20051459 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20050202

i
9
r
1
^C
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
W illiem G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Netural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water �uality
-.i.,.• 11 �� '�
MEMORANDUM ��
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: Brian L. Wrenn, NCDWQ, TransportaUon Planning Unit
Subject: Environmental Assessment for the Construc6on of Straight Fork Bridge and the Removal of
the Low Water Crossing in the Great Smoky Mountains National Pazk, State Clearinghouse
No. OS-0185.
This oftice has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activides that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the preferred alternative, as presented in the EA,
will result in impacts to jurisdic6onal weUands and streams. The project will have itnpacts to wetlands,
streams, and other surface waters associated with:
iver Basin I Stream Class�cation � Stream Index Number
Little Tenneessee C: Tr: HOW 2-79-55-17-16-(0.5)
DVJQ ofFers the following comments on the referenced documents:
Project Specific Comments:
1. DWQ agrees with the purpose and need of the projects.
2. DWQ agrees with the preferred altemative for the Environmental Assessment (EA).
3. In addition to the water quality monitoring proposed in the EA, a response and mitigation plan
should be developed should significant changes occur in any of the monitoring pazameters.
4. Straight Fork are class C; Tr; HQW waters of the State. Alternatives development should include
sedimentation and erosion control measures as well as stormwater management BMPs that will
prevent turbidity violations during and postconstruction.
General Comments:
5. After the selection of the preferred altemative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maacimum extent
ptactical. Based on the impacts described in the document, weUand miGga6on will be required
for this project in accordance with Environmental Management Comrnission's Wetland Rules
{ 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)):
Transportefion Permitting Unft
1650 Meil Service Center, Raleigh, Norlh Carolina 27899-7650
2321 Crebtree Boulevab, Suite 250, Raleigh, NoM Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Intemet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equel OpporNnity/Affirmatrve Action Empbyer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

6. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1501inear feet to any
single perennial stream In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the Environmental
Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) }, the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
7. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, stornt water will not be permitted to
discharge direcfly into the creek. Instead, storm watei should be designed to drain to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/appazatus.
8. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the mvcimum extent
practicable.
9. If foundation test borings aze necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under Genera1401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Pernut No. 6 for Survey
ACuvities.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in weUands.
11. Borrow/waste azeas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to
weflands in borrow/waste azeas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. While the use of National Wedand Inventory (NWn maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite weUand delineations
prior to permit approval.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any addi6onal information, please contact Brian L. Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: Angie Pennock, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mazla Chambers, NC WRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
File Copy

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CONSTRUCTION OF STRAIGHT FORK BRIDGE
AND THE REMOVAL OF THE LOW WATER CROSSING
G�.FAT SMOI�"Y' MOUN'1'�INS NA7'IONAL PARI�
U.S. llepartment oi�ihe Interior, Na[ional Park Ser� i�e
Po�epared rn cooperation xdth (he
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration n��� QM� D
Eastem Federal Lands Highway Division �� V
fJEC 2 2 �004
December 2004 DENR - WATER OUALITY
WETUiNDSpNp STpR1AlyATfR BRkNCH
Pr•epared pur•suant to the Council on Environnaenial Qz�ality's regulutions for implementing �he
National Envir•onmen�al PolicyAct (43 CFR 1.500) and d2 US.C. 4332(2)(C)

1'
�-
AB STRACT
� This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the plans of the National Park Service (NPS) to
construct Straight Fork Bridge in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County,
'' I North Carolina.
The location of this proposed project is along Straight Fork Road/Balsam Mountain Road, a
gravel roadway, where the one-way road portion ends at a concrete water ford within the Straight
Fork tributary of the Oconaluftee River. The existing low water ford requires motorists to drive
through swift flowing water on a narrow submerged concrete slab placed in the streambed.
Because the ford is subjected to continually flowing water and regular traffic use, it requires
continual maintenance. Utilization of a ford crossing through an active waterway has inherent
risks associated with it. High water conditions can occur within this waterway year round with
little or no warning to the Park or to visitors using the ford crossing. Visitors approaching the
ford during high water conditions, or even just during heavy flow periods, are often faced with
impassable conditions. The approach road from the east (Heintooga Ridge Road/Balsam
Mountain Road) is one-way toward this crossing and visitors are reluctant to turn around and
drive 13 miles out in the wrong direction on a single lane one-way road. Instead, visitors often
cross the ford through high water conditions, placing themselves in danger. In addition to threats
posed to the visitors, the waterway itself is jeopardized by the presence of materials found in all
motor vehicles: gasoline, oil, grease, transmission fluid, radiator coolant, air conditioning
propellant, etc. Additionally, a severe storm in May of 2003 caused part of the ford to settle
approximately eight inches rendering the ford impassable to most vehicles. The Paxk has since
made temporary repairs to permit automobiles to cross the ford.
The Park's goal in selecting a preferred build alternative is to protect the waterway from harmful
chemicals as well as provide a safe way for motorists to cross on the ford. Although safety was a
primary concern, significant thought and effort were also given to preserving the Park's natural
and cultural resources by minimizing impacts to the environment.
�' This document determines which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social,
economic, or environmental impact and it identifies measures that may mitigate adverse
__. environmental impacts. The public involvement and coordination/consultation with other
'' Government agencies is also presented. Copies of the public scoping documents and
- announcements are included in the Appendix.

,J
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
A. Location Map ...........................................................................................................2
B. Purpose of the Action ..............................................................................................2
C. Need for the Action ..................................................................................................3
D. Photos of Existing Conditions .................................................................................3
E. Proposed Straight Fork Bridge (Preliminary Drawings) .........................................6
F. Decision to be Made . ...............................................................................................7
G. Issues and Impact Topics .........................................................................................7
H. Pernuts ...................................................................................................................10
I. Interrelationship with Other Plans and Proj ects ....................................................10
II. DESCRIPTION OFALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................11
A. No Action Alternative ............................................................................................1 l
B. Build Alternative ....................................................................................................1 l
C. Preferred Alternative ..............................................................................................12
D. Envirorunentally Preferred Alternative ..................................................................13
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .........14
�V A. Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................15
_' B. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................17
� C. Natural Resources ..................................................................................................20
� D. Air QualiTy .............................................................................................................29
��; E. Noise ......................................................................................................................31
�
, F. Public Service .......................................................................................................32
�
G. Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................33
�, H. Visrtor Use and Ex erience 34
p ...................................................................................
.. � • I. Cumulative Impacts ...............................................................................................36
� J. Mitigation ...............................................................................................................37
IV. SUMMARYOFIMPACTS/ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................39
A. Summary of Environmental Consequences for Each Alternative .........................39
B. Summary of Proposed Actions ..............................................................................39
V. COMMITMENTSAND RESOURCES ...........................................................................41
A. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................41
B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ........................................................41
C. Local Short-Term Uses and Maintenance/Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
D. Natural or Depletable Resources ..........................................................................41
E. Energy Requirements and Conservation ................................................................42
F. Applicability to Environmental Laws ........................................................................42

'�l
�1
�
VI. PUBLIC I1WOL VEMENT AND COOIZDINATION ....................................................44
A. Public Information Meetings ................................................................................44 ��t
B. Summ of Public Comment 44 ��
ary ............................................................................... ` -
C. Agency Coordination ............................................................................................44
D. List of Preparers and Reviewers ............................................................................45 ;
VII. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................46
APPENDICES
A: Public Information Documents .....................................................................................47
B: Agency Consultation .....................................................................................................51
,�
;

r �
� ti
�� ; I. INTRODUCTION
�!
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) was established in 1934 "for the benefit
� and enjoyment of the people." The Park is located within the Southern Appalachian
Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina, and has an area characterized by a series of
mountain ridges and river gorges. The Park is home to a diverse array of life, including
� over 1,600 species of flowering plants, dozens of species of native fish, more than 230
4 species of birds, and 65 species of mammals. With average yearly visitation exceeding 9
million visitors, this Park has the highest visitation of any national park in the entire
��National Park System.
�
��� The location of this proposed project is at the juncture of Straight Fork and Balsam
i � Mountain Roads, where the one-way road ends at a concrete water ford within the
�" Straight Fork tributary of the Oconaluftee River. The existing Straight Fork ford crossing
��� requires motorists to drive through swift flowing water on a narrow submerged concrete
�!i slab placed in the streambed. Because the ford is subjected to continually flowing water
� and regular vehicular use, it requires continual maintenance. Additionally, utilization of
, this crossing poses certain risks to visitor safety. High water conditions can occur within
�� this waterway year round with little or no warning to the Park or to visitors using the ford
crossing. Visitors approaching the ford during high water conditions, or even just during
,-„ heavy flow periods, are often faced with impassable conditions. The approach road from
�'; the east (Heintooga-Round Bottom Road/Balsam Mountain Road) is one-way toward this
� crossing and visitors are reluctant to turn around and drive 13 miles out in the wrong
�" ' direction on a single lane one-way road. Instead, visitors will often use the ford despite
�� � the high water conditions. This places park visitors in danger. In addition to threats
posed to the visitors, the waterway itself is jeopardized by the presence of materials
i`V p found in all motor vehicles: gasoline, oil, grease transmission fluid, radiator coolant, air
� conditioning propellant, etc.
Straight Fork Road provides access to cemeteries, various hiking trails, a horse camp and
equestrian trails. Visitors often enjoy water-related activities such as sunbathing,
swimming, and fishing along this road. For some visitors, the road itself is the destination,
providing a quiet scenic drive along the rambling river. There is currently no traffic data
for this road, but it is estimated that approximately 50,000 visitors pass through this area
every year.

A. Projec� Locntior:
B. Purpose oJtlre Actioir
The purpose of this action is to improve the level of safety of visitors using Straight
Fork/Balsam Mountain Road by pro� iding an all weather means of crossinS
Straight Fork and to eliminate ecisting environmental degradation of the stream. If
implemented, the proposed action will remove the existing low water ford and
construct a new one-lane bridge across Straight Fork in Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, Swain County, North Carolina.

C. Need jor the Actio�t
Visitors traveling along Heintooga Ridge Road/Balsam Mountain Road toward
Straight Fork ford travel along a one-way road, and must cross the existing low
water ford to continue onto Straight Fork Road, a two-way road, to exit the area.
The ford over Straight Fork is subject to continually flowing water and frequendy
floods ��ith little or no warning. During these high water conditions, visitors on
Heintooga Ridge RoadBalsam Mountain Road ofren risk crossing the t7ooded
ford instead of driving 13 miles the wrong way down a one-way road. Although
it onl} takes severa] hours afrer a storm for the water levels to recede, many
visitors �vould rather attempt driving over the flooded ford, or drive back out than
wait for conditions to improve.
Crossing Straight Fork along the present ford often results in the immersion of
vehicle tires and undercarriages in Straight Fork. As a result, the lubricating oils,
greases, and other chemicals on the undercarriage come in contact with the swift
flowing waters of Straight Fork and can contaminate the waters downstream of
the ford.
In order to provide an all-weather crossing of Straight Fork, which would protect
visitors from dangerous flood conditions on the ford, protect the stream from
harmful chemicals associated with automobiles, and restore the natural flow of
the stream, the construction of the Straight Fork Bridge is necessary.
D. Photos of Existing Conditions
' �k -:-.�y,�ti� � '� � . � __�
t� �li`�i° {-,
p si ��� i" y + N'�+� {' I
`' 1 I e`�f��,�o , f 4 a�a�� I V.
�,� i � "��PIM1�'� t �'�e� '.lq���� �� �, �t __
e . � � R; v�l � ���: � , '
����. , �.;.. �,�•_ .-><:
y�� r _ v:�Ytxv ....,.. . . �..
�� _ _' _ s ..� �
,_,t _ . . .. -- _ - _
_ :y,. _ -
� �
.,s..- �'�^ ,.il �,
s,ti..�c- ,,. �= -t` n.::.a� •c.o.__:: r . .
tv,., � '�,ti'' � s ; � . � _-r- •�
� � `1 �'.. �`,w ' .. . . . .:
i � _�irc,i�.�_.
� � �;�,, � �. � � '� tire.siglit Fork Ford,
''`��"'"�^" ���.a�`�-� \ormal Water
�
�'�'�� � x "�-�, `�� Conditions
r���:,�__ _
3

y �!
_ . � -�--�: ,�-
� 1I ..
� d / � i �_
1 f � 4 ►�
� Y
ti� � .
[�� �� _9� ��. �,/ r � � �. �! �,i�{ �..�� It� �_ A� � �e i-"��t';
<s � / � � 1 � 1� � i} � �� ��<�.�� � .� 1 � �
S
�,�� �� �ta I. �'� a 1 . �. f I . i/� Y { � �� I
r � h � �
� �ya. 1 � `y' �. �,� p
� . . ♦ � { _: � r .\ Y`�,., `' � i , '�Y�_'-a f
t� ' `?L r . ♦ rf c _. _ .
�Cia2� �.� . r.e � .
� ,� �^.w�`� �' �� \'orth Bank,
` Straight Fork
. . 't. '` "` ,
-��:, y � f�s�-. q-, � Yroposed 1Vorth
� , �� + �yl�,., 4butment Location
� � I� �t� ,
. ��,, ��� � �
_ 4 �: - a �� rr . . . -., ���"'1.:
� f �
. . �a� . �� ,,, '.
�.
� K: cr . r �`� r
� t�l% Ci �� �t 1� �" �� j� y.��'+,� � I
f ��� ���'. � �`���" �� G � � . n �:�7 �j' ,�. it ,. � v � � �.1 ` �1 ;;
3 �a � �
�.� ' ]� s�ti ).�.; y y. f� r f.� i`�N �;hf,,
, �; � � a , .�,.
i* � nl C� $ ' � ^, h: `K'�:� � 1 4 ..♦ ♦y - �
} f � �j �.��� ¢����t�� S�. ���+ �i ;M1�rl3.�j
<<: { Y . jjj � � g i K�' - 6 r; k Y ,� . � �....
�, � ' ���� � t �� � {.j �, �t , iy� ,�(.� iy".�q ;�
[ �� .{�l i �i �r a 4 � �..� .I -�iq• f 'Y
�4 rIJ ]�i� I � _5 = � r,
+r" :;'M � I �i�,'!�' ::��� S'! �,`s� � t : W.:Y' ��`�fi"'�� M ..� �
1`'ar L ,`!i..t j f��fw .. � .- -- ��-�_`,,�,���i
� [}.�� � ��
!.: � f �°r_� I � " �-„�Y . _ - -_ �c �-'v!l�1
,,�,� � � - - —_�
� S � � . �' ' r.i �a..
f
i � .YF
'�_ rrw--! __ � � �.�r..r...e.`�
, -=3�;;
'. .. . _ .�-�y.s-+�,.,.�� ��. _
. . � � � � "��..,»,�._.
..,_ .._. .. vv.� .
�;. _ : . ._ � r;: ._M1��
. _.. . . . -,. . _ ' ;� �- .,aw
� ✓luc.:
�
a� �. ,�inu ssan�; wpproacn,
-�-� �•,raightFork
� {'r��posed South
���utment Location

�t ��; ' . w ��� �
��,4>� � ar,> , � , ...
1 Y rr 16 N � '�l�M �.
�� F
s ��' L���. '�y �.�,. ,� t �is. �:..
. � .. .� V : 1�� ��\�f _ , 11.� Si'^.
�:.,: `� `,'. i'. •i . . i�:. ... � ��'. �.�
- � Y.t �, � � �� . � � ,� t:. _ Y.,
"' i. c' �": ;'.' '+ : dt. . ; .
� K � r .a��� i f. '.
11P �� !� � � •.
�l.�i"y
. 7i�- ��� ..�;wt F � ���$�� . � - .... �
� .. �, � -.: .
. . ._��. - 4n . � _ _ _ . .
-� Straight Fork Ford
;, ,+�., :,:
•- - . . s �
� �,+; �_ -� � - Settlement From
�.
.�" ��� y � _ Recent Storms
'��
- ' w-. R « _
i ..��,ai.� .� i '+. - Yy: ' . . a � � .
` b �Y . : -1 � . , ._.
_ �f� �� �� ` •.. ... A>f�n ��-. ._.��
'1�`� Ll �'p�
. � �_'� � �Yx .. � . . -'� � ""€�
� •_r ..3._ _ � _.+. -_
. �Y: n�� ��. . - � � �
. - w S-^�p�� -= .
/_• �-'i.a�i� ^ �
F�� �
+. T �, 7 �
� ��� ��� � ,' .
�. . �,
Y }�. �.Ny. :s�?� �
j C �
�� y _�
qa'�"�, . t�' .
�_�'_' . ,�i�,
'3` �' ' -_
f� `- `/yl. ��� �Y
. , ' �31�6.?x: . . �
� � 4.:� M � ` :�3 .,�0}C�i "'._ ,:I�.'�a�ll
.r ' ��--� �'� _., `�
r- � - .y Straight Fork Ford
"�t� � ' '� '-�, ; � � `�
�..� _
� �:.
� .:_ '�.a�,�` ` � ��'�"�°, �� ` �-. �� Potholes and
�I '�,+c:..�<;.a � .�.a� . �w„� � Recent Damage
�•.,��;,�' � --'r �, r � '3"i . , � _ .. .p.. -i
. .'� s � � .. .',.�. ",� 1 ..�.; _ .
I t . . � � l� � - ts ,� ' � "�S'{ .f'
�x '
���.. 1. °i4 e�k T .N.�.A��� . : �
�`� �j'+4�y � � y� w.'� ,;,L� � .: �!
+� -r
�' ~ �� : r�`]u��ri������i:�4w.+�Z.0 a i. � ��'� -:
F / a X�n+C. } 3 . � �.��'�.���L � � � y ���g-. -
J

u
— Profile Grede
����'�� Existing
Ground Line
,:.
Ground Line,
10' Right of Bridge
Centerline
Proposed Straight Fork Bridge
WSEL @ Q 50
Elevation View
(Not to Scale)
� �_, ,.
i -�� � � ; �=---_
�--- — — —'
/ ���
/� _� -
�-
, '', i y _. ` y15��-' - —
i yl �
�. "� -. .. �\
i� I '
/'.''✓ ✓ % ��s/ .
/
.
f \ :
_�:�- �---
r _-„
/ L� � ' � \_•�_,
Ji J � � �
/� J /� i
i r ` �
< �'/ �
� /
� � � % .��, �'
% �
/ ��-
Existing Pull Off _
(To Be Expanded)
� i — — -. y—" -�� ---_
l rn-- ._- - . . �--
j'
� �—�
1_�__�-_,�/;
Proposed
Relocated Pull Off
Existing Pull Off
(To Be Removed)
Existing Low-Water Crossing
(To Be Removed)
Plan View
(Not to Scale)
;�
�b
a°
�
�
0.
�
z
a
�'
^
0
r
�
e
xy
2
b
2
�
.i.
�
�

F.
G.
r
�
�
�
�
_�
�
Decision to be Made
The NPS intends to explore alternatives to deternune how to best provide a safe,
all weather crossing of Straight Fork without diminishing the natural resources,
visitor experience, or the interpolative value and importance of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (GRSM), or other Park resources. After the alternatives
have been fully evaluated and the public has the opportuniiy to review and
provide comments on the proposed action, the NPS will issue a decision on how
to proceed.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires consideration
of the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions. This EA provides the
required environmental and socioeconomic analysis for the proposed work on the
Straight Fork crossing. As part of the planning and analysis, this EA has been
prepared to evaluate alternatives and options for accomplishing this work with the
least impact to Park resources and Park visitors. The Eastern Federal Lands
Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration has prepared this EA
in coordination with the NPS.
Issues and Impact Topics
Specific impact topics were considered to address potential natural, cultural, and
social impacts that might result from the proposed construction work. These topics
are derived from the issues identified above and address federal laws, regulations
and orders, GRSM management documents, and T1PS knowledge of limited or
vulnerable resources. These topics are then used to focus the information
presented and discussed in the affected environment and environmental
consequences sections. Each impact topic relates to a specific aspect of the park
and its surrounding community; which are essential to protect.
A brief rationale for the selection or rejection of each impact topic is given below.
1. Wetlands
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands requires an examination of
the potential to impact wetlands. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps
show no wetlands within the project area. NPS maps of land cover types do
not show any wetland vegetation in the project area. Consultation with
GRSM resource personnel and inspection of the project site confirmed the
absence of wetlands in the project area. Thus, this impact topic does not
require further discussion and therefore was removed from further
consideration.
7

i
1
1
2. Environmental Justice
,�
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice �-_
in Minoritv and Low Income Populations forbids Federal agencies from _
disproportionately affect minority or low-income communities. The project �
area and a11 related work will be within the boundaries of GRSM. Thus, �-
there are no minority or low-income populations to impact and
environmental justice impacts from this project do not require further i
iscussion.
�-
3. Cultural Resources �
Cultural Resources will address both Historical and Archaeological
resources. Any actions that could potentially affect the Historical and
Archeological resources of the Park, in the project area, will be addressed.
As outlined in 36 CFR, Part 800, regulations issued by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et
seq.), the potential impacts on cultural resources must be addressed. Under
the "Criteria of Effect" (36 CFR Part 800.9(a)), Federal undertakings are
considered to have an effect when they alter the character, integrity, or use
of a cultural resource, or qualities that qualify a property for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the National Historic
Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
the 1916 NPS Organic Act, NPS Management Policies, and NPS-28 further
require the NPS to consider the effects of their proposed actions on cultural
resources.
The NPS, in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), has reviewed the bridge construction project.
Protection and preservation of cultural resources at the Park are of critical _
importance and will be discussed as part of this analysis. Perpetuation of
these aesthetic characteristics of the cultural landscape is an important '; ~
design consideration of the current project. �=-
4. Biotic Communities
The NEPA requires an examination of impacts on the components of
affected ecosystems. NPS policy requires the protection of the natural
abundance and diversity of all the Park's naturally occurring communities.
Impacts to resources such as soil, vegetation and wildlife are included in
this topic and will be addressed for each alternative.
5. Special Status Species ;--
i
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies �-
to use their authority in the furtherance of the conservation of rare, �
8

�
��
�
-�
J
� �
J
C'!
�
�
threatened, and endangered species. Federal agencies are required to
consult with the U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, and/or carried out by the agency does not
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or critical habitat.
NPS policy also requires examination of the impacts on federal candidate
species, as well as state listed threatened, endangered, candidate, rare,
declining, or sensitive species. Protection and preservation of special status
species at the Park are of critical importance and is discussed as part of this
document.
Water uality
NPS Management Policies (1988) require protection of water quality
consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since the proposed action has
the potential to impact water quality through erosion and storm water
runoff, this topic will be discussed further.
Floodplains
Development within floodplains and floodways is regulated by federal and
state laws to reduce the risk of property damage and loss of life due to
flooding, as well as to preserve the natural benefits floodplain areas have on
the environment. Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Mana e�ent requires
all federal agencies to avoid construction within 100-year floodplains
unless no other practical alternative exists. While the project site is not
within a FEMA regulated 100-year floodplain, flooding is a serious
consideration and therefore this topic will be discussed further.
Visitor Use, Park O�erations, and Public Safetv
Proposed roadwork is not anticipated to have a significant impact on
visitors at GRSM. Minimal disruptions to traffic patterns during
construction activities could occur. The duration of these impacts are
anticipated to be less that one construction season. Since the proposed
action has the potential to impact visitor use and operations during the
construction time, this topic will be discussed further.
Socioeconomic Environment
The proposed reconstruction and resurfacing work may minimally impact
park visitors, staff, and the local economy and will be discussed further as
an impact topic in this document.
. � . . .. . .. _. • ;'r`�'- ' ��;`' ',

13
V
H. Permits
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission have been consulted regarding the presence of federally, or
State, listed threatened or endangered species within the study area. None of these `;
listed species are known to inhabit the project area. L-
Persons who conduct any activity that involves the alteration of waters of the
State require a State and possibly a federal permit. Permits will need to be
authorized by Department of Army (DA) pursuant to Section 10 of the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Act and/or, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In
addition to mitigation for federal permits, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Conservation may also require an Aquatic Resource Alteration
Permit (ARAP) pursuant to North Carolina Water Quality Control Act.
I. Interrelationship with Other Plans and Projects
The General Management Plan for the Park
The 1982 General Management Plan (GMP) for the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park serves as a guide for meeting the objectives
established for the Park and as a public statement of National Park Service
management intentions. The GMP establishes long-range strategies for
resource management, visitor use, and development of an integrated park
system. The proposed action is compliant with the Park's stated primary
purpose of providing "for visitor enjoyment compatible with preserving
the rich assemblage of natural resources."
In order to carry out the Park's strategies, management zones and
subzones were designated in the GMP for the various lands and waters of
the park to indicate what uses, activities, and management actions are
appropriate. The project area, the Straight Fork Road/Balsam Mountain
Road corridor, is zoned for transportation and is to be maintained as a
public road corridor such that "all park roads now accessible to use by
private vehicles will remain open unless affected by inclement weather
conditions."
2. The National Park Service Or�anic Act of Au�ust 25, 1916
This Act states that the fundamental purpose of national parks is "to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and
by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations." Both alternatives are supportive of this act because they are
unobtrusive on the natural and historic environment, and maintain the
historic road corridor for future Park visitors.
10

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
.. . �.
The National Park Service initiated the project in the late 1990's when it became
apparent that the unsafe driving condition needed to be resolved. The main concern was
for the safety of motorists crossing the stream, especially during flood conditions, which
could arise with little or no warning. Since the undercarriage of vehicles comes in
contact with the water during normal flow conditions, pollutants such as gasoline and oil
are often introduced into the water. In order to provide a safe and environmentally
friendly method for motorists to cross the stream, a bridge spanning the stream has been
proposed.
A.
B.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no substantial improvements would be
performed other than in accordance with routine maintenance operations. The
Straight Fork ford crossing would continue to see frequent flooding, overall driver
safety concerns would remain unresolved, and the potential for hazardous
materials to enter Straight Fork would remain unmitigated.
Build Alternative
`, f The Build Alternative would construct a one-lane, single span steel truss bridge
'� across Straight Fork. Minor roadway realignments and grade changes would be
�..�
necessary at both approaches in order to allow motorists to more easily navigate
� the curve in the road and to raise the road bed and bridge superstructure above
;_� expected flood levels. A mechanically stabilized rock embankment would be
constructed on the south end of the bridge and an existing mechanically stabilized
�, �1 rock embankment on the north bank will be rehabilitated to accommodate the
�_ �� required fill slopes. The current ford would be removed and the stream bottom
would once again become contiguous.
��
I
�
The alignment of Straight Fork Road/Balsam Mountain Road would be adjusted
to remove a sharp blind curve at the north end of the existing Straight Fork Ford
and portions of Straight Fork RoadlBalsam Mountain Road would be regraded to
improve drainage. The existing gravel pullout south of the concrete ford would
be expanded slightly to provide space for vehicles to wait for traffic on the one-
lane bridge to clear and to provide additional parking for axea visitors. The
existing gravel pullout, located north of the ford, would be relocated to
accommodate the realignment of the road.
In order to have the least impact on park visitors and to traffic, construction on the
new bridge would take place while leaving the existing ford open to traffic. Once
construction of the new bridge was completed, traffic would be switched to the
bridge so that the current ford, and the portions of Straight Fork Road/Balsam
Mountain Road approaching the ford, could be removed and the stream restored
to its original depth. The low water ford is to be removed in sections so as to
limit the amount of stream disturbance that occurs. After the removal of each
section of the ford, the stream wi.11-need to�be�allowed to clear, thus limiting the

r�
�, i
I
C_
amount of sediment carried downstream at any given period of time. These
actions are deemed necessary in order to provide additional protection to the ��
down stream fish hatchery. Preliminary quantity computations estimate that the �-_��
project as proposed would involve approximately 0.35 acre of total area of
disturbance. � �
Construction activities would incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures to minimize soil loss. Typical erosion and sediment control �
measures include the use of silt fences and check dams where applicable. '
Specific control measures would be determined during the design of the project
�
and would utilize best management practices. Consultation with Park staff during �
the design phase will be required for specific recommendations; to include �-
determining appropriate erosion and sediment control measures, seed mixtures �--
required for the Park, and any other specific details. Since both of the proposed r
abutments are located outside of the stream, minimal impacts to the stream during -
construction are expected. Some type of stream diversion barriers would need to ��-
be erected during construction to protect against periods of high flow. Specific ,'
details and methods would need to be determined during the final design of the -
bridge foundations and abutments. Typical construction projects of this �
magnitude would require the use of heavy equipment. Exact type and size of ;
equipment would depend on equipment availability and the ability to transport the
equipment to the project site.
Preliminary quantity computations estimate that the project as proposed would
involve approximately 0.3 acre of clearing and grubbing work. Vegetation in {-
areas marked for clearing and grubbing are spruce, oak, birch and maple trees. �'_ ,
Impacts to the existing Hemlock trees are to be avoided and minimized wherever
possible. The selective clearing area is divided up into various small sites located ;
on both approaches of the proposed bridge; primarily where the approaches would �.
have to be regraded and the bridge abutments built.
�-
C. Preferred Alternative � .
The preferred alternative is the Build Alternative. Even though the possibility �,
exists that some of the construction activities, if not properly conducted, could ��.
lead to datnaging environmental consequences, these possibilities can be
minimized through the use of appropriate sediment and erosion control methods. i
At all times that equipment is working near Straight Fork, floating oil soak booms '--
would be installed immediately downstream to protect against possible hazardous
��
material spills. Through the Build Alternative, the safety concerns of the ford ;
crossing would be addressed, thus making the road safer for park visitors. In `�
addition to correcting the safety concerns, the Build Alternative also addresses
some of the ongoing environmental problems, such as contamination of Straight !
Fork from vehicles coming in contact with the water. �-
12

D. Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is also the Build Alternative.
There is the possibility of minor environmental impacts arising from the
construction process; however, through the use of sediment and erosion
control measures and best management practices, the possibilities of
environmental damage can be minimized. Additionally, building the
bridge would prevent the dirty and polluted undercarriages of cars from
coming in contact with the water. Removal of the ford would also remove
the three-foot waterfall that has developed on the downstream side of the
ford, returning the stream bottom to a contiguous state, which would
benefit the various species of trout in Straight Fork.
,� � r . :..;, ,a,�.,�;�,,..
13

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The following addresses the affected environment and the environmental consequences
for the No Action alternative and the Build Alternative. A definition of impacts is
located below:
�a
Ne� i� - Little or no impact (not measurable).
Minor - Not easily defined or measurable. Changes or disruptions
may occur, but does not result in a substantial resource
impact.
3. Major - Easily defined and measurable. Results in a substantial
resource impact.
4. Temporary impacts - Impacts anticipated during construction only. Upon
completion of the construction activities, conditions
are likely to return to those that existed prior to
construction.
5.
�
Short-term impacts - Impacts that may extend past the construction period,
but are not anticipated to last more than a couple of
years.
Long-term impacts - Impacts that may extend past the construction period,
and are anticipated lasting more than a couple of
years.
The Crreat Smoky Mountains National Park is distinguished by the extraordinary
diversity and abundance of its plants and animals, the beauty of its mountainous terrain
and waterways, the quality of its remnants of pioneer culture, and the sanctuary it affords
for those resources and for its modern human users. The purpose and mission of the Park
is to preserve these exceptionally diverse resources, and to provide for public benefit and
enjoyment of them in ways that will leave the resources and the dynamic natural
processes of which they are a part, essentially unaltered.
Since 1947, Great Smoky Mountains National Park has led the Nation as the most visited
national park in the system, currently receiving over 9 million visitors a year. Visitor use
in the Park has recently decreased slightly from numbers over 10 million visitors per
year. However, despite the slight decrease in the number of visitors, the development of
the surrounding communities has continued to expand. The growth of these gateway
communities creates direct impacts on the Park's traffic conditions and perceived
character.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, located in the States of North Carolina and
Tennessee, encompasses over 800 square miles of forested lands. In 1934, the people of
North Carolina and Tennessee donated the Great Smoky Mountains to the Federal
14

_�
�
�
�1
,
�
__,�
�
_J
�
Government, creating Great Smoky Mountains National Park. President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt dedicated the Park on� September 2, 1940. Today, the Park contains more than
521,000 acres in the two States.
Elevations in the Park range from 800 feet to 6,643 feet. Topography affects local
weather with temperatures ranging froml0 to 20 degrees cooler on the mountaintops.
Annual precipitation averages 65 inches in the lowlands to 88 inches in the higher
elevations. Spring often brings unpredictable weather, particularly at higher elevations.
Summer is hot and humid, but more pleasant at higher elevations. Fall has warm days
and cool nights and is the driest period, and frosts occur starting in late September.
Winter is generally moderate, but extreme conditions occur with increasing elevation.
The peak tourist months are June to August, and October during spectacular autumn
color. The lowest visitation occurs during the winter months of December to February.
Balsam Mountain Road is a 13-mile long one-way road with a posted speed limit of 25
mph. The road is mostly used by visitors seeking a quiet scenic drive or hike along the
rambling river in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Attractions include hiking
trails, a horse camp and equestrian trails. Visitors also can take advantage of water-
related activities like sunbathing, swimming and fishing along this road.
A. Traffic Conditions
1. Affected Environment
� The purpose of Park roads remains in sharp contrast to that of the Federal
_�; and State Highway Systems. Park roads are not intended to provide fast
and convenient transportation; they are intended to enhance the visitor
y� experience while providing safe and efficient accommodation of Park
visitors and to serve essential management access needs.
� Currently, there are no AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) counts
_! available for this section of the park. Balsam Mountain, Heintooga and
Straight Fork roads are all parts of a loop road that take visitors through
ithe one-way portion of road and across Straight Fork. It is estimated that
- s approximately 50,000 visitors per year access the loop road.
_�
i
�
�
�
i
�
2. Environmental Effects
The communities surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
are experiencing tremendous growth which is likely to increase vehicular
traffic within the Paxk. An increase in traffic volumes in the years
following construction is presumed to occur whether or not this project is
completed. The change from a ford to a bridge should not have any
impact on the overall amount of traffic on Balsam Mountain Road. The
feel of the road will not be altered and visitors choosing to drive the road
will base the decision on the 13-mile scenic drive, rather than the method
of stream crossing. If the road is allowed to deteriorate further, it may
discourage visitors from travel,ing.the�road�: �,;,�,;�
15

�
� _1
a. No Action Alternative
In the short-term, the No Action Alternative would not result in
;�
any changes to the existing traffic conditions. However, over time
the conditions of the ford would continue to deteriorate which may � i
increase liability for the Park with respect to safety and may '--'
eventually require the one-way section of the road to be closed _�
until a new low water ford can be constructed. 1 f
�,
b. Build Alternative
Under the Build Alternative, the activities associated with the
construction of the new bridge as well as the removal of the
existing ford would result in temporary traffic impacts for Park
personnel and visitors to the area. While the majority of traffic
would continue to flow uninterrupted, the proximity of the
construction site to that of the ford would cause traffic to slow
slightly. In addition to the slight decrease in speed, the movement
of construction equipment could have the potential to temporarily
disrupt traffic flow. The road would remain open during the entire
summer construction process and no other traffic impacts would
occur aside from the minor disturbances to traffic flow. The traffic
restrictions could temporarily increase traffic volumes in other
areas of the Park as visitors and other travelers decide to frequent
those areas that remain most easily accessible. During the
construction period, construction signing would be used to notify
visitors of roadway conditions.
The proposed project would improve traffic safety by creating a
way for drivers to cross Straight Fork, even during flood
conditions, thus eliminating situations where drivers would turn
around and proceed the wrong way out the one-way portion of the
road.
c. Conclusion
With the No Action Alternative, present traffic patterns in the Park '�
would remain unchanged, but present safety issues would remain '--
unresolved. Under the Build Alternative, the bridge would provide ,
a safe way for vehicles to cross Straight Fork, even during periods �
of high flow. Minor temporary impacts to traffic would occur `-
during the construction process, however traffic flow would
improve once construction of the bridge was complete. No '
impairment of the Paxk's traffic patterns would occur under either �-
alternative. -
;-
�
16
?_.

i;
_,
�
J
B. Cultural Resources
1. Affected Environment
a. Archeological Resources
In the Smokies, archeological resources consist of prehistoric and
aboriginal sites that represent several southeastern cultural periods,
as well as historic sites related to mountain culture and Park
development. While over 272 sites have been found within the
Park boundary, the total remains unknown.
�-_ On November 10, 2003, a pedestrian survey of the proposed area
�� was conducted to ascertain potential impacts to archeological
resources. No previous archeological work has been undertaken in
the immediate area. Due to the disturbed nature of the area, no
i� shovel test pits were excavated. No intact archeological deposits
`"1 are anticipated at this location.
�
��
b. Historic Resources
�- The Paxk contains more than one hundred historic buildings, most
�
' ranging from the 1830's Euro-American settlement to the early
twentieth century. The grounds around many of the historic
"- � buildings in Great Smoky Mountains National Park are considered
_ i historic scenes. Historic structures also include bridges, rock
walls, tunnels, and fire towers. Road structures such as bridges
i� and walls exhibit the National Park Service design philosophy of
blending the natural and the human-built environment through the
consistent use of native construction materials.
,�
�
�
`;
�J
�'i
The Balsam Mountain area was first considered for the location of
a road in October 1930, when Park Service Director Albright
visited the proposed Park and looked at possible road locations. In
the company of individuals associated with the Park movement,
Albright traveled on the Suncrest Lumber Company's railroad
along part of Balsam Ridge. The Balsam Mountain, Heintooga
and Straight Fork roads were all originally railroad grades that
were converted to roads by the Park Service. Within the affected
environment area, Historical Records indicate that a railroad trestle
once existed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge location.
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) began construction of the
Balsam Mountain Road in May 1936. In July, the CCC was
reported to be "finishing and surfacing" what was referred to as the
"Ledge Creek-Balsam Mounta.in Motorway, " which ran for 33
miles from Ravensford, near the present Oconaluftee Visitor
Center, north and then;south,to��Bla�ck�Camp Gap.
17

The Heintooga Ridge Road and parking areas were staked in April
1941. World War II delayed the actual construction of the �1
Heintooga Ridge Road. In June 1945, the new Superintendent, ._. �
Blair Ross, proposed making improvements at Heintooga Ridge.
Major work began in November 1949, when Heintooga Ridge and ;
Balsam Mountain Campground were resurveyed and laid out. The �-
extension of the Blue Ridge Paxkway to the boundary at Black
Camp Gap where it would join the Heintooga Ridge Road began in {'�
August 1950. ' --
The Heintooga Ridge Road was completed on July 31, 1952, and
the 6-mile road from the Blue Ridge Parkway to the Heintooga
Overlook was opened on October 4. In addition to the overlook,
the area included a campground and a picnic area. From here, a
visitor could choose to drive down the Balsam Mountain Road to
Round Bottom and then to the Oconaluftee Visitor Center.
The Heintooga Ridge Road was paved as part of the Mission 66
development in the Park, and was begun in November of 1955.
The project was completed on July 13, 1956. The Straight Fork
Road, which leads from the Heintooga Ridge Road at Round
Bottom to the south Park boundary, was improved in 1962. The
project, which included the improvement of 1.3 miles of road and
one bridge, began on June 2. The bridge was completed and traffic
was allowed over the road in October 1962, and the project was
completed on April 19, 1963.
The Balsam Mountain Road was opened for one-way traffic from
the Heintooga Overlook to Round Bottom on June 15, 1966. A
bridge project to replace fifteen wooden bridges in the North
Carolina section of the park in 1986 and 1987 included two bridges
on the Balsam Mountain Road, which were completed in May
1987.
There are no existing above ground structures in the project area
other than those associated with the Balsam Mountain-Heintooga-
Straight Fork road corridor and the Balsam Mountain
Campground. The Balsam Mountain-Heintooga-Straight Fork
Road corridors have not been evaluated for National Register
eligibility.
18
;
�

��
'
2. Environmental E ffects
r� a. No Action Alternative
c
_:
i. Archeological Resources
No archeological resources would be disturbed or lost
under the No Action Alternative.
ii. Historic Resources
No historical resources would be disturbed or lost under the
No Action Alternative.
b. Build Alternative
i. Archeological Resources
The project limits of the proposed action are within the
existing roadway prism and would involve work in areas
that have been previously disturbed by the initial roadway
construcfion. For these reasons, it is determined that the
proposed action would have no effect on archeological
resources. If resources are encountered, construction
activities would cease, and State Historic officials would be
contacted for further action.
If any archeological resources are encountered during
construction operations, construction would be
immediately halted. The Park axcheologist would be
contacted immediately so that the resources could be
logged, evaluated, and retrieved.
ii. Historic Resources
The site is potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The new road alignment will return the
road to its pre-1962 alignment. The construction of the
bridge and realignment of the road will have no adverse
effect on historic resources. No historical resources would
be disturbed or lost under the Build Alternative.
In a letter dated February 9, 2004, The North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office concurred with FHWA's
determination that no historic resources would be affected
by the Build Alternative.
. s , i �, � � _ .,�,. �,,,
�

Conclusion
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Build Alternative is
expected to adversely impact the Park's historical or archeological
resources. No impairment to the Park's archeological or historical
resources would occur.
C. Natural Resources
1. Affected Environment
a. Physiography
The soils in the Great Smoky Mountains vary according to their
elevation and location. They are characterized by being thin and
rocky and exhibiting minimal horizon development. The parent
materials of the primary soils are the noncalcareous shales,
quartzites, and sandstones of the Ocoee series. In general, the
valley bottoms of the park have well-drained, deep soils, while the
higher mountain soils are thin and rocky.
The soils in the Park are currently being categorized and mapped,
but have not been published. However, Mr. Tim Harlan of the
Swain County, North Carolina office of the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, was able to provide soil descriptions for the
Straight Fork project area.
The soils at the project site are best classified as part of the
Dellwood-Smokemont Complex. These soils typically consist of
well drained, moderately to very rapidly permeable soils, formed
from alluvium on flood plains in the Southern Appalachian and
Blue Ridge mountains. These soils are shallow containing both
sandy and loamy materials, that have more than 35% by volume of
gravel and cobbles, with 0-5% ground slope. This soil reflects
typical soils that have developed in a flood plain.
b. Water Resources
Water quality in the Park streams is generally good. In most
streams the water is cold, fast flowing, slightly acidic, and low in
dissolved solids. During normal and low flows the water is clear,
although streams become turbid following storms. It is likely that
small amounts of sediment, from trails and the surrounding forest,
may end up in Park streams due to normal sediment transport.
Straight Fork drains into Raven Fork, which in turn drains into the
Oconaluftee River. Surrounding vegeta.tive communities, soil
chemistry and underlying geology determine the water chemistry
20

_�
�
��1
__�
of Park streams. �1VIid-level streams are characterized by slightly
acidic pH (i.e. 6.2 — 6.9) with low buffering capacity and have very
i.., .
little naturally occurring sediment and turbidity.
The fish community in the vicinity of the project is composed of
rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, long-nose dace and
mottled sculpin. This species composition is commonly found
throughout the Park in streams of similar size and elevation.
A fish rearing facility belonging to the Cherokee Fish and Game
Management exists at the park boundary. Officials with this
agency have been contacted and advised of the project. Park staff
will contact the facility manager prior to the initiation of
construction activities.
Areas upstream of the ford have accumulated sediment, which has
caused the normal water flow to channel around the sediment and
into previously undisturbed areas. When the ford was installed,
the flat ford created an elevation difference, which created a slight
waterfall condition that has accelerated erosion along the
downstream side. Water falling over the edge of the ford has
scoured streambed axeas up to three feet deep.
Removing the existing concrete ford and installing a bridge will
"- � eliminate the existing intrusion of the streambed corridor. The
_ � natural flow of the waterway will be restored, the accelerated
erosion of the streambed will cease, and the stream will once again
� be contiguous benefiting fish and other water species.
c. Vegetation and Wildlife
Vegetation is one of the Park's primary natural resources. Due to
its topographical relief and position in the continent, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park supports an enormous diversity of
vegetation. Almost 95% of the Park is forested. This forest has
been described as among the most diverse and complex in North
America (NPS 1982). The Park has more vascular plant species
than any other unit in the national park system, and the number of
its nonvascular plant species rank among the highest of any area in
North America north of Mexico (NPFLORA 1988 as cited in Rock
and Langdon 1991). More than 1,600 species of vascular plants
have been identified in the Park (including 100 native tree
species), 10% of which are considered rare. Of the 1,600 species of
vascular plants, approximately 340 are nonnative. About 10 plant
taxa, new to the Park, are discovered each year.
The Park's flora is highly representative of the Eastern Forest
Biotic Province, existing in both-disturbed and undisturbed
21

i��
�I
ecosystems and over a wide range of elevation and aspect. The
Great Smoky Mountains also contain one of the largest blocks of f �
virgin temperate deciduous forest in North America. About �-
100,000 acres of virgin forest are believed to be in the Park (NPS
1991). Other forested areas in the Park are in varying successional ���
stages, having been cut over at various times in the past. Dominant '-J
tree species in the Park's forests include red maple (Acer rubrum), ,_,
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), ; �
yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), hickories (Carya sp. ), beech
(Fagus grandifolia), red spruce (Picea rubens), silverbell (Halesia --
tetraptera var. monticola), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), j
pines (Pinus sp.), oaks (Quercus sp.), white basswood (Tilia `�
americana var. heterophylla), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis). I
The vegetation community type at the Straight Fork project site is
an Appalachian Montane Alluvial Forest. This community type is
common along medium to large streams, especially sections of
streams that are flat or gently sloping. Dominance is shared
among sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tuliptree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), sweet birch
(Betula lenta), and hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). The shrub layer
is typically dominated by Rhododendron maximum. Herbs are
present where there are no shrubs. Observed at the site were Aster
spp., goldenrod spp., and wood rush (Luzula sp.).
Great Smoky Mountains National Park also contains a diverse
number of wildlife species due to the Park's size, topography, ;
vegetation, and human land uses. More than 60 native mammal �..
species are known to occur in the Park, half of which are rodents.
Forty reptilian species have been identified including eight turtle �
species, nine lizard species, and 23 snake species. Forty-four '-
amphibian species have been identified including thirteen _
frog/toads and thirty-one salamanders. Fifty-eight species of fish ;
and over 600 aquatic invertebrate species have been documented in '' -
the Park.
The project area could be potential habitat for small mammals such
as shrews and raccoons. The road and stream corridors may also
serve as travel and feeding areas for forest bats.
Exotic species are those species that are not part of the original -
ecosystems. These non-native species are of concern because they !
are aggressive invaders and can out-compete native species. The `
National Park Service is working to eliminate problem exotics
within the Park. Kudzu, mimosa, Asian princess-tree, multiflora `
rose, and the European wild boar are among the Park's worst
exotics and axe the subject of expensive Park eradication efforts. i
�_
22
�-
�

i
_J
d. Threatened and Endangered Species
�
_J
_�
:
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires examination of
impacts of federal actions on federally listed threatened,
endangered, rare, declining, and sensitive species. According to
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, eleven federally-listed species
inhabit Great Smoky Mountains National Park:
Endangered Animals:
Northern Flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Smoky madtom Noturus baileyi
Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga
� Endangered Plants:
� Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare
Spreading avens Geum radiatum
Threatened Animals:
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha
Yellowfm madtom Noturus flavipinnis
Threatened Plants:
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana
-- � Based on habitat and elevation, none of the eleven federally listed
_ species occurring within Great Smoky Mountains National Park
� are known to inhabit the project area. However, transient species
' are possible.
e. Floodplains
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Mana e�ent, the
impact of a project on floodplains must be assessed. The "100-year
flood" is not the flood that occurs every 100 years. Instead, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines the
100-year flood as the flood elevation that has a 1% chance of being
equaled or exceeded each year. Thus, the 100-year flood could
occur more than once in a short period of time.
The portion of the Oconaluftee River watershed in the project area,
especially Straight Fork, is mapped on FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Maps *370227 0050 C and 370401 0006 B. The 100-year
floodplain for Straight Fork lies entirely within the Eastern
Cherokee Indian Reservation, approximately 4 miles southwest of
the project area. Thus, the project location is not within the "100-
year floodplain".
,�n.��,,:�,,:.. .,. ._��.... - .,,��:.,;.,.
23
�

2. Environmental Effects
a. No Action Alternative
ti
i. Physiography �
i
The physiography of the area would remain unchanged under
the No Action alternative.
ii. Water Resources
The No Action alternative would not substantially affect `
water resources in the area; however the continued �
deterioration of the road may facilitate increased sediment �
deposits in Straight Fork. Vehicles would continue to come
in contact with the water and expose Straight Fork to the f-
,
hazardous chemicals associated with the undercarriages of ;
vehicles. `
iii. Vegetation and Wildlife
The No Action alternative would not have any effect on ,
vegetation or wildlife, and would not contribute to the
introduction or spreading of non-native species.
iv. Threatened and Endangered Species
The No Action Alternative would not have any effect on any j^
Threatened or Endangered Species within the project area. t�
v. Flood Plains
The flood plains of the area would remain unchanged under
the No Action alternative.
b. Build Alternative
Physiography
Under the Build Alternative, approximately 0.35 acres will �
be disturbed to construct the Straight Fork Bridge, the `-
necessary work on the Bridge approaches, and rock walls. ;
The disturbed area will be stabilized upon completion of �
construction. There would be a potential for erosion during �
construction. The Build Alternative would result in only i-
negligible, localized, and temporary impacts to local soils. i
There would be no long-term changes to the local soils and `-T
only minor changes to the local topography, with no overall ;
;
�
24

f
_J
�
i
_�
�
�
_�
impact to tlie Park's physiography.
ii. Water Resources �
Short-term impacts to water quality due to erosion may
exist during construction; however, best management
practices would be utilized to minimize the potential
impacts. This includes the temporary work to construct a
rock embankment. Should the Build Alternative be
selected, a sediment and erosion control plan, including the
use of best management practices, would be prepared by
the Federal Highway Administration and included in the
final construction plans.
The best management practices would include silt fences
and stone check dams placed at the foot of slopes and at
other key locations to contain and collect the sediment from
runoff in areas where soil has been exposed by construction
activities. Temporary berms and stream diversion channels
would be constructed to separate Straight Fork and other
significant drainage flow from erodable soil and slopes
would be seeded for short-term soil re-stabilization. All
sediment and erosion control measures would have to be
checked and replaced as necessary after each rainstorm.
Stationary sediment control booms would be ineffective for
use within Straight Fork. These types of booms were
designed for slow moving streams. The faster flow
velociTy along with the fluctuations in volume make the in-
stream sediment control booms an impractical option for
sediment control. Oil absorbent booms will be utilized to
control any possible spills. The Contractor would be
required to submit a ford removal plan for approval prior to
the removal of the ford. In addition to the plan, a minimum
of 2-hour notice must be given to the downstream fish
hatchery. It is anticipated that the ford will be removed in
sections, allowing the stream to clear prior to the removal
of the subsequent section. This should limit the amount of
sediment that enters the stream at any given time.
Equipment needed to remove the ford would need to have
access to the ford itself, but should not require any access
to the stream. The presence of the equipment on the ford
would, with the use of appropriate control measures, not
pose any additional risk to the stream, above what is
currently experienced with normal traffic flow. Ford
removal may only take place from April 16th to October
14th due to the spawning seasons of the various aquatic
species in Straight>Eork.
25

;-�i
�_.
Water quality monitoring will be conducted before, during, ��
and after the construction of the Straight Fork Bridge. �--
Samples will be collected at a site upstream of the bridge
location and at a site inside the Park Boundary but + I
upstream of the Cherokee trout hatchery. Sampling will be '
�_J
conducted via multi-parameter data sondes. Parameters _
measured will include temperature, pH, conductivity and ' l
turbidity. Particular attention will be given to pH and �-�
turbidity. If significant changes in any parameter are
detected, the GTR for the project will be notified i;
immediately. Fish monitoring will also be conducted before `-J
and after construction to determine if any part of the fish -
community was affected in any way by the project. j �
iii. Vegetation and Wildlife
Preliminary quantity computations estimate that the project
as proposed would involve approximately 0.3 acre of
clearing and grubbing work. Total area of disturbance for
the Build Alternative would be approximately 0.35 acre.
The additional area of disturbance would be due to the
slight shift in the roadway alignment on both sides of the +
bridge. Several Eastern hemlock trees near the proposed
pull-off locations would be marked and avoided. These ;
tree species are becoming rare due to hemlock woolly '__
adelgid. The trees are within 20-30 feet of the e�sting
roadway edge and they should not be disturbed unless '
absolutely necessary. Most vegetation lost due to �_
construction will return within a single growing season —
these impacts are minor and short term. Because removal of i
trees would be minimized to those only necessary to �---
complete the proposed action, this impact, as mitigated, is
considered minor. r
i_ �
Considering the small area to be impacted and the amount
of other suita.ble habitat in the Park, the potential short- and �
long-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife in the Park appears �-
to be negligible. ,
In accordance with Executive Order 13112: Invasive `-
Species signed by President Clinton on February 3, 1999, �--
and NPS/DOI standards and regulations, the Federal '�
Highway Administration, which would oversee the `-'
construction of the proposed action, would require that �-
only invasive-free mulches, topsoil, and seed mixes are �.
�_
used on the project. The final construction plans would
include directions and specifications to the Contractor for ;-
�
26
�

iv.
v.
revegetating disturbed areas with non-invasive species as
specified by the NPS.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Since no federally listed species were found in the project
vicinity, no formal Section 7 consultation with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service is necessary. No impact to special
status species within the Park would occur.
In a letter dated September 23, 2004 the US Fish and
Wildlife Service concurs with the Federal Highway
Administration's determination that the Build Alternative,
as mitigated, "is not likely to adversely affect" Federally
Threatened and Endangered Species (See Appendix B).
Floodplains
Under the Build Alternative, alterations within the
floodplain would be negligible and would not contribute
substantively to cumulative floodplain impacts. The new
bridge crossing would be elevated out of the floodplain,
allowing traffic to cross Straight Fork even during periods
of high flow, eliminating the risk to motorists. The raise in
grade at both approaches will provide a minor drainage
improvement that would help prevent recurrent flooding of
the road near Straight Fork.
c. Conclusion
i.
�
ii.
_,
�
-�
'�
_�
Physiography
No impacts to the Park's soils or geology would occur with
either the No Action or Build Alternatives. No impairment
to the Park's physiography would occur under either of the
alternatives.
Water Resources
Water Resources would not be affected under the No
Action Alternative. Under the Build Alternatives, there are
potential short-term affects on water quality. The
construction of the bridge and removal of the low-water
ford may have immediate short-term effects on water
claxity but will have no long-term impacts to water
chemistry or clarity, nor should it have any effect on the
fish community. If a small number of fish are lost for an
unforeseen�;reason; �it,will not negatively affect the survival
�

i
of these populations in the watershed of the Park.
�-
Impacts would be minimized with the implementa.tion of a '--
sediment and erosion control plan. The new bridge
structure should also improve drainage flow throughout the i
Park. The long-term benefits of removing the ford
outweigh the possibility of a short-term effect to water r_
quality. No impairment to the Park's water resources
would occur under either of the alternatives.
iii. Vegetation and Wildlife
The No Action Alternative would have no impact on
vegetation within the park. The Build Alternative would
have minor short-term impacts due to the removal of
vegetation and minor long-term impacts due to the
unavoidable removal of some mature trees within the
project area. The removal of trees would be minimized to
only those necessary to complete the project.
The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the
wildlife with in the Park. Under the Build Alternative any
negative effects caused by construction would be
temporary, mostly recovered in one growing season, and
would cause no significant impact to future species or their
habitat.
No impairment to the Park's vegetation, birds, fish, or
wildlife would occur under either alternative.
iv. Threatened and Endangered Species
A Section 7 formal consultation was determined not to be
necessary, as the proposed project would not likely have any
adverse affect on federally listed endangered and threatened
species.
No impairment to the Park's threatened and endangered
species would occur under either alternative.
v. Floodplains
�-
No adverse impacts to the floodplains would occur from j
either alternative. No impairment to the Park's floodplains --
would occur under either of the alternatives.
28

D. Air Quality
1. Affected Environment
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, Congress established a National policy for
preserving, protecting and enhancing air quality. The 1977 amendments to
this Act designated all National Parks 6,000 acres in size or greater, and
wilderness azeas in excess of 5,000 acres as mandatory Class I azeas worthy
of the greatest degree of air quality protection under the Act. The 1990
Amendments to the Act left intact the requirements for Class I area
protection, while providing additional tools to accomplish the protection.
Under the Act, the federalland manager has been given the affirmative
responsibility to assure that air quality and the air quality-related values in
Class I areas, such as GRSM, do not deteriorate, and to take an aggressive
role in protecting, preserving and enhancing the Pazk's resources. This
placed Great Smoky Mountains National Pazk within this class of protection.
Views from scenic overlooks at Great Smoky Mountains National Pazk
have been seriously degraded over the last 50 yeazs by human-caused
pollution. Since 1948, based on regional airport records, average visibility
in the southern Appalachians has decreased 40% in winter and 80% in
sununer. Annual average visibility at Great Smoky Mountains National
Pazk is 25 miles, compazed to natural conditions of 93 miles. During
severe haze episodes, visibility has been reduced to less than one mile.
Sulfate concentrations increased in the region by 27% from 1984 to 1999.
Electricity-generating plants aze the source of most sulfates.
T'he National Pazk Service has been monitoring air quality in the pazk for
more than 15 yeazs. The Pazk reports current weather conditions and
ozone levels on their website,
httn://www2.nature.nps..ov�gazks/�rsm/lookRockWeather.htm. Look
Rock Tower, which is located within the Foothills Pazkway right-of-way,
houses a digital camera, which takes high-resolution pictures of the view
every fifteen minutes. The visual range is calculated from data provided
by the nephelometer housed at the same location. Haze at the Park is
primarily produced from tiny sulfate particles, limiting viewing distances
while dulling colors and textures of scenic features. Carbon and nitrate
particles are other air pollutants that add to the haze. The burning of fossil
fuels by power generation, industrial processes, and motor vehicles aze the
sources of these pollutants. Humidity, air stagnation, rainfall, clouds,
fires, and wind-blown soil and dust aze the other factors that affect
visibility.
The gravel section of Straight Fork Road / Balsam Mountain Road also
presents air quality issues. Dust is a by-product of the mechanical
breakdown in the surfacing aggregate. Excessive amounts of dust can lead
to a variety of consequences and environmental damages including
particulate matter air pollution. As this road is used for a variety of

I�
�J
pedestrian activities, dust irritation can significantly diminish the
experience for the Parks non-motorized guests. Dust can also become a- y'
significant vehicle safety factor due to decreased visibility and diminish '-.-�
the overall Park experience for motorists as well. __
Another air quality problem, ozone pollution, threatens human health and
Park vegetation. Automobiles and factories are the main producers of
nitrogen oxides, which lead to the creation of ground level ozone and
ozone pollution. Most ozone pollution originates outside the Park and
travels to the Smokies in prevailing winds. Ozone is a powerful
respiratory irritant for humans and can cause harm to trees and other
plants. In 1997, thirty species of plants showed leaf damage after being
exposed to controlled ozone levels identical to those that occur in the
Park.
2. Environmental Effects
a. No Action Alternative
Air qualiiy levels would remain essentially in the same condition
as they are under present conditions.
b. Build Alternative
Because this is a reconstruction and rehabilitation project, which (
does not change the capacity or effect the level of service of the f_
existing roadway, it is not expected to result in any additional air
pollution and is not expected to interfere with attainment of the j
National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS). Therefore, a L
technical air analysis is not deemed necessary. Short-term air
quality impacts would occur as a result of fugitive dusdfine �
i
particulate matter during construction operations. However, any �_
associated temporary emissions from construction equipment
�M1
would be less than the conformity de minimis levels established for '
carbon monoxide and ozone. Short-term fugitive dust may also be i-
present within the area as a result of grading operations necessary
to raise the grade of the bridge approaches. The dust can be i
mitigated through the use of best management practices, l-
particularly soil watering techniques and suspension of
construction activities during high wind velocity periods. ;
c. Conclusion
Temporary and minor impacts to air quality may occur under the �
Build Alternatives during construction. No impacts are anticipated -
under the No Action Alternative. No adverse air quality impacts �
would be expected under either alternative. No impairment to the �
Park's air quality would occur under either of the alternatives. %
i
�_
30
�-
�
i_

r -�
E. Noise
,�
r
2
�
Affected Environment
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is primarily a serene and quiet
environment; however, high traffic volumes on some Park roads combines
with air traffic to add background noise. This noise pollution affects the
tranquility normally sought by visitors on trails, picnic areas and overlooks,
but lessens as they move further from the road corridor. In comparison to the
noise levels found on the major roadway corridors, the volume of noise on
Straight Fork Road is substantially less due to the fact that it is less traveled.
The primary noise along Straight Fork Road comes directly from the wildlife,
water, and other sounds of nature. Dominant sounds throughout the study
area include wind, thunder, and moving water as well as those sounds
produced by animals, such as mating calls. These sounds comprise the
natural soundscape. Preservation of the natural soundscape is a goal of the
NPS. The natural soundscapes throughout the area provide an intrinsic
value, which adds to the solitude and unique experience it presents to Park
visitors.
Environmental Effects
a.
�
No Action Alternative
Selection of the No Action Alternative would not result in any
significant increase in noise levels; however, a minimal or
imperceptible increase (less than 3dBA) in the noise level may
result due to the gradual growth in traffic volumes throughout the
Park. This increase would occur irrespective of perforxning any
roadway repairs.
Build Alternative
Because this project is not changing the capacity of the existing
roadway, it is not expected to increase noise levels in the region.
Any minimal and imperceptible increase (less than 3dBA) in the
noise level is due to a gradual growth in traffic voluxnes and would
occur with or without the project. The project as proposed would
generate some human-caused sound from such sources as
motorized construction equipment, which can degrade the natural
soundscape. Park visitors and hikers in the immediate vicinity
would be subject to the noise pollution generated from
construction equipment and construction traffic. These impacts are
only temporary in nature and would cease once construction is
complete.
Noise associated with„the-�new:,:bridge: deck is also expected to be
31

F.
temporary. The nail-laminated wooden deck on the bridge has a
slightly uneven surface, which aids in traction. Vehicles passing
over the bridge deck will generate a rumbling/humming sound as
the tires travel over the uneven surface. This increase in noise is
minor and due to the low volume of traffic and the existing
ambient noise associated with Straight Fork, the increase is not
significant. As dirt and leaves accumulate on the bridge deck and
vehicles wear down the uneven surface, the level of noise will drop
back to preconstruction conditions. Posting a low speed limit of
10-15 mph on the bridge deck will aid to keep noise levels down.
c.
Public Service
�
Conclusion
The No Action Alternative maintains current noise levels. Under the
Build Alternative a minor increase in noise levels would occur. The
noise levels would increase temporarily during construction process.
A slight overall increase in noise levels would occur with the new
bridge deck. Once the uneven surface has been worn down and some
of the gaps have filled with natural materials the sound levels will
drop back to preconstruction levels. Only minor impacts to the level
of noise within the Park would occur. No impairment to the noise
levels in the Park would occur under either of the alternatives.
Affected Environment
The Park operates and maintains facilities such as a ranger station, visitor
center, and maintenance area in the Oconaluftee, NC area. Emergency
services, when needed along Straight Fork Rd, are provided for the
Oconaluftee axea by nearby Cherokee, NC. Straight Fork Road is
patrolled regularly by Park Law Enforcement Rangers and is maintained
on a routine basis by park maintenance. Both the rangers and the
maintenance workers must use the ford as a means to cross Straight Fork
for routine work as well as emergency situations.
Environmental Effects
a. No Action Alternative
Public service operations would essentially remain in the same
condition as the present. During periods of high flow the rangers
and maintenance workers would have the same problems crossing
the ford that face the visitors and other motorists. In emergency
situations, Rangers not able to cross Straight Fork must travel
around to access the road off the Blue Ridge Parkway, a 30-mile
trip, or ask for assistance from Blue Ridge Parkway personnel or
the Cherokee Police Department.
32

�!
�
�
J
I
J
�
b. Build Alternative
Since the majority of the work can be completed during the off-
season, the need for access from emergency services responding to
calls from visitors will be greatly reduced. Minor impacts to
emergency service operation would occur during construction, but
the impact would be temporary and the reduced need for these
services would make the overall impact negligible. For
construction during the summer months, the road will be kept open
to visitors and emergency services alike. Road closures would
only be allowed between November 1 St and March 15'h, when the
road is routinely closed for the winter season. The entire project is
located within the National Park and is primarily attended by Park
personnel with assistance from Cherokee law enforcement. Park
personnel would be aware of the temporary access restrictions
during construction and would be able to coordinate activities and
arrange responses.
The completed bridge will provide safe, reliable access over the
water for the employees that are required to travel the road.
Impassable water conditions will no longer threaten the safety of
the Park's employees and emergency response teams will be able
to perform their respective duties without the threats associated
with traveling across the ford. The new bridge would allow
vehicles with lower ground clearances to travel the road.
c. Conclusion
The No Action Alternative will continue to affect emergency
services when the ford is impassible. The Build Alternatives
would improve access and overall safety of Public Services. ,
Limitations on access during construction would be negligible and
temporary. No significant impacts to the Park's Public Service
functions would occur under either of the alternatives.
G. Socioeconomic Environment
1. Affected Environment
Gatlinburg, TN and Cherokee, NC are gateway communities to Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Cherokee, NC is the closest community
to Straight Fork Rd, 12 miles, from the main part of Cherokee to the
Straight Fork Road entrance. A portion of the Cherokee Reservation
extends into the Park where it is surrounded on three sides by parkland ,
(See map on page 2). Visitors traveling from Cherokee to Straight Fork
must travel through the reservation on Big Cove Road. As a gateway
community to the Park, the economy of Cherokee relies heavily on
tourism. While the Park is a:dominating�attraction, Cherokee has become
33

f_.
i
a tourist attraction in and of itself.
Cherokee, North Carolina, more commonly known as the Cherokee Indian �
Reservation, is home to more than 13,000 tribal members. It boasts a
development uncommon on Indian lands throughout the United States. ;
Tourism accounts for 75% of the tribe's revenues. Visitors seeking to get ,-
away from the more heavily traveled routes will often drive to Straight _
Fork to enjoy its tranquil and serene environment. �
2. Environmental Effects
a. No Action Alternative
In the short-term, the No Action Alternative would not have any
socio-economic impact on the neighboring communities.
b. Build Alternative
If the Build Alternative were selected, there would be some short-
term economic gains for construction workers perfornung the work.
Short-term maintenance costs would likely decline.
Since no road closures should be required other than when the road
is routinely closed in the winter, the public and the volume of
tourists traveling to the Straight Fork region of the Park are expected
to experience minimal impacts.
c. Conclusion
Although minimal, the Build Alternatives would result in some
minor socio-economic benefits for the community and Park. The
No Action alternative would preclude these benefits. No
significant impacts to any of the socioeconomic considerations
would occur under either of the alternatives.
H. Visitor Use and Experience
1. Affected Environment
The roads in Great Smoky Mountains National Park offer a wide
range of experiences for the motorists. Scenic overlooks and
planned vistas were designed throughout the Park to direct the
visitor's eye. Roads provide for travel over a variety of topography
with differing views such as gentle farmlands, deep river valleys,
climbing mountain roads, steep switchbacks, sweeping ridge tops,
and historical and natural points of interest.
�
Not all Park visitors use the road in the same manner. Balsam— �
34
�
i

Mountain Road �/ Straight Fork Road is a scenic alternative to the
Parks more,:heavily traveled roads, and provides access to
cemeteries, �a horse camp; hiking trails, and some equestrian trails.
Typical use of the area includes hiking, fishing, swimming, and
sunbathing. Some visitors will spend all day at the site enjoying
the rambling river while others will simply enjoy the nice scenic
drive.
" Many visitors entering the Park feel that their experience within
the Park is inseparable from the surrounding areas and their view
of the Park is closely related to the roadways they travel.
2. Environmental Effects
a. No Action Alternative
' Visitor use and experience would remain essentially the same.
However the driver experience may become diminished as the ford
�- continues to deteriorate. Park maintenance expenses can be
' expected to increase in order to keep the ford functioning and the
' current safety issues would be unresolved. Road closures due to
,� '� flooding or damage to the ford will continue to occur and visitors
may find the road closed at unexpected times.
b. Build Alternative
Visitor experience may be lessened slightly in the short term as
i�, visitors traverse through the work zones. Completion of the work
__ as described would improve the safety and usability by transferring
traffic from the ford to the bridge. Construction would be staged
' so that traffic flow can continue uninterrupted as much as possible.
'-' If closing Straight Fork Road/Balsam Mountain Road is necessary
for construction, said closures would only be permitted between
' November 1 st to March 15th, the dates that the road is routinely
closed for the winter.
c. Conclusion
r, With the No Action Alternative, visits to the Park remain
j� unchanged. Under the Build Alternative, the experience would be
— enhanced with improved travel conditions and a safer road. Some
temporary negligible impacts to the visitor use and experience of
�'� the Park would occur due to the construction of the bridge and
- removal of the ford. The Build Alternative would increase the
� � overall safety of the public and improve visitor experience by
� adding pull-off space near the new bridge structure.
No impairment toathe; Park��isitor•�use=and experience would occur
t�y

iJ
under either of the alternatives.
��
I. Cumulative Impacts/Related Actions � �
1. Environmental Effects
Depending on funding, roadway projects along Newfound Gap Road are
planned for construction in the park over the next few years, including:
• Phase I of rehabilitation/resurfacing of Newfound Gap Rd. on the _�
North Carolina Side (Spring 2005-Spring 2007). Temporary one- j�
lane closures are anticipated. '
• Phase II of rehabilitation/resurfacing of Newfound Gap Rd. on the ,- ,
North Carolina Side (2007-2009). Temporary one-lane closures i �
are anticipated. ' J
• Phase I Rehabilitation/resurfacing of Newfound Gap Rd. on the i-7
Tennessee Side (Dates to be determined at later time). Temporary , I
one-lane closures are anticipated. J
� Phase II Rehabilitation/resurfacing of Newfound Gap Rd. on the
Tennessee Side (Dates to be determined at later time). Temporary
one-lane closures are anticipated.
• Rehabilita.tion/reconstruction of stone masonry guardwalls along
Newfound Gap Rd. on the Tennessee Side (Dates to be determined
at later time). Temporary one-lane closures are anticipated.
These construction dates are tentative and subject to change based on
available funding, Park priorities, and project development.
a. No Action Alternative
The planned projects proposed for construction in 2004 through �'
2008 are independent maintenance and safety projects needed to "-�
meet Park management objectives. The selection of the No Action
Alternative would not have a direct bearing on whether or not ;�
these projects move forward in the planning process. --
b. Build Alternative
The other projects envisioned for construction in the years 2004
through 2008 are independent maintenance and safety projects
needed to meet Park management objectives. The selection of the
Build Alternative would not have a direct.bearing on whether or
not these projects move forward in the planning process.
c. Conclusion
The No Action Alternative would not impose any additional `-
impacts to the Park. The Build Alternative could possibly cause �-
'�
36
�
+

temporary local increases in traffic delays during the construction
process. After construction, the traffic conditions are expected to
return to pre-constructiori�levels. Associated with the construction
period are additional noise levels due to generators and motors of
the heavy construction equipment. Aside from the temporary
traffic and noise impacts, no other areas or features of the Park are
anticipated to be effected. No impairment to the Park would occur
under either of the alternatives.
J. Mitigation
Specific mitigation measures were addressed immediately following any possible
impacts to the respective resources in their pertinent section above. Listed below
is a summary of those mitigation measures.
Ve et�tion
The fmal construction plans would include directions and specifications to
"the Contractor for revegetating disturbed areas with non-invasive species
as specified by the NPS.
�, Several hemlock trees near the proposed pull-off locations would be
!�_ ! marked and avoided. These tree species are becoming rare, especially the
Eastern hemlock. The trees are within 20-30 feet of the existing roadway
;-' edge and they are to be avoided where possible.
2. Cultural Resources
If any archeological resources are encountered during construction
operations, construction would be immediately halted. The Park
archeologist would be contacted i.mmediately so that the resources could
be logged, evaluated, and retrieved.
3. Soil and Water Resources
_ A sediment and erosion control plan utilizing Best Management Practices
,
�! will be prepared and included in the final construction plans. Silt fences
� and stone check dams would be placed at the foot of slopes and at other
key locations to contain and collect the sediment from runoff in areas
�'� where soil has been exposed by construction activities. Temporary berms
"° and stream diversion channels would be constructed to separate Straight
�, Fork and other significant drainage flow from erodable soil and slopes
! I would be seeded for short-term soil re-stabilization.
,--; Stationary sediment control booms would be ineffective for use within
<< Straight Fork. The booms were designed for slow moving streams. The
faster flow velocity along with the fluctuations in volume make the
� sediment control booms an� impraetical��option for sediment control. Oil
37

i
+_�
absorbent booms will be utilized to control any possible spills. The
Contractor would be required to submit a ford removal plan for approval 1 I
prior to the removal of the ford. In addition to the plan, a minimum of 2- ' J
hour notice must be given to the downstream fish hatchery. It is
anticipated that the ford will be removed in sections, allowing the stream �
to clear prior to the removal of the subsequent section. This should limit �-
the amount of sediment that enters the stream at any given time. _
Equipment needed to remove the ford would need to have access to the i
ford itself, but should not re uire an access to the stream. The resence �-�
q Y P
of the equipment on the ford would, with the use of appropriate control ;- 7
measures, not pose any additional risk to the stream, above what is �'�
currently experienced with normal tr�c flow. Ford removal may only '�
take place from April 16th to October 14th due to the spawning seasons of .,
the various aquatic species in Straight Fork. ; I
Water quality monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after the �-�
construction of the Straight Fork Bridge. Samples will be collected at a ; I
_�
site upstream of the bridge location and at a site inside the Park Boundary
but upstream of the Cherokee trout hatchery. Sampling will be conducted �-
via multi-parameter data sondes. Parameters measured will include i,
temperature, pH, conductivity and turbidity. Particular attention will be
given to pH and turbidity. If significant changes in any parameter are �
detected, the GTR for the. project will be notified immediately. Fish
monitoring will also be conducted before and after construction to
determine if any part of the aquatic community was affected in any way �-
by the project. ��
4. Visitor Use and Experience/Park Operations
Construction would be staged so that traffic flow can continue as mueh as
possible. In the event of road closures, closures would be scheduled to
minimize inconvenience to the public. Any closure would be advertised to
the public, scheduled to minimize inconvenience to the public.
5. Transient Threatened and Endan ere�d Species
The project area has been confined to the minimum needed to complete
construction. It is expected that transient species will attempt to bypass
the construction site on their own. Although transient species are
possible, due to the vast amounts of undisturbed habitat available for
species to bypass the construction area, on either side, no mitigation is
necessary.
�
r_
38
i
,
�_

�
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS/ALTERNATIVES
A. Summary of Environmenta! Consequences for Eack Allernative
The following chart summazizes and compares the likely results of implementing
the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative as they relate to the
environment. The primary point of interest for the No Action Alternative is that it
would not provide for the needed improvements to the road and may result in
future unplanned temporary closures of Straight Fork Road. The primary point of
interest with the Build Alternative is the area of disturbance combined with the
temporary traffic restrictions during construction.
B. Summary of Proposed Actions
The following chazt summazizes and compares the likely results of implementing
the No Action Alternative and the Build Alternative as they relate to the
environment.
Factor No Action Alternative Build Alternative
Vegetation No change Minor shoR and long-term impacts; limited
vegetation removal and clearing of
approximately .30 acres would occur in
azeas ro osed for reali nment.
Threatened and No change No change
Endangered
S ecies
Birds and No change Negligible impacts; birds and other wildlife
Wildlife may avoid habitat within and adjacent to the
proposed project site. Since the proposed
site occurs next to the alignment of the
existing roadway, it is likely that these areas
aze already avoided to some extent and no
additional impact would result. Similar
habitat is present throughout the Park and
would remain protected under current
mana ement lans.
Air ualit No chan e. No chan e
Water No change Minor temporary impacts; Minor impacts
Resources from construction would be minimized
through the development and
implementation of sediment and erosion
control plan and best management practices.
The proposed bridge would contribute to
better overall water quality and improve
stream conditions for aquatic species.
Wetlands would not be im acted.
Flood lains No chan e No chan e
Ph sio ra h No chan e Minor impact; some earth disturbance (035
39

Factor No Action Alternative Build Alternative
acres) would be required to perform the
bridge construction activities. No major or
lon -term adverse im acts aze antici ated.
Noise No change Minor temporary impacts aze anticipated
during consuuction, but levels would return
to normal after the completion of
construction.
Visitor Use and The ford would Negligible Impact; The proposed bridge
Experience continue to deteriorate, would remove traffic from the dangerous
and visitors, would ford, as well as provide a safe way for
continue to be faced motorists to cross the stream during high-
with unsafe driving flow conditions.
conditions.
Traffic No change Temporary impacts during the construction
Conditions process. Once construction is completed
traffic conditions will improve because
visitors will be able to cross Straight Fork
even durin eriods of hi h flow.
Public Service No change Minor temporary impacts during
construction. Chance for betterment exists
once the new bridge is completed,
eliminating the need for alternate routes
durin eriods of flood.
Socioeconomic No chan e No chan e
Cultural No change No change
Resources
Cumulative No change No change
Impacts/Relate
d Actions
�Il
i

r ��
ii
i
�, ,
- ,�,;.
V. COMMITMENTS AND RESOURCES'
�; -;� .
A. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
To date, approximately $900,000 (estimate) in Federal Lands Highway Program
funds, have been set aside for planning, design, and construction. Should design
and construction of the Build Alternative occur, these resources would be
consumed. Currently, approximately $50,000 has been irreversibly and
irretrievably committed during the environmental data collection and preliminary
design phase of this Project. Should the Build Alternative not be chosen, these
resources would be unrecoverable.
B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects
` Natural impacts, including numerous storms and pollution damage occur to the
Park resources every year. Since resource managers are unable to alter the
a majority of the natural impacts, every effort must be made to minimize human
" impacts. Since the majority of the smog and air pollution that affects the Park is
, generated outside of the Park, there is very little that the Park can do to avoid and
; minimize its impacts.
Although the possibility exists that the construction project could result in
sedimentation entering Straight Fork, the Park accepts the risk in order to prevent
the sustained contact between vehicles and the water, which are negatively
affecting Park resources. No substantial unavoidable adverse environmental
effects are anticipated, however short and long-term impacts will result in forms
of minor vegetation loss and possible inconvenience to the visitors and residents
who travel the area during construction.
No substantial unavoidable adverse environmental effects are anticipated.
C. Local Short-Term Uses and Maintenance/Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity
Short-term maintenance costs would decline if the proposed reconstruction and
rehabilitation work occurs in the near future. As a result, the Park may allocate
more time and personnel to the protection of the Park's more prominent cultural
and natural resources.
D. Natural or Depletable Resources
The use of some natural resources would be required under any of the Build
Alternatives in order to complete construction operations, however no natural
resources would be depleted. The quantity of materials in comparison to those
readily available would be negligible.
,., -.,.,.� . . __ ::�.
41

E. Energy Requirements and Conservation
r-
The preferred alternative, the Build Alternative, would be expected to provide some �-.-
benefits in terms of energy conservation. These benefits would be most realized by
alleviating the need for motorists to cross the ford during periods of high flow. No �
longer will motorists need to wait for a safe time to cross, nor will they have to shift
into four-wheel drive to slowly cross the ford. Additionally, when the ford is
impassible, there will be no need for motorists on Balsam Mountain Road to turn �
around and drive back out the way they came in.
F. Applicability to Environmental Laws
1. National Environmental Policv Act (NEPA�
Requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their
actions and to integrate such evaluations into their decision making process.
2. Clean Water Act (CWA�
Controls and regulates Non-point source pollutants such as pesticide runoff,
forestry operations, and parking lots / roads.
3. Clean Air Act (CAA�
Establishes standards for air quality in regard to the pollutants generated by
internal combustion engines. These standards, known as the National
Ambient Air Qualiiy Standards (NAAQS), define the concentration of these
pollutants that are allowable in air to which the general public is exposed
("ambient air").
4. Endan er� ed Species Act (ESA�
Prohibits the harming of any species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) as being either Threatened or Endangered. Harming such
species includes not only directly injuring or killing them, but also disrupting
the habitat on which they depend.
5. Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA�
Ensures the protection and preservation of archeological resources on Federal
lands.
6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPAI
Provides protection of cultural resources, and ensures that they are considered
during Federal project planning and execution.
42

;�
7. National Park Service Or�anic Act of 1916
Established the National Park Service to manage national parks for the
purposes of conserving the scenery, natural resources, historic objects, and
wildlife within the parks, and providing for the enjoyment of these resources
in such manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.
8. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority and Low-Income Populations, directs all federal agencies to
determine whether a proposed action will have an adverse or disproportionate
impact on minority and/or low-income populations. It also directs agencies to
ensure that representatives of an affected community have every opportunity
to provide input regarding the impact of the proposed project.
No residential owners or occupants would be displaced, nor would there be
any impact to minority and/or low-income populations from either of the
alternatives.
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Build Alternative would violate or
contradict any of the above environmentallaws.
.. . '. . ..,...... , ..�,, ;:�
43

VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
A.
:
'�
Public Notice/Public Scoping
In accordance with Section 5.5 of the Director's Order 12, coordination and
public involvement in the planning and preliminary design of the proposed action
was initiated early in the process.
A public scooping document was mailed out in April of 2004. Notice of the
scoping document was advertised in 6 newspapers and posted on the NPS and
FHWA web sites prior to the documents being mailed to individuals and groups
on the NPS Great Smoky Mountains National Park mailing list. The Public
Scoping document was mailed out on April 12, 2004 to 150 of the government
officials, conservation groups, and residents around the Park to gather their input
on various aspects of the project. The public was asked to send their comments to
the Superintendent, and were given a 30-day period to do so.
Summary of Public Comment
Following the 30-day public comment period, several comments were received
and are summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Appreciating the concern of a new bridge being needed. (Written
Comment)
Minimize impacts to park resources and traffic conditions (ie. No
increase in traffic flow) (Written Comment)
Keep the natural beauty of the area. (Written Comment)
Do not build the bridge, because it takes away the uniqueness of
the ford in the area. (Verbal Comment)
Agency Coordination
As required by NPS policies and planning documents, it is the Park's objective to
work with state, federal, and local governmental and private organizations to
ensure that the Park and its programs are coordinated with theirs, and are
supportive of their objectives, and that their programs are similarly supportive of
Park programs.
The Public Scoping document was sent to agencies for their information. The
following organizations and agencies provided information, which assisted in
identifying important issues, and analyzing impacts:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Carolina Department of Environment and Conservation
44

r-�
� �
� �
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
�
�� D. List of Preparers and Reviewers
i`
The following individuals contributed to the development of this document:
,�
'_-�
Federal Highway Administration
Brigitte Azran, Environmental Compliance Engineer
Nicholas Finch, Highway Engineer (Environmental)
Dave Weber, Project Manager
National Park Service
Imelda Wegwerth, Landscape Architect, GRSM
Jami Hammond, Regional Coordinator, NPS (Southeast Region)
Mike Tomkosky, FLHP Field Liaison, Denver Service Center
Steve Moore, Fishery Biologist, GRSM
Bill Stiver, Wildlife Biologist, GRSM
Janet Rock, Botanist, GRSM
Jim Renfro, Air Resource Specialist, GRSM
Erik Kreusch, Archeologist, GRSM
David Chapman, Supervisory Historian, GRSM
45
,l
i

VII. REFERENCES
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Management Folio #5, Historic Preservation, Great
Smoky Mountains Natural History Association and the National Park Service, 2000.
Memorandum of Agreement for the Development of a Regional Transportation Alternatives
Study, Action Plan, and Alternatives Study Report for the Foothills Parkway, Knoxville-
Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, National Park Service - Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Agreement Number:
DTFH71-99-X-00017, September, 9, 1999.
Assessment of Potential Resource Effects on the Proposed Newfound Gap Road Bypass Roads
for Morton Mountain and Chimney Tops Mountain Tunnels, Resource Management and
Science Division, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NPS, August 23, 1999.
Trails Rehabilitation Guide for 1999 - Environmental Assessment, Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, January, 1999.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Management Folio #3, Transportation, Great Smoky
Mountains Natural History Association and the National Park Service, 1998.
Transportation Problems In and Around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, University
of Tennessee, Transportation Center, January 1998.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Management Folio #2, Air Quality, Great Smoky
Mountains Natural History Association and the National Park Service, 1997.
A Profile of Sevier County, Tennessee and its Labor Market Area, Tennessee Valley Authority,
Economic Development Technical Services, June, 1997.
Visitor Studies - Great Smoky Mountains National Parl� Visitor Services Project, Cooperative
Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho, 1996.
National Park Service 1994 Traffic Data Report, US Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Denver Service Center, prepared by BRW, Inc., in association with Lee
Engineering, May, 1995.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Traffic Safety Study, Balloffet and Associates, Inc.,
April, 1995.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Traffic Safety Study Technical Memorandum, Balloffet
and Associates, Inc., December 18, 1992.
Visitor Use Patterns at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, US DOI, NPS, Southeast
Region, August, 1988.
National Park Service Organic Act ofAugust 25, 1916
46

APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INFORMATION DOCUMENTS
,; ,
47

PUBLIC NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Construction of Straight Fork Bridge
Swain County, North Carolina
Great Smoky Mountains National Park is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to
evaluate the construction of Straight Fork Bridge, in Swain County, North Cazolina. The EA and
public involvement requirements aze being prepazed in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The National Pazk Service, seeking an alternative to the frequently flooded low water crossing
along Straight Fork Road, neaz Round Bottom, proposes to construct a bridge across Straight
Fork. The proposed project would include the construction of the new bridge as well as the
removal of the old dilapidated low water crossing. As a result of this project, approximately 0.4
acres of Pazk land could be disturbed. This disturbance is associated with the construction of the
proposed bridge and the minor changes in the road grade at both approaches. The EA will
evaluate the potential impacts of these actions as they relate to such topics as water resources,
vegetation, soils, wildlife, floodplains, azcheological and historic resources, visitor use and
experience, aesthetic resources, and threatened and endangered species or species of wncem.
The EA is tentatively scheduled to be released for public review in June of 2004. The public is
invited to comment on the topics to be analyzed in the EA (identified above) and the proposed
project as part of the scoping process.
Commenu should be received by the National Pazk Service on or before May 20, 2004, and sent
to Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Pazk, 107 Pazk Headquarters Road,
Gatlinburg, T'N 37738 or email: GRSM SuperindendentCc�nns.eov. For more information call
[phone].
�Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
Project: GRSM-105(1)
48

Na[ionel Park Sen'im
�� � �I.ti. Department of �h¢ Inierior
� Gnwl Smaky Muuntai�s �ational Yxrk
IU71'ark liexdquarten Ruad
GxtiinhurK,'1'N 37738
EIPFft1EXCE YOUR /1MERICF"
; Natronnl Park Scrvice
��] U.S.I]cparm�ento(Ihelntenor
R
Commems alw W �he siudy can be
dircclul�o'.
Superimm�Jent
(ir�l Smuky Moumains
Naiional Park
107 Park I Iudqunrtcrs ftoad
(��tlin6urg lN 37776
I mad:
�rt n �u�rinlu�JinL.enn.�gL
Wcbsitc:
xwx.nm.euui¢rsnu noh�mi;
dccumenls hlml
Thc National Purk Srnice cares
(or Ihe special plaa:s sared by ihe
Amcncan proplc so that all muy
es�x:nrnce nur henmge.
Proiect Location Map
(,reat Smoky Mountyms Nalional Yuk `i
„= .' -. . � s��',
. )1 �!T ` M I �`.�y,i e.
,.'�G ��. f''��. m�rox�d«RridKe
+a t
� +�... f� t, ,. �t M l.. - Inution
�'PARK F''" ! �•" '
b: + y, ;
.fR'.,' � � .
`t�. "'° ;�, f ! J,.v
`\ f . 1/ , i ,a .� u.
�. . �
� `� r.w.
� O i
�u v, "' .` :...�.
"��'herokee Indisn '�y
�'— � Reservation �
.''� . ,." s`
GNF:A7' $MOICI' MOUN'PAINS N.47701VAL PARK
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
F,NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOH
CONSTRUCTION OF STRAIGHT FORK t3R1DGE
I'r�l�'�'1 \unlhef:I'It\-f.KG�111K�1�
�¢�' '. .^" ;.
! �a , � �' i '� ��1� yb' i':
�'%�,� � r�
'� �+�U . �k �^5 y�.�-.
_ _ �
�
l'.i [lin� I Uw N'�It� 1'tul illy
IniroJuctioo
1 hc Grcut Smoky Mounleias Nu�ional Park, in cuuperzliun wilh thc F dcral Ilighwa� Adminisuation, is
prepanng an Cnvimnmenml Asciwmenf (fiA 1 to evaluate Ihe constmctmn of titmigh� Pnrk 13ridge near Rnund
13ultum I«:at�d m Swain Counp Norlh Carolinu. I�hc d«umcm i' Ix:mg preparcd m accordancc wnh thc
Naoonal Emironmenml Policy A�t end Ihe regulalions of ihe CouncJ on Plrvvonrtxentul l)uaLry �d0 CFR
� Spg 9� The imem ol'Ihe I'A is Io deu:nlx� ihe Park's oxis�ing envvonmeatal resoumes thut cuuld be eliec�af
by the pruposcxl al�emaiive and pasenl w walysis of pnlenUal cmirunrtx�nlal conscqucnces Curzently, �hc
I ark ix dcvcluping impacl tnpics Ihat will 6c ulilizrd in analyzing putcnlial clT�c�s. I hc pubLc is imi�ed to
commenlonimpat'l(apicsand(hetropeoflkeEnvironmeNal Issesvmen/ IuhLcpanicipaounensuresthe
NaUonal Park Scrv cc MPS� (ull� undcrs�ands and cnnadcrs tlm pu6Gds imcres� ns pan uf Ih ir naiional
hcriingc, cul Wrnl lradnwns, and cammuni[y su`ruimdings. fhc IiA is unlicirynled lu M; rcka}ai 1'nr publit
review in June �0(W. Scoping eammeNs should be rceuived bv Ihe NPS un or M-�are Muy 2U, 20U4, anJ senllo.
Supenntendem ���
(ircat timoky Mounmins Nauunal Park
107 Park Iieedquaners Road
Gatlinburg,'IN 37738

Project Overview
This EA addresses the plans of the NPS to construct a bridge over Straigtit Fork in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Puk, Swain County, North Carolina.
The location of this proposed project is along Roundbottom/Straight ForkBoad, a gravel roadway. T'he existing
Straight Fork low water crossing requires motorists to drive through swift flowing water on a narrow submerged
concrete slab placed in the streambed. Utilizarion of a ford crossing through an active waterway has inherent
risks associated with it. High water conditions can occw within this waterway year round with little or no
waming to the Park or those visitors using the ford crossing. Visitors approaching the ford during high water
conditions, or during heavy flow periods, are often faced with impassable conditions. The approach road from
the east (I-Ieintooga Ridge Road/Balsam Mountain Road) is a one-way road towazd this crossing and visitors are
reluctant to turn around and drive 13 miles out in the wrong direcrion. Rather than doing this, visitors often
forge the ford through high water conditions placing themselves in danger. Addirionally, a severe storm in May
2003 caused par[ of the ford to settle approximately 8 inches causing the ford to become impassable to most
vehicles. The Pazk has since placed lazger stone material and gravel in order to level out the ford, permitting
automobiles to once again cross the stream. In addition to t}ueats posed to the visitors, the waterway itself is
jeopardized by the presence of materials found in all motor vehicles: gasoline, oil, grease, fransmission fluid,
radiator coolant, air conditioning propellant, etc., as well as the constant replacement of gravel needed to
maintain the deteriorated ford.
The Park's goal in selecting a preferred altemative is to protect the watenvay from ha�mful chemicals as well as
provide a safe way for motorist to cross the stream. Although safety was the major concern, serious thought and
effort were given to preserve the Pazk's natural and cultural resources by minimizing impacts to the
environment. The proposed alternative would propose to build a new bridge adjacent to the e�cisting low water
crossing, as well as create two small pull offs, one on each side of the bridge. The new bridge would utilize a
previous road alignment in order to minimize impacts to the environment.
The majority of construction is proposed to occur during winter months, the time when the road is routinely
closed. Working during these months would prevent any problems associated with additional or unscheduled
road closures. Any work that would be required outside of the usual winter road closures would be structured to
allow Roundbottom/Straight Fork Road to remain open to tratTc. The bridge construction would take place
adjacent to the low water ford, which would remain in place until the new bridge is complete. 1'he work
required to change the new traftic pattem over to the bridge would again occur during winter months, in order to
minimize impacts and inconvenience to Pazk visitors.
Approach
The intent of the EA is to address the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to Pazk resources which
may result from implementing the proposed actions.
Specifically, the EA will evaluate the potential impacts associated with disturbance of approximately 0.4 acre of
Pazk land. The EA will also analyze potential indirect and cumulative impacts of the project on specific pazk
resources (i.e., water quality) not necessarily limited to the 0.4 acre of proposed disturbance.
Impact topics identified by the Narional Park Service appropriate for the EA include:
Water Resources Floodplains
Vegetation Archeological and Historical
• Soils Resources
. Wildlife Visitor Use and Experience
Air Quality Threatened and Endangered Species
Noise or Species of Concem
50
Profile View of Proposed Brid�e Structure
aaas
,,� a
-- YrM1.b Yad.a ---`, !!YA! - `.
� � �
_ v c
= .m . �� ^ 4M�.
. � � �" � .:�:. �
� .. ,,.., u. �..�, ...... _ � �
aoao � � �. .:� _ ... : ::_ "– �
_ .�_ _ _ _�-_- ------_
= �"'" _..--„ '�._C�oae ti �cnmry
— _ _ _...__ . „a�...�..
.._. / �---,�"""' ..._.wsrc a oVn r:YN.,
s�s { c,ura nx a,m,_,/ Not to scale
ErnsKn9 �i rtr/.�f ffa"� g
pra�:M Nng '
rozn
Plan View of Pronosed Brid�e Structure
��N,r. ,, ,
j % � Propi
� �/
r�i`` j� �;�~ S, .`'."7��'`_
;i _�;.,..� r' �• .. � 1�-.--=�
, /'.
,! r -� / �,.1_-
� ,r �__�__:�_-�•--�-_,�.�,.. ..,
�'" : � _.� "_- ) _�_R r-�-..
+ - � �----
a �-' � �. , �•--- � _`/�\
,� 1 , ;� i
,i
'�"` ° %� � ' 'w-� - r,'' j' Existing Low
, " Propo'sed _ WaterFord
Pull Off r'�
, H£GIN PF7JEC7 (Y+A-f.ASN fAL9l
Pull Off
ENO PROlECT
Not tn scale
_.. � -.. - - - , ----- - - - — - - -- - -
— �-- ,---� � — � �'-- ,.��._, �_ � _. � ----,5
� �i i i � i � — - � - -, - - ' � i i � i � � ; i , � t _ , : — 1 t.� � l—� �--� ` —

�;
�
i�.
`�
�l
�
APPENDIX B
AGENCY COORDINATION
51

�
�, j:: [�'�p�lftfT;�l'1+
c�f Tr�ar�s��rt�tl��7
������i �e�n��y.
Admir�istr�fion
htirE ��i� �:t�1e.
`�"�t� ���e�ri�t�r.,
�ish �; �'�'itdl3fe S��n�i�,e
1G(? �il�ic�a Stre�x.
r�sh���Ile, .I�G'���f�1
l�e� �1�fr. �'ii��:•
�t5>S�m F��cr<Ei (.�:�y;
�ts��h,� �1�'-'�v�i5.an
N�V � ����;
u74GG rtir�:�� a�s �itclv
�;� ,:: yy. l�'�, �tll"4b-�'I1
:�z:�t�� ��� ����-1 ��.
In c�operaiat��a 1���tlz t�� 3�ati�i�a�. �'ar� ��r+ricc� tl�u Ea$��m.F�neral L�c�� J�i�hvv�y. f�i��i���n; �af
thu;F�elc�r�l �li�iu�a}� �dnz�siis��tion, -�s prep�n� ari ��4=iraa�r�ent�I ���s���ni ���' t%��
:: . . :. , . . ,
ct�3is�ructioi� cit' St�aight'Fc�ik �ridge �a� #�i� Gr�a# �`miak�}� Mozinl'ain�,�ational �'�r�, lacate�i ii�
�5�c=�its �oun��+, �T��.h ��rol:in�; Th� �x�Qrl�� 1��� b�e�.�ssi��d �?�a�e�i :Vo. F`F�,A-+G��� :l �l�(1,��.
an�:�-�iisist� o�'t�:� �onsti-�actian ��'�trai�f F�rk l�nt3��. tiie re�nvval af Ch�,.olel la��-ti�•aLei�
erc��ssin,� and t�.c st�t��iizatic�a� ,c�f t�i� strea�il �a��lt ti��here:a r�ack u'��1 �1�5 �7��T2 LdEl!����'TT1Bil�t�: Iri
Q�d� ���prt�p�rlv ali�n..the br'iri��, a:srn�Il c�iaai�e ux t�i� maci���v a�?�r�aUli �s;�ill k;� r�ec�s�.�ry�,
fil�� w�t�rk p�����es t� pr���it�� a��f� tn�ans �c�r m�tt�n:�ts t�=er�ss :�trai��ti F�rk T3�i�:�� ti�]�il�
eliiiiii��tin� Gvrii� �t tl��:��uircinme�#.al .k�azarc�s �s��c�at� ti�ith the tjz��i����ag�:a�'vel�i�i��
�a�in�:�n con�aci.wi�h the flc�r�vrng.i�rafie�T, `I'�e pro�a��d�r���or� an tlie:�ra4��1 �g�proach p.�irtiar� af
�he rc��� �nc�luc��;� ra�sir��.; ih� r�ac� gradc ft�� ��pro�im�t�lj� 1,�70 yards, ��..rais� in grad�. i�
il�ces�ar}� ho o�aE�ir� t�te li�idje cieck k�ei�t'�'�r f.he":€iesi�'siorn� oi-a:C► Frear"s;
Ir,:�ompliaucc v�=�tlY tli� E�id�ti��r�d S��cies �1.ct:+�f 1���; ��r�",, PL'C1LIG',St 'dT1��,1Y1�0!'1T7�3IIC�2� C^ari�c�miri�.
�'e�3e�-��ly-]i�tec� �thr.�at�nc�d:ca� �r�ct�ui��r�� ����ies t�lat rr��y� l�e pa���z�t car �t'F�ctr�t� �y ihe �a��,c�s�d
wc,r�; Pleas� �r�i�zde;�yr �restn�taai�s c�riania��atio� r�uix�m�nt�; t��t sk�a"ulci h� i�icludzd in t�e.
final�pa�oa��� pl�s ara�.sge�ifi�a�i�in,�in'vrder�to' �nistflr��tiia� �1i�s pr'oje�t do�s.��a�`ad�.ersely a�f`�ct:
ari}�� f��er�l�y�plisted ���reateiied o� end����red s�zcaes: �,'ottr re�ca�nmeFid�tians ti�ill b� �"
iricorporatcd intc� thc 4n�Firoi�tiei�ta� �ss�ssin��it,,:a��l ai t�r��t �o,�th� ���lun�fii �iil �� t�tati��
� . _ ,
��'�1'l��]�, tc�r 1�'�'ttrr�viut�v... . _ . .
..
, . . , .,.. , .
:Q. peeli�riir�ar� ,s�t i�f �laris: �d a�viciiu�y iiia� �r�:' �nclt�se;�i f�r yi��v g�e���e��. at�d ir�i'o�tr�atii�z�� ��"
v�u �ia�� aitv a��iiti�r�a1 qucst��r�s,,�leas� cr�ntact ll�ir: t�+��chc�7as �ine�, Hi�v,�a� :E��nnee��; at
��7�=�3�-1���:-
��lIiC�1��` �'4ltIS.
�� �� R ,,�{� .� _
,� , � /�,� � , ��--•
�'�*?-`�-�*- `. �"
�"'- r'�lair� T.�Teik�:r-i
1?lanriii��. and �'rtagr�zn�ain� �ngiu�.�r.
��ict;o�ui���
ce^ ,�� ��
ii!Cr-� .l�h�l�p.�'zan�ia �r-;.;Act�iig �aagiczii�t�i�e�t# Gr�:�t �:rncrk;v Mc���nta�ns .;�t�ti�n�3 ,,���� �j
.t�ark, ha��ona] Park,Ser«c�, �G�t1�nt�ucg, TIv �``�,'�--,� ���+�,
52

._�
�Tni.��� S��tes ��p�rtm.�nt �c�f �h�.:�n���-i�ii-
�I'�.�-I t�1VLi �vVIL�?�.���.S�RVIC.� :
1��3i�+,il1�-1`�'is�3�I C�ffi�e:
i f.�{; Gell�ci�a �5tr�.�t
i�►h�7tiVI�iL`,. `�{7iQ�1.L3P�7i8T61 ���[�J�
Decetn6er 3'; ?�1��',
' � �Ii', Alan 'T. "l.",ei�Ca�'i
: � Pl�nm� �d Prc�;���nn�itY� Eii�ineer
; �� F�c��:rdl Hi;�hw�� A�n�inasfratia:n
` ' �1:40C� �id�et�p C:�rcle:, .
S�ex�Iin�? 4�ir�ir�:�'�f�'1.u�����I1
I�ear:��r;' 'F�ik��':.
1 '�u�ject: R�vie�� o�Piat3s and. Sp�cificafi�n� fo���a �rid`ge F�e�Ia�ern�nt;c�ve�:�tra%gli�.�ork C`r�ek
._.� � in tt�e '�,.Sieat,S'm�r�-�r 1Vlaliz�ta,ins Natao��l: �ark, �'rc�jc;�t �o.> �� ,C"rI�SlU1:1�15��1}7 ��ain
�aUn��°N�rtli C�irioiina ` . �
�--= ��?'��i�c�i��d �:.t�ur I�t�`r €�ate���J�vember �4; ,2t70�,.re�gu�stiz��,:aur r��'`i��rf ��'�t�1e �ii%�ect
d�Gumtnts: The i°s?11c����ng ct�mm�nes are prn�r�t�ed m�ccord�ne� v��it�t th� pr��t5rtc�n� ��`sec�yan 7
, � �� tii� C�d�nge��ci ��aecies 1'�et of ^I 97� i � $111Cl1f��'� � � � � � � 1 ��; I-1 ��-�`.) (t1c��; .�nc� `�1�� 1-'is�i�
� -ar3ci i��ld(i:�e C�.�rd�liatic�� Aet, � a�m�nded (l G U� C;, 6�i`1=��i7��,
�� � � - ;r . �
'�� r"�ccard��a��;tr� ��ttr l+�tte�' and tlte att�ch��i �iar��, t;i� hr�tioil�l I'�rlt ��rvice in c�c►p��at�e�,�� ��ri#Ei
tli� r�d�ra1,I It��iwa�r Ac�Ci�iL�is#ratiQn, i� pra�s�i�� tci repla��,: tha It���'�4��ate��cr��s.ti�� oirc� th��
;; Str�'i��i# Fc�rk��reel€ ���1� a 1�2 foot bridg�4 Realignme�it.af tlie ��'isti�ig road u�auid b�:
' ; ����s��r�; � ����1 �s::�: �r�de ci°�ange:. . . -
,---� A� i?a�th.�iiy stre� c.�+�sfiin�}. i�� ha��:� ������al �;��i�ems'i�v� �1��ul�I lr�� tv` ti�u� ��c�r�s�e.�: i�riclg�
I i desi�:shcsttic� i��l��d�.pr.c��isian� f�or.rc��€il��d��.nd�deck c�rainage,tc� f��.�,�? tlhrc�i��h a veg�ctated
huif�r` pr'ic�r to reacluri� fli� a�ecte� str�aiii, `�iiis l�t��er Sfioiild 'be, lai�ge ei�ou�I�i ta ttliev%ate aiiy
. . .. . .. . . . .. . ..,,.. . �..
i I P�t�lti�k.�#f�cfis frarn tli�.rune�fFdfstorna wat�r and ���11ut�t�= �1��.�nd��=desi�n:.shQuld not
J alt�r the natuz�! s�tre��;and str�am .l�anikm�arphol:o�y or.�nipecie i�s��:�aafi�a�e A��P p�ers or bents
s�i�ulc� ��:. pia���l `c�utsr�'4 the'U�an�Wt'uil �uxrlth of':t�ie str��tri:. Tli� E�ri�i��� ,�i'tc� a:�pri�ache�; sh�►u��cl°
i� ��:�fesa��ecl �o �wc►ic� a�i� fill tEiat u��ill r�stitt sn th4 darti�nittg:or �c�n�tract"iun'of �i�.cii�inei or
J f"1�4dplzin. I�S�}�lllill[1�,tI1C_�t?OCIJ���il[l 15 iIO�,�GaS1bI�a C11ZV�.�LS,S�IO�II(� bC 1T15i�i�Ie4�.lI1 ��le.,
_ f��aa��iai�t_ pc�rti;�ii c��'tl�e �ppro�cl��� in��rd�r tc� restor� sorn� of th� liydreil;t��i�c�l. �u�tc:ti�ns �nct
!� xeduc� �i���i <<el�ic�ties c��' �lo��iwa��r�+�vi�hin t�a�;�f�'�cl�ci az�ea: N%�a�,���� ��;c���tr�� �Xn�ian and,
, .
--�' sedira�e�it should he 'i� �rlace �ric�r tt� an}F yt�nut�ci=di�tur�iin� aeiiu�tie�_ i��t c�ncrefie sh�tild nc���r
'1
��
'�._' � 53
,;
,�

. .
i�e a�.lo�ved t� �.a�ne-intci.:�onta�x. with t.�e;:s,tre�sn�. :Pl�ase addres� �la� ei�niraIiti��i gl�iis: �af anji} �'vr
t1Le e��s�tin� lo��u�wat'�r cYass�n� in an�r envir4nrt�ental document grepas�+d for khis �ro,ject$ �s. t��el1
� ariy t��i�a�z�: �c���ss r���� �r �,i��'exd���t .
Tlz� pr�oj�c� ar�a s�i�iuiti::�� siu��y��� #'o� fet��ratl�} Iisted cnc��n�er�d and.tlir�at�n�d ���eies,tv
�nsure ti�a� t�iese rar� r�sour��s�ace not'inad�ertently lost. ��nclosed is a list v�'fe�ieraliv.
�i��ge�'ec3 and t�ir��ten��i species.:ar►d f�cieral Sp�cie5`�r.fc�ncern ��x�S�vain �oiiiit��. In.
�,aee�rcia�ric� vviith tl�e l�ct it is t�� r�spansibilit�r of the �ppropr.i�te�f�el�ra! ���nc�° �ca r��'{i�«. its
�c.�iviti�,oi pra�rams a�d ta',act�n#�� ��ii�.su�ti sctivities oi p`ro�ra�i�s t�i�t ni�� �ff��c �ia�an�eie�
or. tlue{�teF�ec� species ar their ha�itats: If it is dete��mined that th�s� pra�o�ed activities: may
��yer�ely�aff�'�ct� �n�'.sg��i�s� f�d�r�Il}= list�d; as eiidan ;+e�,�ed:,cir threat�ie�, �`�ri�al�cal�s,ultat��� v��it%
�lus a#�ice must l�� ii�ti�teti. Fl��� not� that feder�I sge+�ies�of: e�nc�rn ar�e �c�t le;��l�y:prc4i�ct�ci
wid�r ih'e A�� azid �.re: ni�� �ul�jeGt i� �i�r.�f it� �ir�ivasicaris, inc�u�ii�ig se�t��n 7, un1e�� tki�;y �e.
formally. pr��n�ed �r li�t�� as er�ctan�ereci or threaterieci. We:are:includin�'th�se ��ae�i�s in at�i
�cspous� ;to giv��'yciu �advanc� n�tification an�i t� .re��iest �aur ass�s#atice iii protectin�.:fh+ein;;
7�Ze,�infc��-�-n��it�n yau pr��;�ide+d rraakes �c�.me�i�c�n a�the:alternati�es.c�risidex�d. Ir� pr�parat�on.
at tlie �n�� irQnri�entat a�s�ssni�iit ftir.` �hi�:pro��ct, plc��e d�etail all� �f tYi� alt�rii�#ives�+c�nsider�t�.
Vv'�:appr�ciat� �ie.app�artiinity tc�, pTci�d� these_.sc�pin�: caninieiits-�nd �rec�ues� t��i yci�,cpriti�ue
, ,. „
fo k�ep us�i�orna�e� �s.to t�� �r�gr��� �i`li�i� p��j�ct. �i'yc�u kia�� qu��tians, �alease`ceintact,.
NIr,' All�ri Ratzl:af�cif�iur �taff �t ����1���=3�3.�,�E�ct. 22�. In 3riy� futi�r� e�irrreespci%i�ieii�ee
co�-�cerni�� 7t�iis-prc��e�t� �le�se ref���nc� our Lo� �1cu��ber- 4.-�'=0�-���;
:Si�a�er�el}�,
� ����
�t�
Br'iai� P: �Cal� �
Field:Sup�rtrisor
Enclos�ue
ce:
___
EVlocint�iti,Rc;gi�n �'oorciiii�toX �lbrtl�. (:�rohiia..WiLcllife Ftesaui�ces, �orrun'ission,:�fJ$3{�;C'xre�t,
Sm�k� N1t�a E�pr�s�w�iy,1�'��yn�svill�, IVC ?$78f
54

_ � �'
�
� U, v. C����arti'ri�.�:t
l �'� 1'1"��la,r,-�C1t��5fifuf'I
` ' �e,c]e.r.a� hi�tiwz�y
F A���nistrc�ti�n`
_ -� ib1i�,F�a=�fir► :(`:c�l�
, :�k,r1CG':��ilj?��"�.'1Sr3C
: F�:�l� �. ��'r;t�il"fG:;�"�r�f�e;c
—' E�t�ai�.?illicc�a �'t�-�:�t
� A�I��Wall�::hC `'�4�:�_i
:.�C7� �( i.� y'r."1.-�'Ifa;�r
��;: �r3 „ , � _��;
���.;i �. f .���
_ _' ��al�,��e� PR:1 C'i;R�?�� :I ��ti� 1 �;. C����t S-nica��t �v�ai��ltai�ls �r�atac��al
; � .��c�ac�i`��;r ��,iatt�rr�i��� f�r�.a�3�idg�.!G�i�isEru�tic�n �?�=�r
Swain C`ourity;,fi°c�rili �C';�.�olii7�;
-- L;;�� �?I�rt�E��rs`4 2R�4��t3�
D����- t4'�r. ��3�:
�����' �'�' �iL �:, f !P`;G
�cj �fcti� 4jti ' i"r_-� ph'i i
R�,f�.r tci; T-i��PF'-.l 7'
Paa k
��t1��i��it. �cark �i�ek in �
� �il coa��r�t�of14�=ilh t�1� 1ti�t'it����l P�r� S�n-i�;�, ttie� E�astetr� ��d�ral:�.�t��, Ni�l����a.y" I}iv�"sa�n�, C�f;°
tlx� ���r�t �-Ti�l������:�:��li�li�tr�tt�i�i� �� �r��ar►n�;�'�.��z �n�rt���irn��t�l �se�sLii���t #�� �t��.
� �an�i�u�ti'c�n o�`�.tr���ht �ork �nc#�e,in #he.�rcat=�ra�c�k�r Iv�ocultain$ '�jat�an�i ��r�; �T'�rk� l��ace�.
_, ir�°��:w�in C��ur�tv; Rvi-�l� �'�.1°�1in�;. T11� ��i��� h�`k�ee� asst��i�clPr���,�i I��t, �?�A-��t'5���_ 3��(1 �',
! ar�� ��r���st� v��tfi� c��s�a�;ii�r� c�f��Erai�l�t ,���:� S��d��;�,t�e.�r�n�.o�val<tif t�ic esi� �lnw�+�-i���t�r
_ , ... . _
�C.T'l�5Sd13�, �Iltj t�l�'ST3�71�IC�tZG1�"4f ��lt'. S�'�iittl �3t'L�.4�1 i7�T� i� f(7C�{:<�'JdIl.,liciS �3��31 1,ET1C��CII11I1��, In
� a�-�3er,t�nprrciper�ti� al�� t�� �i�i�,��r a:;s�n�li;ch��� iri �h� eo�dv���u a��rt�a�� i�i11 h� n�c�ssarv:
�1
T1i�:����k: propp��es t� �:r�� ��e,a s��� m�ans��cr: mofarists tc� Crt���,��:r�i�it �'ar� Bi�d�e vy��l��
el?�i�i��ti,n�:s,��tae ��`t�i�:�,iii��ir�n���aial haza�ds:�ssociatec��s�i�1i thc�aa�2ci�.rearr����:c�f v�.�i�1��
cpn�i.��.in co�Ytact ���i�i t1i��tl'c�,,�`iD1� 14�ater: T`lte p�c�posec� wor�C;an fl�e gra�-�1 ap�.�roach �iarttt�� ���
��. cca�d i��lud�s-r�sai%� ti�e-��i�d ��d� f�ar ��pxr��►�atcly i�Qti>.�,�rcis; �'�i� rais� 'in:�nad� is
it�c:esS.�r tc� �bE�iin the brid�� dcck hei.�iit ftr tlie d�si�n �stc�,r�a;.:�,f 5�}_�r��rs:
In :�-le�t�r.�atc:� Ia�.c�:z��,�r �'; ?'�?4��w.�a�o�r;o��c� �x:�.e��sed tfie it��ci Cr�r the �raj��# �rea-t�, kie
r�� �i�rv�yed fox Fcderall�r lisE�� thr4a��liccI �nd �ndari,�;ercd:`sg��cies R��zd ���.Siabytat;�ai�d elev��i:ar�;
—� n�n�_oii��t;�t�r� ��eier�a�ii' lasr�ci�spe���� �c�tirntY� �rt�ii� the.�re�t �rrlc�k�tNTauntains I�atiar�a7
_ ...
Pa�k ��.r� l�na�v� ta o�cur ��Z�th� �rc�,j�c� a,�e�. Bas�d Qr�;yau� rcc���est, Patk r�st�urce,specralist�
�, � h��t� 4����#er� t1�e sit��apid v�r�fieci tE�at n� fccl�r�11��=1is��tt s�aecics ���r� #o►���t in "t�e prc�j�.�i
� � � a ci.�a�};: . : . . . .. . .
.. . - .
lt� cciinplt���t� .��ilh tli� ���d��i��a'�d'S��ci;e's ��1ct:.a1 1�?�; w�e reqtfe�t#1iat, �`E)U GOZ]G.LII i3�d�] 1:��:
deecrrztin�iti�>� tliat #�� ���e�� a5.�z�o}�ose�a ?JTI�� �3�SrC'.11t,�:t1CJVtiS{: 1II1�?�C1:4 LC� 'ti?Z�f �t,'��i'SII�+=1FS��{I
• : - . .. .... ,
t�i;c��t��ci°:or ezidan��,r�d 5peci��.� �'leds���r�i�vit�e ��ay restriettcii�� �r�i�it�a-atiara �q�zr�znet�ts,�tlaat
.. � , �_ ,
55
����� �� .
��;�'.�:
� �, �,��
�.�._

�� should be ui�luded in the fi.nal�pro�ect,plan�,and specifications in order to ensure that this pro�ecf'''
does not adversely affeci any federally listed tlireatened or endangered species. Your .
�, recommendatior�s will be incorporafed mto� the environmental assessment, and a draft of the„
: docuinent.will be made available for`your�review.
:. If you. have'any additional questions, please contact Mr. Nicholas Finch, Highway Engineer, at
571-434-1548. '
Sincerely yours,
�Alan T. Teikari
Planning and Programming Engineer � �
Enclosures
cc: . ,
Mr. Dale A. Ditmanson, Jr., Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National
� Park, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, 'TN
. Mr. Kent Cochran, FLHP Coordinator; Southeast Region, National Park Se�;vice, Atlanta, GA
Mr. Leon Cliffoid, Project Manager, Denver Service Center, National Pazk Service, Denver, CO
56

� "r� �P�C3�'�f71�[3t cCs•�!n f�deta 1 �nr�s
, � p y, ��`�Iit�hucy�JivigiQn
_ UT TI�;(1w(.7:C73cC7rlGf3 ���Y � •��„�`
Ff�d�tGll Hi�hwt3y . .
( #�►�€miinfst�caf�or�
J �s. ��farla,C�li�ritki.�;"s.
-�-, �3��h�v���:,�?�a�ects'C+�ardinatc�r
I .�,���� Ca'-alin� 1�t��'i�d�i�e R��s.aurc�� ��prnmi�����n
_� 1�:�i;� ���ri�� it�ia� ; „ , .
- � C?akt�arr�, l*TC �:� 129
�►'���� �UIs: !�l��b�rs:
� i I� f1t��,�t0� �.-t:l�+
Stetlir+�. �.AI�: �T�oSi i
Re:�'er to: ��.����-15
- ItY Ct7Q�}�it1�,7C1t7 �l+1tII ����'I\�1"�lt?2i�I �c�� S�I:'4�1C�;,t:la.� ��st���l�Fet�E�'�1 I.,�t3ds ���h�?�2Y J�7�F.i��t��Ea o�`
t1Ye F'ed�ral Hi�ht����f'�1clt�nt.irrstratxc�r�;. ls ��-�e��.i-iu� 'a�r.�ii`Tiror�c�i�nt�.l �s�essin�n� f'or t�i�
i �ci3i�t��eti�iii o�'�'t���ht For� �ii��� in tl�� Gr��t��7riolt�r� l�Iat�nt�aa�s �Iati��a� Park:la���e� w'in.
, .,.. :. _
_ ; �S��rain Cou�t}f, �I�rt�i� �'�rolina. �'he ��or�C l��as be�r� �s�i��d �"a,4,�c�G� �l� FF��-GR'��� 1 �:��1),
- ,,
�� �ansist'� ,��' �1�� con'strt�ci�uii �f5t��4glit.:�'��k"13nd��, `�l�e ��ulc�� �I i�i�th� ;�id �v ��F�o�F�at�i�
; �rc���i�j;.�,iiti th� s�abi�tiza#io�-+�f.t�i�����e�m barik-�-t�ere.�a rt��k ���ali Ii��ii�e�� under�ii��ct. Ia�
_, �ard�r to'=properly=�li�m the bnJ.��e, 'a: $ma�I ehar���e iit„the r�ad���}� app.r.cia�� v��il��be`neces�a:"rv.
-, :-�-
; TI��:;�a�k,�r���,s�s �a. pro���.��a��af'� m�ans �c��:�iat�naGs=t� �ra�s �trai�htFark Bri:d�e�����i�lc
. �� �,,.
_- e��m�n�tin�':�n�x��; €�f �ie i:��v�r�a.i3rn��#�l ����i-c6� �ss�cl���� ti��tii th� �c�rie���rrri�,��.t�# ���t����
c��iin.�; in cont��t ��i#ti� the flar,v��� u�at�er; 'T"�� �ropo�ed�v��s�ri� c�n� tl�� ���v�t approach �:car�i�iY of:
� {YI� X�SC1_ll1CILl{�L''a' T3Z�317� ��� ioa� �ad� �oi� appro�imat�ly, ��i+� }{�r�s. T11� rai�� izi �rad� i"s:.
-� �Z��e�4sartiF tci c��,�3n lhe bnd������ �i��glit"f�r i�"e`de��� st�oi�tii �f �t} }P�ars:<
_� Tn c.�i�np.li�ii�� wit}� t�i�. E�ndar%;�����1� Speci�s. A�t, af ��i3r, w�'req��st'��y° i�f`�rrr���io�. ct����rn�n:g
st�t�-�i$t�d ti�-; at���ii ar encian��r.��� s�ecics fi�iiat ma� �ie.gre��ii Qr a#"f�cted by th��`p���t�s�€� .
__ � v���s�€k. Pl�dise �����ic�e: an;r restricttc,r�s c�r �iti�at�o�i izi�a�ire�n�ts il�at �sl�nulci•1?e �ric,t�id�.� in th�
, #ia�aI pa-s��e�t p�aei�.aric� specific�it�ar�s in oidertc� �r�s�are:ttiat �t77s praae�f cfa�� �ot adv�rse�}� afE'ect
�nv-�ta�e:lisied tlu���tetrcd �r ei�d�n����t� sp+e�ic�,,�`Y�ur.-��cc��,,r«e�c�alaan�:�ill �a�.�in��r���a��d
. . . .: .
._ ��tt� �h� �nv;izagi��ntal:asse��i�i��,c;::�tid a draft��ii`th� d��tin��nt;�;.ill_t��.���.�fi� a��ai���b.l� ferr ya�ur
, r��iev�d. ...
�-, � �reIyraiin�ira. ��k ��'�l�iis a�d ;a �i�r�nit�. ai�aa� �z'� enclo°ect f�ir �Yt�ur.,re�ri�w:ar�d 'ir��orni�tt��; If'
� wc�u l�av� a��}r.���it����al.qucstcan�, �l�ase ci�s�����.1�rTr I�Ti�htJ�a�.F�ix��7, Hi�z��� En�an��,�,<;�t
�?����i?�-I���;. . . .. .
�i�icer�ly.�'�ux�e; ,,�
: }' ,� i
� ,�.
. �" � . �:..
�
l'�" ���n T. �T�il��ri
Plariiiing �riii T'�o�rarriiriit��, E�.gE��er
�n�Ia�itzes.
-, ��:: ���� u� .
v' I��; P�ulip Fran�c%�; Tz� , Actii��.:Su�a�ri�teticient; �r�ca� �r�al.}.�.I�t�'e�ntaii�s 1�;atior�al �,,y�����i�i7��1
Park, G�tlml�ur�, '1'N 57 ��..,.,�,����

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
orth Carolina Wilcllif e Resources
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
Alan T. Te�kari, Planning and Programming Engineer
U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Mazla. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
February 23; 2004
SUBJECT: Scoping review of the Federal Highway Administration's proposed construction
of Straight Fork Bridge in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain�
County, North Carolina. Project No. PRA-GRSM 105(1).
In cooperation with the National Park Service, the Eastern Federal Lands Highway
Division, of the Federal Highways Administration, is preparing an Environmental Assessment
for the subject project. Staffbiologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comnussion
(NCWRG) have reviewed the informa.tion provided. The following preliminary, comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U. S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordiaation Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d). .
Our standazd recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope aze as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning shuch�res usually do not require work
within ihe stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The hoiizontal anii ,
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage benea.th
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block na.�igation by:"canoeists and
boaters.
2.
3.
4.
Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stteam
If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream
Mailirig Address: .Divisio�i�of Inland Fishenes �� 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh,
� � � �. Telephone: ` [phone];ext. 281' • Fax: [phone]
58
�
�
;-
�
L
1�'
L
;
�
��

��
�
�
_!
J
IS �
;;
rJ
��c# 1►;Tc�. F�A.-�� 1�1�, ?i��,�'1 ,� .
� � �� � ' � S� �,�, $� �.
F� � �
�. �i't��r �e� �a€a� � �a� �� ��a� t�r s�e�ci � � l� t�
., ��� ����� r�a. t� ���� c��� pr�,�� I���
� �al�t� � �d,e� � �l� #� ��rit� � ��7..� n�v� t�.�� �tr1+� �
��t�+� �th � �� ���� �i� � 1�19���1'. lf'�a�� �r�. �. �
�i�ta� t� � �. � � t�t � �. �� � � �t �� €��,
��'�t�.1����; ��` ��r � � � l�� � �� � x+�t t�t
i�� ��'� � �a � �,�� �Ty a�d ` ` " d�tr� �i3�
� � � � �� �� a� ��a� �t 1 �D f�it s'�a!� ` t� ��, � �f t� �
� ��.
�. It� i��t. �� � �.�. �'� � ��si� �.� � �e�� � �� �f
�� � � � °�� �. '�� La� t� ��� ��:��
��1 � � ���t ��. a� � �bi1� �1 � c� �o � tl�
- �� �ru� � m�1��; ��� �dm�. �
;r d� ' U .:+;�ur.: i : � ►� ql ;lI.1� . I� �'rF �se :d t� �1,� :,p �r .+r.d• . '�.1, - �� �
4s ',.1�5�. JI,.F: .'I.�, ,I�i� .d� "U'.
I,i.`. : � ":id�sC�i � ' ti:+l:��r{ - • Fl��:- . � ' ���� � i .�i �, . � a._. ._: �_ �i . i �k 1 ,� ;."�" � a9' �. ` ". � I-f.. � G ���'
`a! .i :. ti'l;a'1 fl li It@ �l, i� v ..1 d� A k� ���i' � I '� i-f :1A .` � 6�p ' , _ li� :e i ' =.1 :��� � Y r� ;` = '. ,.. � 't,�� I � �N.'.!: =�: �
i ' {� - t _:
v� � :,�,' � •
'.���R. ; '.:iI1R1. �....rl J-:�. `t.1.4 .'+.�6 A :.�i '•rt:� 1 d*3 ��` °;1 Iti: P.6�z •x,f �'�
'- 4kiGi ii.' i Y �:i'�
_� ..Id -1 il+�i I�J.i���. i i� �.i :� � �• # I "i � hIA ��� i ei �i �:i� �i :-� jZ +et' - J� . �; �'s,:�� d'� � : �f � :a i . .+.'.7 . 't.mt. '4!I
'.� �� IJIIA �5ail.'- ill_;aF� �i f �r :.II��. ,;.N� M' k 9 i � r �• � � - 17:_ -. tl �F i;�'� : ��i � -
ie,i �i . lA.�� ";I � �� _,�-� 4� 1 ���i�' �, i i�i M: -
_ .., p: .
� � �'��1�'' �' �i _ . _ . .� B� � � � $� � �€ti3� �:
�� � ����. ; e ��� � �� � � �� ►��.
��. �ii������� :��:�,��t���►������
��������������. ����
poss��nY� fis� p�k �� i� � �p
��^ 1-EA =411 -^��8�1 1; P, Y. . � � . �
, f��.:ia,.4, � 4� n�� �i' ��; n �:Idl�.��t ����` Y I� �.-•il �--4�u7� I:'u'�� �I�
N..� .f 14 wili e i�� a m� 1'6' AI.M�4�M k:�i9 i� '
_ :�;1,.: ,E1.1 { d,' __l,���� �- 11' 1 �b�-� ���+ '�� ,`.il'w;
iilas . a ='�linR_
��� �������;���������,�������
l� r�� ��t �x�i� d�tur� �f� �l ,�tr�� ib+�'t�� �
� ' is �ro_r_r�l�,
Y �`. � MA''' '+ � �� 1 12 �� 'll ' '' :rS 4 ,.U'F � 4t . Ihllt:: N � �' 1.1. � �,i _ . .. . .
_ .'�t. .-v� :.� {�.;1 ; J,.i 8G ti -�u; t r� ,. �� ;A.k
1� � - 11 �F� I ...� . � � ! k : I F� �+:'' ' 4� rl_ ��:, .� II ° �1 , ' ■i ��� . .{. ., ;; ..'.-
� �F A=1� 9V'b �f�. r-1 �
, , : . , , , . ... . . . �:: a;
59

� ��. ���� ��s� �.� � ,
���c F�c�� ��� ��� � �� � 1J
�� �
- �-...�� 14,'i';. :..f'N � �i.: II�. � 9 �a'�i"�Y��'�'4i �pi.�i.,.y�, ....,, 6::�:_ F�.�k.'.� M ��xr:i ��t���i18iG�d. �u`..M� .i
,.+ �..'� .M...� d�. �a� �f,�ip I�t :b:'T pll�tl� � �1-�.i °➢d � i'f�'Y���' : i�i L� I�ti'-1 �.., PI..:, : 1+ �k� ',ii ?� �. i :;I i. '• i .
'i _. . �.. �.: _ � r:i :' � d-i�: w,ti: �r
. iiWi�s
� / �< `r.,k Oi�a .: K � x: . : ; '►y1 +!i =f II ILI ' ' ��1 �f I� �a� ' � F Ifi � �1 �F 1 4�4! ". ' ��� �., ,. �i7 � YP .
: ;+k
4. � VSiLYf�i.IL � �4�"r � 4L1' � �� iLilAr �1J1� •nw�• —. . . . .�3 '.` r
� {Yi � .�r� ��?� � �. � ��S! � �i►� ��CM� � �
,
� � � � ���e� �o I��t�� �� � �� ��S �
1t� : '� �caw ��� ��. b� plaic�d � � � � �r�
. `�� ���Sti ��a � �..
�� ���. T1�.�e ��r1� Y�e � � �a
�pl�t b�� � . � � � �e �a��pl��1� 9�� � �Ils �� t�ue
�tr� �r�� �a - ' - �r ��t � � � � �a i�T���. ��i b�� �� �
� �� �c:d�t. � � �� � � �5�i`t� vr ��;a� � �`��.
� ' �° � ,:�1a3 E� ' �r1 � � �r �] � �r �� �
������ ���������������.�
�bt�sd'�$ �� b� �� ia � m�r�a �k ��c� s� �a��. T�
���������o ���r'�� ` ������'
� - ����t� . �.���� � ����
� +� � ' � � �e �� f���� ;�r� �
+� ' _� ��`� � �d �� �i�h � �1 �di�a�at� �
'��Y+
��'ki. � �IE ' �i,��:a �Y� � �.� �;.r! �i :fi;'i b i:.` i���� �'. �►. :d M f Y..'_ I�:ti �..M�rl -1 .::p����3,111
nn �� t ��!` I " �I,if"il�.. ' �.. 'i� �-4�' I# .� !` 'iri '.ti,;
I �:'K, �, e ir i t::� r• _ �� :; .* , ]
,`,�. �� •' 1�.. i�t9 •�ye� � . .�•:�r17,' � �1-�� Fi; e.�'.!� ' � A;�li"'-'::�'.Y1�
i l. _ �. _i, ; _t.�„ - M ��� .: L: /t�.' - • �A �ip=..;.�.. t - .
� JI_IFF -' ,@,� '� tl � � I l'M .Rs:l.: �o s:" 'a � I� �■ ' � ■ � ti
�.� �=:.l11 ldlKfldlf ' -i.' :.�IA3� 'F � � c IP 5+ Y..-'.k� i� ' �:a� � f' `+Y- 'Ni, I .». . q-, i�' 44=N >" �;I :{
;�,m *ft '..� � e m� N�i ` r :f. ��w=11'ra " i-��i F.� r� R�-w ' �-u ey�: �ii. ��:�N �-- � � s k.e;' i�i4�
:�9�� z i- �ri..:'
.. � .k ��I.� � - . i �i..., . �,i � ..' ��.�� ��- �M� 1 =.��.e.� ,i: ..d.'..: Y�'S��i P��� ..A� =
. 6.'b;� �Y F��� A' :/� :'iv� C .i�� .
11^L,IY L��;� f� �i H �. _ _. ?�. ?�'F��� 1 ' �3.. i�o ��;h!�.'. i i� 1 }#aa :.% a�.; ��* A� � .,, i� _y(�, �, �-...� ;.,a 1�....�
�., �
�� � MI 1�-k'.I�.! 1 �I �#.;r, �p:�c..4i� ..r. � ;11.a ti"a :��� 4,�.
ul��p.�pl�'�!'�F����������11�?�l.
�i Rr�ls�fl �ta��. �'�� �� F� �t i�l�i� � ��' d��' � �e ��i,� �
�1��id�� ��m�d�r��1�:�'�d���
�. �. .I�fi�te �e�� �. � �p� � ��` �ia�um� �e �a�i � �� � r��v�ti.
�d, ti� �� � � ifiio�m'� ��-� �p�. �� �€Ils s�� � �rr�d
�� �o its� �ir� �x�d ��. � � �� � � wa� �Ss �1 �� �.
� � ��. T'� f� �1� �� � � i� ri,�ri�x1 �r�, �iF� � �t a� 'r+e��
c�

�� �� ��� ���:i,� �� � �
�:��:�� ��� �����
� +� ���1� ��� t�c � � ��, � �C:���. I� - '�tle � �� t�! �ie
� � �E1� 4 . #� t� �� ��� o�r �,� � t� � �:
�1
r
—� ���ct �� � _. �
�� Pi�� I'+�3�o i'�i-+G1�IvI ��!�1�, � �a: c��� �i� 1��� � � `
��tk � `� �t ��y 1�,�� ���. �� �� :r�� � � c�as��� �. is �
lu�ao,g� � � ��� �i�,�t. �� � �i� � � '�'�iait ��"� �'�' ��rs�
�1 i� 1���► �5a�d b� � t�� p�p�� � ' , . . m _ �tl�.
� l�c� �1� �rit� � �-�at �aut ��r i� a��d�l %m �Ia�r 3 � �
�p�l 1� t� � � �d �r � �f�� • • � �.o,� ��� ��
_ � t� � � �:f� " "` � ��,,
� . ,. �� ��_:.,: : � ,- -- ���7�.:. : .. �. , � p,� � �� ,_ _. � m k.�. � , �, _ _
,u�=. ��� u� �n� �_ �., � n
��.. of � I�i �i�l�y' '.�a-7.b'�n�.:i� � .�.�{��cirie .I14i�a Iriulii' �c...'.'-'+;.-e•'-�i� .d x' �i-`+�; `i� 2id
���. � � I�I:7 il 1,1 d� �1 . JF.A II ' f-,' � i �� li.' �a�.�- Y�;.4 : i @� 4^i tl�4� .r � a '. �,�' �' ' IIiYG I� �1 �ii i'1 d7 .,..MI I `
., � . _ : ; � � :� `w:i -, { . • .;,.. , ' � 1 - � ._. . ,� . " . . ...
:1 �. Iy� 6 : ' "1 w"�&�l 111 �1 Pi I1: p � ��l �tii L a. 1 I1� � � !'& 4.� .. q• . a � ' 1. : �� q�l �.
�'. 5-. r"����.� ��1 �L ��.ii�.` �,�. F � ._ _.. . , .��.,- �= : �. �'F FFNI� I i��. II IN �.. F: �.�_. ".�.� N F, p.�, �;�; � ��-� i'.•
� � i'� `�'�-.4: I-� •�i "ri." w 1�-i�� :��1 ��i A1 �'W �'.:-_ �r9,"9rtre y 1 i i�llrc; 'Y� i� "��9:' 61FS 1 1 i t i;.L �' r ' ' Fi�...' ��
.�.0.�.._. - _i 1�1i'.. t�,_ : -:� `5: II •F;
I��u � � � �� �r�lt� +� ��� �� �� ��
��� �3� �ct m� � �[�`d� �4��5�2��� '.� � fia��e �� #,�:�z�r �
����
�; �►�aia'4T� 1� ��T�, �hT�C I��
�� �� ��
i;
,_, J
, . . . .� . .
61

� � -- - �. _ ��.�� � ..�.k.,.�._ _ a�i�c�_i�e �esc��.�rc�� :�arnrn��s�oz� _��
�� -...____-- -
-
-
-
-----
t�rt �. _ �.r� �� .-
�r��aRa�ntJn�t-
Fft�[�i:
L)�l'��;
CEias�9Ls R� �=u�l�v��J, Exc�.�►�iv4 L�rrteEar
ti1r. rh�iip n. rr��,�is; Jr_; Actin� Sup�rintenci�i�t
1�i�tis�z�a1 Par3� Service;�Gr�at-Smak,� ?��Iciimt<tins Nat�cit�ai Par{;
`anii
M�. l�rf�lba N1eGe.c: Etivironmen#at G€�c�rcii��ato�-
Of�� o�'.i.;cgislatiwe�and"Int�rgauerrtment�tl �f�'air.�
1W�rtkt C',aralina ll�epa�tm�nt �6 Ertu' � ent and"Natura! l�esources
Da��t� M�l I�ii� /� �%
Ei'al�itat C`c�nss.rvatiQn L7rc��irii "--`"� ' `![��. :
M�y 5; ���.4:
SL�k3J1;G'i'. Scoping ivt�r�in�ents on Envir�m�ecnt�l.r'#s5essiiie��t.for �anstruction�Qf'Str7'e�* [�cir%:
E3rici�e — l'roject \it�ritb.cr::��c,A=C;�it�tvl 1(15��1`)
o�i�� ��:�a�-ozs�
�e"ta,reat Snioky M+o�Entain� i�atiiattal P�rk, �n �qnjt�nctiiin �,vtth,'the f��t��rat Highwaj��
Adri�ini'stratian, is pr.�p�ring �u� Er+vircinmer�ta3 Assessn7ent ��A} for cc►nstruat�ciri of a bridge.o�cr
S[rai�ht �otk in S�ti�ain Ce�unty�:, 'I'he�brid�s is desi�ed tu elirriia��te a� �xist��t,�,#'o'rc� �r�issing at'tliis
loe�tii�tt; d��re�y icn�ror�ing.gublic:s�i'ety �nc�� i�llttt[r��tiiig �pY�utiqri�t(��.the-nver. fCom V�;6iG�e p�isya���.
aUur c4mmcnts are provicf�ii in �cc;ord:�z.xce ►viih �rovisions of the � ish and Wildlife Ca�rdinal`ti�� ,Act {AS-
Stat�; 401,��s;amendcd, 1G f1:S:C: �� l-6fi?d�.and llie Al��tionaf Environmc��k�ti t?o.iiey A.Gt (�4`2 II,S.G�
����(��(c�}..
T[Zc Nartl� Cari�tins 1�4'itdlif�:R�sriurces Commissitin ��qm�nis�i��i} sup�cirt,s tlie a�iticipated
bcni'tNts oftla�:�rajecxtil�iinvol��e improve�il pt�btics�fe:ly�;3nd �vater qualit}n c�i�VUver� wu,arc,�c�n�crn��tf
at�aut:�aote�iCiat �d}�erse effects of ih� pro�eGt i�n fstt an�d«�:itdlife re�a,urc�es ,A:partic,ular coitr:ei=n is'tlie'
pos�iliil�ty iit'_short term svci`iittcnta[ic?tt int��t1»s streacn_fram cvnstruc.i�on of ti1e. Eirid�;c, ta�la�cE�, as
�rt���c�Sed, wrt�ul� �ccur �n �viiiter durin� t��..�sual s,pa�tirtitt� periac[ t�nr wit'd t�ci�t foa�td: i» tii�s. riv�r: VV�
t��pi�afly rc;quest tliats�milii� �araJt;�ts witl��"in �tr��ctt ;�raci,�i�i�'ian_ ,z.ane tiisitucb�n�e alt�nb Em,ui �u��+��rtiii�
�����ers_ ��' c:�n�iucE�d autsi�iu. c�F tliis:p�ric,d tc�. �void adversc efFe;r..ts nn sensitiv� eg�.at�c1 fr}� st��c$'tro�ai
scc�itne�tati�n ti�ut can c�c�:ur. I�lc��yexer,, �ve re�bgniL�; th�: a<iv�ati�a�+.� tif,caw�stxuctiii� tJt� brid�e* as �vill
as rcrnoving the ekistii�g cc�ncrctc,ford;.durin� ti�c wirtt�r !�vhen th�e rKia�i is ty�ic�Cly ,clased a��i wlieti
tra�� is liiiiit�d. Tlt�n,;fore: �vc-requesl titat tlle �A c�escribe pr�tcctiv� measur�s t1�at wi�ll bc
, iX»plenc�ettt�d +�uri�a�, constru�cYion t� mininlize tlle.�t�l�nti�l. fctr �dver5e��f�'��ts t��� tt'c�«f r��r�iducti�n. W�
fiC�e[ tliat cnttslruat�n��cot�f�erdams aruund an�=-�app�rt���iutrtic�it that is rlear tEt�:sfrea��i;.e�and�ciin� tltc
n�ajarity af�radin�itiiorl: as �.trl}� �� pUssi�l� 4vithin th� s�a►i�nin�„scason, �n�f rapidly est�tblisliiri�•a
�rc�iFnd cc,r���:r ovc.r,clisturt�ed ar�.as nii'i�,l�t f» appr�prraie meas�ice�'tu t,c�nsiclGr. Tlt� ua�.i�l a c.�fierdam t�r
�i�Z�ilar r�c�t�iti���, E��rricr is �Isc� �c�wis��t�lc fca€ �butinent `t>iistn��.#iiari t�� ittirttxr��re, thc: �Sc���eititral 'ear �in4trrect
:1�lai�ini; aticl�itis; 1?r�iais-+,t °;�tiil;�ric9 �.'r�;las:rics • lf`�7 �.�i.ti1.�����s�-�C;cr:at�r • li:�lr>�;�� �,C.: ''t,�ys.�,:�`.T79
. . � `��:�i•fi.�'v_'tint �_1K,1�1� .`i'i,_���i�;�vr. "�'?.1. l�a�r? i3}}SI��'.�Iti f:,5.j�-

�
_�
�ceaxg9tt Foi•E. Bri€f�e :G�IviNP` I'a�;e�2 Iv1aj+'S, ��Q4�
{�t.IA Ni�::0d=4�g�
, ,, ,. . � - . ._.
�oncr�i� �iam�n� L�it� ��nt�c� ��vitlt �v�itcrs; u�l�r��� could �us� � fish kili{, Gstakilis��iu� fe�nporar}��
hcrba�ci�us graund �n<<�r an 1%are Snit areas nlay be prc�blemattc dunng ttie cold seasan at-such l�igh
eievation: 'I'he EA� sh�uld.descrihe,tE�is potentiai.and t�ciiniqt��s that-�;v�iiI b4 ulilized to.address.tliis
patent�a�'pro�ileni and`prcvc;nt'erasian-ai�t� seditncntat�o�y.
� • � , �
� ;Anattiec cor�s�deratian,regardin� th� p��ect is.�f�'ect� �in ripariaEn
.J $i�rface rt�n�t�atid sec�iir�ient�tian:to fh� ri`v�r, �iravi��s slia�ii��, and.��r�?
VYiI�Iif�. We rec{u�estt�iat.tfie FA d�sci�Efe.ttie . _.,. ..,. . .. . ... _.
Ee
pemt�n�ntIy reinoved fi�`r this �ra}ec� rncludir
�ie�rcted-ao tfie:dr�win��pro�fided, �viil �c eo�l
a�ong � small tr�(iutary.i[�r bran�lt ofthe nvar.
�ppr�����s �r� #t�� f�r�i �i�er its�r,er�io�+�al wpul+�
e,.�
ali�rin�ent�.
ne_"ar anci j
rrrucEt'ii�
w�ii�h mo�erates�
�n liabii�a�� fc�r ;
i�# will l . .
�� td tlie
ssiti�y: �vithrn ihc .�5�
ian ��gefatzcin �aIaiig
Ioss �ttr�buEec� ta itii
ar
c��ssiiig
'f'hG,��ammessian aisa>:re�uesfs that.def€�ils,o�'th�..brid�e desi�,Tn tE�a#;ma�r,Qninit�ii�e�potential
a�iv�rsc �f�'�cts on res�urr,�s: �i�: dcscri�ed ii� 'th� EA: �i?`e_ �ti�pt�ri th�, u�e. of a spanriin� $tru�ture, as
_; proposed,,ta.avaid the need f�ar.�in� strca��� su��aort.s: Uther.f�atur.es of bridge cc�nstrueti+�n t1�aGare
,. .
de�ir��I�.;in����[� a►r�iding d�c�. drains that d.is�hai����d�r��rly to ;Clie str�ainr pr�v�di�'g cle�ir; u�stabilizet�
. ti�uiicS undcr tl�e �iri�l�e-�o f��i9.�tate iavilclli�`e p�ssagey a�� r�utis�� stor�i� watcc i'r�,�. t�ic�rc��� "��p�ach�s tp
eete�nan or ve�+etated tiuffee aR'eas . Some of tl�e�e.�eat�res, ma�.� be a��ammodated bX_the �riigos�d
_ bri��� t���ign:� _, . , - .
in,add�t'i�n ta the pre�ced�ng c"tansidei�tions, the �aritmis�ion lias�,� Ii�t of mforiiiattbn #�lat �s��.fee) �
_ sh�uir� b� �tcldres��ci inEr�s for praje+cEs s�milar tt�.�Etat }�ra�it��edr °�Eil`� I9�i S�IV�S SS �51.;11CI tO �'1�. .
���,�.ucttciit iarcparcrs an�i= by Kc1d�'e55in�,��ll tiiL typcS;�t',it�Forn�a.tit�i� Eli:��:�ire:aj��li��ible;=� aotriplete.
evaluati�u t�f g�fe�tfi�l,�ftect�-:c��s p"rs�;�ect on f��il>stid �iidltfe;��que��� cari �ie,snacE�.>. This, tist is.as;
� � ��llo��'s: ° _
li anti wildltf�tesaurce��►vithin th� �raje�t �a inclUrI�ng'a l�stin� af'
:. .
yd thre�t�n�d, �endan�er�� nr spec�aE �oncem spec�e�_ Wtten.
aw are�s.to.b�: ���d for,pro��c�.ct�zlstruci�an•sl�+�yI'd'��e zn��ucIe�l iii tlie
Qfdes��naf�I �(�eGies can be�deuelnpedtluc3ugh consiiliatian.with": T'he��
,.1�1C Divisivn:cifY'arE� �nd �t.ecrea#�c►n:
2,. �riciud�:+dcseript��ns �i€a�y str��rrrts;�r�uv�llt�rt�s���'�ct�c7 tiy ih�"g�a,�ec�•
,. . ... . ., . ..
�: - ..
3>� �nclude �roJ�at �aps'it�cntifyi��� wetl�� ��r�as: Id�niir�atio�z of wr:tlartds Triay b� ac��mpli�h�d
., . , . .
;�ra�g�i:cr►c,rda,riat�azi ��ritl� �te L,J � Art�����,�prps�af�n�inEe� {�Q��. i�th� �CiC i� ni�t
cansulled, the person-d�Iineabng wettarids;shouid be ident�es� and criter�alisfed,
. .,, , . , . ._ ,. . ,, ; , ., .,.... .
�_. Pr4vit�ca,:rl�s�ription+�fproj��tac.ki�i�i�s,kh�tttviIltx:curtivz#i�in���vetlan�isor.s,tream�;-su�h.�s.�[t
oc,channel alter�tioiy,� A.cxeage o�'w�ctlancis�.im��ct�d �y alternati"ve.��ft�j�et desigtts sltc�uld ���
:Iisted. � . .
5 F'rot��id� a d�scripfcon;,anci a�over f�� rtd3�7s sl%oWing'a�r�eage o� i�pland�-iv�ildl;ife hatai�at xmEi�te3:
'liy tEic: �ir��ect�.
�i G:�Scuss��tl�� �otentcal cumulativ�* anci �econdary �rfv�t� �in h�bit�ts frr�m.th� irifras�ru�cturi�;
tmprovenient prcr�eet„afi w�il.as aiiy, m1tt�;�tive`m�a�ur�s nce�sst�ry t4;.4f�s�t#��ose.ef�'�c�s.
���� Include �specif �.measures ihat w"ilt� k�� use� ta�;-address�stt�rrn w�ter�r�.«crff-� ]nclud�,sp�ci£'ic�
r�t��tiix:.mtnt's.fnrres�clential�=Gor�mercial and indi�striai c�e��elop�ents and.l�IbSFs:ihatu�i(I be
requiretE,.
tb� Inc�lnde,5pecific.itiea,�urec;tl3at w1�� �C, used tia.�lrotect �tccaTil cqrrli�pl73, Tipitrtafi li�b►tit;;and�a
m'iniinum:af tlie�:l�l.�l-year flotad�ilacn fr�rn'��ling and dei�e:lc��snen#�: �ammit'ri�c�n�:5 ��r the:
�r,roject spnnsnrs tt� �r`otect area streams with ript�tri�tn btif�`ers through puref3asc ae
canscrvafian ea�emcrY# arc af ��rtt�.ul��r intertssl`,
>,�;. � , _ ,. -t , r,.
C'�3

�trai;tit Fti�k �3riti�,e Ci�,1�iSi!�I' I'age:� ' tv��y �;'`'2t�t74
(aLif1 N�,: Q�-C�:28G
{�j i��iut��`sp��c;niea.�ur�s ihat will Yi�el}� rt�iti��t� #t��; impdc;ts tt� fisPi:;an�t s�ifdli�'� �ft�t�.
region.. ` .
. iscu„�s t�s���.tent z+� v;��ti�cii t�� �r�je�t wi]I r��u�k �it� ���; d�g�dS#a+0ii �C #�x�igrt�r�ta�ion Q�
?, L7
wilcil"ife habita� (wetlan�s 4rid +u��ancis�. . .
�.� D,isct��s:any ni�a�ures E�rt��osc�t� to avt�itt'ar.redu�e imp�c�s �fth� pr�j��t �r t� �ttiti�l�
t�t�avr�i.��bl��I��bit�t li�s��s� '
�. I�ie3ude a lYst-.ti�'dcrcttment prep�rers ifiat sh4ws_ each individ�ial's.pritfes�ionaf. fiackgr.t�und and
c}uaiificat�an�:.
'F'izanic y�u kor t�e c�ppartunit}r tfl revi�w and provide sc��in� eacnmenfs on this pro,}ect> 7`he
%mmi:�s��an lr�vks.for��ard:f�i prc�v�idin�;rnore��s$ist�iu� �vith tiiis prajec� a�v+� reW9�xv of ti�e'��.as
cet�ue$ted: Ifyc�u h�v� any,.questions eegsrdiii�.t�tese comments,,please ctankact nie ai.�828) �5�-�546-.
ext+ension 2�. . - . �
i:G; 11�ft S�vtt Laft��:— i�G� V4ri1�31i�� Rest��are�s �Ct`+�m'ts's:i�ri, tnlantt,�istYer�c�:
GZ!

,� . . _ �,,_ .;� . . . . .
, . � ..
. � � .� . ..
�� .�� .
',._, . NorEh Carolina Dep�rtment o�# Cultural Resources
State Historic PreservaHon Office
I� Michael F. Ea51ey, Governor
4y Lisbeth C. Evans, Secrotary
JeH'i'ey J. Cr�w, Deputy Secretary
. Offtcs of Archives and History
February 9, 2004 . .
' � Philip .A. �rancis, Jr.
j Acting Superintendent .
� Nauonal Park Service
�- Gxeat Smoky Mountain Nauonal Patk
1 � ; 07 Patk Headquartets Roa� �
--} Gatliabutg, TN 37738
� Re: Sttiaight Fo=k Bsidge Constr�uctioa, Oconaluftee Pazk District, Gxeat Sm�ky National
Mountain Park; Cherakea vicinity, Swain County, ER03=3G68
Dear NIr. Francis:
�I '
—� Thank you for youz lettez qf December 10, 2003, conceming the'aUov,e pxoject
f We have conducted a review of the psoposed unde=taking and ate aware of no historic
'; " resousces wh'tch would be affected by the project, Therefore, we have no comment on the
J undertaking as proposed: . .
'` 'I'kie abo.ve comsnents aze tnade pucsuant to Section lU6 of the National Historic Preservation
--� � Act and the Advisory Couz�cil on.Historic Pteservation's Regulations Eox Compliance with
Section l OG co.dified at 36 CFR Part 800.
� Thank you fo= qour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
� above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, envuosimental zeview coorclinator, at
9.19/733-4763. In all fut�uc commuaication concernir�g this p=oje.cC, please cite the aUove-
referenced traeking nutnber. �
Siricexely, . ' '
�� � ���
. �
, , � avid Brook '
I �
.! � �
. �vw.hpadcrstate.nauo
- -,( I.uepttou . MflIUn� Addresa . ' . Tclephonr/Fax �
__,r � ADMLN[3TRAT[QN 507 N.. Biounc St, Releigty NC ' 4617 Mail Service Cent�r, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 (9l9) 733-4763 •733•8653
ItES70RA'i'ION 51 S N. Blouc�{ St, i�a,leigh, NC 4b 47 Mdil Service Center, Raloigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-�1801 .
,� SURVEY & PLANWING 515 N. Blount.5.� Raloigh, NC '46�7 MailService Center, Relelgh, NC 27699�4617 (919) 733-4]63 •715-4801
_J .
65

c��o� �.�- �� -�:
, -�
;
��
United`'Siates Department of the Interior ;-
� � �
FISH AND WII.DL�FE SERVICE -�
Asheville Field Ofiice � �
160 Zillicoa Street ��
� Asheville, North Carolina 28801 ( .
September 23, 2004
Mr. Alan T. Teikari
Planning and Programming Engineer
Federal Highway Administra#ion
21400 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, Virginia 20166-6511
Dear Mr. Teikari:
Subject: Sect.ion 7 Consultatioii for a Bridge Replacement over Straight Fork Creek in the
Great Sinoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina (Project
No. PRA-GRSM 105[1])
We received your letter dated.August 5, 2004 (received August 13, 2004), requesting our .
concurrence with a"not likely to adversely affect" deterinination for the.subject groject in
relation to the federally listed species known from Swain County North Carolina. The following
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as atnended (16 U.S.C. 153Y-1543) (Act).
Based on the information provided in your letter and a review of our records, we concur with
your assessment that this project is Iikely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered ar �,
threatenPd� species. Therefore, we believe the requirements of. section 7(c) of the Act are �
fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or threatened i�
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently i_
modified in a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or eritical
habitat is determined that may.be affecfed by the action. ;-
�
We appreciate the:opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep; us inforined as; to fhe�progress of this pro�ect, : If you liave question's, please, contiact !�
, �
. ,
,
� �-

Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our stafi at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log NumUer 4-2-04-039.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
67