Tom Shifflett, Project Manager
Mark Clabaugh, Bridge Engineer
Jonathan Woody, Lead Designer
The CBA was completed and later the graphs and charts were amended when more detailed geotechnical
analysis reports for the slide area and updated Class C estimates for all three alternatives being proposed
Appendix B B-2
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
were attained (Figures B-1 and B-2). With the new geotechnical analysis FHWA was able to better
define conceptual design and cost estimates for all three alternatives in 2008 dollars.
The VA/CBA process indicates that with weighting of factors such as construction and life-cycle costs,
resolution of slide stability and risk rating, environmental impact issues, and other VA/CBA factors, the
anchor block system is considered the preferred design solution.
Appendix B B-3
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-l. CBA Chart
L E RIDGE PARKWAY - SLIDE MITIGATION
I)
Choosing by A€lywitages
COMPONENT:. FUNCTION-
FACTOR ALTERNATI-v'ES
CB A- vet.-Sion 1 kitext:wivm A Alteniative B ,Alteniative C
Re.-akpxn nt SS1th Ahgtmtent as is xvitb anchor BfAge spantllSlg shde
upslope cut -walls block eope rt"?a

F 10TEd T 7« L cv ? l

a?.'T FR I --MCHInnwF I3;3y7 Ct5. il? f?:YEtii
v^eII:etatian
Atmb rtes Disturb& _25 acre's • Disturbs 1.15 acres • No disturbance to foreJi
Atnocaut of cleataika and segetation
¢eukbnx? YeosEttrE........ -", v.
Ad- aritages Leas. distcsYbance than. B ^,.0 0 iAv ttc3i leas distisrbanee t£an B 81
FACTOR 2 -Avoid impacts to cultmral
landscape at site
ar ttral3taies • Change: wad . maiutaham emsting ali`entaaent . Maintains eximnn_g
s Desme. ofchanse to hastonc alignaaientand cross • No new material= to site ahgaanaent
designed siecti n of parkway section s Changes road secsion
• Introduf-tion of new aaaaterials Introduces at} slope • lumoduces a bn4e
cutwalis, fall watts and
.... ......... ........... .....................

AdYanraees .....??
....................
.....
0

P Sunific-a idly Better than

.q4

Much beater than A
FACTOR 3 -Compatfole with design
feature_,charaeteaisiic ofpaskway
development, in general
?:tm- bides • upslope acct :nails not • Compatible. Compatible
• Degee to which solution it n ed anon a here oaa
umilar to historic parkway paekway
design features . Sinulrr cun-es brokea3
back c r-e,: are used on
the parkway where
axeees7wy
• Not compatible
_
AdYanta?es (j :: duck snare compatible than Ax qty" :3uch snore: compatible tltau A 90
Appendix B B-4
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
coo-1PONE-"T: FUNCTION:
FACTOR. -ALTERNATIVES
CBA -Version 1 Alternative A Alrernattiv $ iitntaiiEr C
Re-ahgImlent with A lignment m is with anchor Bridge spawme Aide
npslope Cur .galls block stope area
5t1?,it112atIp13
;tR MIDE FOR i ISITC)R

FACTOR 4- iaincagsscem d<tiawg
e. erleace
At?abate + t'uts,alis std St ardr.ali \Iduta= ?l erieuce +
Bodge changes
Sung :era tr.xpuze, to drtx ing c)xtenge _
exgentute
atcee............<.....»...
.33 tu >ceen•.apenencey
.....
...
a ':y
t ..... ... . .,,.
•
t ges t S?i€t? better
han A $ Better tLnu A s4

F?L""?4R ? w titaiit:i?s •3.sea acre` of ............._ .:...... .
L-seaY*
Atmfrates Some c.los:i:e ? No ctc+rure . C:a%tre for duamuou of
Dumiton of patktrar elcswe owtnxdoit durad= of + Cousnuettou duration of I pulleet
i %a,;*c seasau • Cow3ur:tm darawn of
' seasons
;tt4autases :€ete: h ?G ti I'lu:ltbe.terti:ait ; p

WRO S EFFICIENCY or PARK
313NTEN- NCE O:°MkTlCt'`?S
FACTOR 6 - .Ituir I annuafl
ww"emce r uuemwEs
?ta?ttas ?'-PPra?cuuazelx• .?;ppsvatu?:ri?• :?pP»o?icaatei?
? ?ppzaxt?eaeesnnltat Ct?S; .^.?
a tegax ce a=, the ire
ds'?ut tgt s Soaaaa Lae iaet er an C 3t1 etter than C 3$ t 0

r?GT©T? "• - ?rt~teer F?np:;+r•ee Hzdt?.
Safers and lVeHare of vmr ors atA
t'?l °.iTeei
Factor (A --Efteeaseaess Ufa`-ernatr,=e
a, s:ab:iziae so ?soadheQ
its gyres Avoids gout of failed s Stabihzes road to prerew spivs faded area
*Tea cuastrophic :allu.e
• Road Way still +, rle
Appendix B B-5
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
cOh:CPQI `T: FUNCTION
FACTOR -ALTERNATI'V'ES
CBA - 'Giron 1 AIze=tive A Alremative B Altemtire C
Re=altgntzt w with Alignium as is wide anchor Bridge sgatuazerg slide
upslope cut walls block- shape area
Stabilization
.
..•..•......................... ............
eitei
p$
MOVIDE COST-EMCT2 T,
M-Mtllw'I TALLY
RHSPONSIBLE. Ate? OTHERII'ISE
SLNUICLA.L €tEVELO" SN'r FOR
THE NPS
Faams'.%-Reliability ofraaillra
(dtgret of n*',
At?tl?u es May low do ens ogt< tin. 4fay lose road • Net Lkt j :z lox road,
but t'x road. wu* risk . ia+drsa:e asi r m`o ri;l
.
Ada-tutaets Siptrtcaad-betverthanB ti i} '"'cagily bete:dm8 l?tq

FACTORS • 1'rrside 01w A& autages
to the National Park Swan and When
TActo .Sa-:4liar woes impactstQ loM4
busines-es comuutc nes
Arnbuift » :,hoar negawe =pact . NO inepa.: ? egatirt i>r?ac:
• G ax»tatn! a dl elv t0 • Uti»YWattt hWy to st,pp= c0a uritti less s-elv to
stg3gott pr ;ect p)ect sttgpost dux to duratton of
-- - ..."' -.. t:a?usattcnauperlad
.............,.. ................ •...-... ... .. r.
d: aittages . ..•w .....
2?3et.e_ bay ...........' •..w.;.' . ? ... QC .......•... •..w
ueh berter La' .T?
45 ... ......... r. ..... .......• ..«.r..
G

TOTALD,VO .TA CES OF 378 410 ?3S
AD AXTAGES
luirlal c0%

Re.de qu Cost Addlttoa•'i deowb iieetie?, Ka etaxcit uteded.M•deugn Sarre je-owa my be needed
es.=ated at . re-de-1p ccis:.t Art applicat e for bndtjte Auuuen-m
eratnotapp:i:able eau=-edat rc.destza
cosm wn livable

CCII IPONE'YT: F l 1 f T tF? V
FACTOR ALTEM4TWES
CB A- Version I Alrtmative A Alrtruattiv 8 AlteruatitV C
Rua-3hpulleur SS'tth Alipunear as is widt andbor Bndge sparlti ng iIrde
ttpslope cur xralls block slope area
stabilization
Contplinr?ce M Sl .ca:e EA not be EA. irclutlmg scud aectiot 106 EA. iucludius Secrita 106
Mcessa>
Section i06 cutnlx ntewould .c+irtp:i e
be regtue3, park: could handle
Section 106 tiaww h?

tae:;
Ire cycle cos:
TOTAL
t??tsot: l- i::98
Appendix B . B-6
U.S. National Park Service Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
Figure B-2. CBA Graph
Figure B-2. BA Graph
Blue, Rid V.- » W' fie, t ??• 3

tNl
tea;'

L11
€.9
z 5arc.
F-
Ir
c4
eC
LIFE CYCLE COST(Not FY 2007 Dollars)
Appendix B B-7
U.S. National Park Service
Environmental Assessment
Blue Ridge Parkway Repair of Unstable Roadbed at Milepost 270.3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B B-8
f OW/($
o ?
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
From: Sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Quality, Winston-Salem Office slik
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed repairs to the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section
2E, Wilkes County. DENR #06-0354
Reference the National Park Service (NPS) correspondence dated June 1, 2006, and your correspondence
dated June 5, 2006 in which you requested comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of
the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Pine Swam Creek New C + 10-1-24
Fall Creek Yadkin C, Tr 12-31-2-2
't' his symbol identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A
NCAC 2B .0225 the Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) Rule, in order to protect downstream
waters designated as ORW.
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that the applicant consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Fall Creek and its tributaries are clas sC; Tr waters of the State. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of turbidity
violations in trout waters. In addition, all disturbances within trout buffers should be conducted in
accordance with NC Division of Land Resources and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
requirements.
2. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters that drain directly into waters classified
as Outstanding Resource Waters of the State in the project study area. The water quality
classification of ORW is one of the highest classifications in the State. DWQ is extremely concerned
with any impacts that may occur to streams with this classification. It is preferred that these resources
be avoided if at all possible. If it is not possible to avoid these resources, the impacts should be
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Given the potent for impacts to these resources during the
project implementation, the DWQ requests that the applicant strictly adhere to North Carolina
regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout
design and construction of the project.
N,o??f Caro in
Transportation Permitting Unit r/ VlltllCll?t!!,?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto:Nh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
i
3. Given that the area requires repairs because of natural seeps, it is likely that there are jurisdictional
wetlands that may be impacted by this project. Careful identification of jurisdictional wetlands, and
.impacts to any wetlands will be necessary.
General Project Comments:
4. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
5. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NPS is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance
with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will
be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation.
7. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 211.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
8. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NPS
should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
9. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ.
12. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
13. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
14. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
15. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
16. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed,
sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NPS is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-771-4964 or [e-mail].
cc: John Thomas, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DWQ 401 Transportation Unit
Department of Environment and N atural resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 06-0354 . County: Wilkes Date Received: 06/05/2006
Due Date: 06/30/2006
Project Description: Proposal to repair 200 linear ft of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost
270.3, Section 2E in Wilkes County
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville v/ Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh
? Land Quality Engineer Solid Waste Mgmt
Wildlife - DOT --
Washington Radiation Protection
Forest Resources
Wilmington Other `
? Winston-Salem Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality =
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: .,.,-..?.-.

Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
TIP Scouing to Regions le6*P
Sue Homewood (WSRO) : Div. 7, 9, 11.
Polly Lespinasse (MRO) : Div. 8, 10, 12.
TIP # County:
Vt/ r I ?2S
nd, , Ra, - k wa
Name of Project: e9
?-? ?-
Response Due Date:
TU?-e_
? o, 20
DENR Project review form and. pre-application project materials
attached.
Check one: FILE Copy
Tis your copy. Keep it and send only cc of comments. to.
Sonia at central office.
This. is. our only copy. Please return to Sonia at central office
along with cc of comments. Thank you!
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs .
Project Review Form
Project Number: 06-0354 County: Wilkes Date Received: 06/05/2006
Due Date: 06/30/2006
Project Description: Proposal to repair 200 linear ft of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost
270.3, Section 2E in Wilkes County
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh
? Land Quality Engineer
Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
,-
Washington Radiation Protection
Wilmington Forest Resources Other ?'11006
? Winston-Salem Land Resources
? Parks & Recreation
Water Quality s ,'.>t
Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency: ......
_.

Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
=i06
.
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
tW
United States Department of the Interior LW
0. National Park Service
Blue Ridge Parkway
IN P"LY PMM M 199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
L7617
PIN 10058
June 1, 2006
Dear Interested Party:
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500
to 1508), and the National Park Service (NPS) NEPA compliance guidelines (DO-12), the NPS
has decided to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to repair approximately 200 linear
feet of unstable roadbed on the Blue Ridge Parkway at Milepost 270.3, Section 2E, in Wilkes
County, North Carolina. Proposed alternatives include spanning the unstable area by either
construction of a bridge on the Parkway or retaining the area with an anchor block system. The
anchor block system would be installed on slopes below the Parkway and would include
installation of additional subsurface drainage beneath Parkway fill colluvium and pavement.
Project Background
The roadbed movement at Milepost 270.3 has been active since the spring of 1975. This section
of Parkway has high potential for catastrophic failure and is rated a traffic safety problem due to
uneven pavement caused by continued settlement. Visitor complaints of near accidents have
been received as the underlying slope and fill materials continue to move and road surfaces
deteriorate. As a result this area is considered an extremely high priority. Because attempts to
arrest this movement have proven to be ineffective, more advanced geotechnical repair solutions
must be considered.
A horizontal subsurface drainage system was installed in the late 1970's and twice in the 1980's
to remove subsurface drainage beneath fill soils believed to be the main cause of the movement.
The pavement has been patched and reconstructed numerous times to remove pavement dips
caused by settlement, but movement and pavement settling continue.
In 1992 in another attempt to stabilize the area, a drilled shaft/horizontal drainage gallery was
installed and the pavement was repaired. The system performed well for several years, but
movement was reactivated in 1995 with up to five inches of settlement within a two-year period.
Two adjacent areas of roadway, approximately 85 feet apart, have been patched since 1997. An
inspection of the 16 horizontal drains installed in 1992 revealed that they have been removing an
2 °i
average of approximately one gallon of water per minute from beneath the slide area. However,
a number of trees along the lower portion of the fill slope began to lean and geotechnical
monitoring of the area indicate continual slope movement and the slope is considered highly
potential for catastrophic failure. Recent geotechnical testing and analysis reveal that roadway
movement is most likely caused by water movement between fill colluviums deposits and
residual soils. Because past attempts to arrest the movement have proven to be ineffective, more
advanced geotechnical repair solutions must be proposed.
Project Alternatives
Four alternatives for the proposed project are currently being considered by BLRI. These
include:
1. Alternative A (No Action): Leave the unstable roadway as is.
2. Alternative B (Anchor Blocks): The slope would be stabilized using concrete anchor
blocks with tendons anchored to rock beneath the slip plane.
3. Alternative C (Bridge with paved shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable
area. Some of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and
the existing roadway in this section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be
paved.
4. Alternative D (Bridge with grass shoulders): Construct a bridge to span the unstable area.
Some of the material from the site would be removed when placing the bridge and the
existing roadway in this section would be obliterated. Bridge shoulders would be grass.
The EA will analyze alternatives and the resulting decision will establish the repair solution for
this unstable roadbed. Please identify any resources within your purview that may experience
potential impacts from this project and list specific mitigation measures. Please provide your
written comments by July 3, 2006 to:
Blue Ridge Parkway
Attn: Suzette Molling
199 Hemphill Knob Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28803
If you have any concerns or questions, please contact Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at 828-2714779 ext. 219 (Asheville, N.C.).
We welcome your involvement and encourage your input into this proposal.
Sincerely,
"/ ` L
f a( Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Superintendent
r
r

A
M
S
P?
6P 6
n J
N
+7, 0 a - E C
g lJ
U
z
co n
N
z W
(Y N y
d m 3
UI i ? m
w? '-
a
ca
w `
.a
v
?a
e;
3P

? ? III
2 a
IL
a a
F ? II', a
N
d
0
K ? ? N
N>?
Q2
UPS
W ? Q
O ?
Zy??
f ? ? U
ym$?
W
C, 0
z
2
R
WO
LLf
Oa
? O
jH,
W C
Z?
U
?w
z
0