19940569 Ver 1_Complete File_19940620

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC-DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
'm IL
E:) F= F11
June 24, 1994
Macon County
DEM Project # 94569
FILE OPY
You have our approval to place fill material in 535 linear feet of waters for the
purpose of stream bank stabilization along Little Tennessee River at US 23-441, as you
described in your application dated 13 June, 1994. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
2665. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 13 when it is issued
by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John
Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
P eston oward, Jr P.E.
ector
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
94569.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
q'i 50'
aM S1ATF
UWE,
ISSUE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 13, 1994
District Engineer I?'! l
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
20,
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 25402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Unit
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Macon County, US 23-441 from Georgia State Line
near Franklin, TIP No. R-2103A, State Project
No. 6.979006T, COE Action ID No. 199302697.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes
to upgrade existing US 23-441 in Macon County to a five-lane
facility from the North Carolina-Georgia State Line to
Prentiss Road (SR 1649). This project was authorized under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by letter dated July 18,
1993.
Heavy rains in the winter and spring of this year have
resulted in significant flood stages on the Little Tennessee
River in the project vicinity. These floods caused severe
scouring of the channel bank along much of the river. It has
been determined that at two locations there is conflict with
proposed construction limits and a potential for compromising
the structural integrity of the highway facility.
The first site occurs at the intersection of US 23-441
with SR 1102, where a meander in the river directs flow
almost 90 degrees to the project. The channel bank at this
location has migrated 10'-25' towards the highway since the
site was surveyed prior to design of the project. The NCDOT
proposes that rock bank stabilization be placed along the
west bank from about 150' upstream of station 80+00 to
station 82+00 (Se Sheet 3). It is estimated that 337 cubic
yards of ro wil be placed below ordinary high water for a
distance of '350' This results in 0.96 cubic yards per
linear foot, therefore this discharge may qualify under
Nationwide Permit No. 13.
G)
A
1 IC6?
y3
The second site occurs at station 293+00 to 295+50,
where the river makes a sweeping bend towards the project
site. The relatively high elevation of the opposite river
bank has directed substantial high velocity flows towards the
project. This has resulted in severe undercutting of the
bank near the project limits. This undercut extends into the
proposed fill slope limits, consequently, the stability of
the proposed roadway is compromised. The NCDOT proposes that
rock bank stabilization be placed from 93+00 to 95+50 having
base width and height on 7' on 1:1 slope (See Sheet 6).
Although the channel bank is 8'-9' high, this proposal should
arrest undercutting and allow for vegetation to reestablish
at the top of channel bank. This proposal will result in 185
cubic yards of fill below Ordinary'High Water, resulting in
0.74 cubic yards per linear foot of fill. This impact could
also be authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 13.
Several alternatives were considered to provide adequate
protection for the roadway. Due to the natural topography
and present land use, relocation of the roadway is not
considered viable. Placement of rock gabions would provide
more stable roadway protection, however, this option requires
land disturbance activities in the river channel. This
activity would raise environmental impact concerns,
especially since the Little Tennessee River is classified as
High Quality Waters. It has been decided to take action only
in the most critical areas to avoid lengthy permit and
construction delays.
This situation has already been discussed with the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission, the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management, and the Asheville Corps of
Engineers Office. Enclosed you will find a pre-discharge
notification form and plan sheets depicting the proposed
work. Please review this proposal for authorization under
Nationwide Permit No. 13. If you need any additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin [phone].
Sincerely,
B.J. O'Quinn, PE
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
cc: David Cox, NCWRC
Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Micky Clemmons, NCWRC
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
V. A. Edwards, PE, Division 14 Engineer
Kelly Barger, PE, Project Management
Don Morton, PE, Design Services
A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics unit
NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWT 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands),.
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites; including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands);'
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWT 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
1 ?
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement:. For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the "proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.

DEM ID: ACTION ID: 199302697
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit ft
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. SOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning'& Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): " (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
-B. J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Macon
Nearest Town or City: Otto
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): US 441-23
6. Name of Closest Stream/River.
7... River Basin:
Little Tennesse River
Little Tennessee
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS 11? YES [X] NO [ J
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [X ] NO'[
If yes, explain. 404 permit issued for roadway widening
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
N/A
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: Site 1: 337 c.y. below OHW; Site 2: 185 c.y. below OHW
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: Site 1: 337 c . y . below OHW; Site 2: 185 c . y . below OHW

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only):
See attached plans.
13. Purpose of proposed work: Public Roadway
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [XI NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.By copy of this
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ ) NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Rural, mountainous
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
i
letter.:
3

O? ? o

t?
z
E
?
6a
p ??t
eP?
9
J?
1g
o ?
P p
o `?
In ?

t
? 11
? I I + 1
D u
F. Y
" U d
N
? J
a n o
?
o a,
m m

O o m •?
E o -6

v
`o m
0
m
LL IL 1°

} N
J

U I
? !
m
C
O
? t
I J
o
tY ?

T J
-p T
T J
y 4! m
2 ? J

C
U Cj
z
V) Z

V O
?.
\ I-
} 4• < U
Y
U w U O
:
V)
~ . w

Z V)"
W uj

' J
Y Z ¢ Z

Z Q
• W
O
J fil ?

w
J
H
W
W
oQLL
F-
W
f
o Y
O ^I
1
04
N
pO 01
O ti
07

C
V
t
M
OD 7C /I/ aCCe
z^- --wry "'? --? f,?-?I? .? ? ` ? .i` ? `- ;? i, !'_ ?? !•

oa ., Y i

I tu/
- FJr
1n

?
?•_ ? n `? ? U O O Iy i? T
a n. i J J • I
\ O ?\ O C z
O \
x to
L" -7
at a
n{ 3 g is 0
_ m i
rl;
61 C?j
"0 In
Q Wop? aVib?ova?
4 _R
to N s`? < N m. o m?09 0 cn ?
lz 0,
O 440?1?CN
a
W .?. W r,o Q 1\ -° I
oaaaa ?'` <LQO ?f--
ON J W N O ?. I :ti> 1 1 Imo' 1 Q1 U J, n .. .D i:! ?`Ii
S >oy i Inp , " II
,fit °°m? .wb
JH. - p _ dj: i I 000
b-
a CV/
- a?> ? r p ?? CIF _ i I
> I
w -Si
o _ oi_ w 'p1 ! 1 W to o N
aN `
t ? w
v
M
t
BG> 4'1 P3
70 8/7
i
?c
?n

7,7,; rc? = D, -21 z 6 Z 0?Z
D,//, 4/ _ e, 0 7B I? 1-576 T W
Win. ?.ro .
?G?9G
zv?c
2G 7G
?G2/cC,

f
80
y
?.J
S?e.e? S
7-o /a Ae.2-

3

G?/a? D,N.??

a.O/? :, Z

> 3 wt
zl-

-. _. ?..r _'zo 72,
r
F,'l/ 8dlau ?? ?--

.4

14-
-Z 7?
71

\

,,- c
Z-' o
/L'C?
?/f So

C
?_d' 247
ht
1.50 /a MARY SNOPE
0?- LT. " D(3. 0-v PC. A6
.TER OB.t-t PO. 26T
45 r ;.C' • Z _ VOODS x0005
ts? _....? •? 'G?J,T,A3.;,`? y, ,.. ' P.O.E. '
A 0. Non7ON ??;!: •70.26. .? .
•J PG.3 - ;:y; SLOPE StA[E Lr,E 7,t •52 '89.88 -. t
:'r 0'• •50 SI' (L T) •75 50' IL I) • ¦0005 .
•50 :? Tr 3'S' ' 151' flTl G: •: 1..
65' (LT •95 • .i
26' 7LT) •15.00 a. . N ' 65: (LT) .
•50 F
120' ILT) -01j- •`?
•48. - N ?cy :r 56' (L T) ,
-93' (L11
- b y''`- - F. ?; t.. ? f ? . Lr:: ,y)t/?Q'? 1 1: -• j cs ?-
-'s Pr E e
f?E; 2J ToOD F\an / I r-LA5 SAtrp Rs
E i J PROP. R/w f.•,.. ' \ -00 08. CX; PC. K0
4- 9' ,y.. C•:r. t?• ; - i2' c>' 8L.12.58
_ 49.93' (LT) ' S 'N1
•7 / - .•i9•CJ)L PROP. R/w•
• _. .- L?E?_?.. _ S.i._-_. ?.?:P i'J K'; ,•:,,_:. -.., _.._ ..-.... '.r':.. S•? r ( .?` I I j ' EsPRE55rar CUi tER
, . - _ ,• ?. COX[ "__ 0 •-- f ?
,
?: - __.. . _ REMOVE /U.T .C ' 1 g• O?S' ?" - j 0
,. _. - _ •- ..-_ q: A
PS.. PROP. AT-1,
••- _ _ _ -LI- •' WaRORUL -
PS 30• --,MST all 30. POl t - t 1 ..
X59/. i4- ..,0'PS'... -PEO PROP. GUARDRAIL u7S,0E Ex,S T. a2' tlL PS REMOVE- a
ILL 's T-cs 0ROUNO 10• W/CROU '
RE
• ..`:.• T. tj, )•?:j.1.::: }) :` -r-?_"T__I_ OEBEOR,a '.'PS 2 L- 36, O I
•-.,'._._ _- FOP -1 ,.r.??. ?•.. ): F ?...
?VE24•=l °o:? - -,y1.. .? . (K Tes- .L3-.. ? `_. _i ..
,'rOpS__•_ -- ....... •'S P.... 41 GCOi
C)IORO 1 •n ; -????:E _ Y? I
ESE •?, _ -. .. ? E----??E-- _
:. ,E'<E•1.: :, '; •"''" .05.24 '02
,E ?G• .1 - :.' ' 6 PROP. R/w •• F0.Li?'tiX-
.90 .. 61.15' F`yxAeLE Ft.
90-IRT) E•:% C) RO
-57
L 4TEO 7A( TES OF AMERICA. CITJt TENNESSEE J?. £ E• .4' S ( ST Slo 298.0524 .01
.
AL' e: 05.00' (RTN P0.36 .I .10.35 eb'65
\ l ?i :?•'=.. - •28---._ - - \ :7 P-O.E $? •57 62' (RTl 50. ?..'h• $0'
_ °•63
NEL ucCLURE. Y.
•lt,l8 m 315.74' - - --.i PROP. R/W ' S; HO 1 :' 9Q' (Ri) -*NN
-0'768 1 r •- S 9 tTT'rr ?.? ?. t 0 --1OS.0O L h.' 57.91/
i r \ 05'tRTJ,i'" od); b
CLASS . I T8'STONE P.O.E.
EST •23 ISaB Za-S5
EST. u)!
:L PEr70N kcCWRE P
Clan _U
Aaar, s.u CONC. C '(RT7
90' }= CLASS STONE 5.7: FLTER i 106.42' 39 ro: .49 907 IRT)
i EST. 4 TONS FABRIC, I .r\ i D8. B•76 PO. 73 59
FABRIC/ . 1. 127' 1 Y, \90.92•' , '19 .•-a ASS 'B' STQ7u
CL x/8.9 S.Y, FILTER -18
FABRIC - ?: EST.
CS o 295 0524
122'(R7) \ ! •499.12
.12 24$ >••?n?--? w/)).7 9 TONS
S.Y. F!L7
I?) FABRIC75
SC Slo 290 C69T SLOPE TARE LK -39( 4 98' (RT) r35.35t
_ CLASS 'B' STONE 47 RTIsir .n'2C' 9514
EST. 6.3 TONS \ t 1;•z6?'" -?, ;J?• •".,- OORTH' LEE BREWN CJ
?
L:-; , W/13.3 S.Y. FILTER zT ?:- _ s•;-
FABRIC CLASS '8' STONE ry OD•U-T PL. SJ •8
C' EST. I TON 5(
W/2.7 S.Y. FILTER
'8' STONE FABRIC
ON Pl Slo 289.0743 P/ 5/0 292.5 2 / 1o 296.05.30
S.Y. FILTER g . q' 3a 0` i' 14'56' 53. (RT) a 4.30' 01 EouATION:
Ls 30040' 0 -33,0071 00 Ls - 3L o LI Slo 298•/035
LT 2GL?46' L - 49827' • 20046' -L- Sla 298.09.40 AH
ST - 10746' T • 25056' T - 10046'
R - 1-"B6'
S.E. - 46 FT./FT.
R4. - 3Gri
? ? ?Y?II/?a.tlDr
?.Lk 44/
r

E
?
? ? 7T'?L
?
xr
sr
rnc ? i

41

I.. ' ,i(rn?,? /1f.Crlill ?r t/ f /ft}r, i'.1cil/l/ il.f?.s?.?:/? ^'?"' ' f c' _ ! ?

s?f ?

t
US 23-441
MACON COUNTY
from
North Carolina-Georgia State Line
to
SR 1649 south of Franklin
T.I.P. No. R-2103
State Project 6.979001
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)
S-5-501 - 144C-4
DATE ^/L.. ard, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental, NCDOT
DATE ?aK Nic Ws L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

1

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IWACT
' Prepared by the
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
of the
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
I. Type of Action
' This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based
' on the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for US 23-441 from the North
Carolina-Georgia State Line to SR 1649 south of Franklin in Macon County, North
Carolina (T.I.P. Project No. R-2103) approved July 25, 1990. This EA has been
' independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. Further, it
' provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
Description of Action
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to upgrade existing US 23-441 in Macon County to a five-lane facility from
the North Carolina-Georgia State Line to Prentiss Road (SR 1649) as shown in
' Figure F-1. The total length of the project is approximately 9.2 miles.
III. Recommended Improvements
Typical sections for the recommended improvements are shown in Figure F-3.
1 The recommended improvement is to widen the existing two-lane roadway to
five-lanes throughout the project limits. This widening will provide two 12-foot lanes
in each direction of travel with a 12-foot center lane for left turns. A five-lane curb.
' and gutter section is planned from the northern end of the project to the State
Welcome Center, a distance of approximately 0.5 miles.
' For the remainder of the project, from the Welcome Center southward to the
Georgia State Line, a five-lane section with 2-foot paved shoulders on 10-foot usable
shoulders (see Figure F-3) is recommended.

i

r

u

E

' A variable right of way width is recommended to contain the construction
limits except in major cut areas where the construction will be contained within
' construction easements.
The recommended improvements are shown in Figure F-4.
The total estimated cost of recommended improvements for T.I.P. Project No.
R-2103 in 1990 dollars is:
' Roadway Construction $162800,000
Right of Way (including Utilities) $ 3,378,000
TOTAL $20,178,000
The cost estimate in the 1991-97 Transportation Improvement Program is
' $20,178,000.
IV. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways on
' July 25, 1990 and circulated to the Federal, State, regional and local governmental
agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes that a response was received. Copies
of agency correspondence are included in the appendix.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
S
A
. Department of
griculture
U.
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Energy Regulatory Commission
* Georgia Department of Transportation
* Tennessee Valley Authority
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
* Project Review Coordinator
* Division of Forest Services
* Ashville Regional Office
* Division of Environmental Health
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission

1 Macon County Board of Commissioners

7
7
7

7

7

1

' V. Coordination and Comments
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from a
number of agencies. The substantive comments and responses are listed below.
A. Agency Comments
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Comment:
"An area of concern that needs to be addressed is non-point source
' pollution. We encourage the use of best management practices to control non-
point source pollution and prevent pollutants contained in highway runoff
from entering area waterways. These control methods could include the use
' of closed bridge drainage systems, retention basins, grassed swales or other
techniques. Consideration for the potential impact that the roadway could
have on area drinking water sources and the potential for hazardous materials
' being spilled into the waterways should also be addressed. This is particularly
important due to the proximity of the project to the Little Tennessee River."
' Response:
Due to proposed roadway improvements and better traffic operating
conditions, the potential for hazardous spills will be reduced. Best
management practices will be used to control erosion, sedimentation and to
' prevent pollutants contained in highway runoff or from hazardous spills from
entering area waterways. Best management practices may consist of grassed
swales, silt fences, silt basins or rock check dams as appropriate. Throughout
' the entire project, the unpaved shoulders and earth slopes will be planted with
grass.
' There are no bridges on the project and none are proposed. Streams
and drainage ways cross the project in culverts. Proposed action
recommendations are for existing culverts to be extended to accommodate the
' five-lane roadway typical section. The Little Tennessee River is not classified
as a public water supply.
Comment:
"An additional area of concern is the mitigation of unavoidable wetland
losses due to the project. The EA states that a small amount of wetlands,

3

Fil
E
E

I

7

0

E
II

0

ponds, and stream channels will be destroyed by the project. The destruction
of these areas should be avoided. Complete mitigation measures should be
proposed to offset any unavoidable adverse impacts."
Response:
See "Wetlands Finding," on page 17 of this document.
Comment:
"Finally, the EA identifies several residences and businesses that will
be impacted by noise levels from the project. We urge NCDOT to continue
to investigate ways to reduce these impacts. Methods that may be useful in
providing some noise reduction are soundproofing individual residences and
use of vegetation."
Response:
As noted in the project EA, physical abatement measures were found
to be infeasible due to the need to maintain driveway access to the many
homes and businesses along and in close proximity to US 23-441. Neither the
soundproofing of residences nor the extreme vegetative plantings necessary for
effective noise reduction are recommended for this project. However, a
proposed speed limit reduction on segments of the project south and north of
the Community of Otto from 55 mph to 45 mph provided a 3± dBA decrease
in noise levels. This slight reduction will have a slight but positive effect on
reducing noise impacts. The posted speed in Otto and vicinity is currently 45
mph.
Comment:
' "Since overall environmental impacts associated with improvement of
the existing roadway corridor are much less environmentally harmful than
constructing a new corridor, we. support the decision to utilize the current
roadway alignment. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to
you in the NEPA review process. Please continue to keep us advised of the
status of the project and provide copies of environmental documents when
' they are available."
Response:
' A copy of this environmental document will be provided (to EPA).

4

1

r

C

2. Tennessee Valley Authority
' Comment:
"We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the widening of
' U.S. Highway 23-441 in Macon County. As a result, we have held meetings
with representatives from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
and Macon County to discuss our concerns over this project's impacts on the
access site at Otto. This site was developed and is maintained under a
cooperative agreement with Macon County. Discussions with the above
representatives centered on future actions that would maintain open access to
' the Little Tennessee River at this location. If these actions are successful, our
concerns will be abated and we have no further comment."
' Response:
The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the TVA during the
' preparation of final plans towards the goal of keeping the Tennessee River
public boating access site at Otto open.
' 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
' General Comments:
'Before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) can agree that the
' Federal Highway Administration's obligations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act have been satisfied for the proposed action, we need
additional information to support the determination that the project will not
affect endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the designated critical habitat of the spotfin chub (Hybopsis
monacha).
' In addition, the document should be revised to provide for full
mitigation, on a habitat value basis, for all unavoidable stream and wetland
habitat losses associated with the proposed action."
Response:
' Plans for this project have and will continue to consider the sensitivity
of water quality as it relates to the spotfin chub's endangered status. The
result will be minimal project encroachment on the aquatic environment with
complete avoidance of the Little Tennessee River channel. All stream

0

11

C?
r_
0
0
H

Therefore, in accordance with state and federal regulations,
if a practicable alternative to the proposed activity exists,
water quality certification will be denied unless the wetland
does not have significant uses or the Division determines that a
significant use will not be removed by the proposed activity.
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATIONS
Activities that result in the discharge of fill material into
the waters of the state (which includes wetlands) require a
Section 404 permit from the COE (Section 404, Clean Water Act)
and a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM (Section 401,
Clean Water Act). A public notice is required (15A NCAC 2H
.0502) before the DEM can issue a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
General Certifications
Due to the similar nature and minimal impact of some
activities, the Division has issued General Certifications
(Appendix III) for twelve activities that require certification.
The General Certifications were submitted for public notice prior
to issuance, therefore, the Division is not required to issue a
public notice for projects that qualify for a General
Certification. With the exception of the General Certification
issued for Nationwide 26, written concurrence is generally not
required from the Division to utilize the General Certification.
Projects that impact wetlands located adjacent to WS, or SA
waters and those projects that the Division has determined are
likely to remove significant existing uses are excluded from
using the General Certifications except number 1179 (sewer lines
and outfalls which are part of a 201 Facility Use Plan). Projects
not eligible for a General Certification must obtain an
individual Water Quality Certification and the Division must
issue a public notice prior to issuing the certification. A
joint public notice is issued by the Corps of Engineers or
Division of Coastal Management for projects requiring an
individual 404 permit. This joint notice meets the DEM public
notice requirements.
All General Certifications will be reviewed and revised as
necessary at the time the COE reissues Nationwide Permits (no
later than November 13, 1991).
TYPES OF 404 PERMITS
Section 404 permits can be separated into two separate
categories, general and individual. General permits are issued
on a nationwide or regional basis for categories of activities
that are similar in nature and have been deemed to have minimal
impact. Individual permits are required for all projects that do
not qualify for a general permit and are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
5
--d

V C1r M j

' crossings are anticipated to be processed with regional general Section 404
bridge permits. Final plans will be sent to the TVA for review and to the U.S.
' Army Corps of Engineers for project specific determination of permit
requirements.
If it is determined that an individual Section 404 permit is required,
land adjacent to the existing wetlands will be acquired for on-site mitigation
if available. If adjacent lands are unavailable and on-site mitigation is
' infeasible, NCDOT will consider off-site mitigation opportunities. (See
"Wetlands Finding", page 17.)

I

11

n

n
Additional information is provided on protected animal and plant
species in this document, including the spotfin chub under the heading
"Protected Species" (see on page 18).
Specific Comments USF&W Service cont'd:
"Section IV.AA Page 24 and Section IV.A.5, Page 31: The Service
officially listed SS i'raea vir ing Tana (Virginia spiraea) as a federally threatened
species on June 15, 1990 (Federal Register 55(116):24241-24246). This species
has been recorded from. the Little Tennessee River, downstream of and in
close proximity to the proposed highway project, and may occur elsewhere
within the project impact area."
"Before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway
Administration's obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) have been satisfied for SS i'raea vir ngiiana and Isotria medeoloides (small
whorled pogonia), we need additional information showing that adequate
surveys by qualified personnel have been conducted in all habitat suitable for
these species potentially affected by the action. Surveys should include suitable
habitat potentially affected by proposed alignments, disposal sites, borrow
sites, staging areas, maintenance of the completed facilities (including areas
affected by use of herbicides, pesticides, deicing compounds, and other
pollutants associated with highway and right-of-way maintenance and use),
development of the surrounding area reasonably expected to occur as a result
of the completed project, etc.
Response:
The project study corridor, 300 feet each side of the existing centerline
of US 23-441, was surveyed by two experienced ecologists in January, 1990.
The two were Dr. Richard Braham and Mr. Gary Blank. Dr. Braham
concentrated on plants and Mr. Blank on animals. Dr. Braham surveyed the
6
1

1

7

?7
C
C

11

project site again in June, 1991 to determine if the two protected plants,
S piraea vir nbiiana (Virginia spiraea) and Isotria medeoloides (small whorled
pogonia), were located in the project impact area. He was unable to locate
either species. Both Mr. Blank and Dr. Braham are instructors at North
Carolina State University. Resumes will be provided on request.
A section on protected species is included in section VIII of this
document under the heading "Protected Species". The concerns expressed
about protected species are addressed there.
At this stage of project development, the location of disposal sites, and
borrow sites and staging areas is unknown. It is the responsibility of the
contractor to determine these sites. It is also the responsibility of the
contractor to obtain any required permits for use of these sites.
Drainage plans will be developed for the project and "best management
practices" will be used to minimise adverse impacts from highway construction,
highway runoff and hazardous spills. Best management practices may consist
of rock check dams, silt basins, silt fences, and on shoulder sections, grass
swales. A sedimentation and erosion control plan must be approved by the
Regional Engineer of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Land Management, before. construction can
begin. Point source pollutants and nonpoint source pollutant control will be
considered in the development of this plan.
' The recommended project alignment was selected in part, to avoid
encroachment into the Little Tennessee River, the main channel of which is
designated critical habitat for the endangered spotfin chub.
Specific Comments USF&W Service cont'd:

E

"In addition, while the Service appreciates the Department of
Transportation's efforts to avoid construction in the main channel of the Little
Tennessee River, before we can agree with the determination that the
proposed action will not affect the designated critical habitat of the spotfin
chub, we need additional information showing that the proposed project is not
likely to result, directly or indirectly, in significant siltation/sedimentation of
aquatic habitats of the Little Tennessee River or the increased degradation of
the water quality of the river. Specifically, we would need the following: (1)
a complete assessment of the potential effects (including the cumulative
effects ) the runoff of silt, sediment, and other pollutants associated with the
construction, use, and maintenance of the highway and highway right-of-way
will have on the water quality and aquatic habitats for the Little Tennessee
River; (2) a detailed description of the erosion and sedimentation control
7

1

L

0

t

1

measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize the runoff of silt and
other pollutants into the river; (3) a plan detailing how erosion/sedimentation
control measures will be monitored and enforced and by whom; (4) a
complete description of the measures that will be implemented to
avoid/minimize the runoff of oil, heavy metals, herbicides, pesticides, and other
pollutants associated with highway and highway right-of-way use and
maintenance; and (5) an assessment of the potential impacts to the water and
habitat quality of the Little Tennessee River expected as a result of increased
commercial/residential development of the project area due to the highway
improvements and measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize these
impacts."
Response:
The Little Tennessee River has a water quality designation of "C" i.e.,
its waters are best used for fish propagation and recreation.
Due to agricultural activities, a gem washing operation, and residential
development in the project area, the Little Tennessee River now carries a
heavy silt burden. Although the section of the Little Tennessee River
paralleling the project is federally designated as critical habitat of the spotfin
chub, the presence of the fish is not known to occur there. Based on
information from the Tennessee Valley Authority and a local biological expert,
Dr. William McLarney, the spotfin chub habitat is actually downstream (north
of the Town of Franklin). The proposed action is upstream, south of the Town
of Franklin. According to Dr. McLarney, the section of the Little Tennessee
River south of Franklin is classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as
"Critical Habitat", in hopes that the river;will one day meet the fish's stringent
water quality requirements, and might be re-introduced.
The Little Tennessee River meanders within its floodplain and in four
' instances its near bank comes within 50± feet of the existing US 23-441 right-
of way. Each of these four instances is described below with measure(s)
proposed to reduce adverse environmental impacts:
' (1) From south of Commissioner Creek, southward for 280± feet.
' Proposed widening is to the west side away from the Little Tennessee
River. The existing roadway pavement will largely be removed and
much of that area seeded and mulched.

8

H

H

u

C
C

(2) From a point 600± feet south of Mulberry Creek southward for 620±
feet.
This 360± feet segment includes both west and east side widening.
West side widening, away from the Little Tennessee River, extends
from the southern end of the segment northwards for 360± feet.
Widening then transitions to the east side, nearer the Little Tennessee
River, for a distance of 260± feet. The reason east side widening was
recommended within this segment was due to the deep cut required on
the west side and also due to west side development immediately
north.
r (3) For a 630± feet segment opposite SR 1109, a loop road.
West side widening away from the Little Tennessee River is planned.
' Part of the existing US 23-441 pavement will be removed and much of
the old pavement area seeded and mulched.
' (4) From the SR 1636 (Tessentee Road) bridge north for 200± feet. This
section involves widening and acquistion of new right of way on the
r east side of US 23.441.
This short section is crossed perpendicularly at the south end by SR
1636. Development on the west side, including a historic school which
' is within the community of Otto, precludes west side widening. Best
management practices to control erosion and sedimentation will be
r used here and elsewhere on the project.
The proposed action (widening) will require acquisition of additional
' right of way and there are several locations where the proposed right
of way line will come within 50± feet of the near bank of the Little
Tennessee River. These locations are in addition to the two listed
r above under (2) and (4).
(5) From a point 280± feet south of SR 1114 (Slope Road) southward for
r 670± feet (see Figure F-4e). Widening on both sides is recommended
due to a cut section and development on the west side.
' Best management practices will be used to control erosion and
sedimentation. There will be no placement of fill or construction work
in the live waters of the Little Tennessee River.
r
1 9
r
F

r
C
C

C

C
C

' (6) From a point 1900± feet south of SR 1119 (McClure Mill Road)
southward for 120± feet (see Figure F-4f), widening is proposed on the
' east side due to development (residences businesses, churches) on the
west side.
I Best management practices will be used at this location including silt
fences, grass swales and all earth slopes mulched and seeded in grass.
' (7) From SR 1644 (Riverside Road) southward for 400± feet. SR 1644
and SR 1115 (Coweeta Road) connect to US 23-441 and form a four-
way intersection. Before tying into US 23-441, SR 1644 curves
' southward to parallel US 23-441 and avoid crossing the Little
Tennessee River a second time (see Figure F-4f). East side widening
of US 23-441 is recommended due to west side development
' (residences plus Rush Public Graveyard). East side widening in this
location puts the proposed right of way line contiguous with the SR
1644 right of way. SR 1644, the road and existing east side right of way
' are within 50± feet of the Little Tennessee River.
' Best management practices will be used to control erosion and
sedimentation. No placement of fill material or construction work is
proposed in the live waters of the Little Tennessee River.
' Drainage plans will be developed in the design phase of the project.
Upon completion of drainage plans, erosion and sedimentation control
' plans will be developed. These plans will include site specific, point and
non-point control measures to avoid or minimize water and habitat
quality degradation from silt, sediment and other pollutants associated
' with the construction, use and maintence of the highway and its right
of way. These control measures will be monitored and maintained by
the Division of Highways. Control measures used will be determined
' using best management practices and will consist of silt fences, rock
check dams, silt basins and/or grass swales as appropriate.
Specific Comments, USF&W Service, cont'd:
"If it is determined the proposed action may affect any listed species
' or designated critical habitat, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated in writing. The rules and regulations for implementation of Section
7 of the Act (50 CFR Part 402.14) require that requests for formal
' consultation include: (1) a complete description of the proposed action, (2) a
complete and detailed description of the specific area that may be affected by
the action, (3) a description of the species and its habitat that may be affected
' by the action, (4) a complete description of manner in which the action may

10

i

H
J

I

i

I

affect the species and an assessment of the cumulative effects, (5) measures
that will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects, and (6) any
other relevant available information on the action and the affected species.
Your attention is also directed to Section 7(d) of the Act, which
underscores the requirement that the Federal Agency, designated non-Federal
representative, and/or permit or license applicant shall not make any
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources during the consultation
period that, in effect, would deny the formulation or implementation of
reasonable and prudent alternatives regarding their actions on listed species
or designated critical habitat."
Response:
The spotfin chub is known to inhabit the Little Tennessee River
downstream (north) of the project area and north of the Town of Franklin.
The portion of the Little Tennessee River paralleling the proposed action has
' been designated as "critical habitat" for the spotfin chub.
n

E

?l
Best management practices will be used to avoid/minimize water and
habitat quality degradation of the Little Tennessee River. Best management
practices will include the use silt fences, rock check dams, silt basins or grass
swales where appropriate. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
submitted to the Regional Engineer of the North Carolina Division of Land .
Resources at least thirty days prior to construction. This plan will be approved
before construction begins. In addition, stream crossings will be submitted to
the Tennessee Valley Authority for review. Finally the US Army Corp of
Engineers has requested and will be provided a copy of the final plans for a
determination of project-specific permit requirements.
No threatened, endangered, or significantly rare plant or animal species
is expected to be adversely affected by the proposed action. A condensed
section on "protected species", which includes all threatened and endangered
species and status review/special concern species has been added to this
document (see page 18).
Specific Comments, USF&W Service, cont'd:
"Section IV.A.6, Pages 35-37: This section fails to present plans for adequate
mitigation of the estimated, 1.32 acres of stream and wetland habitat proposed
to be filled as a result of the project. Once stream and wetland impacts have
been avoided to the maximum extent possible, all unavoidable losses should
be mitigated through the restoration, rehabilitation, and/or creation of
replacement habitat, on a habitat value basis. To the extent possible,
11

J

mitigation should occur on-site or on the stream or watershed impacted.
Accordingly, the proposed Finding of No Significant Impact for this project
' should include a detailed mitigation plan that describes measures that will be
implemented to fully replace all stream and wetland habitat losses associated
with the project, the location and description of proposed mitigation sites, and
' plans for follow-up monitoring and any necessary enhancement of the sites to
ensure success of the mitigation."
' Response:
If the Division of Highways is required to mitigate wetlands, a detailed
' plan will be prepared during the permitting phase. See "Wetlands Finding," on
page 17 of this document.
' Specific Comments, USF&W Service, cont'd:
"Section D, Pages 43-49: The proposed culvert extensions should be
constructed and placed in such a manner that they will not impede up-or
downstream fish movement. The Service recommends that the Department of
Transportation explore the possibility of creating a stone substrate on the
' inside floor of the extended portions of the culverts adequate to create small
pools and eddies to provide fish resting areas and facilitate fish movement...
This substrate would also provide attachment areas for aquatic insects and
' other organisms and would help to offset the loss of streambottom habitat
eliminated by the culverts. The substrate could be constructed with upwardly
' angled side-slopes so as to create a low flow channel through the center of the
culvert."
Response:
Culvert extensions are proposed on the same alignment as the existing
culverts. Rip-rap may be used if required to stabilize stream banks. It is
anticipated that the proposed culvert extensions will duplicate sizes and design
of the existing culverts. It is not proposed that stone substrate be placed in
culvert floors. Extension of existing culverts is not expected to impede fish
movement.
4. N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Comment:
"In general, DOT has not adequately outlined an effective mitigation
plan. DOT's statement "best management practices will be used" leaves many
12
J

1

0

questions unanswered. Questions that should be specifically addressed during
the environmental review and resolved prior to permit approval."
Response:
Concerning the mitigation plan see "Wetlands Finding", on page 17 of
this document. The term "best management practices" is used in reference to
reducing adverse environmental impacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will be provided a copy of the final plans in areas of stream crossings and/or
wetlands for a final determination of permit requirements. Final plans will also
be provided to the Tennessee Valley Authority for review under Section 26A
of the TVA Act. These plans will show the project specific recommendations
for reducing adverse environmental impacts. Prior to construction, an erosion
and sedimentation control plan will be submitted and approved by the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Resources.
5. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
' "We would like to again point out the need for stringent erosion
controls along the project corridor. It was made clear in the EA that measures
would be taken to protect the Little Tennessee River. However, it should be
' noted that because of the proximity of the other tributaries to the Little
Tennessee, these tributaries also provide habitat to the species of special
concern listed in the EA."
Response:

7
Stringent erosion and sedimentation measures are recommended for
the entire project in general and specifically in areas of stream and/or
wetlands crossings. (Also, see response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
comments above.)
Comment:
"While the loss of 1.32 acres of wetlands seems minimal for this project
considering the number of streams in the area, we are concerned about the
mitigation plan offered. Best management practices are offered as mitigation
for wetland losses. We expect that best management practices will be used on
any DOT construction to minimize negative impacts; however, these do not
compensate for losses. For this project to follow federal policy and NC
13

1

'I

CSI

0

Wildlife Resources Commission policy of "no net loss of wetlands" a plan for
the replacement of the 1.32 acres of wetlands should be developed. We
recommend the creation of a wetland area within the right-of-way acquisition."
Response:
See "Wetlands Finding", on page 17 of this document.
Comment:
"The NC Wildlife Resources Commission will review any 404 permits
that will be required for this project. We require that any structure used to
facilitate a stream crossing allow for the free movement of fish and stream
bed material. If the present box culverts meet this requirement then there
should not be a problem with extending them."
Response:
There are nine major drainage structures on the project. All are
reinforced concrete box culverts accommodating area streams. All of these
culverts are in good condition and all are recommended to be extended. The
existing culverts do not impede the movement of fish and neither will the
recommended extension of these culverts.
Comment:
"The wildlife impacts section did not mention the presence of wild
turkey (Meleagris gallapavo) in the project area. In recent years this game
species has expanded its range into the project area. This project may have
negative impacts on the population by reducing its required habitat and by
increasing traffic and development in the area."
Response:
The wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo) is herein included as a species
that may be present in the region. This game bird is not listed as threatened
or endangered. There will be some loss of potential habitat; however, due to
' the secretive nature of the bird it is unlikely they are present along US 23-441
which is largely developed.

P-J

14

0

11

I

' 6. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Forest Resources:
' Comments:
' "1. We have no objections to the project as it appears it is needed."
112. The document does a good job in describing the forest resources that
will be impacted."
113. Depending upon which alignment (East or West) that is used from
' 105.4 acres to 146.7 acres of woodland will be removed to permit the
widening."
' 114. With the exception of the location from SR 1114-SR 1115, the east
alignments of the other locations would cause the least impact to the
forest resources."
'
"5. The location from the Georgia State Line to SR 1108 involves more
' forest land than does the other locations."
116. We would hope that alignments could be used that would cause the.
' least impact to the forest resources in that area and still not cause a
bl
th
Littl
T
Ri
"
ver.
em to
e
e
ennessee
pro
' Response:
A project objective was to minimize adverse impacts to the natural
environment. The Little Tennessee River comes within 100 feet of the existing
roadway centerline five times on the southern segments of the project (from
the Georgia State line to SR 1117) versus one time on the northern segment
' (between SR 1117 and SR 1649). To avoid adverse impacts on the Little
Tennessee River, recommended project widening is mostly on the west side
through the southern segment. For the northern segment, project widening is
I more symmetrical. On the southern segment, avoiding the Little Tennessee
River resulted in more west side impacts, including project use of forest land.
' B. Public Hearing Comments
A combined open house public hearing was held October 25, 1990 in the Otto
' Community Development Center in Otto. This was a "drop-in" type hearing. The
hearing map was displayed and Division of Highways personnel and their consultant
representatives were available to explain project plans and receive comments from
15

0
0

1

'1

' 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Handouts with comment sheets for immediate or return mail
comments were available. Comments received are addressed below:
' Comment:
' (1) Mr. Charles Cabe, Principal of Otto School, The Macon County
School System, and the Otto PTO requested a second entrance to the north
end of the campus and/or traffic signal(s).
Response:
' Otto School is eligible for nomination to the National Register (NR)
of Historic Places. Federal-aid projects which require land from historic sites
of national, state or local significance shall not be approved unless (1) there
is no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of such land, and (2) such
programs (action) includes all possible planning to minimize harm. There is
a feasible and prudent alternative to using the part of the Otto School
' property/land eligible for nomination to the NR. The Traffic Engineering
Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, is requested to initiate an investigation to determine whether a
' traffic signal(s) is warranted.

n
n
n

Comment:
(2) Mr. Andy Cope commented the crest (vertical curve) near a
driveway to his property was unsafe.
Response:
The proposed widening of US23-441 and recommended reduced speed
limit (from 55 to 45 mph) will constitute an adequate and safer design. The
existing vertical curve is adequate for the recommended 50 mph design speed.
Comment:
(3) Ms. Ellen Epworth commented the five lots she owns may not
qualify for a septic system. This is due to proposed right-of-way acquisition
which reduces the size of her lots. She requested the entire tract be taken.
Response:
If the properties now, singularly or in combination, meet septic system
requirements but would not after project implementation, then the loss in
16
CIS

0

rI

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
value will be a consideration in the right of way acquisition phase of the
project.
Comment:
(4) Mr. Burt Clements commented (verbally) at the Public Hearing his
concern for project impacts on his property. His property includes his home,
office, and a platted subdivision. Proposed cut slopes take varying amounts of
land from the nearest tier of platted lots. This taking will reduce the size of
these lots and may make them too small to meet septic system requirements.
Also, his realty office would be impacted in that the proposed action would
take his septic field and, according to Mr. Clements, there is no other place
to put it. He had prepared a map showing the proposed action overlaying his
plotted subdivision. He proposed flattening the existing curve and taking his
office and more of his subdivision land.
Response:
The existing curve meets the 50 mph design criterion established for
the proposed action. Therefore the project design presented at the public
hearing remains unchanged. Value loss due to taking existing septic fields or
reduction in lot sizes due to new right of way requirements will be considered
in the right of way acquisition phase of the project.
Comment:
(5) A comment was received concerning the vacant service station on
the east side of the project at Otto. The recent tenant had opted not to renew
his lease purportedly due to damages to the property by the proposed
widening. The person commenting expressed concern that he would be unable
to lease the property in light of the proposed action.
Response:
A Division of Highways, Right of Way Branch representative was
present at the hearing. He will follow up with a direct response to the service
station owner/representative on the availability of advance right of way
acquisition funds on the basis of economic hardship.
Wetlands Finding
If the preferred alternative is located in wetlands, Executive Order 11990
requires a finding that there are no practical alternatives to construction in wetlands.
17

C
C

F

Approximately 1.32 acres of wetlands will be taken by the proposed action. Of this
total amount only 0.34 acres are located outside stream channels and ponds.
It is anticipated that wetland involvement will be covered under a general
bridge permit(s). If this is the case, the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency does not apply. Because the MOA does not
apply and because of the disturbed condition of the wetlands involved, the culverts
(there are no bridges) will be extended/replaced using best management practices.
If after design, it is determined that any of these sites require an Individual Permit,
available land adjacent to the existing wetlands will be considered for mitigative uses.
If adjacent lands are unavailable and on-site mitigation is infeasible, NCDOT will
consider off-site mitigation opportunities.
Due to the nature of the project (widening an existing roadway) and based
' upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable
alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands.
' VII. Flood plains Finding

0

0
0
0

The proposed action consists of widening an existing roadway and extending
(lengthening) or replacing existing culverts. The proposed action crosses nine streams
which are all eastward flowing tributaries of the Little Tennessee River. Each of these
streams cross US 23-441 through reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC's). Since
this project will closely match the existing grade, minimal impacts on existing drainage
patterns and on receiving streams is expected.
Macon County is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program.
No existing flood studies have been made on the Little Tennessee River and its
tributaries within the project limits.
All alternatives considered cross the aforementioned nine streams and
associated floodplains (see Figures F-4 and F-5). Stream crossings are generally
perpendicular to US 23-441 although several are skewed. There is no practical
alternative to crossing these nine streams and their associated floodplains.
VIII. Protected Species
Due to questions raised in agency reviews of the EA, protected species are re-
addressed here.
Separate federal and state listings of protected species are given and each of
these species is addressed as to its presence, and/or the presence of its habitat.
18

0

i

0
0
1

C

I I

u
H
F

J

Project impacts on threatened and endangered species and proposed mitigation are
also described.
The study corridor was surveyed by North Carolina State University instructors
and ecologists Dr. Richard Braham and Mr. Gary Blank in January, 1990 Dr. Braham
surveyed the project site again in June, 1991. Both Dr. Braham and Mr. Blank have
extensive experience in conducting biological surveys. Resumes will be provided upon
request.
The January, 1990 survey study corridor extended for 300 feet either side of
the existing US 23-441 centerline. All plant communities, except farmland, suburban,
and ponds, were surveyed on foot. Farmland and suburban communities were
surveyed from the road shoulders, owing to their limited potential for supporting
protected species and their limited natural value. Ponds were surveyed from the
shore. Plant lists for each community in the study corridor were formulated from
these field observations. Plant community boundaries were delineated and mapped
on 1"=200' scale maps. (RF = 1:2400). Plant community acreages were calculated
from field maps, from the average of 3 estimates obtained with a dot grid (Huck,
Miller, and Beers 1972). Tree dominance estimates were obtained, using the variable
plot method (Dilworth and Bell 1986).
Federal and State laws protect certain animals and plants from activities likely
to adversely impact them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, is charged with reviewing all proposed activities that
might endanger protected species. The North Carolina Endangered Species Act of
1979 provides similar protection.
Federally Listed Species
Animals
The Spotfin chub (Hvbopsis monacha) is listed as "threatened". The spotfin
chub inhabits the upper Little Tennessee River downstream from the project and the
Town of Franklin. It lives in moderate to large steams with good currents, clear water
and cool to warm temperatures where it feeds on insect larvae. It rarely, if ever,
inhabits streams with heavy silt layers on the bottom. The main channel of the Little
Tennessee River, from the North Carolina/Georgia State Line downstream to the
backwaters of Fontana Lake, has been designated as "critical habitat" for the Spotfin
chub. This includes the section for the Little Tennessee River paralleled by the
proposed action.
Information from TVA and Dr. William McLarney, a local biological expert
on the Spotfin chub, indicated the Spotfin chub (Hvbopsis monacha) is not resident
in the waters of the Little Tennessee River south of Franklin. While these waters
19
J

fl
I
J
7

u
H

n

r
n

?J

n
have been classified as Critical Habitat, this designation for these waters refers to
hopes that the fish might be re-introduced in this location if water quality should
meet the fish's stringent requirements in the future. All sources agree current
agricultural and gem extracting operations adjacent to the river and its tributaries
south of Franklin precludes dramatic water quality improvement within the
foreseeable future.
Best management practices will be used to maintain water and habitat quality
in the Little Tennessee River. These practices include use of silt fences, silt basins,
rock check dams and grass swales as appropriate. Those devices will be monitored
and maintained by NCDOT. Site specific control measures, point and non-point, will
be included in a sedimentation and erosion control plan. This plan will be reviewed
and approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources prior to construction.
No other animals were listed as threatened or endangered. However, the olive
darter (Percina Sq_uamata), hellbender (Crypto-branchus alleganiensis), green
salamander (Aneides aeneus), Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis),
Appalachian Bewick's wrenn (Thryomanes bewickii altus), Rafinesque's big-eared bat
(Plecotus rafinesquii), New England cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus transitionalis), and
the bog turtle (Clemmys muchlenburai) are designated as "Status Review" species.
Status review species are not legally protected until they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered/threatened.
Like the spotfin chub, the olive darter prefers clear water. This fish is not
known to inhabit the immediate project area.
Three amphibian and reptile species listed as "Status Review" may inhabit
areas within the survey corridor although not observed. These are the hellbender, the
green salamander, and the bog turtle. The bog turtle is a small rare species that lives
in the spaghnum bog and mucky wet meadows and pastures of western North
Carolina. The green salamander inhabits "moist crevices on shaded rock outcrops in
hardwood forests," while the hellbender prefers "large, clear, fast-flowing streams with
big, flat rocks" (Martof et al. 1980).
Two avian species whose status is under review were identified by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. The Appalachian Bewick's wren inhabits "thickets, brush piles
and hedgerows in farming country", according to Bull and Farrand (1977), and is also
found in "open woodland and scrubby areas, often near streams". Nests are found in
all types of cavities. Bachman's sparrow, according to Bull and Farrand (1977),
inhabits either dry open pine and oak woods with a scattering of scrub or overgrown
weedy fields and pastures. Referred to as the "pine-woods sparrow in this southern
area of its range, it dwells in open stretches of pines with grass and scattered shrubs
20

!J

5
1

!I
7

u
fl

' for ground cover". Habitat for Bachman's sparrow does not exist along the corridor,
though possible habitat for Bewick's wren may exist.
' Two mammals are listed as under "Status Review," Rafinesque's big-eared bat
and the New England cottontail rabbit. The bat is reported as "uncommon to rare in
' the region." Mary K. Clark, who has been researching these bats, suggests that they
primarily forage in forested areas over water and not in highway corridors. However,
because of the proximity of the river to the highway corridor at this location, the
' existence of this mammal can not be discounted, but at this time, there is no reliable
census of this species in this region.
1 The other mammal listed as under "status review" is the New England
cottontail rabbit. According to Webster et al. (1985), the New England cottontail
inhabits only the higher elevations (above 2500 feet) of the Appalachians in heavily
' wooded habitats and mountain balds. Key habitat features appear to be presence of
thick cover of mountain laurel, rhododendron, or blueberries and coniferous forests.
These rabbits are reported to reach higher densities in scrubby habitat five to ten
' years after clearcutting. This project is at a lower elevation than where this rabbit is
thought to prefer, and the habitat it requires does not exist at present.
' Plants
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated one endangered species, small
whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), and another species, Virginia spiraea (S piraea
vir ingjiana), listed as threatened, might occur within the study corridor.
' Small whorled pogonia occupies various habitats, generally higher dry
deciduous or mixed dry deciduous-pine forests or along streambanks. It generally
1 occurs in second-growth stands with an open canopy, although it also is recorded
from old fields, disturbed stands, and old orchards. Some of these habitats occur
within the study corridor. The project was originally surveyed in January 1990.
' Because a definitive search for this species had to be conducted during the growing
season, between May and July, the project impact area was surveyed again in June,
1991. The small whorled pogonia was not found.
' Virginia spiraea is typically found along stream banks. It is a small woody
deciduous plant. Stream side habitats do occur within the study corridor. This plant
was not found in either the January, 1990 survey or the June, 1991 survey. The June,
1991 survey was conducted specifically to determine whether the Isotria medeoloides,
small whorled pogonia, or Virginia spiraea was located in the project impact corridor.
t
21

h
I

n
0

7

i

P

' Federal "status review" plant species that may occur in the study corridor
include:
' Piratebush - buckleya distichophylla
Biltmore sedge - Carex biltmoreana
' Wolf's milk spurge - Euphorbia purpurea
Indian Creek mushroom - Gloecantharellus purpurascens
Dwarf polypody fern - Grammitis nimbata
' Gray's saxifrage - Saxifraga caroliniana
Oconee-bells - Shortia galacifolia
Carolina trillium - Trillium usillum var. usp illum
' "
"
species was observed during the January,
status review
None of the listed
1990, survey.
'
Piratebush, Buckleya distichophylla, typically occurs in localized openings of

' hemlock stands along streambanks and bluffs, where it apparently parasitizes eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) roots. Although a deciduous shrub, the distichous
branching habit, a single vascular bundle scar, and association with hemlock make this
' species recognizable in all seasons. This species was not observed during the field
investigation, and its occurrence seems unlikely considering the lack of well-developed
streamside hemlock.
' Biltmore sedge, Carex biltmoreana, generally grows in full, or nearly full, sun
on steep granitic outcrops with abundant moisture. Since this distinctive habitat was
entirely lacking within the study corridor it is doubtful that Biltmore sedge occurs.
Wolf's milk spurge, Euphorbia purpurea, often forms small vegetative colonies
in streamside hardwood stands. Habitat for this species possibly occurs within the
study corridor, but definitive searches for it must be conducted during the growing
season, preferably between May and August when it flowers.
Indian creek mushroom, Gloeocantharellus purpurascens, always occurs in the
understory of well-developed hardwood stands, especially stands containing oaks
( uercus), red maple (Acer rubrum), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). It
apparently lives saprophytically on dead organic matter in the soil, although it may
be mycorrihizal on tree roots. Since Indian Creek mushroom requires well-developed
' litter layers, and since forests of the study corridor are generally disturbed with thin
litter layers, suitable habitat for Indian Creek mushroom is probably lacking.
' Dwarf polypody fern, Grammitis nimbata, known in the United States only
from Macon County, inhabits wet mossy mats in and adjacent to waterfalls. This
unusual and unmistakable habitat is completely lacking within the study habitat, and
' thus dwarf polypody fern is probably lacking.

22

1

1

I

0
' Gray's saxifrage or Carolina saxifrage, Saxifrasa caroliniana, invariably occurs
rooted in thin, wet organic soils on steep, acidic rock slopes. The organic soil is
always very moist, often seeping with water. Since this distinctive habitat is lacking
within the study corridor, Gray's saxifrage doubtfully occurs.
' Oconee-bells, Shortia galacifolia, occurs typically on steep slopes in the dense
shade of cove hardwoods adjacent to creeks. It normally forms large colonies that
exclude other plants. Although this habitat occurs within the study corridor, and
although the survey was conducted in January, Oconee-bells should have been
evident, if present, owing to its evergreen, distinctively orbicular leaves, but it was not
seen.
' Carolina trillium, Trillium usillum var. usillum, generally grows along open,
but shaded streambanks. Overstory composition is variable. Potential habitat exists
' within the study corridor; but definitive searches must be conducted during the
growing season, preferably in mid - to late spring when it flowers.
' State Listed Species
The Natural Heritage Program lists the same species as in the federal listing
plus others. Also, there are some differences in status. Both the federal and state
species listings and their status are given in Table F-l. Only the State listed species
' not discussed under the "Federally Listed Species" are discussed here.
' TABLE F-1. List of Sensitive Plants and Animals in Macon Co., North Carolina*
' STATE FEDERAL
SPECIES STATUS STATUS
Animals
Fishes
' Spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha) T T
Olive darter (Percina ss uamata) C2
Turquouise darter (Etheostoma inscriptum) C
' Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum) C
Amphibians
Hellbender (Crytobranchus alleganiensis) C C2
Green salamander (Aneides aeneus) E C2
Zig Zag salamander (Plethodon dorsalis) C
' Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) C

23

1
1
n

1

' STATE FEDERAL
SPECIES STATUS STATUS

Longtail salamander (Eurycea longicauda) C
' Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) C
Birds
' Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestiralis) C2
Northern Saw-whet owl (Ae og lius acadicus) C
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus borealus) C
'
Mammals
Rafinesque's big eared bat (Plecotus refenesquii) SC C2
' Northern Long-eared bat (Myotis septentrio-nalis) C
New England cottontail rabbit (S ly vilag_us
transitionalis) C C2
Re tiles
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenburgi) T C2
Plants
Piratebush (Buckleya distichophylla) E C2
' Biltmore sedge (Carex biltmoreana) C C2
Wolf's milk spurge (Euphorbia purpurea) C C2
Indian Creek Mushroom (Gloeeocantharellus
puMurascens) C C2
Dwarf polypody fern (Grammitis nimbata) E C2
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) E E
' Gray's saxifrage (Saxifra a caroliniana) C C2
Oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia) E C2
Virginia spiraea (S i'raea virginiana) E T
Carolina trillium (Trillium usillum var. usillum E C2
E = Endangered, a critically imperiled species; T = a threatened species; C2 = a
candidate species currently under federal review; C = a candidate species currently
under state review.

A number of wildlife species have been identified by the State of North
Carolina as deserving special attention. Most of these have already been discussed
in the EA; however, the following comments should clarify the status of and suggest
why this project poses no significant impact to State-listed species.
24

lJ

' Besides the green salamander and the hellbender, which were discussed above,
the NC Natural Heritage Program lists several other salamander species as deserving
special attention. Habitat requirements of these species were documented in Martof
et al. (1980) and are summarized here:
' Zigzag salamander (Plethodon dorsalis): inhabits rock outcrops on slopes in
mixed hardwood forests.
' Four-toed salamander (Hemidac , lium scutatum): is a bog dweller living in
seepages or shallow ponds with moss covered logs, roots, and grass clumps.
' Longtail salamander (Eurycea longicauda): inhabits limestone and shale
substrates in rocky streams and bottomlands in the Watauga, Nantahala, and Little
Tennessee River basins.

u

11

Mole salamander (Ambstoma talpoideum): lives in underground burrows in
pine savannas, hardwood forests, and swamps.
While the examination on-site did not ascertain either the existence or absence
of these species in the corridor, conditions along the proposed project do not appear
conducive to the four-toed or longtail salamanders. Abundant hardwood
acreages suggest possible habitation by zigzag or mole salamanders, but specimens
have not been collected in this particular area.
Two fish species, the turquouise darter (Etheostoma inscriptum) and wounded
darter (etheostoma vulneratum), according to the Natural Heritage Program, are
reported from the Little Tennessee River north of Franklin, considerably downstream
of this project. As with other species discussed in the EA, prevailing water quality
conditions in the Little Tennessee River south of Franklin are not conducive to these
fish. Precautions to avoid further degradation of water quality in the river and its
tributaries adjacent to the project are already shown to be of paramount concern.
e o lius acadicus) inhabits low moist
While the Northern Saw-whet owl (Ag
coniferous woodlands and winters as far south as Guatamala and the Gulf Coast (Bull
and Farrand 1977), the Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus Borealis) is found in spruce-
fir forest, usually on burned and open areas, ponds, and bogs. Neither habitat occurs
along this project.
The Northern Long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), previously known as
Keen's Myotis (Myotis keenii), roosts in caves and mines at night but by day is most
often found in buildings and hollow trees. "Roosts are usually found in heavily
forested areas" (Webster et al. 1985). According to the Natural Heritage Program,
specimens have been reported from highlands in Macon County and from Swain,
Cherokee, and Wake Counties, but not from areas surrounding the project corridor.
25
L

n

p
r

?I

' Best management practices will be used to control erosion and sedimentation
and minimise impacts to protected species. These practices will consist of silt fences,
' silt basins, rock check dams, grass swales and seeding and mulching of project areas
exposed by construction activities as appropriate. These plans will address site specific
control measures for both point and non-point sources of roadway and right of way
' runoff.
The proposed action is located in an existing transportation corridor. Widening
' the existing road along its alignment and grade is expected to have minimal impacts
on the natural environment.
' The project is in a developing area. Current development trends will likely
continue with or without the proposed action. It is possible, however, depending on
market conditions, that development could occur at a faster rate due to improved
' access.
The proposed action will not adversely effect the spotfin chub. The spotfin
' chub inhabits waters downstream from the project area and downstream from the
Town of Franklin. There may be some minor siltation into the Little Tennessee River
where the channel is designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub. However any
' siltation will be temporary, during the period of construction, and it will be minimal
with proper implementation of 'best management practice" control measures
described above. The Little Tennessee River already carries a heavy silt burden due
' to agricultural activities, a gem washing operation and existing residential and
commercial development in the project study corridor.
IX. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact
' Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from Federal, State, and
Local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
' and the Federal Highway Administration that the project will not have a significant
impact upon the human or natural environment. There will be eleven residences and
five businesses displaced by the proposed action. No non-profit organizations will be
' displaced. The project does not disrupt community cohesion or unduly interfere with
the accessibility of facilities and services. No properties protected under Section 4(f)
of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act will be adversely
' affected. The proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on air, noise,
or water quality in Macon County. The project is consistent with plans and goals that
have been adopted by the appropriate local governments and the State of North
' Carolina. Therefore, a Federal Environmental Impact Statement or further
environmental analysis will not be required.

26
L.

F
u
L
in
,J
?J

F

' X. List of Environmental Commitments
1. Coordinate with Macon County and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
' towards the goal of minimizing adverse impacts and keeping the Little Tennessee
River public access site on TVA property at Little Tennessee River mile 128 north
of Otto open. .
2. Best management practices will be used to maintain water and habitat quality
in the Little Tennessee River. These practices include use of silt fences, silt basins,
rock check dams and grass swales as appropriate. Those devices will be monitored
.and maintained by NCDOT. Site specific control measures, point and non-point, will
' be included in a sedimentation and erosion control plan. This plan will be reviewed
and approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources prior to construction.
'
3. Final plans for the stream crossings shall be submitted to TVA for review
under Section 26a of the TVA Act. Along with these plans, a copy of a letter from
the State Historic Preservation Officer stating that the proposal complies with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and a copy of the hydraulic analysis of the effects
of stream crossings on the 100-year flood elevation will be included.
4. Drainage plans will be developed in the design phase of the project. The
Wilmington Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch will be provided a copy of the
final plans, including drainage plans for a project specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements.
' 5. Coordinate with the Georgia Department of Transportation towards
construction of a transition section at the Georgia/North Carolina State line.
' 6. If concerns arise during construction over aquatic resources, NCDOT will
contact and coordinate with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission field
' staff.
7. Provide the United States Environmental Protection Agency with a copy of the
' environmental document.
8. Provide the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
' Service, Asheville Field Office, with a copy of this environmental document.
9. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
' clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor..Any burning done will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15
27

' NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as
to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
' 10. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project,
the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have
no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this
certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
11. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate
' breeding areas for mosquitoes and care will be taken not to block existing ditches. A
rodent control program may be necessary to prevent rodent migration to adjacent
areas when structures are removed.
' 12. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety
and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or
' appearance of any public or private properties.
' 13. Twenty seven (27) geodetic survey markers have been identified that may
possibly be impacted by the proposed construction. Therefore, the N.C. Geodetic
Survey will be notified prior to construction to relocate these monuments if necessary.

fl

0

0
0
28
0

E

H

n
0

0
0

11

f

C
C

I

i
L

i
r
r.
LITERATURE CITED
Bull, J., and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. the Audobon Society field guide to North American birds.
Alfred A. Knopf: New York. pp. 775.
Dilworth, J.R. and J.F. Bell. 1973. Log Scaling and Timber Cruising.
Oregon State Book Stores, Corvallis. pp. 468.
Huch, B., C.I. Miller, and T.W. Beers. 1972 Forest Mensuration. Ronald Press Co., New
York. pp. 410.
Martof, B.S.; W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey; and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. pp. 264.
Parker, W.P.; and L. Dixon. 1980. Endangered and threatened wildlife of Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. NC AG. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, N.C. pp. 116.
Society of American Foresters (SAF). 1954. Forest Cover Types of North America
(Exclusive of Me)ico). Soc. Amer. For., Washington, DC. pp. 67.
Webster, W.D.; J.D. Parnell; and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, N.C. pp. 255.

J

H
H
H
H
n

n
n
1
0
0
0

FIGURES

a?
l ?e n
unto„
a L
11
Um 145,
1
35 , 24 05
?\ nee } 'AA
Ss?p ~ .e
t 704 no,?
1, SB ills V?
C j
1122
INSET Q1
1
1
' SEE INSET
' SEE INSET
FT
0.5
NORTH
PROJECT
LIMITS
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
3/91 . 0 miles 2 j0 Fig. F-1

n
C
1

n
n
1
r

0
0

i
` US 23-441
EST. 1990/2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
'
A (IN HUNDREDS)
76
86 z i 126
' 143 z 7
a . 12 8 10 ? 1-
14 16 % 1-
??p SR 1649 ?l
END PROJECT 0 1
2 13
' 1 -
80 20 1?5 4 1-
133 gR ,
'
4 3
,
5 ?? 6 9
SR 1136 114
i i- 2
SR 1648 3 -3
1-
1- SR 1119
1
130 SR1708 68
2 112
1-
3
S,q
\
2
J0l'J
' WELCOME ??? 2 1
CENTER SR 1708 -
100)
i 1- 68
. 111
' 77 . (Cont. Fig 2b)
DUAL 4%
1
1 2 128 TTST 3%
' 2 -?/ DHV 12%
SR 1124
i-
76
' 126
(Cont.)
1-
1-
44 ?
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
3/91 Fig. F-2a

0
I I

0

0

I I
u

3
' gR
' 6
9
SR 1110
_US 23-441
EST. 1990/2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(IN HUNDREDS)
(From Fig 2a)
68 ?
111 61
102
2
3
1
1
SR 1109
1
1
63
103
5
J4
67
109
8
?1:2 12
18
SR 1636
1-
T-
SR 1633
1-
1-

2
i
4
11 61
102
(Cont.)
DUAL 4%
TTST 3%
DHV 12%
1-
1-
1
SP
2
4
SR 110
J

2
2
61
102
Ili 1
61
102
(Cont. Fig 2c)
2
2
31
2
2
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
3/91 Fig. F-2b

0

H

I
l

0
0

US 23-_441
EST. 1990/2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(IN HUNDREDS)
(From
61
102
4
6
SR 11
22
2
3
2
3
3 1
S?
5
8
SR
1
1
62
103
NC/GA S
Fig 2b)
L3 3
4
SR 16
r1i
60
100
1
1 3
??• 5
SR 16
4
61 DUAL 4%
103 TTST 2%
DHV 12%
BEGIN PROJECT
ATE LINE
l
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
3/91 Fig. F-2c

1
it

0

0
C

0

I I

\?o
N
J? -
f
f ?
g '
?W
O
i
--0.
?o
N
,o.
I
f
r f?
W =
W
y

? = d
8W
ti
}
a
0
L?
as
so
?x
33
T

U cN LL

i% i
CA N
V °C
V
?
cn o ?

rr ? A.

F N UE"

a z vs
M
/ Z
h
e
W

Q -

1

F

7

H
H

=r a •.1m
BEGIN
R-2103

? i H
? ?
'q ' ? ..r? ?
; r 1
[ Ir ?T. S #?
,?? a.... #? $ 'GJ
? ? * .?? ?? ,+'?r, 1 .i ?; i?.
,
,
e ?
t
CORN k
NNFS
SFE
MCI
R i

#
rr - , ay

`??'.>
X77'
rq. ''yfP
*
: 4 '?4v N 'S'G•.,
.c :ti,;, ''
i
?.#?e;` ,'y .>`;.+ .*p.
7v
Syr-, (
•M, .•
P.r1Rf+r+?+°
AN#
' N''
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT

' ??.. m ? ? •
? °? ?au?e ?•" ? • ?:
? ." ?.; ? ?.°"?? ? ?
? V ?. ?° - yew ?. ?
? ??`y ^ ,? '?„t § ;?
? `•?
a ?
,? .;?, ? `?' w ¢
,, x ?'ea- ,a ? •, .,? ; - ,?
? ,
.,.? ?? '?? ?
- ;.: -??, ? ?_ ? , ? ? US 23-441 Macon County, NC
? ;'?. ?
4. is 4 {y
,y, i
r ,y'
' ,M^? -?
4 iF , g
- na -. a j?4 Ri }
.;
t 4 ?° ?C }:.1•A.?3y}? `.? ay??..
- }E., ? +'x+,- °?? (e.?
.!F ;D: ,r
# ti • i?+
? v1.x
+' .?1 ; ?-
`? ?
? 'S ( , t °?a.,? ? e
f.. q.}•, y.
?
. ,
A
.
' , _
,?
,
p
? . y NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
.; *. ,

t' . .?°..

s ,.;?•, t

4
y?;'a ¦ aw •w:,,.-?,. .,. .

.,,:? y "B . •. 1

? , „a .., •, .,,, ,',

', Yup
w ^a
?
?-F r. ;, a w

?
? :

d
T [ Y Pro ct R-2103
?y,

yp?-

..,.
}.
. • ... . a
. .+
41
'? . -
.. _ . ?- ? _ . _ - - - - - -' ?, effi
..1tl? :. .. r
?
: , .5..'. i t:,kt .v 7.. :, +; ! ...+ is + %J_
a 4 CAe'. +
?`
.
`
-
t ?
L
3/91 0 FT. 400 Fig. F-4a
f'ir'

t

0

I

f,

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37 .. ',
r ? ?i?• t `?• 1f'?
?(r ? ? ? ?..., j
. k ? ? ,r s ?6 :$

1

C

L

1

I

Y g I ?, i O t
' N_J. ri?t.i??. .aft `} ..okt .z .A?'+1 •.I t'??"'?
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
US 23.441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
3/91 FT, 400 Fig. F•4f

u

?i

.p
LL
54
"AW
14-
fib' t * L z Ei #

Iv ":f ro y +
?
Y
? Yr
hex "Y ? ?}K Y
q) ?
7v ~
?'
Irt
l

AI M x? f " ? .

n?+ 2 S il• }a
J ?h 7

;tw
A, -W
4wgw
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
r
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R-2103
..?
r?. 3/91 0 FT 400 Fig. F-4g
W k' j

r.

E
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
T.I.P. Project R•2103
3/91 0? FT. J 0 Fig. F-41i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Iwo PROJECT Sa•? 16+?: - =
' PRENTISS
-%'ry ?', ? ``•.. S.R.• ? I` js==
^? `'' r /' :1651: 1
NANTAHALA NATIONAL W
' - 27 S.R. 1649 ^ v;J
176 ot• ?, \ •BRAA'CH '.`.4:: ':::: t}7 d
II36JUNIOM S.R. 1¢i8_
S.R. i 135 ? v ' ¢1? ,'i ,I ••' .•?? ? ??i
i`Y hsj ZONE A ,? y0ay
SKFfNAH :..... ` v 1647
S.R. 1127
._ _ >> I y /? r? ? SOP
` S.R. 7?? I a, a ?.1 is ?4
?'? FBI \'? ? ?' SR• ?b?. , „ '?j,??' .?
5 S.R.\N1° `. ZONE A
a-- RPANdh %
NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST
t
NlN
! M
.'
1121
?• I nj
e
MATCH _ LIN
A.'
I
_ , fn
Ir h ? ry ?
` J y
A
ZONE A
s
1ri
HICKORY KNOLL
SR. 1643
> M
x+33
ZONE A .
TiCt •- h.
N
M
S.ILI
_./
?

I m
I
v

N I

i
r \b,6
S?

=>
'T
:
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
US 23-441 Macon County, NC
NC/GA State Line to SR 164 9
T.I.P. Project R-2103
2500
3/91 1 FT. Fig. F_5a

?I
C

H

I

C
C
t
1
.\
I
TESENTEE
::? { Al ZONE A
I?ZONE A
:`• OTTQ
• u 's
sp S.R. 1¢33 =•?'•r?^? '?:
$R. -1? . 1110
S.R. 1110 p?
So 1110
2 (t? ; "? n
;::::•
S.R. 1632
BRANCH
' N
1 /
r
R I jl
?s
All J ;o
BRANCH
SR. ?YNS BRANCH
psi 1631
ZONE A?<° \
O=l e .
ZONE A g
(ef? ?, ! N ? -JO?
'TY f? ,, ? ?• y ? Y
50.
' \0 y ?1W NORTON
' 40tIUN BRANCH ._ - a ti FALLS
ZONE A
WATERLOO BRANCH
IFOREST •.
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
H
ZONE A; ZONE A US 23-441 Macon County, NC
' COMMISSIONER
CR::.:;>.'. ':.. ' NC/GA State Line to SR 1649
S.
T.I.P. Project R-2103
R. 1100
s.R. BEGIN
PROJECT 0 2500
ORLANDO . ,- - ----- - 3/91 i FT. Fig. F-5b

7

7
1

C

L

u

0

?7

APPENDIX

0

0

I I

J

I

u
I.i U Srq;F .

S
A
S G
C t
zsf?T ,U?
4PM-FAB/DM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30363
?C10 i 150
Mr. L.J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
...fir -
r
1<1
°cr 0,3
1990
2 NI1 f` z,;?,? OF ,Z
9`cSEARC HA
' Subject: Environmental Assessment for US 23-441 from the NC/GA State
Line to SR 1649 south of Franklin, Cherokee County, NC;
Federal Aid Project, State Project No. 6.97001,
TIP No. R-2103
Dear Mr. Ward:
' Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the above referenced proposed project. We have some areas
' of concern regarding the proposed-project.
An area of concern that needs to be addressed is non-point source
pollution. We encourage the use of best management practices to
' control non-point source pollution and prevent pollutants contained
in highway runoff from entering area waterways. These control
methods could include the use of closed bridge drainage systems,
retention basins, grassed swales or other techniques. Consideration
for the potential impact that the roadway could have on area drinking
water sources and the potential for hazardous materials being spilled
into the waterways should also be addressed. This is particularly
' important due to the proximity of the project to the Little Tennessee
River.
An additional area of concern is the mitigation of unavoidable
' wetland losses due to the project. The EA states that a small amount
of wetlands, ponds, and stream channels will be destroyed by the
project. The destruction of these areas s hould be avoided. Complete
' mitigation measures should be proposed to offset any unavoidable
adverse impacts.
' Finally, the EA identifies several residences and businesses that
will be impacted by noise levels from the project. We urge NCDOT to
continue to investigate ways to reduce these impacts. Methods that
' may be useful in providing some noise reduction are soundproofing
individual residences and use of vegetation.

..3
u
H
H
n
n

r
H
u

I

0
0

-2-
Since overall environmental impacts associated with improvement of
' the existing roadway corridor are much less environmentally harmful
than constructing a new corridor, we support the decision to utilize
the current roadway alignment. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide comments to you in the NEPA review process. Please continue
to keep us advised of the status of the project and provide copies of
environmental documents when they are available. If you have any
questions regarding our comments please contact David Melgaard of my
' staff at [phone] or (FTS) 257-3776.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch

i

I

1-1

r

?I

H
u

17

U

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
October 1, 1990 Q. C
,?,% I
?
D 0
'l
Mr. L. J.
M Ward, P.E.
Pl
d R
i
h B
h S•
???,/S??
anager, ann
ng an
esearc
ranc
North Car olina Department of Transportation ` 41'
?
P.O. Box 25201 ACr ?
Raleigh, North Carol i na 2761-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of US 23-441
from the Georgia State line to SR 1649 south of Franklin, Macon
County, North Carolina (TIP #R-2103)
This responds to your letter of August 28, 1990, received September 6,
1990, requesting our comments on the subject document. These comments are
provided in accordance with the Fish and wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
General Comments:
Before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) can agree that the
Federal Highway Administration's obligations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act have been satisfied for the proposed action, we need
additional information to support the determination that the project will
not affect endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of the spotfin chub
(Hybopsis monacha).
In addition, the document should be revised to provide for full mitigation,
on a habitat value basis, for all unavoidable stream and wetland habitat
losses associated with the proposed action.
Specific Comments:
Section IV.A.4, Page 24 and Section IV.A.5, Page 31: The Service
officially listed Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) as a federally
threatened species on June 15, 1990 (Federal Register 55(116):24241-24246).
This species has been recorded from the Little Tennessee River, downstream
of and in close proximity to the proposed highway project, and may occur
elsewhere within the project impact area.
Before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway Administration's
obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) have been
satisfied for Spiraea virginiana and Isotria medeoloides (small whorled

7

7

0
1

H
11

t pogonia), we need additional information showing that adequate surveys by.
qualified personnel have been conducted in all habitat suitable for these
' species potentially affected by the action. Surveys should include
suitable habitat potentially affected by proposed alignments, disposal
sites, borrow sites, staging areas, maintenance of the completed facilities
(including areas affected by use of herbicides, pesticides, deicing
' compounds, and other pollutants associated with highway and right-of-way
maintenance and use), development of the surrounding area reasonably
expected to occur as a result of the completed project, etc.
' In addition, while the Service appreciates the Department of
Transportation's efforts to avoid construction in the main channel of the
Little Tennessee River, before we can agree with the determination that the
' proposed action will not affect the designated critical habitat of the
spotfin chub, we need additional information showing that the proposed
project is not likely to result, directly or indirectly, in significant
' siltation/sedimentation of aquatic habitats of the Little Tennessee River
or the increased degradation of the water quality of the river.
Specifically, we would need the following: (1) a complete assessment of
' the potential effects (including the cumulative effects) the runoff of
silt, sediment, and other pollutants associated with the construction, use,
and maintenance of the highway and highway right-of-way will have on the
water quality and aquatic habitats of the Little Tennessee River; (2) a
' detailed description of the erosion and sedimentation control measures that
will be implemented to avoid/minimize the runoff of silt and other
pollutants into the river; (3) a plan detailing how erosion/sedimentation
' control measures will be monitored and enforced and by whom; (4) a complete
description of the measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize the.
runoff of oil, heavy metals, herbicides, pesticides, and other pollutants
' associated with highway and highway right-of-way use and maintenance; and
(5) an assessment of the potential impacts to the water and habitat quality
of the Little Tennessee River expected as a result of increased
commercial/residential development of the project area due to the highway
' improvements and measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize these
impacts.
' If it is determined the proposed action may affect any listed species or
designated critical habitat, formal consultation with this office must be
initiated in writing. The rules and regulations for implementation of
' Section 7 of the Act (50 CFR Part 402.14) require that requests for formal
consultation include: (1) a complete description of the proposed action,
(2) a complete and detailed description of the specific area that may be
affected by the action, (3) a description of the species and its habitat
that may be affected by the action, (4) a complete description of manner in
which the action may affect the species and an assessment of the cumulative
effects, (5) measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize
potential effects, and (6) any other relevant available information on the
action and the affected species.
Your attention is also directed to Section 7(d) of the Act, which
underscores the requirement that the Federal Agency, designated non-Federal
representative, and/or permit or license applicant shall not make any
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources during the

n consultation period that, in effect, would deny the formulation or

E
11
I

I
J

1
u
H

n

r
C
' implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives regarding their
actions on listed species or designated critical habitat.
' Section IV.A.6, Pages 35-37: This section fails to present plans for
adequate mitigation of the estimated 1.32 acres of stream and wetland
habitat proposed to be filled as a result of the project. Once stream and
' wetland impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent possible, all
unavoidable losses should be mitigated through the restoration,
rehabilitation, and/or creation of replacement habitat, on a habitat value
' basis. To the extent possible, mitigation should occur on-site or on the
stream or watershed impacted. Accordingly, the proposed Finding of No
Significant Impact for this project should include a detailed mitigation
plan that describes measures that will be implemented to fully replace all
stream and wetland habitat losses associated with the project, the location
and description of proposed mitigation sites, and plans for follow-up
monitoring and any necessary enhancement of the sites to ensure success of
' the mitigation.
Section D, Pages 43-49: The proposed culvert extensions should be
constructed and placed in such a manner that they will not impede up- or
downstream fish movement. The Service recommends that the Department of
Transportation explore the possibility of creating a stone substrate on the
inside floor of the extended portions of the culverts adequate to create
' small pools and eddies to provide fish resting areas and facilitate fish
movement. This substrate would also provide attachment areas for aquatic
insects and other organisms and would help to offset the loss of
streambottom habitat eliminated by the culverts. The substrate could be
constructed with upwardly angled side-slopes so as to create a low flow
channel through the center of the culvert.
Summary Comments:
The Service has no objection to issuance of a Finding of No Significant
' Impact for this proposed project provided all of the above concerns are
fully addressed.
' Sincerely,
V, 47
' V. Gary Henry
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
' Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program,
P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
' Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box'33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

H

I I

u

of ii
.? ? or eio?e
Reyarfnunt of C` ranspaztaffan
' HAL RIVES State of (Seorgin
COMMISSIONER
?n_ 2 ?tt?i#u1 ?z?u?xrP
G. CHARLES LEWIS r 1
' STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER ?flt nfa, (SEar$ia 30334-IBUZ
September 20, 1990

Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
' Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 -
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Environmental Assessment for Federal Aid
Project: The widening of US 23-441 from
' the Georgia State Line to SR 1649 South of Franklin,
Macon County, R-2103
Dear Mr. Ward:

FLOYD E. HARDY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ARTHUR A. VAUGHN
TREASURER
? G E 11/'N
4q, F10
-? ?Ew 2 4
r G'/VISION OF v
HIGH"*"yS QQ`?
?? '?ESEAF?GNO
This is in reference to your letter of August 28, 1990 and Mr. Hardy's
letter to you of September 5, 1990 concerning the subject project.
The Georgia Department' :of Transportation has reviewed the Environmental
' Assessment for the.project, as your letter requested. We appreciate
the opportunity to'examine the document. It was very informative. At
this time the Georgia DOT has no comments regarding the documents.
' We look forward to your construction of the project.

YJD/des
l

Very truly yours,
William J. "Juan" Durrence
Director of Pre-Construction

n

I

7
L

' TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
' SPB 2P
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Distribu t0,
r o Vick p'Duinn NOV 2 0 1990
pre-;t
Shuiier.-- E ?•'
Dadecamk _ ..
f?evm _ D2vi3 ,
t4orµ;ood _ Elliott Sspringer r - Q'
' Ilodlln - V' ebb = springer -
Teweil Elmore V 2
Grimes 1990
L. J. Ward, P.E.
' Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
' Raleigh, North Carolina 28611
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the widening of U.S.
Highway 23-441 in Macon County. As a result, we have held meetings with
representatives from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
' Macon County to discuss our concerns over this project's impacts on the
access site at Otto. This site was developed and is maintained under a
cooperative agreement with Macon County. Discussions with the above
representatives centered on future actions that would maintain open access
' to the Little Tennessee River at this location. If these actions are
successful, our concerns will be abated and we have no further comment.
' If you have any questions concerning our comments, call Robert J. Pryor
at [phone] in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Sincerely,)
M. LPaul,Schmierbach,Manager
Environmental Quality
0

0
C
An Equal Opportunity Employer

F
In
F
C
C!

• er Si,Vta
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM

0
17 ? V /f?
?T f
"'o

r
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment

0
t
P construction.
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse-
FROM: `,' Melba McGee V-
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 91-0174 - EA - Proposed Widening of US 23-441
from the Georgia State Line to SR 1649
Macon County
DATE: October 4, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed environmental assessment. While none
of the agencies indicated opposition to the project, our
divisions continue to raise issues the Department of
Transportation (DOT) should be aware of and incorporate into
final project plans.
In general, DOT has not adequately outlined an effective
mitigation plan. DOT's statement "best management practices will
be used" leaves many questions unanswered. Questions that should
be specifically addressed during the environmental review and
resolved prior to permit approval.
At this point, we ask that DOT work with our divisions
throughout all phases of the project so that the attached
comments can be adequately addressed prior to project
' MM: bb
Attachments
' cc: David Foster

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

k

71
u

? d?,aSWFo
•? CwM ?•
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
' Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411. Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 18, 1990
MEMORANDUM
' Euvroumeut' "'As;sessment
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester AIVI-11("
' SUBJECT: EA of the Proposed Improvements to US 23-441 from the NC-Georgia
State Line to SR 1644 South of Franklin in Macon County, N. C.
' PROJECT #91-0174
' DUE DATE 9-28-90
' We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We have no objections to the project as it appears it is needed.
2. The document does a good job in describing the forest resources that
will be impacted.
' 3. Depending upon which alignment (East or West) that is used from
h
105.4 acres to 146.7 acres of woodland wil e
l be removed to permit t
widening.
4. With the exception of the location from SR 1114- SR 1115, the East
alignments of the other locations would cause the least impact to
the forest resources.

' P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppom niry Affirmative Action Employer

H

1

0

Melba McGee
PROJECT #91-0174
Page 2
5. The location from the Georgia State Line to SR 1108 involves more
forest land than does the other locations.
6. We would hope that alignments could be used that would cause the
least impact to the :forest resources in that area and still not
cause a problem to the Little Tennessee River.
DAR: la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
David Foster - DEM
File

11
u

'I

1

1

i

fl
0
1 n State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: bue Date:
y'/- 4l7 I-?8"-?0
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
w All applications, intormation and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facliity-granted after NPDES. Reply
" (N/A
tir6e;
30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.'

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)

Well Construction Permit
N/A 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site Inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andlor Emission Sources N/A (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
?I X9
9 ?
Demolition or renovations of structures co
taini ?
,.
n
ng
asbestos material must be in compliance with _-D 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A Mme.
prior to demolition. C D?? Q
°..
?' ?O 31 9

n t,- (
0 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.

The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land dist g activft . An erosion & s imentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (la
ality Se
c
t
.) at least •3 ays before begin activity.
l
v
l+
''
?''
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrencedL r L.
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed-with EHNR as shown:
' Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.

? AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
' 10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
Nor1h lina Burning permit On- site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
V exceeds 4 days (N/A)
und Clearance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

Oil Refining Facilities
N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

Dam Safety Permit Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans,
i
t 30 days
nspec
construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
I os 106 Continued on reverse

i

._ 1

E

E

1
P
1

L

V
u
X
Normal Prod
Timo
(statutory time N
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority): -
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] .
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403 '
[phone]
' ? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
' ? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
11

I

u

0
1

3 .fl '
o
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Number
1
Coin
Project Name j 2, ( Type of Project
' The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC iOD .0900 at. seq."). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
1 Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
' system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
' should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional information is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available by contactin.g the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
' and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC IOA .1900 at. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
lV/ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
' an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may Produce a mbsquito breeding Problem.
For informatton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
' Reviewer Branch/Unit ate

n

d

d
I
I

7
7

I I

' North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
' James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 867
September 14, 1990
' MEMORANDUM
' To: N.C, State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Capps, Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section,
' Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
' Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0174
N.C. DOT - Proposed widening of US 23-441 south of
' Franklin, N.C.
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
' a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
G

D

F
A,, P.- ,I ?1 ti-- i,,• / Affil.,,,,..,., A-;,-

I

C

1

I
y
L

0
0

I I

E

r

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391'
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
EHNR, Division of Planning and Assessment
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton m?dtn-'
Assistant Director GhUA p
DATE: September 28, 1990
SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Assessment by N.C. Dept. of
Transportation and Federal Highway Admin. for
upgrade of two-lane US 23-441 in Macon County to a
5-lane facility, Macon County, North Carolina.
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment regarding
the upgrade of US 23-441 from a two-lane facility to a 5-
lane facility in Macon County. An onsite investigation was
conducted on September 27,1989 during the preparation of our
original.comments regarding this project. Our comments are
provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended),
and N.C. General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
Generally, the EA is well written and provides the
information requested in our comments of October 5,1989.
Based on the provided information, it appears that care was
given to avoiding wetland habitats and trout streams in
general and the Little Tennessee River specifically. We are
particularly pleased that no streams will need to be
relocated and that no additional steam crossing will be
required.
We would like to again point out the need for stringent
erosion controls along the project corridor. It was made
clear in the EA that measures would be taken to protect the
Little Tennessee River. However, it should be noted that
because of the proximity of the other tributaries to the
Little Tennessee, these tributaries also provide habitat to
the species of special concern listed in the EA.

E

L

11

L