Swain Co. 401's Historical

St bite of North Carolina
6partment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard,'Jr , P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
USDA Forest Service
Wayah Ranger District
Nantahala National.Forest
8 Sloan Road
Franklin, N.C. 28734
Dear Sirs:
EDOEHNF�
January 6, 1995
Swain County
DEM Project # S
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.12 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of providing an adequate and safe takeout location for boaters and also to stop streambank erosion and
shoreline loss at Nantahala River, Forest Service Takeout facility, as you described in your application
dated 23 December 1994. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Number 2665. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Number 13 when it is issued by the Corps, of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your. application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions liste&in the:. attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits. before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this ' certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Howard, r. E.
Attachment .
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
h'�n�1�D�R�g�onal�f�ce�.
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Joe Nicholson, Recreation Specialist
95006.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ l 0% post -consumer paper

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest NFs NC 8 Sloan Road
Service Wayah RD - Franklin, NC 28734
Reply to: 2350
Date: January 13, 1995
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Water Quality Section
159 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
ATTN: Mr. Mike Parker
Dear Mr. Parker:
Enclosed is an application for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #13, for
rehabilitation along the Nantahala River in Swain County, NC. It is for streambank stabilization
at the beaching area above the Nantahala Falls, near Wesser, NC. I have sent copies to the
COE office in Wilmington and Asheville (David Baker), the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources in Raleigh, and to David Yow of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. David and Micky Clemmons visited the site this past December.
This work is part of the larger Nantahala River Gorge Rehabilitation Project. The parts of
the Environmental Assessment that deal directly with the beaching area are included in the
application. A Decision Notice for this project was signed by District Ranger Mike Wilkins on
February 28, 1994, after extensive public involvement. We would like to start work sometime in
March, prior to rafting activities in the spring. We have received a $25,000 grant from the Smoky
Mountain Host organization to costshare half the project.
If you should need further information, feel free to call me at [phone]. I look forward to
working with you on this and future Forest Service projects in the Gorge.
Sincerely,
OE NICHOLSON
Recreation Specialist
Wayah Ranger District
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving People

DEM -ID;
t kr
t.
Nationwide Permit -Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit f): 13
ACTION `ID:
JOINT.' �FORK FOR. _ . - : •
Nationwide -permits that requirenotification to the Corps of -Engineers.=,_-
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 Certification
WILMIGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING DIVISION
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF -THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]• ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: USDA Forest Service, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest
2. Owners Address: 8 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): None (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Joe Nicholson, Recreation Specialist
USDA Forest Service, 8 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 [phone]
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Swain
Nearest Town or City: Wesser, NC
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Site is part of Forest Service Takeout
facility, located 0.25 miles SW of Wesser, between US Hwy. 19/74 and the Nantahala River.
Site is entirely on National Forest lands.
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Nantahala River- Class B Trout and Outstanding Resource Waters
7. River Basin: Nantahala River
8. Is project located in a. watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WSI or WSII? YES [X] NO [ ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for this property? YES [ ] NO [X]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
0.12 acres - 350 running feet in length and averaging 15 feet in width (to original shoreline).
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.12 ac. Fill averages 0 cy Per running foot - total of 195 cubic yards
Drained: None.
Flooded: None.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 0.12 acres.

. ," :.r rc - _ r � :,a `' `', .��.,s ay�'� �<Z �� •� �N�i' ��y � 77 5 :
s
_• � t �3 f � -b f ^a .r' SS�^t"� � �' �^'4 � 1 `"'S'' �..� Y ? r r � ..s, t � .v��•.s
X l
.....................
12. Description of proposed work (Attach Pl.kNS78 1/2" X 11" drawings only): 1) Construct
3 x 350':,_
timber retaining -wall at high'"wate'r mark. 2) Reclaim.l5'x350' section of eroded shoreline with
2' x 350' timber retaining wall -and: clean gravel :fill.. -
13. Purpose of proposed work: To provide adequate and safe takeout location for approx. 250,000
boaters annually on Nantahala River; also to stop existing streambank erosion and shoreline loss.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands.
Also, note measures taken to minimize wetlands impacts. Only suitable location for takeout to scout
last runnable rapid (Class III+) on river. For mitigation measures see below.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the presence of any Federally listed or proposed endangered -or
for listing endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that may be affected by the
proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reguarding the
presence of historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed
Project-. Have you done so? YES [X] NO [ ]
17. Additional information reguired by DEN:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes -on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the
placement of the delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is the use of the surrounding property? National Forest land -
public recreational use
F. If applicable, what is the proposed method of sewage disposal? Not applicable.
CISQA rOr yrta / 23 9i-
ner's Signature Da e
NANTAHALA RIVER BEACHING AREA PROJECT MITIGATION
The following measures are incorporated into this project as mitigation against impacts to wetlands
and fisheries habitat:
1) The project will be accomplished as much as possible during periods of power generation
shutdown, so that river levels are well below construction. No disturbed areas will be left exposed
if power generation occurs and raises river levels. This will reduce or eliminate sedimentation
into the Nantahala River as a result of construction.
2) To prevent undercutting of the retaining walls, a first course of sackcrete will be used. This
method also prevents leaching of concrete components such as lime into the streamcourse.
3) To provide shade for both river users and the stream, several trees will be planted in treewells
at the water's edge.
4) Timbers will be treated with CCA preservative to prevent rot and decay. This treatment is the
only one approved by the Forest Service for human and aquatic contact.

p
t All PAA .
D ctSi x, A-keS
..
PURPOSER, R S RO SED PROJECT
.The .Nantahala River Corridor Recreation Area .consists of a series :of closely
related recreation sites located in a eight and one-half mile corridor along US
Highway 19 and the Nantahala River. These sites are all day -use areas that
primarily serve whitewater boaters, spectators, fishing enthusiasts and
picnickers. Four primary sites. serve the public needs in the corridor: the
Nantahala River Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee Memorial Picnic.
Area, and the Nantahala River Takeout Site. Several single table picnic
pulloffs are located along Highway 19; these are owned and maintained by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. .On heavy use days, up to 7000
people float the river in a ten hour period (Nicholson 1993). Thousands more
observe the floaters from various points along the highway.
The size of the project, and increasing recreational use of the area,create a
need to view the Nantahala Gorge as a recreational complex -,for planning
purposes. The Forest Service proposes to improve facilities at four primary
locations along the Nantahala River in Macon and Swain .Counties, North
Carolina. Tentative funding has been allocated for the. reconstruction of
toilet facilities at the Launch Site. The rest of the project is unfunded at
this time.
PROPOSED ACTION BEING CONSIDERED
At the Nantahala River Launch Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing vault toilets with new flush toilet/changing room
facilities and provide public drinking water, in partnership with Nantahala
Power and Light Company- (NP&L);
o redesign the launch pool area to reduce existing erosion, site
deterioration and accumulation of upstream sediment, while dispersing use
to acheive a more desirable launch flow;
o stabilize the banks of Rowlin Creek;
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck; and
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 south of the
Launch Site.
Across the Nantahala River from the current launch site, on National Forest
land, the following improvements are proposed:
o construct a commercial raft launching facility, including unloading areas,
pumping stations, rafting instruction areas, and launch pools;
o construct a new toilet/changing room facility; and
o construct a bridge to access the area from State Road 1310, in partnership
with NP&L and the State of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC
DOT).
F_

w Zvi;; "•+ .-,,7 ��;• ���,.i yt�rots a ,�� ti �£' ti `tf .� .: .. - - ... - �. - - .. }_
At Patton's Run Overlook, the following improvements are proposed:
o pave the existing parking area;
" °o reconstruct the trail from -one end of the parking area' down to the
Nantahala'River and back, with a takeout deck similar to Ferebee; and
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck next to the parking area.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the .existing chemical toilets with flush toilet facilities, and
provide public drinking water;
o expand the existing launch/takeout deck and add a new deck;
o provide additional picnic sites, with 25% of all sites being fully
accessible and having a hardened trail system; and
o redosign-and expand the existing parking area.
At the Nantahala River Takeout Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o expand and -pave the existing commercial takeout to the National Forest
boundary, with a takeout deck similar to.the one at Ferebee;
o construct an accessible eleven to fourteen feet wide walkway with turnouts
and steps down to the River from the commercial takeout to the beaching
area above Nantahala Falls, with appropriate pedestrian barriers along
Highway 19;
o construct a fully -accessible observation area, a natural stone and wood
seating area, and a small platform area for commercial photographers, all
located to view the Falls;
o stabilize the riverbank and provide a base for the walkway, by constructing
a natural rock wall along the riverbank at the Falls;
o develop a paved parking area above the beaching area, reduce the curve of
Highway 19, and provide a turning lane, in partnership with NC DOT;
o reconstruct the trail from the beaching area to the Nantahala Falls
walkway, and Wiarden the beaching area with a takeout deck;
o reconstruct the existing takeout at-Silvermine Creek by paving the parking
area and takeout ramp, and constructing a takeout deck;
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 just north of
the Takeout Site; and
o complete an integrated Interpretive Plan for the Nantahala River Corridor,
and provide interpretive displays at all four developed sites, as well as
at the railroad switching area at Hewitt.
In addition, the rehabilitation of the pulloff picnic sites along Highway 19,
and the hardening of several small beaching areas along the river, is proposed.

O1Sjectveso
The primary objective of -this 'project is to rehabilitate -the Nantahala River
Launch Site, Pattori's*', Ruri Overlook;-- •'Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area and The
'Nantahala River -Takeout --Site': 'to'provide a 'safe; accessible and '"intograted
recreational experience from launch '.to takeout. Specifically, it should
provide parking, sanitation, and recreational facilities that:
y y, .reduc rig` t""ri' p n and fallin Hazards at.
o tncrease{visitor; safet b pp g=. g
currently undeveloped=rates, providing sanitary drinking and toilet
facilities, "-reducing' pedestrian/vehicle encounters, improving traffic
flows, and providing opportunities for river safety orientation and
practice.
o improve soil and water.quahty by3.harderiing impacted areas, restoring tree
cover {as =feasible, modifying use patterns, eiiminat�rig'Kexis,tin g riverbank
e-i 6sion, siid `providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
o meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classification for the area,
maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial outfitting/guiding operation
and administration, and reasonably meet current and - anticipated
recreational use demand;
o improve visual quality as seen from key viewpoints on the Nantahala-River,
ythe railroad, and Highway 19 by rehabilitating areas of resource damage,
and by incorporating appropriate natural and cultural characteristics into
facilities design.
o provide integrated interpretation aimed at protecting the resource from
inappropriate visitor behavior, giving information about -National Forest
recreational opportunities, and educating visitors about Forest Service
managment in the area.
Issues
t
o'How=would the"prdjddt 'EXfect :fiwat c ual ty7
- .. - � - _ - - _ _.1.:. 1, ­­
o o How would the project affect visual quality?
o How would the project influence recreational demand in the Nantahala River
Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
o How would the project affect the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's)
management of Fontana Lake?
b How would the project affect floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses as
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?
o How would the project affect potential Wild and Scenic River status of the
Nantahala River?
o How would the project affect animal, plant and, aquatic. species identified
as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) for protection
under the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service policy?
o;How would the project affect .Heritage (cultural). resources, .including
Native American concerns?

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
Alternative 1 ...No Action. As. -,considered here, no action means that, no
improvements-to.existing facilities would occur, and no new facilities would be
built.
Alternative 2. �Im lenient y;the..proposed action, as -;described .ori a es 2 andr ;
Mitigating measures for this alternative would include:
o compliance -.with the State of North Carolina's Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment, Disposal Systems and Public Water Systems.
,compliance . with the Tf State;tofNorth Carolina'a Sedimentation`x Pollution
Control -`Act,— including the development of an appropriate Sedimentation
Control Plan where required. r.Nort1f Carolina water quality standards will
be, -!met,.
o atta�riment of requ end �40Wd-4 p�ermit m t Corps abf;,nganeers ,for ,. all
activities , affecting , floodplains, ° j wet 'an s n and .: streaincourses Ail
t facilities 'will be _designed so that::~;'floodplain hydraulics -.will "hot be
¢hanged, 3 flood ;peaks .r.�will� .;not .; be,eleyated; ,and ,.; riverflow ,will, anot be
res trieted . _. ... - . .. - .
o coordination with TVA* on all activities below the 1710' contour level.
o completion E of � Heritage - resource ;.Surveys,. of;_ the.:: project===area, - _with
mplemenaton�ofneededmtigations ands fconeurrance by he _State,, of North
F
arohna 3H storicr:P eseryation ;Officer (SHP0 .
o meeting the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) of the area.
o,meeting the standards and guidelines for MAs 12 and 18 As- found in the
��LRMP °=-==Also;'-°'all'-'99 mitigating.- meanu 4',,','!found in the ._Record`;ofx Recision for
;the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the
17,
ppalachian,`Mountains,� and=incorporated Jn-_the :LRMP by: Amendment...#2.:in- July
989, would be applied as needed.

S Y,
IV.'' ENVIRONMENTAL' EFFECTS AND ANALYSIS
This section forms the= scientific -and';analytic basis for thed"-dlternative =
comparison. The environmental 1mpacts'i­ .or =effects; described here ` h6iddd'',both
beneficial and detrimental effects. Environmental impacts include appropriate
ecological, aesthetic, historical.— cultural, economic, social and human health
related effects which directly, indirectly or cumulatively result from- the
project. Enviromental effects are presented using the objectives and issues
listed in Section I. These effects are analyzed using references from various
liturature and reports which are incorporated as an integral -part of this
environmental assessment. They are listed -in the References Cited Section.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES
OBJECTIVE: dncrease. visitor safety; by reducing ;:tripping' andr falling. hazards
currently:-undeveloped 'sites,' providing sanitary drinking and
toilet facilities, reducing pedestrian/vehicle encounters,
improving `traffic flows, and providing opportunities. for river
safety orientation and practice.
ISSUE: How would the project influence recreational demand in the
.Nantahala River Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
Current Situation
The project area -is located in Swain County, North Carolina near the heart of
the Great Smoky -Mountains. The surrounding landscape is the steep and scenic
forested slopes of the Nantahala and Snowbird Mountains. Climatic conditions
during the recreation season are very mild for the Southeast, attracting a
large number of'out-of -state visitors. The river is fairly wide,`*ith.. moderate
.gradients that are suitable for yearround floating. There are no rapids
classified more difficult than Class III, yet few rivers present as much
technical water as the Nantahala. Development within the gorge on private land
continues to increase.
Recreational use, of the river has increased dramatically over the last 10
years. In. 1984, 83,620 visitors, floated the river; in 1993 that use was
261,800 and increasing at about 10%. a year (Nicholson 1993)• If trends
continue, then use could exceed 500,000 by the year 2000. This does not
include increases due to special events such as the 1996 Olympic Whitewater
competitions scheduled on the Ocoee River. The Nantahala River is one of the
most heavily used recreational rivers in the world.
It should be noted that use increases began in the early eighties; before 1983,
the Forest Service did not regulate commercial rafting. These increases were
due to an increase in popularity of whitewater rafting, not because of the
construction of Forest Service facilities at the Launch Site and Ferebee in the
mid- to late seventies (McWilliams 1983). It should also be noted that these
facilities were designed for use levels less than those in 1984. Since that
time, use has increased over 300% (Nicholson 1993)•

'
Facilities at the. Launch Site -.are limited due to..space restrictions created by
private land, the river, 'wetlands, and Highway 19. They include parking for 80
cars and 2 large vehicles, a change house, launching pool, and a 4 unit vault
toilet. Silt and rocks from-Rowlin Creek periodically fill the mouth of.the
launching pool,, requiring dredging (Burns 1993)-
During high use periods, boaters are often prevented from launching in a timely
manner due to overcrowding.' Since the pool was not constructed to accommodate
the use it currently receives, boaters frequently use the banks of the river
and the pool to launch. This bypasses the paved ramp leading to the pool, and
creates erosion -and safety hazards in terms ofinadequate footing by users
creating an_.unofficial trail -without proper location and construction. Because
the pool fills up with gravel, there are times when the pool cannot function as
a practice/orientation area for users to become familiar with their craft and
with paddling skills, before entering the river just.above Patton's Run. As a
result, many inexperienced boaters capsize in Patton's Run. Limited parking
causes extreme traffic congestion, and forces Forest Service personnel to
devote an inordinate amount of time directing traffic. No drinking water is
available.
At Patton's Run, there is no developed launch/takeout area, creating a safety
hazard similar to the one at the Launch Site. The trail to -the river from the
parking area was created by users; it is not hardened, has no surfacing, and is
fairly steep. All these factors create hazardous walking conditions,
especially when carrying watercraft. No facilities currently exist that would
allow quick rescue of boaters that had capsized in Patton's Run.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Site, facilities include parking for 25 cars and 3
buses, 6 picnic sites, a small launch/takeout deck, a memorial monument, and a
2 unit 'vault toilet. The picnic facilities are popular with boaters and
passing motorists alike;. many sit on the grassy area as weather permits. It is
common for dozens of boaters to attempt to use the deck at the same time.
These overcrowded conditions invite boaters to bypass the deck and use the
nearby riverbank, creating an unofficial deck and a safety hazard. Limited
parking creates traffic congestion similar to that at the Launch Site. No
drinking water is available.
The situation at the Nantahala River Takeout site is_�-very,hazardous. The
existing developed facilities are a temporary walkway at Nantahala Falls, and
seperate commercial and public takeout sites with minimal parking. �s_boaters
approach- ,aNantahala .Falls:; -they :usually : land cat =,..the ':undeveloped beaching -area
and.:. scout: ��tlie"�-Falls. After running the Falls, many boaters, especially
kayakers, use both riverbanks to portage back above the Falls and run the
rapids repeatedly. The remaining users land their craft at the public takeout
about 100 yards downstream at Silvermine Creek, or at the Nantahala Outdoor
Center takeout on private land. Drinking water and restroom facilities are
available at nearby private businesses.
On a heavy use day, over 7000 people use these takeout facilities during a ten
hour period. In addition, thousands of spectators enjoy watching and
photographing the floaters from the banks next to Highway. 19 at Nantahala
Falls. Even though the emergency walkway is five feet wide, spectators crowd
the walkway, and many continue to sit on the rocks on the riverbank to watch
boaters at the Falls, as they traditionally have. These rocks present a safety
hazard due to the slippery and uneven walking surfaces, yet are used because of
overcrowding and traditional use patterns (Browning 1992).

i � yt sy.�.'r.� .,.., {J ^CYO!'S•�.X e-rx K _. M,FS,,yal,:��.-
Q'Ylceout; } ecka the beac"hz�n 'aredy. woulii reduce ,�tri�p,7il, sri 2ng
hazards,-s would ahe surfaced trail: up to the walkway. The seating area''.wou d
xeduce •.tripping : and --falling-:hazards-, as safe places to sit would _be .provided.
-:The -takeout,. deck. at the --expanded, -commercial -takeout • would give -',,the-­,greatest
reduction;.of tripping and falling hazards of any of the proposed Improvements,
since the largest group of river users takeout .there (Nicholson 1993)•
While use is projected to increase, at least for the near future, such increase
is not dependent on available facilities in the area, but is caused by an
increase in demand for the resource itself; that is, a safe, high -quality
family -oriented whitewater experience. Cumulatively, use will increase at the
developed sites'; on the river itself and on Highway 19, with or without new
facilities. By using the opportunity presented to improve public facilities in
the area, resource damage would be prevented, and -a quality recreational
experience would be maintained and enhanced.
OBJECTIVE: Improve soil and water quality by hardening impacted areas,
modifying use patterns, eliminating existing riverbank erosion,
-and providing safe -sewage treatment and disposal.
Current Situation
Soils in the project area are one of two types. Areas next to the river are
Rosman or Reddies fine sandy loams, and are subject to flooding. Upslope from
these areas are Spivey-Santeelah soils, with a higher clay content and slope.
None of these soils are classified as wetlands.
At. the Launch Site, erosion occurs primarily on the banks of Rowlin Creek and
at the edges of the launch pool itself. Also, a considerable sediment load is
washed into the creek periodically by erosion on private lands upstream from
the Launch Site. The upstream erosion is primarily the result of poor road
construction and placement. As currently configured, the launch -pool acts as
sediment trap for this erosion.
Erosion around the launch pool occurs on high use days, when over 2000 people
launch there in a 10 hour period. Putin activity is not dispersed, but tends
to be concentrated in 15 minute intervals, resulting in overcrowded conditions
and increased foot traffic around the steep banks of the pool. This traffic
tramples bank vegetation and causes soil compaction, which increases erosion.
At Patton's Run Overlook, erosion occurs on the riverbank where rafts and
canoes that have shipped water 'in running Patton's Run, beach to bail out their
craft. Heavy use of this unsurfaced area has resulted in loss of trees, loss
of understory vegetation, severe compaction and erosion directly into Nantahala
River. Some limited launching takes place here by people who do not wish to
navigate Patton's Run. This has created a unsurfaced steep trail from the
parking area to the riverbank, with increased erosion.
At Ferebee, erosion occurs around the takeout deck on the riverbank. The deck
itself is adequately preventing erosion; however, it was built for use levels
lower than the heavy use it receives now. Use patterns are similar to those at
the Launch Site, with concentrated periods of heavy use. As a result, boaters
takeout and launch on riverbanks around the deck, creating severe compaction
and erosion directly into the river.

- c � :Y i-� ..a: S+ ��,��k-`"..�"{ 3SFa SY� �'� y • � � f � [ . _
r.
Over time, :foot -..traffic` :had` eroded• - the bank, -.,with the - highway guardrail
suspended in � `placesy, '='and 'pavement'" breaking off -the edge of the roadway.
Pedestrians, had no ' level�­-placeto walk, -except the, roadway, creating an
.extremely' hazardous --vehicle/pedestrian traffic. conflict. This situation was
partially relieved by an emergency Forest Service project in 1992 which created
a temporary walkway and viewing platform adjacent to the Falls. However, the
present guardrail is inadequate in separating foot and vehicle traffic along
Highway 19.
`=Sigiiificarit tripping, and fall nghazardsa�still=exist bn' the undeveloped parts
of the commercial takeout, -the takeout at Sivermine Creek, and tfo'Qbeaching
areat•�t-db6ve '��the9. �F_ a11s . Also, the inadequate parking in the area `creates
potential hazards as" motorists illegally park on the'.shoulder of Highway 19.
Motorists have no legal place to park except on private property downstream
from the Falls. This condition is worse on high use days, as both boaters and
spectators compete for limited parking opportunities.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1 Tf no�act o i' � oaken `a1�l bf £h_exhaz&dous-situations, created
by overcrowding of developed sites­that'causes users to use --undeveloped areas,
would still._,exist. The unsanitary conditions caused by the inadequate toilet
facilities "would continue. River-,�,users.-could 'risk 'injury during launch and
Vthkeout�-at all four -locations,- if they choose not to use developed facilities;
�iis risk svoul`d � lie, . ci°ncrease 3' r�uring �.periods-',kr4,bf - eh: gh� :- use��7 Potential
vehicle/pedestrian encounters could occur at the Takeout site,*
and traffic
congestion would continue at all sites during periods of high use.
Opportunities to practice prior to entering the river would continue to be
limited. No drinking water would be available at the Launch Site or Ferebee.
Alternative 2- As launch and takeout facilities are redesigned and expanded,
traffic flow in these areas would improve, and users would be less likely to
use adjacent undeveloped areas due to overcrowding. The addition of the new
commercial launch facility would remove all commercial use from the existing
launch site, reducing use pressure. Due to limited space, the parking at the
Launch Site cannot be increased; however, the exclusion of commercial traffic
from this site would further- reduce congestion. As the launching pool is
redesigned and the banks of Rowlin Creek stabilized, accumulation of upstream
sediment would be reduced, creating more opportunities to practice before
entering Patton's Run.
The new commercial facility would be significantly safer than the site on NP&L
property, in terms of unsurfaced areas that present falling and tripping
hazards. The new launch pool would create opportunities for all commercial
rafters to practice; this would be a substantial improvement over the situation
at the existing site.
At Patton's Run, the expanded launch/takeout deck would reduce tripping and
falling hazards, as would the reconstruction and surfacing of the trail to the
river. Also, the trail and deck would facilitate rescue efforts when needed.
At Ferebee, the expanded launch/takeout deck would be safer and would improve
river user traffic flow. Surfaced trails to picnic sites will also reduce
these hazards. Expanded parking would reduce vehicle traffic congestion.
At the Takeout Site, increased parking would greatly reduce potential
vehicle/pedestrian encounters.

�cbN !`ice Wdte_dM
: h iea. , t���ed rent* ;ono ec; y .tn_t e r %er`. .Browning 1992.
.Also; the trail - up -:to ,;the.:walkway, i's,n not surfaced and is , experiencing heavy
erosion.sshave,become;larger�s,?usefhas�incr,:ased,andasoat�ers
5 �evts y- c ,r. 4
For.:,.the- •most, L
s_.. P g. Y
use ore Hof ;he ;ver`bank., art -tie emer enc wa Akwa
constructed in�1992'has -reduced erosion in the Falls area to acceptable levels.
Much of the commercial takeout is experiencing loss of vegetation, severe'
compaction and resultant erosion directly into the river. About 100 feet of
the upper end of. the takeout has been reconstructed, to prevent the riverbank'
from eroding completely- away. However, .the parking area, which is surfaced
with gravel, experiences erosion and loss of surfacing as traffic increases
annually (Browning 1992).
The vault and chemical toilets at the Launch Site and Ferebee represent
outdated and obsolete toilet designs that are too.small to handle the periods
of heavy use receive. Due the bad odor and overcrowding of these facilities,
visitiors often use the surrounding area as facilities, creating an unsanitary
condition.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1-(If :f;no. ",aotons;;rare .taken ; to;F:harden impacted; :areas and surface
trails, erosion:i-.w.ould� cont niie sunabated. The -streambanks of Rowlin Creek would
be at risk -Of "significant sloughing during. periods of heavy rain, and would
require emergency action to repair. Sediment -would continue.to accumulate in
the launch pool, requiring annual removal. If the pool is not redesigned, it
would remain too small to accomodate periods of heavy use, and damage to the
sourrounding banks would continue. Similar impacts would result at Patton's
Run, Ferebee and the Takeout Site.
If the present toilet facilities are not improved, odor problems, overcrowding
and use of the ground in the area would continue, creating unsanitary
conditions.
Alternative 2- 4MDimpacted; areas are surfaced::ihbLrdened,. and=.reconstructed"so-as
to'.':draim ,properly,;: ' eroson_iwould:>_decrease.. . As : the banks of Rowlin Creek are
stabilized,='the risk of sloughing would also decrease. The existing launch
pool would be redesigned to reduce sediment accumulation and �the„ need for
dredging (Burns 1993)• j`As launch anditakeout sites ':are expanded, :and traffic
%!Fines :into ands, away, from -.these _ sites ,zarej, rgrauted and surfaced, traffic flow
would become: more,.i fficienf, resulting in` less pressure o use the adjacentr
natural:, riverbanks .for',' launch and takeout: As=' theses banks are - revegetated,,:
eerosion ,:would decrease__"(Browning > 1992) Any potential" runotC"� reases _would
_'- riot be significant and; would, -not create &,cumulative -impact.,, (Burns 1993)
All ground -disturbing activities would follow the direction of the State of
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the preparation
of a sedimentation control plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
measures, such as the installation of silt fences prior to ground .disturbance.
These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from entering the
river. If, during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted. Cumulatively, the rehabilitation of
eroding areas, and the use of approporiate sedimentation control measures,
should reduce impacts to water quality in the Gorge area.

All ground-disturbing---'activities=•would follow the direction of the State of
North Carolina's`Sedimentation-Pollution .Control Act; including, the preparation
..,of -a -sedimentation control -,plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
-'measures.; such as the installation -prior to ground disturbance .of silt fences.
'These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from entering -the
river. If; during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
`< adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted. -
As erosion is reduced by reconstruction and rehabilitation, cumulative sediment
loads into Fontana Lake from National Forest recreational activities would
decrease.
ISSUE: How would the project affect floodplains, wetlands and
streamcourses as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
COE)?
Current Situation
Some of the project area that contains the developed sites -at the Launch Site,
Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee and the Takeout Site, includes floodplains and
-the riverbed of the Nantahala River. The Launch Site was constructed in what
was then classified as a wetland by the-COE,.and was constructed with COE input
and approval. All these riparian areas are currently being impacted by heavy
recreational use that is exceeding the capacity of the facilities built to
accomodate it. Riverbanks below the high water mark, and therefore considered
part of the streamcourse, are being denuded of vegetation, compacted and are
eroding into the river. Large sections of the riverbank have been completely
washed away at Patton's Run Overlook, the beaching area and the commercial
takeout. There is currently no use of the floodplain across the Launch Site.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- As overcrowded launch and takeout facilities continue to
receive use, denuded and compacted areas of the riverbank would continue to be
lost to erosion. Significant amounts of sediment would enter the river from
these areas. No use would be located on the floodplain across the river from
the Launch Site.
Alternative 2- As impacted areas are rehabilitated on riverbanks, these banks
would no longer be in danger of washing away. Since it would be necessary to
construct parts of this rehabilitation below the high water mark, COE permits
would be applied for, and their input into design would be followed. Such
input should ensure that none of the proposed reconstruction and construction
would cumulatively affect the flow, flooding potential or hydraulic action of
the river.
The new commercial launch facility would be constructed entirely on the
floodplain of the river. This facility would be designed as a day -use -only
site, capable of withstanding the periodic flooding that this area receives,
and would be designed so that it would not change floodplain hydraulic
function, restrict riverflow, or raise flood peaks (Burns 1993).

ISSUE: How would '-the project' affect potential Wild and Scenic River
ahe: VantahaTa. River?
Current Situation
The lower Nantahala River is proposed for study in 1995 to determine its
eligibility.: -for .Wild '.and Scenic ---River designation. The only- potential
classification would be Recreational, category: Interim management'of the river
is directed at, -precluding .activities that could foreclose on potential
classification, and at protecting the remarkably outstanding scenic and
recreational values present on the river. Construction of facilities for
intensive recreational use is allowed, as long as the identified values are
protected (LRMP.).
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, there would be no effect on the status
of the river for potential Wild and Scenic River classification.
Alternative 2- Rehabilitation of existing 'facilities would not affect the
status of the river. Since new facilities would be. constructed to the
appropriate setting and level of modification for the ROS•classification, and
since reconstructed and constructed facilities would generally improve visual
quality in the Corridor, these activites would not have a cumulative effect on
the remarkably outstanding scenic and recreational values which qualify the
river for potential Wild and Scenic River status. Since the river is currently
spanned by several bridges -of varying designs and capacities, the addition of a
new bridge would not affect the visual characteristics of the area as a whole.
None of the proposed activities would result in any change in the free -flowing
characteristics of the river.
ISSUE: How would the project affect animal, plant and aquatic species
that have been identified as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or
Sensitive (PETS) for protection under the Endangered Species Act
and Forest Service policy?
Current Situation
PETS species considered in this analysis are those included in the National
Forests in -North Carolina PETS species list. Aquatic, plant and animal species
were considered. Analysis documentation is contained in the Aquatic Resource
Analysis (Riley 1992), the Botanical Resource Analysis (Kauffman 1992) and the
Wildlife Resource Analysis (Miller 1992), all of will be part of the Biological
Evaluation for this project.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- Neither of the alternatives in this assessment is likely
to adversely affect any PETS species. Since all of the proposed reconstruction
in riparian areas, is on sites already heavily impacted by recreational use,
and since the proposed new facility uses only a small portion of the total
riparian habitat available, Alternative 2 would cause no cumulative impacts to
the riparian areas in the area as a whole (Kauffman 1994). A Biological
Evaluation is under preparation by Doreen Miller, Wildlife Biologist, and will
be completed once a decision on this project is made.
lS c.ar►yo.Q,r,�l . �� f -fh,a� f�- �- � sr ' � 8pc1 £va,yv�,
-i'r�'fl►co �.t-a�� .

r+
i
M
ISSUE: How would the .,project ,affect .Heritage (cultural) resources,
t including Native American concerns?
Current Situation
Jn 1992, Forest Service Dave Dyson surveyed all -potentially disturbed areas for
-all proposed activites. The Heritage Resource -Survey is on file (confidential)'
-at the Supervisor's Office, NFsNC, in Asheville, NC. (Snedeker and Dyson 1992)•
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- None —of the proposed activities would have an adverse
impact on cultural resources.
,_ ..� 0 �� ASH �o) �✓�,k. Cd�-o-�.-�, -

' f 6zisf'tng �horaJ�ns.- Swain. Cow' � NG
Orr�i►+al s hoaL lc�,
Locatf;x
T'ke. 041
Ca rrent
h Ih ooter
1 �
Q�
-fl 3 x 3 50'
timber Wa11 -IN
2'x 350"
'� {'irMi►tr t,Jai�
1
irae.Je1 J
1
I
To Wezcce.r, NG
0.25 miles
ir�ewell
USPS BEACHING AREA REHABILITATION PROJECT - NANTAHALA RIVER
Scale: 1/8 inch = 5 feet
0 15 30 45 60
TN t2fg4

Current
h;9hwa%r
o Ibn.
Tian ber
\ dtadir+an
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - BEACHING AREA REHABILITATION PROJECT
Timber wall
3 `x 3501
Gtar� rrvavGl `Fill
Scale: 1 2 Fee
0 z 4-
Ti i» r dead man
Re-bar
Timber Wall
2 1 x 3s0'
NANTA14ALA
RIMER
JN r ?-/R4-

' _ `fix•: '�' �f•� Y.^Y - ..r^f: �� -;'` �fZ9 \ l i�it � w � � -✓� ' t ,-.� � � • `. \ � 7
- ��_ .w �`y�.. �"' � ; - _ �' • ram! `+' _^�_ %�'t.�T'` -�'t` � ' r7�J.r
fin.-„"'- .�R; ,- , _ _ - � • �- "` �+.,• , , _• c` ` �/"% .
y -r ,� ��'^��i�,�'f^ •'tom :•y _. .. ' z_ .: u• � -. $�:y�y� �' ,yl�,� �`�' ��r'r
�, _ ��ft % AL 'ya � s a ✓ ` -+ r ` 1�%' H fu�X w ��v J � r. , ••
\ + ~� , x�, ,�`�'� % .r�-` �J .ter �` +�a yvJ ,e^'�' �f {' y •� _ / - Z.,p
• i+ � �'a � ° .s: •, id^:rs�' 1. a4�. 1;;�" " 4 -el' ,.�' wA
r•" y �I � `J
W �t
'' � [-.,%_ •. `�`. it ;,y� - ��'y.. - -
f ...��,.��.3',,1.��x y� s: '+;,� �.•a `� �..y. �:= '' � ��r�-(��' ` �wtz ,l`� ��;t,,w�' f,''+ �y �� fig`
.,. � r `-�,�T__ 4n l� W.�w .� y ' � �,Ltn � �.' j � h/�� d i_ ..v��" y _ - i[, ifi• 1: �'*`41� � � -
•w M, DOW-, ,:. kG'"'.

n -
DEM ID( �� �' ACTION ID: -
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 13 Lo�qA���
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers_-
Nationwide permits that require application for 'Section 401 Certification
WILMIGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF -THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]•
WATER QUALITY PLANNING DIVISION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MAMAGEMENTF11j
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
im - 3 i995
1. Owners Name: USDA Forest Service, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest
2. Owners Address: 8 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): None
(Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Joe Nicholson, Recreation Specialist
USDA Forest Service, 8 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 [phone]
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Swain
Nearest Town or City: Wesser, NC
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Site is part of Forest Service Takeout
facility, located 0.25 miles SW of Wesser, between US Hwy. 19/74 and the Nantahala River.
Site is entirely on National Forest lands.
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Nantahala River- Class B Trout and Outstanding Resource Waters'
7. River Basin: Nantahala River
8. Is project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WSI or WSII? YES [X] NO [ ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for this property? YES [ ] NO [X]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
0.12 acres - 350 running feet in length and averaging 15 feet in width (to original shoreline).
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.12 ac. Fill averages 0.55 cy Per running foot - total of 195 cubic yards.
Drained: None.
Flooded: None.
Excavated: None.
Total Impacted: 0.12 acres.
II- � -�
11 N r- -- - - - -
lA1LT=l: !lUai i"iV CFC
a
i

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): 1) Construct 3' x 350'
timber retaining wall at high water mark. 2) Reclaim 15'x350' section of eroded shoreline with
2' x 350' timber retaining wall and clean gravel fill.
13. Purpose of proposed work: To provide adequate and safe takeout location for approx. 250,000
boaters annually on Nantahala River; also to stop existing streambank erosion and shoreline loss.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands.
A1so,W;�no,tenmaeasgr,es taken to minimize wetlands impacts. Only suitable location for takeout to scout
last runnable rapid (Clas.s III+) on river. For mitigation measures see below.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the presence of any Federally listed or proposed endangered or
for listing endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that may be affected by the
proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regmarding the
presence of historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed
Project. Have you done so? YES [X] NO [ ]
17. Additional information reguired by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes -on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the
placement of the delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is the use of the surrounding property? National Forest land- public recreational use.
F. If applicable, what is the proposed method of sewage disposal? Not applicable.
CIS�A veca, / Z3 94-
ner's Signature Da e
NANTAHALA RIVER BEACHING AREA PROJECT MITIGATION
The following measures are incorporated into this project as mitigation against impacts to wetlands
and fisheries habitat:
1) The project will be accomplished as much as possible during periods of power generation
shutdown, so that river levels are well below construction. No disturbed areas will be left exposed
if power generation occurs and raises river levels. This will reduce or eliminate sedimentation
into the Nantahala River as a result of construction.
2) To prevent undercutting of the retaining walls, a first course of sackcrete will be used. This
method also prevents leaching of concrete components such as lime into the streamcourse.
3) To provide shade for both river users and the stream, several trees will be planted in treewells
at the water's edge..
4) Timbers will be treated with CCA preservative to prevent rot and decay. This treatment is the
only one approved by the Forest Service for human and aquatic contact.

Sekcsied pc7to
F� ^f�s..' V_tra4.Y!+�. -od ATS�ntS-haa.►�- �ev 4)V / A %
f . ease n 144t te-
.s,. .••aa_-*-m rm�,-'.\,,,, f;tS.:,,;- .. i3-z .(O�/):7ar'u"-i--^i
I . P[JRPOSE !!ND 'NEED =FOR ;THE PROPOSED`_PRUJECT r
The Nantahala River Corridor Recreation Area consists of a series of closely
related recreation sites located in a eight and one-half mile corridor along US
Highway 19 and the Nantahala River. These sites are all day -use areas that
primarily serve whitewater boaters, spectators, fishing enthusiasts and
picnickers. Four primary sites. serve the public needs in the corridor: the
Nantahala River Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee Memorial Picnic.
Area, and the Nantahala River Takeout Site. Several single table picnic
pulloffs are located along Highway 19; these are owned and maintained by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. On heavy use days, up to 7000
people float the river in a ten hour period (Nicholson 1993)• Thousands more
observe the floaters from various points along the highway.
The size of the project, and increasing recreational use of the area, create a
need to view the Nantahala Gorge as a recreational complex. for planning
purposes. The Forest Service proposes to improve facilities at four primary
locations along the Nantahala River in Macon and Swain Counties, North
Carolina. Tentative funding has been allocated for the reconstruction of
toilet facilities at the Launch Site. The rest of the project is unfunded at
this time.
PROPOSED ACTION BEING CONSIDERED
At the Nantahala River Launch Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing vault toilets with new flush toilet/changing room
facilities and provide public drinking water, in partnership with Nantahala
Power and Light Company (NP&L);
o redesign the launch pool area to reduce existing erosion, site
deterioration and accumulation of upstream sediment, while dispersing use
to acheive a more desirable launch flow;
o stabilize the banks of Rowlin Creek;
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck; and
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 south of the
Launch Site.
Across the Nantahala River from the current launch site, on National Forest
land, the following improvements are proposed:
o construct a commercial raft launching facility, including unloading areas,
pumping stations, rafting instruction areas, and launch pools;
o construct a new toilet/changing room facility; and
o construct a bridge to access the area from State Road 1310, in partnership
with NP&L and the State of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC
DOT).
W

At Patton's Run Overlook, the following improvements are proposed:
o pave the existing parking area;
o reconstruct the' trail from one end of the parking area' down to the
Nantahala River and back, with a takeout deck similar to Ferebee; and
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck next to the parking area.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the .existing chemical toilets with flush toilet facilities, and
provide public drinking water;
o expand the existing launch/takeout deck and add a new deck;
o provide additional picnic sites, with 25% of all sites being fully
accessible and having a hardened trail system; and
o redesign and expand the existing parking area.
At the Nantahala River Takeout Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o expand and pave the existing commercial takeout to the National Forest
boundary, with a takeout deck similar to the one at Ferebee;
o construct an accessible eleven to fourteen feet wide walkway with turnouts
and steps down to the River from the commercial takeout to the beaching
area above 'Nantahala Falls, with appropriate pedestrian barriers along
Highway 19;
o construct a fully -accessible observation area, a natural stone and wood
seating area, and a small platform area for commercial photographers, all
located to view the Falls;
o stabilize -the riverbank and provide a base for the walkway, by constructing
a natural rock wall along the riverbank at the Falls;
o develop a paved parking area above the beaching area, reduce the curve of
Highway 19, and provide a turning lane, in partnership with NC DOT;
o reconstruct the trail from the beaching area to the Nantahala Falls
walkway, and larden the beaching area with a takeout deck;
o reconstruct the existing takeout at'Silvermine Creek by paving the parking
area and takeout ramp, and constructing a takeout deck;
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 just north of
the Takeout Site; and
o complete an integrated Interpretive Plan for the Nantahala River Corridor,
and provide interpretive displays at all four developed sites, as well as
at the railroad switching area at Hewitt.
In addition, the rehabilitation of the pulloff picnic sites along Highway 19,
and the hardening of several small beaching areas along the river, is proposed.

�Ob j ectives. y;,,
The primary objective of this project is to rehabilitate the Nantahala River
Launch Site, Patton's.-Run Overlook, Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area and The
Nantahala River Takeout Site' to provide a safe, accessible and integrated
recreational experience from launch to takeout. Specifically, it should
provide parking, sanitation, and recreational facilities that:
o increby-c reducingv tripping r�aiid fabling --)`&iiardso .Xat
currently undeveloped sites, providing sanitary drinking and Mto let
facilities; "reducing 'pedestrian/vehicle encounters, improving traffic.
flows, and providing opportunities for river safety orientation and
practice.
o improve soil and water quality by --hardening impacted areas, restoring tree
cover gas feasible, modifying' use patterns, ehm_ nating" existin_ g`tr verbank
erosion, "and providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
o meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classification for the area,
maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial outfitting/guiding operation
and administration, and reasonably meet current and - anticipated
recreational use demand;
o improve visual quality as seen from key viewpoints on the Nantahala-River,
the railroad, and Highway 19 by rehabilitating areas of resource damage,
and. by incorporating appropriate natural and cultural characteristics into
facilities design.
o provide integrated interpretation aimed at protecting the resource from
inappropriate visitor behavior, giving information about National Forest
recreational opportunities, and educating visitors about Forest Service
managment in the area.
Issues
rWuld the" projects affect awater •`quality?
o How would the project affect visual quality?
o How would the project influence recreational demand in the Nantahala River
Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
o How would the project affect the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's)
management of Fontana Lake?
o How would the project ,affect floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses as
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?
o How would the project affect potential Wild and Scenic River status of the
Nantahala River?
o How would the project affect animal, plant and aquatic species identified
�-:"as­Proposed,'Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) for protection
:,under"the'Endangered'Species Act and Forest Service policy?
ovHow, would .the project affect Heritage (cultural) resources, including
Native American concerns?
3

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
Alternative 1: No Action. As considered here, no action means that no
improvements to existing facilities would occur, and no new facilities would be
built.
A-1,kqrqative-2Implement.,,,the-proposed..,,4ction,!I. as- v-_ - on. _%_pages _ -and ,3-
Mitigating measures for this alternative would include:
o compliance with the State of North Carolina's Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment, Disposal Systems and Public Water Systems.
compliance xwith jthe ate; -St -)gqpth:..-Car6lina-', Sed me tation*,-..-Pollutibn
dontrol Act,' including. the development of an appropriate Sedimentation
Control Plan where required. ,!North Carolina water quality standards will
be:
met.
o iattainments,Ul its -perm - -froin-.;­,the,­d6rps.of VEngineers for all
;.�
ct vit e ins,-`;-we­fldfid9.an r`
CRses'. �.-All
,,,,facilities Will e.-- esi _e �so that.. flo'odplaift hydraulics will —not be
6hangpd.,-_,,.-1_flood r)eaks,'r,,Wil1,!,-jnot-%,, be,,,jelevat_d_j -%and. rivei�fio .,e W wi-111!,
restricted._not be
o coordination with TVAonall activities below the 1710' contour level.
0 Heritzge i resource (;surveys_,, of the., -,-pi7oject-_:: area, _--_with
-AeeOedcpitigation- and m4currande.'by the --,St .of North
�,c
.7
Parpli na:-; Historic.-, Pr servatiowj�Qff 8ei�-.,�(.§HPO
o meeting the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) of the area.-
0`meeting the standards and guidelines., -for _,MAs 12 and 18--as...round in the
7.LRMP-.`--Also, all 99 mitigating,., und in the, -.Record_-6f.,.jD
_measures.J'6-
_pcision'for
the Final Environmental fmipa­ft Sia't`ede`n_t for Vegetation Management in the
P palachian Mountains, and -..inc6rporatedvin,,, the:,; LRMP _,by,,=AmendmeAt...#2_,in:, July
.989, would be applied'as-neede'd.
E, I

IV. 'ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND ANALYSIS
This section forms 'the scientific' and analytic basis for the alternative -
comparison. The environmental -impacts, or effects, described here include both
beneficial and detrimental effects. Environmental impacts include appropriate
ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social and human health
related effects which directly, indirectly or cumulatively result from the
project. Enviromental effects are presented using the objectives and issues
listed in Section I. These effects are analyzed using references from various
liturature and reports which are incorporated as an integral -part of this
environmental assessment. They are listed in the References Cited Section.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES
OBJECTIVE: Flncrease.:visitor -,safety :..by reducing-tripping::and°.'falling hazards
at `current ly`'undeveloped sites,`providing sanitary, drinking and
toilet facilities, reducing pedestrian/vehicle encounters,
improving'traffic flows, and providing opportunities for river
safety orientation and practice.
ISSUE: How would the project influence recreational demand in the
Nantahala River Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
Current Situation
The project area is located in Swain County, North Carolina near the heart of
the Great Smoky -Mountains. - The -surrounding landscape is the steep and scenic -
forested slopes of the Nantahala and Snowbird Mountains. Climatic conditions
during the recreation season are very mild for the Southeast, (attracting a
large number of out-of-state visitors. The river is fairly wide, with moderate
gradients that are suitable for yearround floating. There ar'e no rapids
classified more difficult than Class III, yet few rivers present 'as much
technical water as the Nantahala. Development within the gorge on private land
continues to increase.
Recreational use of the river has increased dramatically over the last 10
years. In 1984, 83,620 visitors. floated the river; in 1993 that use was
261,800 and increasing at about 10% a year (Nicholson 1993)• If trends
continue, then use could exceed 500,000 by the year 2000. This does not
include increases due to special events such as the 1996 Olympic Whitewater
competitions scheduled on the Ocoee River. The Nantahala River is one of the
most heavily used recreational rivers in the world.
It should be noted that use increases began in the early eighties; before 1983,
the Forest Service did not regulate commercial rafting. These increases were
due to an increase in popularity of whitewater rafting, not because of the
construction of Forest Service facilities at the Launch Site and Ferebee in -the
mid- to late seventies (McWilliams 1983). It should also be noted that these
facilities were designed for use levels less than those in 1984: Since that
time, use has increased over 300% (Nicholson 1993)•
t

Facilities at the Launch Site are limited due to space restrictions created by
private land, the river, wetlands, and Highway 19. They include parking for 80
cars and 2 large vehicles, a change house, launching pool, and a 4 unit vault
toilet. Silt and rocks from Rowlin Creek periodically fill the mouth of the
launching pool, requiring dredging (Burns 1993)•
During high use periods, boaters are often prevented from launching in a timely
manner due to overcrowding. Since the pool was not constructed to accommodate
the use it currently receives, boaters frequently use the banks of the river
and the pool to launch. This bypasses the paved ramp leading to the pool, and
creates erosion and safety hazards in terms of "inadequate footing by users
creating an unofficial trail -without proper location and construction. Because
the pool fills up with gravel, there are times when the pool cannot function as
a practice/orientation area for users to become familiar with their craft and
with paddling skills, before entering the river just above Patton's Run. As a
result, many inexperienced boaters capsize in Patton's Run. Limited parking
causes extreme traffic congestion, and forces Forest Service personnel to
devote an in amount of time directing traffic. No drinking water is
available.
At Patton's Run, there is no developed launch/takeout area, creating a safety
hazard similar to the one at the Launch Site. The trail to 'the river from the
parking area was created by users; it is not hardened, has no surfacing, and is
fairly steep. All these factors create hazardous walking conditions,
especially when carrying watercraft. No facilities currently exist that would
allow quick rescue of boaters that had capsized in Patton's Run.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Site, facilities include parking for 25 cars and 3
buses, 6 picnic sites, a small launch/takeout deck, a memorial monument, and a
2 unit vault toilet. The picnic facilities are popular with boaters and
passing motorists alike; many sit on the grassy area as weather permits. It is
common for dozens of boaters to attempt to use the deck at the same time.
These overcrowded conditions invite boaters to bypass the deck and use the
nearby riverbank, creating an unofficial deck and a safety hazard. Limited
parking creates traffic congestion similar to that at the Launch Site. No
drinking water is available.
The situation at the Nantahala River Takeout site is•.!..very::: hazardous. The
existing developed facilities are a temporary walkway at Nantahala Falls, and
seperate commercial and public takeout sites with minimal parking. ��s)eboaters
Capproach -.—Nantahala, Falls;., _ they [-usually - land : at :..the —,undeveloped, beaching- area
pnd--scout —the Falls. After running the Falls, many boaters, especially
kayakers, use both riverbanks to portage back above the Falls and run the
rapids repeatedly. The remaining users land their craft at the public takeout
about 100 yards downstream at Silvermine Creek, or at the Nantahala Outdoor
Center takeout on private land. Drinking water and restroom facilities are
available at nearby private businesses.
On a heavy use day, over 7000 people use these takeout facilities during a ten
hour period. In addition, thousands of spectators enjoy watching and
photographing the floaters from the banks next to Highway. 19 at Nantahala
Falls. Even though the emergency walkway is five feet wide, spectators crowd
the walkway, and many continue to sit on the rocks on the riverbank to watch
boaters at the Falls, as they traditionally have. These rocks present a safety
hazard due to the slippery and uneven walking surfaces, yet are used because of
overcrowding and traditional use patterns (Browning 1992).
f

Th takeouts deck; sat 'the beaching area ::;would ;=, reduce tripping ' and v4 falling
_ v.4 S
hazards :as would the ssurfaceiY trail up to the walkway. The seating area would
�reduce'-tri pin and Palling hazards as safe laces to sit would ,be p g g p provided.
The takeout deck at the expanded commercial takeout would give 'the greatest
reduction of tripping and falling hazards of any of the proposed improvements,
since the largest group of river users takeout there (Nicholson 1993)•
While use is projected to increase, at least for the near future, such increase
is not dependent on available facilities in the area, but is caused by an
increase in demand for the resource itself; that is, a safe, high -quality
family -oriented whitewater experience. Cumulatively, use will increase at the
developed sites', on the river itself and on Highway 19, with or without new
facilities. By using the opportunity presented to improve public facilities in
the area, resource damage would be prevented, and a quality recreational
experience would be maintained and enhanced.
OBJECTIVE: Improve soil and water quality by hardening impacted areas,
modifying use patterns, eliminating existing riverbank erosion,
-and providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
Current Situation
Soils in the project area are one of two types. Areas next to the river are
Rosman or Reddies fine sandy loams, and are subject to flooding. Upslope from -
these areas are Spivey-Santeelah soils, with a higher clay content and slope.
None of these soils are classified as wetlands.
At the Launch Site, erosion occurs primarily on the banks of Rowlin Creek and
at the edges of the launch pool itself. Also, a considerable sediment load is
washed into the creek periodically by erosion on private lands upstream from
the Launch Site. The upstream erosion is primarily the result of poor road
construction and placement. As currently configured, the launch pool acts as
sediment trap for this erosion. _
Erosion around the launch pool occurs on high use days, when over 2000 people
launch there in a 10 hour period. Putin activity is not dispersed, but tends
to be concentrated in 15 minute intervals, resulting in overcrowded conditions
and increased foot traffic around the steep banks of the pool. This traffic
tramples bank vegetation and causes soil compaction, which increases erosion.
At Patton's Run Overlook, erosion occurs on the riverbank where rafts and
canoes that have shipped water in running Patton's Run, beach to bail out their
craft. Heavy use of this unsurfaced area has resulted in loss of trees, loss
of understory vegetation, severe compaction and erosion directly into Nantahala
River. Some limited launching takes place here by people who do not wish to
navigate Patton's Run. This has created a unsurfaced steep trail from the
parking area to the riverbank, with increased erosion.
At Ferebee, erosion occurs around the takeout deck on the riverbank. The deck
itself is adequately preventing erosion; however, it was built for use levels
lower than the heavy use it receives now. Use patterns are similar to those at
the Launch Site, with concentrated periods of heavy use. As a result, boaters
takeout and launch on riverbanks around the deck, creating severe compaction
and erosion directly into the river.
ti

Over time, foot traffic had eroded the bank; with the -highway guardrail
suspended in places, and pavement breaking off the edge of the roadway.
Pedestrians had no level place to walk except the roadway, creating an
extremely hazardous vehicle/pedestrian traffic conflict. This situation was
partially relieved by an emergency Forest Service project in 1992 which created
a temporary walkway and viewing platform adjacent to the Falls. However, the
present guardrail is inadequate in separating foot and vehicle traffic along
Highway 19.
V'>Sgiii-ficaiit tripping and faling'�"-hazards�,'sti1T:'exist on the undeveloped parts
of the commercial takeout, the takeout at Sivermine Creek, and�fthe.-beaching
,area -above -= the * =Falls . Also, the inadequate parking in the area creates .
potential hazards"as­motorists illegally park on the shoulder of Highway 19.
Motorists have no legal place to park except on private property downstream
from the Falls. This condition is worse on high use days, as both boaters and
spectators compete for limited parking opportunities.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1 ' If no' action is"taken= all of the*,-hazardous':stuations, created
by overcrowding of developed sites that causes users to use --undeveloped areas,
would still exist. The unsanitary conditions caused by the inadequate toilet
facilities would continue. ' River .users could risk injury during launch and
(-takeout{at all four locations, if they choose not to use developed facilities;
• r _ . .. thi� � ...... �. a .�., r s'"-risk . would' to }increased'• during perriods,>1=of :3hi& use:' Potential
velicTe/pedestrian encounters could occur at the Takeout site, and traffic
congestion would continue at all sites during periods of high use.
Opportunities to practice prior to entering the river would continue to be
limited. No drinking water would be available at the Launch Site or Ferebee.
Alternative 2- As launch and takeout facilities are redesigned and expanded,
traffic flow in these areas would improve, and users would be less likely to
use adjacent undeveloped areas due to overcrowding. The addition of the new
commercial launch facility would remove all commercial use from the existing
launch site, reducing use pressure. Due to limited space, the parking at the
Launch Site cannot be increased; however, the exclusion of commercial traffic
from this site would further reduce congestion. As the launching pool is
redesigned and the banks of Rowlin Creek stabilized, accumulation of upstream
sediment would be reduced, creating more opportunities to practice before
entering Patton's Run.
The new commercial facility would be significantly safer than the site on NP&L
property, in terms of unsurfaced areas that present falling and tripping
hazards. The new launch pool would create opportunities for all commercial
rafters to practice; this would be a substantial improvement over the situation
at the existing site.
At Patton's Run, the expanded launch/takeout deck would reduce tripping and
falling hazards, as would the reconstruction and surfacing of the trail to the
river. Also, the trail and deck would facilitate rescue efforts when needed.
At Ferebee, the expanded launch/takeout deck would be safer and would improve
river user traffic flow. Surfaced trails to picnic sites will also reduce
these hazards. Expanded parking would reduce vehicle traffic congestion.
At the Takeout Site, increased parking would greatly reduce potential
vehicle/pedestrian encounters.

. s-.areatest`at
compacted;'with>ieavy sediment runoff_,3irectly� nto_the_p, r (Browning 1992)
.Also, .the trail .up to ; the walkway is. _ not surfaced and is experiencing heavy
erosion. esejareasJ have become _clargers gsFcuse Thas ;increased, };and' yas boaters ,
other _J - _
fuse rmore {of � f &• riverbank-, For the most ` `part; the -emergency` walkway'
constructed in 1992 has reduced erosion in the Falls area to acceptable levels.
Much of the commercial takeout is experiencing loss of vegetation, severe
compaction and resultant erosion directly into the river. About 100 feet of
the upper end of. the takeout has been reconstructed, to prevent the riverbank
from eroding completely. away. However, the parking area, which is surfaced
with gravel, experiences erosion and loss of surfacing as traffic increases
annually (Browning 1992).
The vault and chemical toilets at the Launch Site and Ferebee represent
outdated and obsolete toilet designs that are too small to handle the periods
of heavy use receive. Due the bad odor and overcrowding of these facilities,
visitiors often use the surrounding area as facilities, creating an unsanitary
condition.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- JIf, no, actions,,: are taken . to.,.harden -impacted: areas and surface
trails,fierosion;;;would;continueLunabated. The streambanks of Rowlin Creek would
be at risk of significant sloughing during periods of heavy rain, and would
require emergency action to repair. Sediment would continue to accumulate in
the launch pool, requiring annual removal. If the pool is not redesigned, it
would remain too small to accomodate periods of heavy use, and damage to the
sourrounding banks would continue. Similar impacts would result at Patton's
Run, Ferebee and the Takeout Site.
If the present toilet facilities are not improved, odor problems, overcrowding
and use of the ground in the area would continue, creating unsanitary
conditions.
Alternative 2-14-j;impacted areas ; are surfaced, :hardened, and reconstructed -so- as
o. ,drain: properly.;; erosion .would decrease.. As the banks of Rowlin Creek are
stabilized;""the risk of sloughing would also decrease. The existing launch
pool would be redesigned to reduce sediment accumulation and.. the_ need -;for
dredging (Burns 1993) . �As launch and stakeout sites .are expanded, ,and --traffic
alanes into � addpaway from these ;sites ,are„ rerouted "d surfaced, traffic _ flow
would becomeImore�effcient, resulting in=less._pressure to use the adjacent
naturah ,rigerbanks vEfor launchand .takeout. As theseF banks are revegetated,.
,
kerosion- .would;• decrease _.(Browning.---1992) A",_Any •potential, runoff...increases.., ilia
riot -be -,significant;and, would -not, create a- cumulative impact .(Burns 1993)
- �-. f.
All ground -disturbing activities would follow the direction of the State of
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the preparation
of a sedimentation control plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
measures, such as the installation of silt fences prior to ground. disturbance.
These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from .entering the
river. If, during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted. Cumulatively, the rehabilitation of
eroding areas, and the use of approporiate sedimentation control measures,
should reduce impacts to water quality in the Gorge area.
q

',"All ground -disturbing activities would follow the direction of the State of
n North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the preparation
of a sedimentation control plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
f:
measures., such as the installation prior to ground disturbance of silt fences.
These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from entering the
river. If, during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted.
As erosion is reduced by reconstruction and rehabilitation, cumulative sediment
loads into Fontana Lake from National Forest recreational activities would
decrease.
T
ISSUE: How would the project affect floodplains, wetlands and
streamcourses as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
COE)?
Current Situation
Some of the project area that contains the developed sites at the Launch Site,
Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee and the Takeout Site, includes floodplains and
the riverbed of the Nantahala River. The Launch Site was constructed in what
was then classified as a wetland by the COE, and was constructed with COE input
and approval. All these riparian areas are currently being impacted by heavy
recreational use that is exceeding the capacity of the facilities built to
accomodate it. Riverbanks below the high water mark, and therefore considered
part of the streamcourse, are being denuded of vegetation, compacted and are
eroding into the river. Large sections of the riverbank have been completely
washed away at Patton's Run Overlook, the beaching area and the commercial
takeout. There is currently no use of the floodplain across the Launch Site.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- As overcrowded launch and takeout facilities continue to
receive use, denuded and compacted areas of the riverbank would continue to be
lost to erosion. Significant amounts of sediment would enter the river from
these areas. No use would be located on the floodplain across the river from
the Launch Site.
Alternative 2- As impacted areas are rehabilitated on riverbanks, these banks
would no longer be in danger of washing away. Since it would be necessary to
construct parts of this rehabilitation below the high water mark, COE permits
would be applied for, and their input into design would be followed. Such
input should ensure that none of the proposed reconstruction and construction
would cumulatively affect the flow, flooding potential or hydraulic action of
the river.
The new commercial launch facility would be constructed entirely on the
floodplain of the river. This facility would be designed as a day -use -only
site, capable of withstanding the periodic flooding that this area receives,
and would be designed so that it would not change floodplain hydraulic
function, restrict riverflow, or raise flood peaks (Burns 1993)•
1n

'ISSUE: How would the project affect potential Wild and Scenic River
status of the Nantahala River?
Current Situation
The lower Nantahala River is proposed for study in 1995 to determine its
eligibility :for Wild and Scenic River designation. The only --potential
classification would be Recreational category. Interim management of the river
is directed at precluding -activities that could foreclose on potential
classification, and at protecting the remarkably outstanding scenic and
recreational values present on the river. Construction of facilities for.,
intensive recreational use is allowed, as long as the identified values are
protected (LRMP). _
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, there would be no effect on the status
of the river for potential Wild and Scenic River classification.
Alternative 2- Rehabilitation of existing -facilities would not affect the
status of the river. Since new facilities would be constructed to the
appropriate setting and level of modification for the R09"classification, and
since reconstructed and constructed facilities would generally improve visual
quality in the Corridor, these activites would not have a cumulative effect on
the remarkably outstanding scenic and recreational values which qualify the
river for potential Wild and Scenic River status. Since the river is currently
spanned by several bridges of varying designs and capacities, the addition of a
new bridge would not affect the visual characteristics of the area as a whole.
None of the proposed activities would result in any change in the free -flowing
characteristics of the river.
i
i ISSUE: How would the project affect animal, plant and aquatic species
that have been identified as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or
Sensitive (PETS) for protection under the Endangered Species Act
and Forest Service policy?
i
y, Current Situation
PETS species considered in this analysis are those included in the National
Forests in *North Carolina PETS species list. Aquatic, plant and animal species
were considered. Analysis documentation is contained in the Aquatic Resource
Analysis (Riley 1992), the Botanical Resource Analysis (Kauffman 1992) and the
Wildlife Resource Analysis (Miller 1992), all of will be part of the Biological
Evaluation for this project. -
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- Neither of the alternatives in this assessment is likely
to adversely affect any PETS species. Since all of the proposed reconstruction
in riparian areas, is on sites already heavily impacted by recreational use,
and since the proposed new facility uses only a small portion of the total
riparian habitat available, Alternative 2 would cause no cumulative impacts to
the riparian areas in the area as a whole (Kauffman 1994). A Biological
Evaluation is under preparation by Doreen Miller, Wildlife Biologist, and will
be completed once a decision on this project is made. A,.:O 'y; -
/S c.or+yD•Qmt�Ce 2'f ���' -fha�" tivt.�-awe-. r+,6- Se�.y�;�'eir.,� tvr,Po�• -Fe P£T.S S�'e.t`,c°

ISSUE: How would .the project affect Heritage (cultural) resources,
including Native American concerns?
r' Current Situation
i In 1992, Forest Service Dave Dyson surveyed all potentially disturbed areas for
all proposed activites. The Heritage Resource -Survey is on file (confidential)
at the Supervisor's Office, NFsNC, in Asheville, NC. (Snedeker and Dyson 1992).
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- None —of the proposed activities would have an adverse
impact on cultural resources.

• Exss-}�hg� Shore.J,nn Swain, Cou.,, INC
• /�MIQfhQI ShDi•(.�(��
\ irec.W4 I
Cu rren*
h,�h,�a�'er
fir-
! cow
x 3 50 ' \ TreeWd I
timber WalI -ct
350•
-� f,mber u�al�
i
1 �
1
I
7'0 („je6ser� NG
0.25 milts
Tr�ewel J
USFS BEACHING AREA REHABILITATION PROJECT - NANTAHALA RIVER
Scale: 1/8 inch = 5 feet
0 15 30 45 60 JN 12�J¢

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - BEACHING AREA REHABILITATION PROJECT
Current
hiyi►water
i o 'L
ber wall
��.. 3,x 350
dead man
`. .
C1ear, frraver( Fill
Scale:
0 2' 4
-fi rnber deadrr.an
Sc•ckCrete.
Rebar
Timber tialI
NANTA14ALA
Rl VFER
TN rZ/q4-

��+�'eww r'v. �' '� ,ys rt S � h �•+4 y1 ; 3 ; -� a v { ,� � 1 j� �
,.`,�
4.+ _ - _: _ �N.—• s'`L ^w^�P%AS .ram=4t%.3r-••.^�... y�ti� e''r'r
. _ _ r -• �y.. � ,/ •5� Jay �'�-23�<-•.
. � ��' r �.. � , c ,. � .dl, �`�i�v y 4,31�^.r•",� '.'-.t��-.�; r t �° o,, is;L 4- � �. � , . �`'�
� .mom i"^ t 4 'i}� i1i �. rJ` fi?r 1•'.. - A�• .. y ...`'r: .f z+' :T�, - " -`r .�.
iyi'd �I i 1- L ?s "i j� w �r t�#y'.. il S!�
`� • 'I 1,A
are. .1 _ - _, — __ '—• �,(a
,irk � _ - �'—^ sz •1<'Yr �i7t•ati
y >i
'x � .�.�� � J • \ .' Y � ,/�f1 - � f � ' J 1. � .
T - l
f1�
Yr' ;: _r{'�"'� . t,^l+ %-�-.11b?fir f �'^�;7� r•' a(.
Kim. A"Im"
r•',� r 2r �M . #M. •,rye G y�` �'"°,r , j'`r � \ ` •.'
r � t_. J� ! bt£ �i/ j�, � � r .t ice' ra. ,;1-�I �� •�
j ^..S `. �`/°Y /�,f L ci a —K�.. ✓"` 1 `
� ..+��t�.'`s�— 1 ,V.r /r 't"' �.' � r 1t y� i w. ��T 7�•�.���'ft� ��s' r a.11�r , I F 4 }r,�
(4 ?i �"`a,7 cic l+ f1 r c 77t 1
�r rrk i i 7 � Lt's?^,lit � —. _ - •. -
a�' LaryJ4pa .i`i
Vr71 .y Y�~ �y]��-• n!' Z��4Vt
1��^,�-IyS�N j �•, '.•J -
'r r �L'v t �x:� �� jJ�,�-!Y -•a �-�.-s c•;'.�„ ,r.`Tr_ -� i,. -
y
- Q, �Kn• ti J.,� rkr,A'r�'+�y,� "+"-g*` : �7a .. '
`._ + � f '�� lit_ � 2-. p✓ _- -- -

'^• t J >. ; ,�, P+` �...s� ; rrr� , . - ,dry
�. '' irk v `-�_>-• ..rY - �? � . -•
+✓' r r� .�� f � � ..•.r 'ti•�� * zj��.`r r t ��-s Via. �..�..-.a c�' -
1 lrr .A r� 11
• j i /I
Pi
13
� r��{ � !-,r! .sue° .tL •��,a.rw� .•+A �- '1Hhih '^"`"Fr.'-nq 'r" � � � 1. _,,d %i\ � ! i YX �r.� •j`• x 9�' � r/, } N..�q `�4! f l r
r
ryj�r �;:-�.r {x �s�.5 v � ,�''N �' ..•f�,li �� �i7�'� -'7n �'�s- ' t '% -ice i�..
_ r( e-tY4S.---�-•-x.T-c.•. .-tY�'F :,Y f ,4%i �... .'t�..:'+.i'+r i� �:.r ',
.�` �� sr�� /'r` �.��°+ • ram, i'u_.«4?� '_ _ F' .. o.. , ..� ...
l r}
!T%�y,. .C},�2�} �r��+Ev S 2fs4rif_�,r ^ '• � ,
..1 � 'S •s, 1
r / .✓' a� Y '� 'S ~ !+•mot 't•
• ! `�.�""z'•' , ��i per "•..2`" � t`'e� �r 1 �..t � + 't ,:= `-.

�I
IA
5RR - :5
�! wovah Ran 9�� .�,'s�►.� ter.._.. -
i�
.._ �. S I o aX►.'R C>GLGI . -- _ .... ... ------ -- - - - -
i M ►� 1,�1; I k �.n s—
_Qr S—en i-i ►n A_%ga—.-��_V,
- -- - S_e SS rn �►n I' Q ✓��0.y�j0. ►1/2Y O { e . - — -----------
i -► ����11;Q���w,�,��`rs v�e����1"o-�ele��d--�-1-�ew�. �—�_
-
i
Pm?o7?oS�j flcT�otJ $E►NG Ge��[3E�
l �+� q_I ✓1�_ r i�S 1_Yl—� �Y�Sewr CV) PUnt."I . —f7O
b se.�,/a�'► otec1-c W ln�cl o
' � od e c�l< c.�,y' its � I.Qui►� c�h � ► �`� G'—I�e�e—►-S --a=b S o (moire l --
i no�V�'►�.f "rp Se�lelr2./0�-1/e cpvtn
VIO I mow, CJ --
c� b_ yl '►.v��'ro olkei,n-oi--
�
�► m�✓�c-' _a_ I l o�rn r.L�'� r, ��l � �� Z h-av� .ems . w, o�Jer-- -
��_-�/Qb1��; �, tt� ► s cov,s���Z-+' _s-1nQ�.�.Pd__be .c�w,p_l�i'�l__ -----
s�_���-Q� Yoe y
i
R (? - —dam -- - ,n — --b - —

o6w, of in
v) c-I LL 4 yet' o-vu> I-k ev- b ri d9e n of Gh-
b 6 GQ O2-5
neeckS.A-o be, au39-rp, tko-;r ► -S i s vi
-S-R- "Ln W
r) 4O)f- yl E>Y-
le
m ere -cal --v 4-t�-
7 71
-pv -r _R
vic
_. _ � '..� � i�Q.i..r bo c�"s
T vi -31 T-E>F,
p �e-

-S-
4c, 6y-lvicx--ezL-ci Jrne-i
Cc;, � v� ova ce-.. " cl.. co.m. ".Lo'&l( be, evicou-ra ikx� U't' of
aLI' awn ever
cue L -RiVeV-
a- f 6w I eg's et-,j oyo-bte-,
je✓ev) Jive YZGWS MJO On (;I- k e&W)e' LL9 e (A OL y the- '-Z 0 rL-ALS
L4S> ►j L7- VI ►r
bit to
,if ass, "k vvi. v, 6cG�5; aAl ot-
�ro
e--rive, Jh
SC> C!> LA-V- fi +0
x- -.! c- e 5,5.L' Yt,- r i -Y e - Y,—"
y -) e v f
cor
7—W
I
-C ttn
c > t ra: re--4 t o-i --t Vn e, re -- Q r-r— n -c >- L-
GLCce a -We__

Lf r
Da•+s1�-t'Q;Jet'��1�ic�_�2_�.u_re.,c�_r�,c�.v..�_r.1'c.:,.-
9
... �t.vu.��ca1 _ �r . a�' . l ea..st'-_ h�.�... o� � �_ re�,w __ •.._ �} c��1'rc�..cf ` - -
-F"o i'oders_..._need.._.o I y--v'u..v, ro,r �MaY_
y. o v� _ oL _ --E'� .� i ee . v+,-�•ee 1 f. b as s - (ess
�OAA,nch;n j -p Ck>f )112>U Sr'o-letk ox Irnem : a -re -kmes i.oker
C 6[.N Yi o p'..�1.� 9� y+.._ ... a. S - Q �►r•0.C.'�'L Gam/
..o►r�2v►t'v�i'� ova. c,�-rP-a�- .��r...u-SPAS .,-b_ _�?_�c��...��t<►+^ i L i cx-i�-._ .. ...----
,,J'a Crvt.IC, of n d �O wire IPMJ of 1; v cj .S► , i 11.s '. T� Y�
----_ate_ re fer►r; n q _-i o _ pri opXe,_. 6 o e5_7-AMIL_Z) . is_ -
--- . fin. � . ��-- � 0.ot d.l e+r _ _ w.� 1� o - _h_ats h' . r _�Q a.dt y_ _ ,�,r► c�s�r�r�-d ----- --- - -
i i 1���or��efi'i�..c�_o+�• `I_�e- '1�cQ.�J1'�P.�Ps��_i,s_.� r'��e�,r �_p_�.c__DQ�-- --
i Go of s M �t.�2—M-, L2 Qom! IGL Q+.3Y - Lo Aw, Cam, � oo I_LS
i
VL;a ►'roAnojo. Somec>ne '+S relit[[+./ qek ,vn�1 V)ySrGv-icGd
�l
nPrye�--
.�oV-P-r
_q_n ►_rel.
I
r�_�ese-h ©ine in_o�
_i ��nL/Q,n_-�." . v� row-S �► s is cx_
cl
have -_.- to Qc
--- _—!-_--._�.�k� __riY_e� c�eces.� c�-v_1c�_s�3.._S'��a_-�:,1.���_�c�c.�-�L�_. �e.�o►� �,-�'
✓ n ._ Ye%l.i Cu-Q owr- tv-Q .-� -- - -

- 5' -
Ir
kn v Y-,
�o I
59,v-o1S *vs
-e
Yo Lw- 4n; nk iy)3 b �.Lrltn,-s I s .... +
YW Teo
Ii ?l®tAD;VIl\(-pie JO -4 er.oxr of it;;)Qly
O;r a*q/ PC>*,V)*r CLAov% ft,-e. Ell rn-ile..
GI C, r', o Gto
---
so, U_Ojess yc>L4- fvc>puse e,%ncLosi C�
cz> in cret& )o ev- rn coye*-P-ol
oU �P.QQ fccepT $ie- farr Vn o-r 2vp .rat-1"�-.. GtOiV�q �O. ' r
vi�
C-0 r
jV-
Yx-ck-
-ef
Our
CLA-Sk
-unot Scn 9� S -v,,- —oL- �7�L -�L

c r - vj? �i
OuL.-
Lr exxs
y ve,%( LA Se- YCI gLpl vio-r. rv) oLk
not- UA In LA" 4y2-js o
LA-SGOkS -peopte- use
-7 W)o.rLvev-
vie, rLvef
cxcce-ss f�se,
e4feriev%ce, -'i v%c>'r
LA
-GUn CA 0 V-1 -
t,) eL
C>-
+40 - ` - .
C?
— itn�e
gbri-ve--
C>l
not eAc
AV
--needs
�'Asa 4t4,

United States Forest Wayah Ranger 8 Sloan Road
Department of Service District Franklin, NC 28734
Agriculture
Reply to: 2330
Date: January 21, 1994
Paul White
5 Walnut Hill Road
Sylva, NC 28779
Dear Mr. White:
On December 22, 1993, we notified you of the release of an Environmental
Assessment for the Nantahala River Project. Since that date, new federal
regulations pertaining to the public disclosure of environmental documents have
become effective. Accordingly, the formal comment period for the Assessment
will begin on January 22, 1994, and will end on February 22, 1994. Enclosed is
a copy of the Assessment.
I would like to reemphasize the importance of your written comments to help me
make a well-informed decision that will meet the objectives of the project, as
well as address your concerns.
If you should having any questions regarding the Assessment, please call myself
or Joe Nicholson at (7o4) 524-6441.
Sincerely,
CHAEL L. WILKINS
District Ranger
Wayah Ranger District
Enclosure

.United States Forest Wayah Ranger
Department of Service District
a• Agriculture
Paul White
5 Walnut Hill Road
Sylva, NC 28779
Dear Mr. White:
8 Sloan Road
Franklin, NC 28734
Reply to: 2330/7100
Date: December 21, 1993
A Draft Environmental Assessment for Nantahala River Corridor Rehabilitation
Project been completed, and is available for review. At this time, Alternative
2 is the preferred alternative. In the Assessment, Alternative 2 is described
as follows:
"At the Nantahala River Launch Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing vault toilets with new flush toilet/changing room
facilities and provide public drinking water, in partnership with
Nantahala Power'and Light Company (NP&L);
o redesign the launch pool area to reduce existing erosion, site
deterioration and accumulation of upstream sediment, while dispersing
use to acheive a more desirable launch flow;
o stabilize the banks of Rowlin Creek;
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck; and
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 south of
the Launch Site.
Across the Nantahala River from the current launch site, on National Forest
land, the following improvements are proposed:
o construct a commercial raft launching facility, including unloading
areas, pumping stations, rafting instruction areas, and launch pools;
o construct a new toilet/changing room facility; and
o construct a bridge to access the area from State Road 1310, in
partnership with NP&L and the State of North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NC DOT).
At Patton's Run Overlook, the following improvements are proposed:
o pave the existing parking area;
o Reconstruct the trail from one end of the parking area down to the
Nantahala River and back, with a takeout deck similar to Ferebee; and
o� construct a fully -accessible observation deck next to the parking
area.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area, the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing chemical toilets with flush toilet facilities,
and provide public drinking water; -
o expand the existing launch/takeout deck and add a new deck;

page 2
o provide additional picnic sites, with 25% of all sites being fully
accessible and having a hardened trail system; and
o redesign and expand the existing parking area.
At the Nantahala River Takeout Site, the following improvements are proposed:
o expand and pave the existing commercial takeout to the National Forest
boundary, with a takeout deck similar to the one at Ferebee;
o construct an accessible eleven to fourteen feet wide walkway with
turnouts and steps down to the River from the commercial takeout to
the beaching area above Nantahala Falls, with appropriate pedestrian
barriers along Highway 19;
o construct a fully -accessible observation area, a natural stone and
wood seating area, and a small platform area for commercial
photographers, all located to view the Falls;
o stabilize the riverbank and provide a base for the walkway, by
constructing a natural rock wall along the riverbank at the Falls;
o develop a paved parking area above the beaching area, reduce the curve
of Highway 19, and provide a turning lane, in partnership with NC DOT;
o reconstruct the trail from the beaching area to the Nantahala Falls
walkway, and harden the beaching area with a takeout deck;
o reconstruct the existing takeout at Silvermine Creek by paving the
parking area and takeout ramp, and constructing a takeout deck;
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 just north
of the Takeout Site; and
o complete an integrated Interpretive Plan for the Nantahala River
Corridor, and provide interpretive displays at all four developed
sites, as well as at the railroad switching area at Hewitt.
In addition, the rehabilitation of the pulloff picnic sites along Highway 19,
and the hardening of several small beaching areas along the river, is
proposed."
Copies of the Assessment are available from the Wayah Ranger District, US
Forest Service, 8 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734. If you should having any
questions regarding the Assessment, please call myself or Joe Nicholson at
[phone].
Sincerely,
CHAEL L. WILKINS
istrict Ranger
Wayah Ranger District

NANTAHALA RIVER CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECT
National Forests in North Carolina
Wayah Ranger District
Nantahala River Corridor Recreation Area

INTRODUCTION
This environmental assessment documents the results of several months of
site -specific analysis concerning the proposed Nantahala River Corridor
Rehabilitation Project, on the Wayah Ranger District. The document presents
the reasons for the project (Purpose and Need); the project's specific
objectives, and the issues and interests of concern if the project were to be
implemented (Specific Objectives and Issues); alternative ways to implement the
project so that various interests are considered (Alternatives Considered); and
the expected consequences of each alternative (Environmental Effects and
Analysis). The no action alternative shows would be lost or gained if the
project were not implemented.
The deciding official will use this information to decide whether or not the
Forest Service will proceed with this project, and if so, how to proceed.
Other government agencies, groups, individuals, and Forest Service personnel
interested and concerned about the potential outcome of this proposal will also
use this publication as a basis for commenting on the various courses of
action. Finally, this publication will be used by Forest Service personnel for
implementation and monitoring, if the decision is made to proceed.
The information presented in this environmental assessment should give the
reader a good understanding of the rationale behind proposed alternatives and
their consequences. This understanding is imperative to well-informed comment,
decision -making, and implementation.

�MINS^l_11
" MC,
) goycruc
U
,&Iqlld
aitui I = „z/t :areas
cTVN ASINIOIA
DLO.Vt02ld NOI�LVlI7IffVH92I 2IOQI2l2I0D 2IVAIZT VYVHVXNVNN Nu
lu
�� 3
e ti� `� �'� ' 1" , ' �",s• �` p1 t , y`- k evy ">� ��� F :. ,fit �� ' � -�
r r
o-
�'� �,'•, ,qv �OI:L �.0 SNIVINIlOJA� ,) `� �, X0 S .
�fQ� a pia
ON
r�

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................... 1
Proposed Action Being Considered .................................. 1
Purposeand Need for the Project .................................. 3
Specific Project Objectives and Issues ............................ 3
II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................. 5
Alternatives Considered, but Dropped from Detailed Analysis....... 5
Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................. 7
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND ANALYSIS .................................. 8
Effects Analysis by Objective and Issue ........................... 8
IV. PUBLIC SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................... 20
V. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................... 21
VI. REFERENCES............................................................ 22
APPENDIX A - CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX B - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Nantahala River Corridor Recreation Area consists of a series - of closely
related recreation sites located in a eight and one-half mile corridor along US
Highway 19 and the Nantahala River. These sites are all day -use areas that
primarily serve whitewater boaters, spectators, fishing enthusiasts and
picnickers. Four primary sites serve the public needs in the corridor: the
Nantahala River Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee Memorial Picnic
Area, and the Nantahala River Takeout Site. Several single table picnic
pulloffs are located along Highway 19; these are owned and maintained by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. On heavy use days, up to 7000
people float the river in a ten hour period (Nicholson 1993). Thousands more
observe the floaters from various points along the highway.
The size of the project, and increasing recreational use of the area, create a
need to view the Nantahala Gorge as a recreational complex for planning
purposes. The Forest Service proposes to improve facilities at four primary
locations along the Nantahala River in Macon and Swain Counties, North
Carolina. Tentative funding has been allocated for the reconstruction of
toilet facilities at the Launch Site. The rest of the project is unfunded at
this time.
PROPOSED ACTION BEING CONSIDERED
At the ;anjtahala Riiver LFauncla =site. -he following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing vault toilets with Anew flush Lo'letrchanging room
facilities and provide public drinking water, in par hers ip with Nantahala
Power and Light Company (NP&L);
o redesign the "A ea -.to reduce existing erosion, site
deterioration and accumulation of upstream sediment, while dispersing use
to acheive a more desirable launch flow;
o tab line the k�a ks of Rcwil�i�n Creek; ,
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck; and
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 south of the
Launch Site.
on National Forest
is are p
o construct a commercial raft launching facility, including unloading areas,
4�F. s �a}irns t rafting instruction areas, andVla_uri'c1��p :o
o construct a 4�eo:�' eat/.c anging room facility; and
o cs�ms-r"'�?�ct�ta7bno-ge o access the area from State Road 1310, in partnership
with NP&L and tree State of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC
DOT).
1

rAtPfattM,on�: sRu'n�iQer�lQ.otthe following improvements are proposed:
o ave the�ext�k�aro ��
o ecc�nstruct the trill from one end of the parking area down to the
Nantahala River and back, with a takeout deck similar to Ferebee; and
o construct a fully -accessible observation deck next to the parking area.
XPei�eTe Nieor�i�al�Pcni�cZA�r d the following improvements are proposed:
o replace the existing chemical toilets with NlMs h�tt_o�i�lelt=facliit and
provide public drinking water;
o o and�[thelo a�sit+i►ng�ri�taunch;/�takeonst deck and�adc�— a ne eM
o provide additional picnic sites, with 25% of all sites being fully
accessible and having a hardened trail system; and
o redesign and expand the existing parking area.
At the N = t : • a1a_I ,Yxe_r� 4Takeou�t S te�' the following improvements are proposed:
Eel
?.oundary;-=with--a-takeout✓d"eck�s nril�r to the; one at N:e'rebee;
rest
o construct an accessible eleven to fourteen feet wide walkway with turnouts
and steps down to the River from the commercial takeout to the beaching
area' above " Nantahala'" FaITs; with appropriate pedestrian
Highway 19;
o- construct a fully -accessible observation area, a. natural ..stone and wood
seating- area, and a small platform area for .commercial photographers; all
located to view the -Falls; == -
�;a i�laizo k'rc�riwerUwand provide a base for the walkway; -by -constructing - _ -
a natural -rock wall along the riverbank at the Falls;
o develop a paved parking area above the beaching area, vW99MI hei[c
rH�i�gh 19,+ and provide a- turning lane, in partnership with NC DOT;
o reconstruct the trail from the beaching area to the Nantahala Falls
walkway, and harden the beaching area with a takeout deck;
o reconstruct the existing takeout at Silvermine Creek by,¢ ai;-the parking.
6•�;e.a�andakeojx p„ and constructing a takeout deck;
o construct a portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 just north of
the Takeout Site; and
o complete an integrated Interpretive Plan for the Nantahala River Corridor,
and provide interpretive displays at all four developed sites, as well as
at the railroad switching area at Hewitt.
In addition, the rehabilitation of the pulloff picnic sites along Highway 19,
and the hardening of several small beaching areas along the river, is proposed.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to implement the direction set forth in the Land
and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Nantahala and Pisgah National
Forests (USDA March 1987). The Plan establishes management direction for
Management Areas (MAs); the MAs in the project area are developed recreation
sites (MA 12) and riparian areas (MA 18).
MA 12 lands are developed recreation sites that are managed to provide camping,
picnicking, swimming,. boating, viewing of wildlife and scenery, and other
Forest recreational activities. Development ranges from an essentially natural
environment with minimal facilities for areas of low use, to a high standard of
development for user comfort, convenience and resource protection, in areas of
high use. All resource management activities are tailored to be compatible
with a pleasing recreational experience for Forest visitors.
MA 18 lands consist of riparian areas that include perennial streams, lakes,
wetlands, 100-year floodplains, and 100-foot wide zone (horizontal distance) on
either side_of perennial streams and lakes. These lands are managed to protect
the distinctive resource values and characteristics that comprise these
ecosystems.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES
Vision Statement
This project will serve up to a half million visitors a year to the Nantahala
River Corridor Recreation Area. Most visitors come from all over the eastern
- Uni:ted- States -with increasing amounts from- abroad, --while... many come "from- local-.
areas. In 1990 the U.S. National Kayaking Championships were held in this
location; it is likely that future national and international whitewater
events,_. such _as preparations for the 1996 Olympic _whitewater events, will be
held here-. It -is the intent of this project to protect the natural resources
_ in- the -area.,- -to serve the needs -of the existing -.users. in -a safe manner, to
provide access to all, and to develop recreational facilities which are
- ;designed in -character with the -public's expectations- that will -meet--the-highest:_
standards of excellence for the next twenty years. --
The Forest Service is actively developing partnerships with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, the Nantahala Gorge Association, Nantahala Power
and Light..Company, The Great Smoky Mountains Railway;.and other interested
groups in the area. Their input,. expertise and resources are needed to
sucessfully complete this effort.
Q

Objectives
The primary objective of this project is to rehabilitate the Nantahala River
Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area and The
Nantahala River Takeout Site to provide a safe, accessible and integrated
recreational experience .from launch to takeout. Specifically, it should
provide parking, sanitation, and recreational facilities that:
o increase visitor safety by reducing tripping and falling hazards at
currently undeveloped sites, providing sanitary drinking and toilet
facilities, reducing pedestrian/vehicle encounters, improving traffic
flows, and providing opportunities for river safety orientation and
practice.
o improve soil and water quality by hardening impacted areas, restoring tree
cover as feasible, modifying use patterns, eliminating existing riverbank
erosion, and providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
o meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classification for the area,
maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial outfitting/guiding operation
and administration, and reasonably meet current and anticipated
recreational use demand;
o improve visual quality as seen from key viewpoints on the Nantahala River,
the railroad, and Highway 19 by rehabilitating areas of resource damage,
and by incorporating appropriate natural and cultural characteristics into
facilities design.
o provide integrated interpretation aimed at protecting the resource from
inappropriate visitor behavior, giving information about National Forest
recreational opportunities, and educating visitors about Forest Service
managment in the area.
Issues
o How would the project affect water quality? -
o How would the project affect visual quality? =
o How would the project influence recreational demand in the Nantahala River
Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
o How would the project affect the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's)
management of Fontana Lake?
o How would the project affect floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses as
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?
o How would the project affect potential Wild and Scenic River status of the
Nantahala River?
o How would the project affect animal, plant and aquatic species identified
as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) for protection
under the Endangered Species Act and Forest Service policy?
o How would the project affect Heritage (cultural) resources, including
Native American concerns?
4

II. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives were formulated to provide a clear choice regarding the need for
the project. They represent choices between various uses of the natural
resources in the area. Alternatives are described in two sections;
alternatives considered but dropped from further analysis; and alternatives
considered in detail.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS
Some possibilities for action were considered, but dropped from detailed
analysis.
o An alternative that leased and developed the existing commercial launch
site on Nantahala Power and Light (NP&L) property was considered. However,
NP&L had concerns with expanding the site, due to their plans to upgrade
adjacent electrical power transmission facilities. These plans also
created concerns over visitor safety near high voltage powerlines and
towers. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further
consideration.
o An alternative that would limit river use, through limits on the amount and
timing of commercial outfitting operations, was requested by several
commenting organizations. This alternative would require an analysis
beyond the scope or capability of this assessment. A use and carrying
capacity analysis, which will look at the desired recreational experience
and the limits of acceptable change to that experience, is planned for late
1994. However, such analysis is not needed to determine actions needed to
reduce or eliminate existing negative resource effects, or to design
facilities that will reasonably meet existing and projected recreational
demand.
o An alternative that would reconstruct existing toilet facilities rather
than construct new ones was considered. However, all Forest Service
facilities that are reconstructed or constructed must meet minimum
accessiblity standards for the physically challenged. It is not feasible to
rehabilitate the existing facilities and meet these standards; door widths
are too narrow, and square footage is not sufficient. Therefore, new
facilities must be constructed.
o Alternatives that would provide only vault or chemical toilet facilities,
or a mix of flush and vault toilets, was considered. However, the existing
toilets at the Launch Site and at Ferebee are vault or chemical; this type
of facility causes the most complaints from visitors, primarily because of
odor and unsanitary conditions. It is not possible to accomodate as much
use as these facilities receive without an odor problem. On many days,
odor and overcrowding cause some visitors to use the ground surrounding the
toilets. In addition, the current facilities are undersized to accomodate
the existing use, and do not meet accessibility standards.
In order to meet accessibility standards and accomodate existing use, new
facilities must be built. It would not be cost-efficient to reconstruct
these facilities as vault toilets. Even with advanced technology, vault
toilets would need to be pumped one to two times weekly during the
recreation use season, to meet the project objectives of adequate odor
control and sanitary conditions.
F)

This would be very expensive; also, there are no vendors in the area that
could handle this volume of work.
Flush toilets and associated ground septic systems would have the proper
soil type and topography to allow these systems to operate in an
environmentally sound manner, and would be constructed to meet all
applicable state regulations (Browning 1992).
o An alternative to construct a flush toilet at the proposed commercial
launch facility across the Nantahala River was considered. However, since
this site would be located in the river floodplain, an inground septic.
system is not feasible, and a vault toilet must be constructed (Browning
1992). In this case, use of advanced vault toilet technology, and the fact
that most commercial visitors would have an opportunity to use private
facilities first at an outfitter's place of business, should.. minimize the
odor and sanitary problems associated with vault toilets.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
Alternative 1: No Action. As considered here, no action means that no
improvements to existing facilities would occur, and no new facilities would be
built.
Alternative 2: Implement the proposed action, as described on pages 2 and 3.
Mitigating measures for this alternative would include:
o compliance with the State of North Carolina's Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment, Disposal Systems and Public Water Systems.
o compliance with the State of North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act, including the--. development of an appropriate Sedimentation
Control Plan where required. North Carolina water quality standards will
be met.
o attainment of required 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers for all
activities affecting , floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses. All
facilities will be designed so that floodplain hydraulics will not be
changed, flood peaks will not be elevated, and riverflow will not be
restricted.
o coordination with TVA on all -activities below the 1710' contour level.
o completion of Heritage resource surveys of the project area, with
implementation of needed mitigation and concurrance by the State of North
Carolina Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
o meeting the Visual Quality-"Objectives-(VQOs) of the area. =
o meeting the standards and guidelines for - MAs 12 -and 18 as "found in 'the
LRMP. Also, all 99-_mitigating. measures found:iny-the Record -of Decision for
_ the Final Environmental Impact Statement -for Vegetation Management in the ....
-Appalachian Mountains, and.incorporated in the.LRMP by-Amendment-#2 in July
1989, would be applied as needed.
h

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND ANALYSIS
This section forms the .scientific and analytic basis for the alternative
comparison. The environmental impacts, or effects, described here include both
beneficial and detrimental effects. Environmental impacts include appropriate
ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social and human health
related effects which directly, indirectly or cumulatively result from the
project. Enviromental effects are presented using the objectives and issues
listed in Section I. These effects are analyzed using references from various
liturature and reports which are incorporated as an integral part of this
environmental assessment. They are listed in the References Cited Section.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS BY OBJECTIVES AND ISSUES
OBJECTIVE: Increase visitor safety by reducing tripping and falling hazards
at currently undeveloped sites, providing sanitary drinking and
toilet facilities, reducing pedestrian/vehicle encounters,
improving traffic flows, and providing opportunities for river
safety orientation and practice.
ISSUE: How would the project influence recreational demand in the
Nantahala River Corridor Area, and traffic on Highway 19?
Current Situation
The project area is located in Swain County, North Carolina near the heart of
the Great Smoky Mountains. The surrounding landscape is the steep and scenic
forested slopes of the Nantahala and Snowbird Mountains. Climatic conditions
during the -recreation season are very mild for the Southeast, attracting a -
large number=of out-of-state visitors. The river is fairly wide, with -moderate
_..
gradients. that are suitable for yearround floating. There :.are_ no rapids
classified more- difficult than Class III, yet few rivers present as. much
technical water as the Nantahala. Development within the gorge on private land
continues to increase.
Recreational .us. -_of -__the iver has increased dramatically over the last 10-
y s..,__and In 984 62� visitors floated the river; in 1993 that use was
"261 800 rincreasing at about 10� a year (Nicholson 1993). If trends
continue, then use could exceed 500,000 by the year 2000. This does not
include increases due to special events such as the 1996 Olympic Whitewater
competitions scheduled on the Ocoee River. The Nantahala River is one of the
most heavily used recreational rivers in the world.
It should be noted that use increases began in the early eighties; before 1983,
the Forest Service did not regulate commercial rafting. These increases were
due to an increase in popularity of whitewater rafting, not because of the
construction of Forest Service facilities at the Launch Site and Ferebee in the
mid- to late seventies (McWilliams 1983). It should also be noted that these
facilities were designed for use levels less than those in 1984. Since that
time, use has increased over 300% (Nicholson 1993).

Facilities at the Launch Site are limited due to space restrictions created by
private land, the river, wetlands, and Highway 19. They include parking for 80
cars and 2 large vehicles, a change house, launching pool, and a 4 unit vault
toilet. Silt and rocks from Rowlin Creek periodically fill the mouth of the
launching pool, requiring dredging (Burns 1993)•
During high use periods, boaters are often prevented from launching in a timely
manner due to overcrowding. Since the pool was not constructed to accommodate
the use it currently receives, boaters frequently use the banks of the river
and the pool to launch. This bypasses the paved ramp leading to the pool, and
creates erosion and safety hazards in terms of inadequate footing by users
creating an unofficial trail without proper location and construction. Because
the pool fills up with gravel, there are times when the pool cannot function as
a practice/orientation area for users to become familiar with their craft and
with paddling skills, before entering the river just above Patton's Run. As a
result, many inexperienced °boaters capsize in Patton's Run. Limited parking
causes extreme traffic congestion, and forces Forest Service personnel to
devote an inordinate amount of time directing traffic. No drinking water is
available.
At Patton's Run, there is no developed launch/takeout area, creating a safety
hazard similar to the one at the Launch Site. The trail to the river from the
.parking area was created by users; it is not hardened, has no surfacing, and is
fairly steep. All these factors create hazardous walking conditions,
especially when carrying watercraft. No facilities currently exist that would
allow quick rescue of boaters that had capsized in Patton's Run.
At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Site, facilities include parking for 25 cars and 3
buses, 6 picnic sites, a small launch/takeout deck, a memorial monument, and a
2 unit vault -toilet. The picnic facilities are popular with boaters and
passing motorists alike; many sit on the grassy area as weather permits. It is
common for dozens of boaters to attempt to use the deck at the same time.
These overcrowded conditions invite boaters to bypass the deck and use the -
nearby riverbank, creating an unofficial deck and a safety hazard. Limited
parking creates traffic congestion similar to that at the Launch Site. No
drinking water is.available..
The situation at the Nantahala River Takeout site is very hazardous. The
existing developed facilities are a temporary walkway at Nantahala Falls, and
seperate commercial and public takeout sites with minimal parking. As boaters
approach Nantahala Falls, they usually land at the undeveloped beaching area
and scout the Falls. After running the Falls, many boaters, especially
kayakers, use both riverbanks to portage back above the Falls and run the
rapids repeatedly. The remaining users land their craft at the public takeout
about 100 yards downstream at Silvermine Creek, or at the Nantahala Outdoor
Center takeout on private land. Drinking water and restroom facilities are
available at nearby private businesses.
On a heavy use day, over 7000 people use these takeout facilities during a ten
hour period. In addition, thousands of spectators enjoy watching and
photographing the floaters from the banks next to Highway 19 at Nantahala
Falls. Even though the emergency walkway is five feet wide, spectators crowd
the walkway, and many continue to sit on the rocks on the riverbank to watch
boaters at the Falls, as they traditionally have. These rocks present a safety
hazard due to the slippery and uneven walking surfaces, yet are used because of
overcrowding and traditional use patterns (Browning 1992).
9

Over time, foot traffic had eroded the bank, with the highway guardrail
suspended in places, and pavement breaking off the edge of the roadway.
Pedestrians had no level place to walk except the roadway, creating an
extremely hazardous vehicle/pedestrian traffic conflict. This situation was
partially relieved by an emergency Forest Service project in 1992 which created
a temporary walkway and viewing platform adjacent to the Falls. However, the
present guardrail is'inadequate in separating fodt and vehicle traffic along
Highway 19.
Significant tripping and falling hazards still exist on the undeveloped parts
of the commercial takeout, the takeout at Sivermine Creek, and the beaching
area above the Falls. Also, the inadequate parking in the area creates
potential hazards as motorists illegally park on the shoulder of Highway 19.
Motorists have no legal place to park except on private property downstream
from the Falls. This condition is worse on high use days, as both boaters and
spectators compete for limited parking opportunities.
Effects of the Alternatives -
Alternative 1- If no action is taken, all of the hazardous situations, created
by.overcrowding of developed sites that causes users to use undeveloped areas,
would still exist. The unsanitary conditions caused by the inadequate toilet
facilities would continue. River users could risk injury during launch and
takeout at all four locations, if they choose not to use developed facilities;
this risk would be increased during periods of high use. Potential
vehicle/pedestrian encounters could occur at the Takeout site, and traffic
congestion would continue at all sites during periods of high use.
Opportunities to practice prior to entering the river would continue to be
limited. No drinking water would be available at the Launch Site or Ferebee.
Alternative 2- As launch and takeout facilities are redesigned and expanded,
traffic flow in these areas would improve., and users would be. less likely to
use -adjacent undeveloped areas: -.:due to-. overcrowding. The- addition of the- new
:.commercial launch facility would remove all. commercial use from -the existing
launch site; reducing use pressure. Due to limited space, the parking at the
Launch..Site cannot be, -increased; however,. -the exclusion of commercial traffic
from this site would_ further reduce - congestions
a�cu uic11«-.Iwou�l�QWm_eMMcU ce`dl creating -more opportunities to practice be o e
entering Patton's Run.
The new commercial facility would be significantly safer than -the site on NP&L
property, in terms of unsurfaced areas that present falling and tripping
hazards. The new launch pool would create opportunities for all commercial
rafters to practice; this would be a substantial improvement over the situation
at the existing site.
At Patton's Run, the expanded launch/takeout deck would reduce tripping and
falling hazards, as would the reconstruction and surfacing of the trail to the
river. Also, the trail and deck would facilitate rescue efforts when needed.
At Ferebee, the expanded launch/takeout deck would be safer and would improve
river user traffic flow. Surfaced trails to picnic sites will also reduce
these hazards. Expanded parking would reduce vehicle traffic congestion.
At the Takeout Site, increased parking would greatly reduce potential
vehicle/pedestrian encounters.
1n

The takeout deck at the beaching area would reduce tripping and falling
hazards, as would the surfaced trail up to the walkway. The seating area would
reduce tripping and falling hazards, as safe places to sit would be provided.
The takeout deck at the expanded commercial takeout would give _the greatest
reduction of tripping and falling hazards of any of the proposed improvements,
since the largest group of river users takeout there (Nicholson 1993).
While use is projected to increase, at least for the near future, such increase
is not dependent on available facilities in the area, but is caused by an
increase in demand for the resource itself; that is,_ - _a _safe, high -quality
family -oriented whitewater experience.tzfa�l�atwi►ye�li t`,+�1,�nTeHeaseat,..te
ae�■l�i�s. By using the opportunity presented to improve public facilities in
the area, resource damage would be prevented, and a quality recreational
experience would be maintained and enhanced.
OBJECTIVE: Improve soil and water quality by hardening impacted areas,
modifying use patterns, eliminating existing riverbank.. erosion,
and providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
Current Situation
Soils in the project area are one of two types. Areas next to the river are
Rosman or Reddies fine sandy loans, and are subject to flooding. Upslope from
these areas are - Spivey-Santeelah soils, with a higher clay content and slope.
None of these soils are classified as wetlands.
At the Launch Site, erosion occurs primarily on the banks of Rowlin Creek and
at the edges of the launch pool itself. Also, a considerable sediment load is
washed into the creek periodically by erosion on private lands upstream from
the Launch Site.. _The upstream erosion. is primarily -the result of poor road
construction and. placement. As -.currently configured, - - the launch pool acts- -as --
sediment trap for this erosion.
Erosion around the launch pool occurs on. high use days, when over 2000 people
launch there- in a 10 hour- period.. Putin activity is not dispersed,- but tends
to be concentrated in 15 minute intervals, resulting in -overcrowded conditions
and increased foot traffic around the steep banks of the pool: This traffic
tramples bank vegetation and causes soil compaction, which increases erosion.
At Patton's Run Overlook, erosion occurs on the riverbank where rafts and
canoes that have shipped water in running Patton's Run, beach to bail out their
craft. Heavy use of this unsurfaced area has resulted in loss of trees, loss
of understory vegetation, severe compaction and erosion directly into Nantahala
River. Some limited launching takes place here by people who do not wish to
navigate Patton's Run. This has created a unsurfaced steep trail from the
parking area to the riverbank, with increased erosion.
At Ferebee, erosion occurs around the takeout deck on the riverbank. The deck
itself is adequately preventing erosion; however, it was built for use levels
lower than the heavy use it receives now. Use patterns are similar to those at
the Launch Site, with concentrated periods of heavy use. As a result, boaters
takeout and launch on riverbanks around the deck, creating severe compaction
and erosion directly into the river.
11

At the Takeout Site, erosion is greatest at the beaching area above the Falls.
A large area next to the river has no trees or understory vegetation and is
compacted, with heavy sediment runoff directly into the river (Browning 1992).
Also, the trail up to the walkway is not surfaced and is experiencing heavy
erosion. These areas have become larger as use has increased, and as boaters
use more of the riverbank. For the most part, the emergency walkway
constructed in 1992 has reduced erosion in the Falls area to acceptable levels.
Much of the commercial takeout is experiencing loss of vegetation, severe
compaction and resultant erosion directly into the river. About 100 feet of
the upper end of the takeout has been reconstructed, to prevent the riverbank
from eroding completely away. However, the parking area, which is surfaced
with gravel, experiences erosion and loss of surfacing as traffic increases
annually (Browning 1992).
The vault and chemical toilets at the Launch Site and Ferebee represent
outdated and obsolete toilet designs that are too small to handle the periods
of heavy use receive. Due the bad odor and overcrowding of these facilities,
visitiors often use the surrounding area as facilities, creating an unsanitary
condition.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken to harden impacted areas and surface
trails, erosion would continue unabated. The streambanks of Rowlin Creek would
be at risk of significant sloughing during periods of heavy rain, and would
require emergency action to repair. Sediment would continue to accumulate in
the launch pool, requiring annual removal. If the pool is not redesigned, it
would remain too small to accomodate periods of heavy use, and damage to the
sourrounding banks would continue. Similar -impacts - would result- -.at-- Patton's
Run, Ferebee and the Takeout Site.
If the present toilet facilities are not improved, -odor problems, overcrowding
and use of the ground in the area would continue, creating unsanitary
conditions.
Alternative 2- As impacted areas are surfaced, hardened and reconstructed so as
to drain properly, erosion would decrease. -As the banks of Rowlin Creek are
stabilized, the risk of sloughing would also decrease. The existing launch
pool would be redesigned to reduce sediment accumulation and the need for
dredging (Burns 1993)• As launch and takeout sites are expanded, and traffic
lanes into and away from these sites are rerouted and surfaced, traffic flow
would become more efficient, resulting in less pressure to use the adjacent
natural riverbanks for launch and takeout. As these banks are revegetated,
erosion would decrease (Browning 1992). Any potential runoff increases would
not be significant and would not create a cumulative impact (Burns 1993).
All ground -disturbing activities would follow the direction of the State of
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the preparation
of a sedimentation control plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
measures, such as the installation of silt fences prior to ground disturbance.
These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from entering the
river. If, during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted. Cumulatively, the rehabilitation of
eroding areas, and the use of approporiate sedimentation control measures,
should reduce impacts to water quality in the Gorge area.

As vault and chemical toilets are replaced by expanded flush toilet facilities,
these units would be used more efficiently, and would be able to accomodate
periods of heavy use. As these facilities will have no odor, there would be no
incentive to use the area around them. The installation of a properly
designed, sized and sited inground septic system would pose no risks to
groundwater supplies. The vault toilet facility at the commercial launch site
would be constructed with improved technology, reducing potential sanitation
problems.
OBJECTIVE: Meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification
for the area, maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial
outfitting/guiding operation and administration, and reasonably
meet current and anticipated recreational use demand.
Current Situation
The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum is a site classification system. It is
used to determine what recreational opportunities are potentially available,
how they are sustainable, and how they may be integrated into recreational
users' desired experiences. Classification considers the physical, social and
managerial environments of each site. Overall, the ROS class of the Nantahala
River Corridor is Roaded Natural, with inclusions of Semi -Primitive where
Highway 19, private development and Forest Service facilities are not visible
from the river, and inclusions of Rural where private development is visible.
The Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook and Ferebee are all classified as Roaded
Natural. At these sites, moderate site modification is appropriate, with equal
consideration for resource protection and visitor comfort. Natural native
materials should be used for construction, and a setting indicative of the
local culture is preferred. Hard surfacing on roads, trails and impacted areas
are allowed where needed for resource protection; passive traffic control may
be used. While these three sites meet the modification level, use natural
native materials and create a local Southern Appalachian setting, they do not
provide adequate resource protection, visitor safety, visitor comfort or
traffic control. These sites do not meet current accessibility standards.
The Takeout Site is classified as Rural due to adjacent private development and
historically high use patterns. Heavy site modification, hard surfacing and
the use of some synthetic construction materials may be needed for resource
protection and visitor comfort. For this site, in keeping with the integration
of the recreational experience in the Corridor, native materials such as local
rock and wood would be used for construction, and would be consistent with
settings at the Launch Site and Ferebee. Active traffic control may be
needed. While this site meets the modification level, it does not provide
adequate resource protection, visitor safety, visitor comfort or traffic
control. Aso, due to resource damage and lack of designed developed
facilities, it does not meet the desired setting. While the emergency walkway
and observation deck is accessible, there is no accessible parking available.
Of the 250,000 plus people who floated the Nantahala River in 1993, about
187,500 were clientele of one of the 22 commercial businesses that provide
outfitting and guiding services in the area (Nicholson 1993). All commercial
use of the river is by Forest Service special use permit; this has allowed the
public access to services that they otherwise would not be able to enjoy.
Administration of these permits includes monitoring for safety and operational
standards, permit compliance and accurate use reporting.

Since the implementation of the permit system in 1983, the system has produced
a safe, high quality, family -oriented recreational whitewater experience.
However, none of the existing facilities in the Corridor were constructed for
use by commercial permittees. As a result, conflicts often arise as private
and commercial boaters compete for the limited resources on the river. Of the
total use at the existing Launch site, about 49% is commercial (Nicholson
1993). Relatively large groups of rafters tend to fully occupy launch and
takeout sites at the Launch Site and Ferebee, keeping relatively small groups
of private boaters waiting considerable lengths of time to get on the river.
Management of the situation is complicated by both the heavy use of undersized
facilities, and the mix of commercial and private use.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, no developed sites in the Nantahala
River Corridor would meet their desired future conditions as described by their
ROS classification. Specifically, resource protection and visitor safety or
comfort would not be acheived at the Launch Site, Patton's Run, Ferebee or the
Takeout Site. Also, the desired setting would not be acheived at the Takeout
Site. The sites would not meet current standards for accessiblity. High
levels of mixed commercial and private use would continue, complicating
management of both vehicle traffic and launch and takeout flows.
Alternative 2- As existing facilities are reconstructed and new facilities are
built, resource protection, visitor safety and visitor comfort would approach
desired levels. With the use of native materials and local cultural design
features, the Launch Site, Patton's Run and Ferebee would maintain the desired
setting, while the Takeout Site would acheive the desired setting. All
facilities would meet current accessibility guidelines, including appropriate
parking and trails.
Commercial outfitting/guiding operations would be enhanced, providing a better
experience for the visitor that uses these services. The separation of
commercial and private use, with all commercial use at the new launch facility
and expanded''takeout facility, would facilitate the management of .both_
components -on the ground.
OBJECTIVE: Improve visual quality as seen from key viewpoints on the
Nantahala River, the railroad right of way, and Highway 19 by
rehabilitating areas of resource damage, and incorporating
appropriate natural and cultural characteristics into facilities
design. _
Current Situation
Visually, the project area as viewed from the river is in a fairly natural
state. Visual. Quality Objectives (VQOs) are derived from the ROS classes
discussed earlier. The following VQO is applicable:
Modification - management activities may visually dominate the original
characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetative and landform
alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color and
texture so completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics
are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area or character
type. Parts of these activities such as structures and roads must remain
visually subordinate.
14

The Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook and Ferebee are all classified as Roaded
Natural and have a VQO of Modification; the Takeout Site is Rural, and does not
meet any VQO due to its high degree of development and resource 'damage. The
highway and the railroad parallel the river throughout the gorge but often are
not visible or intrusive- to the river user. The Launch Site, Patton's Run
Overlook and Ferebee currently meet their desired setting and VQOs; therefore,
these sites are not ,intrusive to viewers from the river, the highway or the
railroad. However, the Takeout Site meets neither its desired setting nor its
VQO, and so detracts from visual quality as seen from the river, the highway
and the railroad.
From the highway, the landscape varies from a natural appearance to a highly
developed rural commercial appearance. No coordinated efforts have been made
by the private sector to provide a specific character or unified appearance in
the Nantahala River. Corridor; as a result, private development as a whole tends
to be chaotic in appearance.
It is the intent of the project to maintain the landscape at a visual quality
level of Modification at the Launch Site, Overlook and Ferebee Site, and
improve the visual quality the Takeout Site. The desired future condition of
the area is to.maintain or'improve the landscape to a near natural condition on
public land between development sites. At developed sites, the desired future
condition is to provide facilities in a modified setting which are constructed
of native materials and are compatible with the mountainous character of the
area.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, the Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook
and Ferebee would continue to meet their VQO of Modification as long as
resource damage can be confined to present levels. However, existing resource
damage --would continue to reduce visual quality, with unvegetated areas of.bare
soil that: appear unnatural in an essentially natural landscape.` The "Takeout
Site would not meet any VQO, due to the extent of resource damage, and lack of
facilities with appropriate design characteristics to acheive the desired
setting.
Alternative 2- As facilities are reconstructed or constructed with native
materials and appropriate natural and cultural characteristics, and as areas of
resource damage are rehabilitated, visual quality as seen from the river, the
highway, the railroad and within the facilities themselves would improve. The
desired VQOs at the Launch Site, Patton's Run Overlook and Ferebee would be
maintained. The Takeout Site would be treated for Rehabilitation as a short
term management alternative to provide a more visually desirable landscape.
This would remove the site from the Unacceptable Modification classification,
and improve overall visual quality. Cumulatively, visual quality would be
improved in the Gorge area.
1 C

OBJECTIVE: Provide interpretation aimed at protecting the resource from
inappropriate visitor behavior, giving information about National
Forest recreational opportunities, and educating visitors about
Forest Service managment in the area.
Current Situation
Basic safety and regulation information currently exists at the Takeout Site
and at Ferebee in the form of bulletin boards containing information on visitor
registration, watercraft safety, emergency services, and a general area map.
No information is given on appropriate visitor behavior, other recreational
opportunities in the area, or the purpose of Forest Service activites as
recreation resource management. No information other than basic signing exists
at Patton's Run Overlook or the Takeout Site.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, opportunities to educate and inform
National Forest visitors would be lost.
Alternative 2- As all four sites are rehabilitated, interpretive displays
would be designed into that- rehabilitation according to the Interpretive Plan
for the Nantahala River, Corridor. Such interpretation would increase vistor
awareness of water safety, approporiate behavior to protect the physical and
recreational environment, and the role of management in providing high quality
recreation in a public setting.
ISSUE: How would the project affect the Tennessee Valley Authority's
(TVA's) management of Fontana Lake?
Current Situation
The Nantahala River flows into Fontana Lake, a TVA reservoir that is managed
for electrical power generation and a variety of water -based public
recreational opportunities. The area of TVA regulation is defined as waters
and riverbed below the 1710' contour level for shoreline under National Forest
jurisdiction. This contour level falls just at the location of Nantahala
Falls; therefore, any actions in the Falls area and downstream could
potentially affect Fontana Lake. Specifically, any shoreline modifications at
the Falls, the commercial takeout and the Silvermine takeout below 1710' would
be within the jusisdiction of TVA.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, then there will be no effect on
Fontana Lake. However, sediment input from upstream erosion would continue,
contributing to the sediment load of the lake.
Alternative 2- As improvements are constructed at Nantahala Falls, the rock
retaining wall for the walkway base could reach below the 1710' level, in order
to properly anchor the wall. However, such encroachment would be coordinated
with TVA and COE, and would not alter riverflow, floodplain hydraulic function,
or floodpeaks. The construction of takeout decks at the commercial and public
takeout sites would reach below the high water level, and so would encroach on
Fontana Lake. Again, these facilities would be coordinated with TVA and COE,
and would not affect the river.
1.6

All ground -disturbing activities would follow the direction of the State of
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the preparation
of a sedimentation control plan, and the use of the appropriate protection
measures, such as the installation prior to ground disturbance of silt fences.
These measures would be designed to keep visible sediment from entering the
river. If, during activities, it is discovered that these measures are not
adequate to keep visible sediment out of the river, then reapplication and/or
additional measures would be adopted.
As erosion is reduced by reconstruction and rehabilitation, cumulative sediment
loads into Fontana Lake from National Forest recreational activities would
decrease.
ISSUE: How would the project affect floodplains, wetlands and
streamcourses as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
COE)?
Current Situation
Some of the project area that contains the developed sites at the Launch Site,
Patton's Run Overlook, Ferebee and the Takeout Site, includes floodplains and
the riverbed of the Nantahala River. The Launch Site was constructed in what
was then classified as a wetland by the COE, and was constructed with COE input
and approval. All these riparian areas are currently being impacted by heavy
recreational use that is exceeding the capacity of the facilities built to
accomodate it. Riverbanks below the high water mark, and therefore considered
part of the streamcourse, are being denuded of vegetation, compacted and are
eroding into the river. Large'sections'­of"the riverbank have been completely
washed away at Patton's Run Overlook, the beaching area and the commercial
takeout. There is currently no use of the floodplain across the Launch Site.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1 As overcrowded launch and takeout facilities continue to
receive use, denuded and compacted areas of the riverbank would continue to be
lost to erosion. Significant amounts of sediment would enter the river from
these areas. No use would be located on the floodplain across the river from
the Launch Site.
Alternative 2- As impacted areas are rehabilitated on riverbanks, these banks
would no longer be in danger of washing away. Since it would be necessary to
construct parts of this rehabilitation below the high water mark, COE permits
would be applied for, and their input into design would be followed. Such
input should ensure that none of the proposed reconstruction and construction
would cumulatively affect the flow, flooding potential or hydraulic action of
the river.
The new commercial launch facility would be constructed entirely on the
floodplain of the river. This facility would-be designed as a day -use -only
site, capable of withstanding the periodic flooding that this area receives,
and would be designed so that it would not change floodplain hydraulic
function, restrict riverflow, or raise flood peaks (Burns 1993)•

ISSUE: How would the project affect potential Wild and Scenic River
status of the Nantahala River?
Current Situation
The lower Nantahala River is proposed for study in 1995 to determine its
eligibility for Wild and Scenic River designation. The only potential
classification would'be Recreational category. Interim management of the river
is directed at precluding activities that could foreclose on potential
classification, and at protecting the remarkably outstanding scenic and
recreational values present on the river. Construction of facilities for
intensive recreational use is allowed, as long as the identified values are
protected (LRMP).
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternative 1- If no actions are taken, there would be no effect on the status
of the river for potential Wild and Scenic River classification.
Alternative 2- Rehabilitation of existing facilities would not affect the
status of the river. Since new facilities would be constructed to the
appropriate setting and level of modification for the ROS classification, and
since reconstructed and constructed facilities would generally improve visual
quality in the Corridor, these activites would not have a cumulative effect on
the remarkably outstanding scenic and recreational values which qualify the
river for potential Wild and Scenic River status. Since the river is currently
spanned by several bridges of varying designs and capacities, the addition of a
new bridge would not affect the visual characteristics of the area as a whole.
None of the proposed activities would result in any change in the free -flowing
characteristics of the river.
ISSUE: How would the project affect animal, plant and aquatic species
that have been identified as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or
Sensitive (PETS) for protection under the Endangered Species Act
and Forest Service policy?
Current Situation
PETS species considered in this analysis are those included in the National
Forests in North Carolina PETS species list. Aquatic, plant and animal species
were considered. Analysis documentation is contained in the Aquatic Resource
Analysis (Riley 1992), the Botanical Resource Analysis (Kauffman 1992) and the
Wildlife Resource Analysis (Miller 1992), all of will be part of the Biological
Evaluation for this project.
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- Neither of the alternatives in this assessment is likely
to adversely affect any PETS species. Since all -of the proposed reconstruction
in riparian areas, is on sites already heavily impacted by recreational use,
and since the proposed new facility uses only a small portion of the total
riparian habitat available, Alternative 2 would cause no cumulative impacts to
the riparian areas in the area as a whole (Kauffman 1994). A Biological
Evaluation is under preparation by Doreen Miller, Wildlife Biologist, and will
be completed once a decision on this project is made.

ISSUE: How would the project affect Heritage (cultural) resources,
including Native'American concerns?
Current Situation
In 1992, Forest Service Dave Dyson surveyed all potentially disturbed areas for
all proposed activites. The Heritage Resource Survey is on file (confidential)
at the Supervisor's Office, NFsNC, in Asheville, NC. (Snedeker and Dyson 1992).
Effects of the Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2- None of the proposed activities would have an adverse
impact on cultural resources.
19

IV. SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The issues associated with this project were identified through a process
called "scoping". This process is defined as "an early and open process for
determining the scope of the issues to be addressed and for identifying the
significant issues related to the proposed action", as defined by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, regulation 40 CFR Part 1501.7.
The scoping process for this proposal began in October of 1991, when a formal
Scoping Record was developed that stated the proposal and its objectives,
outlined the public issues associated with the proposal, and created an
interdisciplinary team to direct the environmental process (Wilkins 1991).
On October 16, 1991, the Scoping Record was sent to people and groups known to
be interested in the proposal, and public comment was invited. About 75
letters and personal communications were received. Meetings and field trips
were held on numerous occasions with with interested groups. These meetings
and public comment helped to refine the issues, and to determine the analysis
methods needed to address those issues.
Persons and Groups Contacted
The following people and groups were consulted and/or have written letters or
provided comments during the project planning period to date:
Bryson City Chamber of Commerce
Swain County Board of Commissioners
Appalachian Rivers
Camp Daniel Boone
Carolina Outfitters
Elk Hill Farm
Nantahala Riverside
Highlands Camp
Nantahala Outdoor Center
Paddle Inn
River Runners Retreat
Rolling Thunder
Whitewater Express
NC DOT
COE
Macon County Board of Commissioners
Western North Carolina Alliance
Trout Unlimited
Mayor of Bryson City
Great Smoky Mountains Railway
Smoky Mountain Times
Smoky Mountain Host
Western Carolina Paddlers
Donald Barnett
Paul White
Dennis Steward, NC WRC
American Canoe Association
John Bell
Franklin Chamber of Commerce
Nantahala Power and Light Co.
Brookside Campground
Camp Highlander
Eagle's Nest Camp
Expeditions
Great Smokies Rafting
Mason's Raft Rentals
Nantahala Rafts
Pigeon Rivers Outdoors
Rockbrook Camp
Western Carolina University
Wildwater Limited
TVA
US Fish and Wildlife Service
C.W. Hardin, NC DOT
Sierra Club
Mayor of Franklin
Appalachian Trail Conference
Franklin Press
Bill E. Stillwell
Eve and Ossie Wells
Nantahala Gorge Association
Carolina Canoe Club
Charles Place, Jr.
Georgia Canoe Association
American Whitewater Affiliation
Bruce Surface, NC DOT
The project file contains copies of correspondence regarding this project.

V. LIST OF PREPARERS
Interdisciplinary Planning Team
Joe Nicholson, Recreation Specialist for the Wayah Ranger District, directed the
environmental analysis process for this project. The following people provided
natural resource and technical data, analysis, and comments during the planning
process:
James Hunnicutt-Nantahala River Ranger, Wayah RD
Mary Noel
-Recreation Staff Officer, NFsNC
Richard Burns
-NFsNC Hydrologist
Melinda McWilliams
-NFsNC River Use Specialist
Doris Doster
-Land Use Specialist, Wayah Ranger Disrict
Dave Dyson
-Nantahala NF Archeologist
Donley Hill
-NFsNC Fisheries Biologist
Jeanne Riley
-Nantahala NF Fisheries Biologist
Sally Browning
-Nantahala NF Soil Scientist
Gary Kauffman
-Nantahala NF Botanist
Robbie Robison
-West Zone Engineer, NFsNC
Dave Wright
-Landscape Architect, NFsNC
Jerry Anderson
-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Rodney Snedeker
-NFsNC Archeologist
Michael Wilkins
-District Ranger, Wayah Ranger District
Joe Moore
-NFsNC Land Use Specialist
Jo Ellis
-NFsNC Geologist
Charles Sanders
-Lead Recreation Technician, Wayah RD
Doreen Miller
-Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest
21

VI. REFERENCES
Browning, Sally. December 1992. Soils Report on the Nantahala River Project.
USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC.
Burns, Richard. January 1993. Nantahala River Project: Hydrology Evaluation
of Proposed Actions. USFS, Supervisor's Office, Asheville, NC.
Kauffman, Gary. January 1994. Botanical Analysis for the Nantahala River
Project. USFS, Highlands Ranger District, Highlands, NC.
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), 1986-2000, Nantahala and Pisgah
National Forests,- USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC., March, 1989.
Laws and Rules For Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems. 15A NCAC 18A .1900
McWilliams, Melinda. April 1983. Nantahala River Management Assessment and--
ForestService Action Guide; and Nantahala River Implementation Plan. -USDA
Forest Service, Asheville, NC.
Miller, Doreen. -'-June 1993• Wildlife Effects of the Nantahala River.Project-.
USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC. -
Miller, Doreen.-- January 1994. Biological Evaluation for the Nantahala River
Project. USFS., Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC. (In Preparation)
Nicholson, Joe. December 1993. Recreational Whitewater Use on the Nantanta-l-&-
River: 1984-993. USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC. .__
Riley, Jeanne. February 1993. Aquatic Resource Analysis for the Nantahala
River Project. USFS, Cheoh Ranger District, Robbinsville, NC.
Snedeker, Rodney J. and Dyson, David. July 1993. Cultural Resources Survey.
USFS, Supervisor's Office, Asheville, NC.
Sweet, William. January 1985. Nantahala River Management Assessment.
USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC.
Sweet, William. January 1986. Nantahala River Gorge Management Update.
USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC.
Wilkins, Michael L. October 1991. Scoping Record for the Alarka Laurel
Exchange Proposal. USFS, Wayah Ranger District, Franklin, NC.
22

APPENDIX A
CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES
23

NANTAHALA RIVER LAUNCH SITE
Existing Facility
7�%aunch
Flush Toilet
r
3
r
CR
State Fii
9hwaY 1310
Conceptual Drawing - Not to Scale
DW 111q 3

sjry
/ + 1
/
.NANTAHALA- RIOTER LAUNCH SITE
New Commercial Facility
Conceptual Drawing - Not to Scale DW II/q3

PATTON'S RUN OVERLOOK
J5.-.f. Safety Fence
� S
Observation Deck `a
r�ara
�a
//� RaQlaS
1
Conceptual Drawing - Not to Scale
na i 11g3

FE.REBEE PICNIC AREA
Y Rapids
Conceptual Drawing - Not to Scale
AW Ii/93

NANTAHALA. RIVER TAKEOUT SITE N
Construct harden trail
Relocate US Hwy 19 F,p
Construct 8 ft. wide walkway A �14
r O,g4P
�P
Construct observation area dr
Pd
f
01
rl► �13
Of
�p .. 0
d�
P
oz
P
Construct 8 ft. wide walkwayrdfro
.. �s
Expanjf Pave existing outfitter parking area
Conceptual Drawing - Not to Scale ?N lZ,/Q3

COST ESTIMATES
Following are the latest revised cost estimates for the Nantahala River
Project. They were developed in 1993 by Dave Wright,NFsNC Landscape
Architect and Recreation Planner; actual future implementation costs will
probably be slightly higher:
Public Launch Site
Toilet/Change Building 120,000
Waterline
20,000
Septic System
40,000
Trail/Picnic Area
30,000
Electrical
10,000
Signs
5,000
Landscaping
10,000
Subtotal $235,000
Contingencies 10% 24,000
Subtotal $259,000
Plan, Design, Inspect
and Administer 40% 104,000
TOTAL $363,000
Commercial Launch Site
Toilet/Change Building $120,000
--Electrical
25,000
Parking Lot
125,000
Bridge
240,000
Access Road (0.13 miles)
45,000
Launch Pools
40,000
Walkways
10,000
Signs
5,000
Landscaping
15,000
Subtotal $625,000
Contingencies 10% 63,000
Subtotal $688,000
Plan, Design, Inspect
and Administer 40% 275,000
TOTAL $963,000
Pattons Run Overlook
Parking Lot $10,000
Observation Deck 20,000
Trail Construction 6,000
Fence 5,000

9
Signs
5,000
Landscaping
5,000
Subtotal
$51,000
Contingencies 10%
5,000
Subtotal
$56,000
Plan, Design, Inspect
and Administer 40%
22,000
TOTAL $78,000
Ferebee Picnic Area
Parking Lot
$100 000
Trails, Picnic Sites
50,000
Launch Area Improvement
15,000
New Launch Area
25,000
Water System
50,000
Septic System
40,000
Footbridge
10000
Electrical
20,000
New Toilet Building
120,000
Signs
5,000
Landscaping
10,000
Mobilize/Demobilize
10,000
Subtotal
$455,000
Contingency 10%
46 000
Subtotal
$501,000
Plan, Design, Inspect
and Administer 40%
200,000
TOTAL $701,000
Nantahala River Takeout Site
Hwy 19 Curve Widening
$130,000
Hwy 19 Turning Lane
20,000
Public Parking- 40 cars
150,000
Commercial Takeout
33,000
Falls Walkway
300,000
Viewing Area
50,000
Signs
10,000
Landscaping
30,000
Traffic Control
32,000
Mobilize/Demobilize
10,000
Subtotal
$765,000
Contingencies 100
77,000
Subtotal
$842,000
Plan, Design, Inspect
and Administer 40%
337,000
TOTAL $1,179,000
PROJECT TOTAL $3,284,00o

DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
for the
NANTAHALA RIVER CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECT
USDA Forest Service R-8
Nantahala National Forest
Wayah Ranger District
Macon County, North Carolina
FEBRUARY 1994

INTRODUCTION
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for public review at the- District
Ranger's Office in Franklin, NC. The EA discusses a project to rehabilitate a
series of closely- related recreation sites located in an eight and one-half
mile corridor along US Highway 19 and the Nantahala River, Swain and Macon
Counties, NC.
This project is needed in order to meet general management goals described in
the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP) for 1986-2000 and proposed Amendment #5 to the Plan.
Specific objectives for this project are to:
o increase visitor safety by reducing tripping and falling hazards at
currently undeveloped sites, providing sanitary drinking and ` toilet
facilities, reducing pedestrian/vehicle encounters, improving- traffic
flows, and providing opportunities for river safety orientation and
practice.
o improve soil and water quality by hardening impacted areas, restoring tree
cover as feasible, modifying use patterns, eliminating existing riverbank
erosion, and providing safe sewage treatment and disposal.
o meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classification for the area,
maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial outfitting/guiding operation
and administration, and reasonably meet current and anticipated
recreational use demand within the limits of acceptable change;
o improve visual quality .as seen from key viewpoints on the Nantahala River,
the railroad, and Highway 19 by rehabilitating areas of resource damage,
and by incorporating appropriate natural and cultural character istics-into
facilities design.
o''provide integrated interpretation aimed.._ -.at protecting the resource from
inappropriate visitor behavior, giving information about National Forest
recreational opportunities, and- informing visitors about Forest Service
managment in the area.
i-
DECISION
Based on the results of the analysis" -documented in the EA and comments from
concerned publics, it is my decision to implement Alternative 2. Specifics of
this alternative are:
o At the Nantahala River Launch Site- replace the existing vault toilets with
low volume flush toilet/changing room facilities and provide public
drinking water, in partnership with Nantahala Power and Light .Company
(NP&L); redesign the launch pool area to reduce existing erosion, site
deterioration and accumulation of upstream sediment, while dispersing use
to acheive a more desirable launch flow; stabilize .the banks of Rowlin
Creek; construct a fully -accessible observation deck; and construct a
portal sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 south of the Launch Site.

o Across the Nantahala River from the current launch site, on National Forest
land- construct a commercial raft launching facility, including unloading
areas, pumping stations, rafting instruction areas, and launch pools;
construct a vault toilet/changing room facility; and construct a bridge to
access the area from State Road 1310, in partnership with NP&L and the
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT).
o At Patton's Run Overlook- pave the existing parking area; reconstruct the
trail from one end of the parking area down to the Nantahala River, with a
small deck at the riverbank; and construct a fully -accessible observation
deck next to the parking area.
o At Ferebee Memorial Picnic Area- replace the existing chemical toilets
withvery low volume flush toilet facilities, and provide public drinking
water; expand the existing launch/takeout deck and add a new deck; provide
additional picnic sites, with 25% of all sites being fully accessible and
having a hardened trail system; and redesign and expand the existing
parking area.
o At the Nantahala River Takeout Site- expand and pave the existing
commercial takeout to the National Forest boundary, with a takeout deck
similar to the one at Ferebee; construct an accessible eleven to fourteen
feet wide walkway with turnouts and steps down to the River from the
commercial takeout to the beaching area above Nantahala Falls, with
appropriate pedestrian barriers along Highway 19; construct a
fully -accessible observation area, a -natural stone and wood seating 'area "
and a small platform area for commercial photographers, all located to view,
the Falls; stabilize the riverbank and provide a base for the7 walkway, by
constructing a natural rock wall along the riverbank at the Falls; develop
a paved parkin area above-the-beachin
g g -area,-reduce the curve of Highway "
19 by realigning the highway, and provide a turning lane, in partnership
with NC DOT; reconstruct the trail from the beaching area to the Nantahala
Falls walkway, and harden the beaching area with a takeout deck;
reconstruct the existing takeout at Silvermine Creek by paving the parking
area and takeout ramp, and constructing a takeout deck; construct a portal
sign and information kiosk on Highway 19 just north of the Takeout Site; "'_
and complete an integrated Interpretive Plan for the Nantahala River
Corridor, and provide interpretive displays at all four developed sites, as
well as at the railroad switching area at Hewitt.
o In addition, rehabilitate the pulloff picnic sites along Highway 19, and
harden several small beaching areas along the river. -
Mitigating measures for this alternative are:
o compliance with the State of North Carolina's Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment, Disposal Systems and Public Water Systems.
,o compliance with the State of North Carolina's. Sedimentation Pollution.
Control "Act, including the development of an appropriate,.Sedimentation
Control Plan where required. North Carolina water quality, standards will
be met.
2

o attainment of required 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers for all
activities affecting floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses. All
facilities will be designed so that floodplain hydraulics will not be
changed, flood peaks will not be elevated, and riverflow will not be
restricted.
o coordination with TVA. on all activities below the 1710'.contour level.
o meeting the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) of the area.
o meeting the standards and guidelines for MAs 12 and 18 as found in the
LRMP. Also, all 99 mitigating measures found in the Record of Decision for
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the
Appalachian Mountains, and incorporated in the LRMP by Amendment #2 in July
1989, would be applied as needed.
o Protecting potential PETS habitat above Highway 19, by prohibiting any
activities on the southeast bank of the highway beyond the terrace of the
old roadbed, during the realignment of the highway above Nantahala Falls
(EA, Appendix B, Biological Evaluation).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED,
Other alternatives considered in detail were:
Alternative 1: No Action.
Several other, alternatives were considered, but were dropped from further
analysis. These were: the leasing and improvement of the current commercial
putin located on Nantahala Power and Light Company property; limits on
commercial outfitting and guiding operations; reconstruction of existing toilet
facilities; the construction of only vault or chemical toilet facilities; and
the construction of a flush toilet facility at the new proposed commercial
putin (EA pages 5 and,6). Limits on use will be considered in the near future.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This project was scoped in October of 1991. The Scoping Document was sent to
individuals, groups and agencies who had shown an interest in the project. -
Written comments and personal communications have been received from about 80
groups and individuals (EA, Persons and Agencies Contacted). Meetings and
field trips were held with the Tennessee- Valley Authority, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the Nantahala Gorge Association, Nantahala Power and Light Company,
Mr. Malcolm McNeil, president of the Great Smoky Mountains Railway, individual
outfitters, and other interested users. An Environmental Assessment was
released to the public on December 22, 1993, and January 22, 1994. A legal
notice -was published on 21, 1994, in the Franklin Press and the Smoky Mountain
Times. -The notice-- detailed the availability of the EA, the formal comment
period from January 22 to February 22, and how to obtain further information
about the proposed project. Also on January 21, the EA was mailed to all
persons or groups who had expressed an interest in the project since initial
Scoping. Comments on the EA were taken for for 63 days. All substantive
comments received a response, as found in Appendix C of the EA.
0

DECISION RATIONALE
Alternative 2, as described above, is selected for implementation because it
best meets the specific project objectives, and the multiple resource
objectives of the Land and Resource Management Plan. Alternative 2 produces
wildlife, public land management and recreational benefits that flow from
overall landscape -scale objectives for the project area,. the Wayah Ranger
District, and the Nantahala National Forest. In addition, this alternative is
selected because it best responds to public interests (Appendix C, EA).
Response to Project Objectives
o Increase visitor safety.
Alternative 2 provides for increased visitor safety by reducing tripping
and falling hazards (pages 10 and 11, EA); providing sanitary drinking and
toilet facilities (page 13); reducing the chance of pedestrian/vehicle
encounters (page 10); improving traffic flows (page 10); and providing
improved orientation and practice opportunities (page 10). Alternative 1
provides none of these benefits. Given the history of recreational
facilities development and recreational use in the project area,
Alternative 2 will not increase recreational use of the area over
Alternative 1 (pages 8 and 11, EA).
o Improve soil and water quality.
Alternative 2 reduces sedimentation into the 'Nantahala River by hardening
impacted areas (page 12, EA); modifying use patterns (page 12); eliminating
existing riverbank erosion at developed sites (page 12); and providing
sanitary sewage disposal -for the toilet facilities used by the large
numbers of people at these sites (page 13). Alternative 1 does not. New
toilet facilities will be low flush volume units to minimize water
consumption and elimate overusage of the connected septic systems.
o Meet the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum classification for the area;
maximize accessibility, facilitate commercial outfitting/guiding
operations; and reasonably meet current and anticipated recreational
demand.
Alternative 2 meets the desired future condition for the area, as
describedby the ROS classification (page 14, EA); maximizes accessibility
by reconstructing parking areas, toilet facilities and trails to current
standards (page 14); improves the public recreational experience that uses
commercial outfitting/guiding services, by enhancing their operations and
improving the management situation on the ground (pages 13 and 14); and
reasonably meeting current and anticipated recreational demand (pages 5,
10, 11, 13 and 14). Alternative 1 does not meet these objectives (page
14).
m

o Improve visual quality as seen from key viewpoints on the Nantahala River,
the railroad right of way, and US Highway 19.
Alternative_ 2 improves visual quality by meeting all Visual Quality
Objectives- se't 'for the- area_ (page. 15, EA) ; rehabilitating areas of resource
damage (page .15); and incorporating appropriate natural -and- design
characteristics. ,into -.'facilities design. (page .15) .. Alternative.-:1: does. not.:
'-" meet these objectives;,since no improvements would be.made (page 15).
o Provide interpretation.
Alternative 2 provides appropriate and needed interpretation .designed to
protect the natural resources of the area, giving recreational information,
and providing informaion of Forest Service mangement (page 16, EA).
Alternative 1 does not.
Response to Public Interest
o Effects to the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) management of Fontana
Lake.
Alternative 2 will not affect Fontana Lake, since ,all actions will be
coordinated with TVA and the Corps of Engineers, and all activates will
comply with the State of North Carolina'a Sedimentation Pollution; Control
Act (page 16 and 17, EA). Alternative 2 will reduce sediment -load from
the Nantahala River into .Fontana .Lake; Alternative 1- wills not -..(page- 16.and
_. 17) -
o Effects to floodplains, wetlands and streamcourses..
Alternative 1 would not effect floodplains or wetlands, since actions.would
not be done in these areas. Erosion from denuded streambanks would
continue and increase (page 17, EA). Alternative 2 will construct a new
facility in a floodplain, and will be designed with with COE coordination
and permitting, so that there will no change in floodplain hydraulic
action, riverflow, or flood peaks. Also, -Alternative 2 will stabilize
riverbanks; and stop existing erosion at denuded areas, ,:,thereby
substantially reducing sedimentation into streamcourses (page:17).
o Effects to potential Wild and Scenic River status in,- the. Recreation
Category for the Nantahala River.
Neither Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would affect the status of the river
for eligiblity for Wild and Scenic River status (page 18, EA).
o Effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) plant,
aquatic and animal species, and their habitats.
Neither Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 are likely to affect' -any PETS
species or their habitat (page 18, EA; EA, Appendix B,. Biological
Evaluation).
o Effects to Heritage (cultural) resources.
Neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 will have an effect on cultural
resources (page 19, EA).
CZ

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Environmental Assessment contains sufficient information to verify that the
decision to implement this project will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Consideration has been given to the
following criteria for determining significance:
Context: The effects of the project are local and regional as described in the
EA.
Intensity/Severity of the Impacts:
1. This project will have a beneficial effect on the local community, and will
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety resulting
from the work conducted on this project.
3. One unique characteristic of the project area is the existence of a
population of several PETS sensitive plant species and one endangered PETS
animal species. Analysis shows that these species' viability and habitats
will be not be adversely affected by the proposal (EA Appendix B,
Biological Evaluation). Concurrence to this finding has been obtained from
the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The effects of the project as described in the EA are not likely to be
highly controversial. This refers to the lack of substantial dispute over
expected environmental impacts of the project, and not to opposition to the
project.
5. The effects of the project as described in the Environmental Assessment are
not highly uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks.
6. No precedent will be set through this action which would contribute to
future actions with significant effects.
7. No significant cumulative impacts will result from this action.
8. There will be no significant adverse effect to cultural resource sites.
9. There will be no significant adverse effect on endangered or threatened
PETS species, or their critical habitat.
10. The project will not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local laws
to protect the environment.
For water quality management, this proposal is designed to comply with the
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. The guidelines and
standards in this Act have been designed with the goal of producing water that
meets state water quality standards. Development will be monitored to ensure
proper implementation. If effects on a specific site are significantly greater
than anticipated due to unforeseen site factors or events, appropriate
corrective measures will be considered and implemented.
R

OTHER FINDINGS
The, actions of Alternative 2 are consistent with the Land and, Resource
Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (LRMP).The
following paragraphs discuss the reasoning for the finding:
oThe. actions_ are consistent with the LRMP objectives- direction and
standards for given in the LRMP, Chapter #. The actions will occur in
Management Areas 12 (LRMP, pages III-135 through 138); and Management Area
18 (LRMP, pages III-176 through 183). The actions are consistent with the
general direction and standards for these Management Areas, as well as the
LRMP Amendment #2, dated July 1989 incorporating the information contained
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation Management in the
Appalachian Mountains. These actions are also consistent with the
direction and standards in proposed Amendment #5 to the LRMP. Activities
will adhere to the Management Area direction and standards.
o The actions in Alternative 2 are consistent with the LRMP because
mitigation measures for impacts will be fully applied in the planned
actions. The project is feasible and reasonable, and it results in
applying management activites that meet the LRMP's six Forest Goals (LRMP,
pages III-1). The project provides its proportionate share of goods and
sevices, and contributes to the resulting future, conditions established'by
the LRMP (LRMP, pages III-1 and 2).
o The actions. of this project: that: alter vegetation ,comply 'with: the, seven
requirements of 36 CFR 219.27, and follow the the.Forest-wide direction and
standards, as well as the direction and standards for Management Areas 12
and 18.
IMPLEMENTATION
This decision may be implemented no sooner than the fifth business day after
the 45 day appeal period ends (the appeal period. beginning the day after the
legal notice of this decision is published), in order to provide the full
appeal period before implementation.
APPEAL RIGHTS
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Any written notice
of appeal of this decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9, "Content
of Notice of Appeal", including the reasons for appeal, and must be filed with:
The Regional Forester, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree Road N.W., Atlanta, GA
30367
no later - `than 45 days, beginning the day after the- legal notice of this
decision is published., Simultaneously, send a copy of the notice of appeal, to .
my office: USDA Forest Service, Wayah,.Ranger District, 8 Sloan Road, Franklin,
NC 28734.
For more information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal
process, contact Joe Nicholson at the address below, or telephone (704)
524-6441.

MICHAEL,L. WILKINS
Distric£ Ranger
Z�
Date
.01

APPENDIX C -.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMENTS
The federal regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act,_,
provide for a response by the Forest Service to all substantive comments to
environmental documents detailing proposed federal actions. Following is that
response. Similar comments have been grouped together.
Comment. An analysis of use, aimed at determining use limits on the Nantahala
River, needs to be completed before plans for improvements are made.
Response. This analysis was considered in the Environmental Assessment (EA).
However, such analysis is not needed to reduce or eliminate existing
resource impacts, or to design facilities that will reasonably meet
.existing and projected recreational demand (page 5, EA). Use --limits
will beconsidered in the near future.
Comment. Improvement to facilities in the project area will attract more
people to•.the area.
Response. An analysis of use in connection with current facilities is
documented in the EA (page 8 and 11). Future increases in use are
not dependent on available facilities, but are caused -by an increase
in. the demand for the recreational opportunities found in the area
(page 11).
Comment. Use of nonflush or very low volume flush facilities should be
considered. Flush toilets pose a threat to water quality due to the
potential for excessive water, consumption because of overuse. or
,leakage, leading to the failure of subsurface disposal systems.
Response. The EA identifies objectives for the project to provide sanitary -and
-environmentally sound toilet facilities (page 4). It documents-
consideration of an alternative that would use only vault or
chemical toilets.or a.mix-of flush and vault facilities, but
eliminates that alternative from further consideration because it
,would not meet the stated_. objectives. It would not be feasible to
accomodate existing use and meet current accessibility: requirements
(page 5 and 6). The EA documents that flush facilities and
associated inground disposal systems will be sited in the
approporate soil type and topography, will be built to State of
North Carolina regulations and approval, and will be operated in an
environmentally sound manner: Toilets will be of the low volume
flush type.
Comment. Improvement of the present commercial putin, or continued use by all
users at the public putin, should be considered.
Response. Improvement of the commercial putin was considered but eliminated,
because it is located on Nanthala Power and Light Company property;
the company plans to put more electrical transmission towers on the
site (page 5). Continued use of the public putin was considered in.
the no action alternative. The EA documents that the putin cannot
adequately handle existing use, and could not additionally
accomodate the seven outfitters that use the commercial. putin (pages
8 through 13).

Comment. There is no need for an observation deck at the public putin.
Response. The EA documents significant use and resource damage by people
viewing the river, on the upstream edge of the launch pool (page
11). Alternative 2 will rehabilitate this area with a small deck,
which, will concurrently provide an opportunity for people with
disabilities to access the river's edge. Accessibility is one of
the objectives of the project (page 4).
Comment. Hardening impacted'sites within riparian areas will result in
channelizing some sections of the riverbank, and will require
permament removal of trees and shrubs.
Response. "Hardening" refers to providing an impervious surface at areas of
concentrated use and resource damage (page 11 and 12), and would not
.result in paving, channelizing or altering the physical configuation
of the riverbank or riverbed. Rather, it would stabilize riverbank
areas and protect them from loss, and would eliminate existing
sedimentation into the river from these sites (page 12). The
impacted sites are almost completey denuded of any vegetation
already (pages it and 12).
Comment. Sedimentation from the quarry and from the proposed construction
activities will be greater than existing sedimentation from current
visitor impact.
Response. Sedimentation from the quarry is an issue that was not addressed in
this analysis, and is beyond the scope of this EA. As specified in
the mitigation measures for Alternative 2 (page %) and as documented
.in..the analysis- for water quality (page 12), all ground -disturbing
activities will follow the direction of the State of North
Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, including the
development of a sedimentation control plan and use of appropriate
control measures. The quidelines and standards of the Act are
designed'to meet state water quality standards. Activities will be
monitored, and control measures will be altered as needed (page
12). Cumulatively, the rehabilitation of current erosion and the
use of appropriate control measures will reduct existing impacts to
water"quality from recreational uses in the area (page 12).
Comment. It is the goal of the Forest Service to attract 500,000 visitors to
the area by the year 2000; once user pressure reaches that level,
the proposed improvements will be inadequate.
Response. As stated in the EA (page 8), 500,000 visitors is not a goal, but is
a projection of future recreational demand. It is the intent of the
project, as stated in the Vision Statement (page 3) to serve up to
500,000 visitors a year to the area, in conjunction with proper
facilities and use management. As key components of the project are
implemented, resource protection, visitor safety and recreational
experiences will approach desired levels (page 14).
Comment. Improved parking in the project only addresses commercial
operations. Additional parking for private boaters is required.

Response. As the commercial takeout is expanded, all commercial takeout
activiities will be moved there (page 14). This will provide
additional.private capacity at the Silvermine takeout. Also, the
proposed parking area above Nantahala Falls will increase parking
opportunities in the area.
Comment. -Improvements-on the,riverbank should be carefully designed -so as to
_.,not create.boater hazards and cause erosion during high-water.
Response. All activities will be comply with the Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act, and be coordinated with the Corps of Engineers when
extending below the high water mark. All facilities will be
designed so that floodplain hydraulics, flood peaks, or riverflow
will not be affected (page 7).
Comment. Maximize accessibility at Ferebee, Pattons Run, the beaching area
above Nantahala Falls, and the Sivermine takeout.
Response. Maximum accessibility is one of the objectives of the project (page
4). It is anticipated that wheelchair access will be acheived at
the public and commercial putins, Ferebee, the beaching area, and
the commercial takeout. It is not feasible to create such access at
Pattons Run from the parking area to the riverbank; trail grades are
too steep. However, the observation deck and parking area will.'
accessible.- While the grade of the ramp•at' the Silvermine takeout
will remain steep, it will be paved (page 2)..---

United States Forest Wayah Ranger
Department of Service District
Agriculture
Paul White
5 Walnut Hill Road
Sylva, NC 28779
Dear Mr. White:
8 Sloan Road
Franklin, NC 28734
Reply to: 2330
Date: March 4, 1994
On February 28, 1994, I signed the Decision Notice and Finding of` No
Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the Nantahala River Corridor Rehabilitation
Project. The decision is to implement Alternative 2, as described and analyzed
in the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was sent to you for comments.
Enclosed is a copy of the DN/FONSI, and an Appendix to the EA which contains a
summary of the comments and my response to them.
If you should having any questions regarding the project, please call myself or
Joe Nicholson at [phone].
Sincerely,
= HAEL L. WILKINS
District Ranger
Wayah Ranger District
Enclosure

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes,,Secretary
Nann B. Guthrie, Regional Manager
Asheville Regional Office WATER QUALITY
TIK 3W
4� 00
�EHNR
SECTION
February 14, 1994
Mr. Michael L. Wilkins, District Ranger
Wayah Ranger District
8 Sloan Road
J
Franklin, NC 28734
Subject: Nantahala River Project
Environmental Assessment
Macon/Swain Counties
Dear Mr. Wilkins:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Environmental
Assessment of the Nantahala River Project. We have concerns about the
extremely high usage of the Nantahala River and the potential degradation
of water quality which may result.
The Nantahala River is classified as B Trout ORW from its source to
Roaring Fork. From Roaring Fork to Fontana Lake, the classification is B
Trout. Currently, this section is under study by the Water Quality
Section for consideration for reclassification to ORW. This designation
would prevent new point source discharges and require more stringent
stormwater controls on other development. Preliminary results indicate,
however, that the section below the hydroelectric plant may not meet the
minimum requirements of biological diversity for this designation.
Flush toilets pose a greater threat to water quality due to the
potential for excessive water consumption because of overuse or leakage,
leading to failure of subsurface disposal systems. It is recommended
that non -flush or very low volume flush facilities be used in lieu of
conventional flush toilets.
Other concerns include loss of vegetation and canopy beside streams
and the resulting temperature, erosion, and habitat impacts. It is
recognized that the project will result in minimization of many of these
adverse impacts. It is recommended that tree and vegetation removal be
minimized, especially within the stream bank zone. Natural vegetation
should be used to stabilize stream banks.
Concerning sedimentation in the launching pools, it is anticipated
that maintenance will continue to be necessary. Some means of access for
periodic removal should be considered, since it is not feasible to avoid
sediment in quiescent areas without controlling upstream sources.
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Michael L. Wilkins
February 14, 1994
Page Two
Stormwater from impervious areas should be diverted away from a
direct discharge into the river. Vegetated buffer areas should be used
as much as possible to filter runoff from these areas.
We will be glad to offer specific comments and recommendations as
plans for individual projects are developed. If you have any questions,
you may call me at 704-251-6208.
Sincerely,
Paul R. White, P. E.
Environmental Engineer
copy: Richard Burns
J

i
A47A
NCDENR
Michael F. EasleV, Governor
RECEIPT
Steve Norman
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
P.O. Box 1457
Bryson City, NC 28713
Re: Project:
ConMet Expansion
DWQ#:
03-1502
COE#:
200430209
County:
Swain
January 30, 2004
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has received a check in the amount of
$57,600.00 check number 282891, as payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality
Certification/Section 404 permit issued for the subject project. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that you must also comply with all other
conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or local government permits or authorization associated with
this activity.
The NCEEP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCEEP is responsible for the compensatory
mitigation requirements associated with the subject permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified
in the permit. The NCEEP will restore 288 linear feet of warm water stream in Cataloging Unit 06010203 of the
Tennessee River basin.
Payments to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program are NOT reimbursable unless a request for reimbursement is
received within 12 months of the date of the receipt. A letter must accompany requests for reimbursement from the
permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or authorization has been rescinded.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrel ,
Director of Operations
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin-Barnetf;-DENR Regional-Offiee=Ashe`vi1Ie7
File
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619 NofthCarofiina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] i Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us1wrp/ ;Vaturally

OF W ATERQ
7
r_
Mr. Steve Norman
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
P.O. Box 1457
Bryson City, NC, 28713
SUBJECT: ConMet Expansion
Michael F. Easley, Governor
�l William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2004
DWQ# 03-1502
Swain County
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions and Wetland Restoration Program
Dear Mr. Norman:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill 288 linear feet of perennial streams in order
to construct the ConMet Expansion in Swain County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water
Quality on December 1, 2003. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3402 (GC 3402) which.can be viewed on our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 39 when it is issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification, as well as the additional condition listed below:
1. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with remaining jurisdictional wetlands and waters or
areas within 50 feet of all streams and ponds on the property. These mechanisms shall be put in place within 30 days of
the date of this letter or the issuance of the 404 Permit (whichever is later). A sample deed notification format can be
downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands ;
2
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must be
such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow
sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
QIA1
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, n'
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address) J A N — 8 vooz
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)--J
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748 Iq Eft Pi ii1LI-17 SECT if 1i4''

Mr. Steve Norman
January 6, 2004
Page 2 of 3
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of the
impacts depicted in the Pre -construction Notice Application. All construction activities, including the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If
placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and
the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
5. We understand that you have chosen to contribute to the Wetland Restoration Program in order to compensate for the
impacts to streams. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R .0402 and 15A NCAC 2B .0242(7), this contribution will satisfy
our compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h) and 15A NCAC 2B .0233(10). Until the
Wetland Restoration Program receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR — Wetlands Restoration
Program), stream impacts (including fill) shall not occur. Mr. Ron Ferrell should be contacted at [phone] if you
have any questions concerning the Wetland Restoration Program. You have one month from the date of issuance of
the 404 Permit to make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the placement of fill in 288
linear feet of perennial streams in the Little Tennessee River Basin, Cataloging Unit 06010203, and 288 linear feet of
stream mitigation is required. Please be aware that the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) rules require rounding of
wetland impacts to the nearest foot (15A NCAC 2R .0503(b));
6. There shall be no direct discharge of collected stormwater from any additional paved 'area as a result of this expansion;
7. An additional condition is that a final, written stormwater management plan (including a signed and notarized Operation
and Maintenance Agreement) to treat runoff from the clubhouse and golf maintenance facilities shall be approved in
writing by this Office before the impacts specified in this Certification occur. Also, before any permanent building is
occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office) shall be constructed and operational, and the
stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office) shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as
approved by this Office as well as drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural
stormwater practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality;
8. Culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that original stream profiles are not altered. Existing
stream dimensions (including the cross section dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile) are to be maintained above
and below the locations of each culvert. Culverts shall be designed and installed to allow for aquatic life movement as
well as to prevent head cutting of the streams. If any of the existing pipes are or become perched, the appropriate
stream grade shall be re-established. If the'pipes are installed in a perched manner, the pipes shall be removed and re-
installed correctly.
The culvert(s) shall not be installed in such a manner that will cause aggradation or erosion of the stream up -or down-
stream of the culvert(s). Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimension, pattern and longitudinal
profile) are to be maintained above and below locations of each culvert.
Native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques must be used where practicable
instead of rip -rap or other bank hardening methods. If rip -rap is necessary, it shall not be placed in the stream bed,
unless specifically approved by the Division of Water Quality.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to adequately
accommodate high water or flood conditions;
9. You are required to return the attached Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the
401 Certification has been completed.

Mr. Steve Norman
January 6, 2004
Page 3 of 3
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail -'
Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have
any questions, please telephone Kevin Barnett in our Asheville Regional Office at 828-251-6208 or Cyndi Karoly in the
Central, Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AW K/cbk
Attachments
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office
.Asheville=DWO�RegionahO.ffice
Central Files
File Copy
Chris Gose, P.O. Box 3744, Greenville, SC, 29608
031502

NORTH CAROLINA-DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
SUMMARY OF PERMITTED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2 H .0500, Mr. Steve Norman of Consolidated Metco, Inc., has permission as
outlined below to place fill in 288 linear feet of perennial streams in order to construct the ConMet Expansion project in
Swain County, North Carolina. All activities associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the
conditions listed in the attached certification. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAM
LOCATION:
COUNTY:
ConMet Expansion
Swain
BASIN/SUBBASIN Little Tennessee (06-01-02-03)
Impacts:
fill in 288 linear feet of perennial streams
As required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506, and the conditions of this certification, you are required to compensate for
the above impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands as outlined below prior to
conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Mitigation:
288 linear feet of perennial streams by WRP required for the 401 Water Quality Certification. In correspondence dated
November 18, 2003, the WRP indicated that up to 576 linear feet of stream mitigation will be conducted by WRP if
necessary for the 404 Permit.
Note: Linear foot requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Wetland Restoration Program must be rounded
to the nearest foot and acreage requirements must be rounded to one -quarter acre increments according to 15 2r
.0503(b).
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements is through the payment
of a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R .0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and mail it
to the Wetlands Restoration Fund at the address listed below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be
sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU
RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE WETLANDS RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
Signature Date
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
1619 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27669-1619
[phone]

o�OF W ATFRQG Michael F. Easley, Governor
y William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
C North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Y Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 5, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Forrest Westall
Asheville Regional Office
FROM: �f John Dorney UU--"
RE: 401 Certification Review
Attn: Kevin Barnett
Please review the enclosed 401 Certification applications by the dates listed for each project.
Please call me if you or your staff have any questions, or need assistance in these reviews.
Please complete the staff report and recommendation form on Filemaker Pro.
1. ConMet Expansion
031502
Swain Central Office Received 12/01/03, clock expires 01/31/04
Need RO comments by 01/17/04.
The other enclosed material is for your general information and use as appropriate.
Enclosures
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax
DEC - 9 2003
4VATER QUALITY SECTI011
ASNEViLLC tiEGlQi1AL Qi FICE
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748 NGDENIR

Triage Check List
,a I a fo3 • �d� 1114,+
Date: � / Project Name. �
DWQ#: 03 _ is
County:
To: l"I ARO Mike Parker ❑' WaRO Tom Steffens
❑ FRO Ken Averitte ❑ WiRO Noelle Lutheran
❑ MRO Alan Johnson ❑ WSRO Daryl Lamb
❑ RRO Steve Mitchell
From: C-1 V/1 Telephone: (919)
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
❑ Stream length impacted
❑ Stream determination
❑ etland determination and distance to blue -line surface waters on USFW topo maps
.LVI Minimization/avoidance issues
❑ Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar -Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
❑ Pond fill
❑ Mitigation Ratios
❑ Ditching
❑ Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
❑ Check drawings for accuracy
❑ Is the application consistent with pre -application meetings?
❑ Cumulative impact concern
Comments: er�� S 0/"
A

US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory held Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: David Baker, Project Manager
Reference: Section 404 Permit Application
ConMet Expansion
Swain County, North Carolina
EPC Project No.: 03pcn085
Dear Mr. Baker:
November 21, 2003
WETL DS/401 GROUP
DEC 01 2003
WATER QUALITr SECTION
Enclosed please find the Pre -Construction Notification Application Form for Activities Affecting
Waters of the United States for the proposed expansion project located in Swain County, North Carolina.
Consolidated Metco, Inc. (applicant) requests USACE authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 39 to fill
2881 linear feet (0.03 acres) of stream channel for the purpose of providing level building space for a truck
dock area as part of the ongoing expansion project. Site location, project layout drawings, and cross -
sectional drawings are included with the application package.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call [phone].
RespectNIly,
Chris Grose, MSPH
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Cc: John Dorney, NCDENR Div. of Water Quality (7 copies)
Sanders Lee, Lockwood Greene (i copy)
Steve Norman, Consolidated Metco, Inc. (1 copy)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (I copy)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (1 copy)
NC State Historic Preservation Office (1 copy)
P.O. Box 3744 . Greenville, South Carolina 29608 . [phone] • Fax [phone]

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
❑ Section 404 Permit ❑ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
❑ Section 10 Permit ❑ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit #39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ❑
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ❑
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Mailing Address: Attn: Steve Norman
PO Box 1457
1821 Hwy. 19 S.
Bryson City, NC 28713
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated- copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Chris Grose
Company Affiliation: Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Mailing Address: PO Box 3744
Greenville, SC 29608
Telephone Number:_ [phone] Fax Number:_ [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation' to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or, other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: ConMet Expansion
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 667313131935
4. Location
County: Swain Nearest Town: Bryson City
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take Highway 19 South from
Bryson City. The site is located approximately 1.6 miles west of Bryson City on the south
(right) side of Highway 19 South.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): North: 3921295. East: 723672
(Note — If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 20.47f
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Cochran Branch
8. River Basin: Little Tennessee River Basin
(Note — this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.) .
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Currently, the site has a manufacturing facility located on it.
The surrounding land use is primarily commercial or undeveloped agricultural lands.
Page 6 of 12

10. Describe the overall project in detail; including the type of equipment to be used: The
overall project involves anexpansion of the existing manufacturing facility. A 90,000 ftZ
building will be constructed to the east of the existing facilities away from any jurisdictional
areas. As Dart of the expansion, the applicant must increase the size of the existing truck
dock area. This portion of the work must take place in order to provide a safe area for large
semi trucks to turn around. Currently, the truck dock area is too small to allow the safe
turnaround of trucks due to the proximity of the slope associated with an unnamed tributary
of Cochran Branch located on the property. Heavy earth moving equipment will be used for
grading and pipe installation work
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed work is to provide
a safe turnaround area for large trucks to access the facility.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved ,wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Verification of the existing jurisdictional areas on the property was received on October 28
2003. (Action ID 200430058)
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future permit requests anticipated for this project at the current time
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State,
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and. map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be, clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts involve the
placement of 288 linear feet (0.03 acres) of an.unnamed tributary of Cochran Branch into a
48-inch pipe with associated fill material. This impact will provide the grade necessary to
expand the existing truck dock area.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Located within
100-year F16odplain**
(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name**
Average Width
of Stream
Before hn act
Perennial or
Intermittent?
( leasespecify)
1
Culvert &
associated rip-
rap
288
UT of Cochran Branch
5 ft
perennial
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip -rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip -rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at I-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 288 linear feet
Page 8 of 12

4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream. impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ❑ uplands ❑ stream ❑ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw -down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation,, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization) .
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts:
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The applicant has taken measures to avoid additional impacts during the construction of the
new building to the east of the existingfacility. Original designs had this building located so that
fill material in iurisidictional areas would be necessary for grading but the building was relocated
to the north so that these impacts were unnecessary. The impacts that are to take place are
unavoidable in that they involve the expansion of an existing truck dock. The truck dock cannot
be moved to another location at the facility and is unsafe for usage in its current configuration.
The slope associated with the UT of Cochran Branch prevents safe usage.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12

freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE — In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including .size and type .of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size "of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strinizide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan.. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected'stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and, a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The applicant has sent a written request to the NC Wetlands Restoration Program for use
as mitigation with this project. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to offset the amount
of mitigation payment required by restoring a section of the UT of Cochran Branch located
on the property that was previously piped without a permit. Please see Section XIV below.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wro/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 288
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ❑ No
If yes, does the project require preparation of 'an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ❑ No ❑
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within ' 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar -Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ❑ No ® . If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone*
Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1
3
2
1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Existina impervious acreage: 8.6 ac: Proposed impervious acreage: 10.9 ac• Total acreage of site:
20.5 ac — The BMP plan has been approved by Swain County under NC General Statute 1-13A
Article 4, Regulation 15A NCAC 4B.0001.0027
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by. DWQ)
ie
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the, subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be routed to the municipal sanitary sewer system for
B1yson'Ci1y.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ® No ❑ See Section XIV below.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
Yes ❑ No
XIV. Other.Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draW-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The applicant has placed a pipe into 180, linear feet of the UT of Cochran Branch previously
without applying for a Section 404/401 permit As part of the present permitting_ process the
applicant will remove this pipe and perform stream stabilization on the 180-foot section of
stream. A restoration plan for these activities is included with this submittal.
Applicant/Agent's S*nature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

REVISI
GRA
PHIC APHIC SCALE
SHEET NO.
E
,aD q 1000 2000
VICINITY MAP
PEaWITTIN(
1 inch= 2000feet
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Post
GmenvlOe,SC 2BB08
Gmnv lee Box28!
Phone:[phone]
DRAMATE: Y: mg
Swain County, NC
DATE: „fl32000
Fax:(864) 235b288
EPC PROJECT NO.: 07PonD85
USACE P/N:200430058
OF 5

L pn K
IJJ9V5SRFpA11 •,�•'_ ��
�L 0A, 1
..>pk` yC ray
b4rLD•^u ` WETLAND AREA #1
4,329 ft2
0.099 ac
WATERWAY AREA #1
472 ft
2,361 ft2
0.054 ac
WETLAND/WATERWAY AREA #2
90 ft
1,481 ft2
0.034 ac
F
WATERWAY AREA #4
48 ft
191 ft2
0.004 ac
Cy
WETLAND AREA #3
1,510 ft2
0.035 ac
WATERWAY AREA #3
95 ft
473 ft2
0.011 ac
WI ON ENTL
PE1Q
p
���777���T INC.
a� 1 ABC
CONSULTANTS,
GRAPHIC SCALE
1r 4 100 200
1 inch = 200 feet
REVISIONS
WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain County, NC
USACE P/N:200430058
SHEET NO.
2
OF 5
°� °°
`°°`"fl
Office Box 3744
GreenviO64)271608
Phone: [phone]
Pax: [phone]
DRAWN BY: cs9
DATE: 11/1312003
1 EPC PROJECT NO.: 03pcn085

,
V 1 1\Lrl1 V1 IIv11 !lv 1 7T 1 P1%1 GQ V1 11uld%
288 ft Dock Expansion
1,440 ft2
0.03 ac
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 inch = 40 feet
Post Office Box 3744 DRAWN BY: ce9
Greenville. SC 29608 DATE: 11/13/2003
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] EPC PROJECT NO.: 03pcn085
REVIS
IMPACT DETAIL
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain County, NC
SHEET NO.
El
OF 5

1,885
1,880
1,875
Elevation 1,870
(feet)
1,865
1,860
1,855
1,850
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
i
_--
-- i
I
PROPOSED PIPE
-
48-inch diameter
BANKFULL AREA
0+00
, 12.56 fta area o+20
0+40
2.58 ft2 0+60
0+i
Distance NOT TO SCALE
(feet)
�u-� ���
�
PERMITTING
e
CONSULTANTS., INC-
GRAPHIC SCALE
i 4 i ,i
1 inch = 10 feet mod
REVISIONS
CROSS SECTION
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain. County, NC
USACE PIN:200430058
SHEET rvo.
5
OF 5
°°'
°a„,�...
`°°°�°g
ose Ohl°e SC 96
Greenville, SC29608
Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
DRAWN BY: es0
DATE: 11/132003
EPC PROJECT NO.: 03pcn085

c®N�ME'7"
Consolidated Metco Inc.
Bryson City Plant
1821 U.S. Hwy.19 South
Bryson City, NC 28713
Date: 11/7/2003
To: Whom It May Concern
From: Steve O. Norman
Re: Environmental Permitting for Expansion
(828)-488-3888
(828)-488-6371
MEMO
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc. 123 W.Stone Avenue, Greenville, S.C. 29609, Phone [phone]. Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 3744, Greenville, S.C. 29608 is authorized to act as my agent in any matters pertaining to the permitting of the expansion of
our current shipping dock area. This includes preparation of permit applications, submission and signing of such permit applications.
Sincerely,
4k�a_
Steve O. Norman
V.P. Operations
Consolidated Metco Inc.

N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Attention: Jeff Jurek
Reference: Request for Use of Wetlands R
ConMet Expansion
Swain County, North Carolina
EPC Project No.: 02pcn085
Dear Mr. Jurek,
Per our conversation, enclosed please
development project in Swain County, North Ca:
unnamed tributary of Cochran Branch. This strea
its association as a tributary of Cochran Branch. '
2-79-69 and it is located in Little Tennessee P
necessary to the existing truck turnaround area,
stream on the property will be placed in. a pipe wi
impacts to the stream channel exceed 150 linear fe
November 13, 2002
Program as Mitigation
find a site location map for a proposed
Dlina. The project will include impacts to an
n is classified as `C' by,the NCDWQ based on
be stream index number of Cochran Branch is
iver basin. In order to provide the grading
total of 288f linear feet (0.03f acres) of the
.h accompanying fill material. Since proposed
;t, mitigation for this project is required.
As such, Consolidated Metco, Inc. (applidant) is requesting the use of a payment into the
N.C. Wetlands' Restoration Program as mitigatiori.for the proposed project.. Fee amounts should
be based on impacts to 288 linear feet of perennial/intermittent stream channel. Thank you for
your assistance 'in this matter. If you have , ny further questions or need any additional
information, please contact me at [phone]. j
Respectfully,
���4
Chris Grose
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 3744 • Greenville,
I
i
i
i
South Carolina 29608
[phone] 9 Fax [phone]

A��
NCDENR
North -Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 18, 2003
Chris Grose
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 3744
Greenville, SC 29608
Subject: Project: ConMet Expansion
County: Swain
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the decision by the NCEEP to
accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 18, 2003 the stream restoration that is necessary to
satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accent for this nroiect is also indicated in this table_
Stream
(linear feet)
Wetlands Riparian
(acres)
Riparian Buffer
(ft2
Impacts
288
Mitigation Maximum
576
The stream mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for
impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010203 of the Little Tennessee River Basin. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
9Q='l "11
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barrett, DENR Regional Office -Asheville
File
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619 NorthCarolliina
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: 9%-733-5321 \ Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ �aturally

INSTALL 1 1/2- THICK BONTERRA
'BOG -MAY OR EQUAL ON UPSTREAM
FACE TO TRAP SEDIMENT. USE 14 -
REBAR IN 'J -HOOK FORMATION
18" O.C. MAINTAIN DAILY, REPLACE
AS NEEDED WHEN FULL
FLOW WORK AREA
SHOULD
BE DIVERTED T17 O CREEK BANK OPPOSITE -,
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE OF WORK AREA
SEDIMENT WHEN IT
ACCUMULATES TO 12'
NOTES:
-
1. q57 STONE FACING THREE INCHES (3") THICK
1
MAY BE USED ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF EACH ROCK
_
SILT SCREEN INSTEAD OF BOG -MAT (OR EQUIVALENT)
ON LAST ROCK SILT SCREEN.
L� WORK,AREA
2. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT UPSTREAM OF
_
I
EACH ROCK SILT SCREEN WHENEVER SEDIMENT ACCUMULATES TO TWELVE
INCHES (12") IN DEPTH.
CLASS B i
RIPRAP
3. ONCE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ROCK SILT SCREENS ARE TO
BE REMOVED FROM CHANNEL. IF #57 STONE IS USED ON UPSTREAM
FACE OF EACH ROCK SILT SCREEN, THIS STONE MAY BE SPREAD
ALONG STREAM BED AND LEFT IN PLACE.
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT SCREEN
N.T.S.

FOO TER ROCKS
BELOW CRADE
Qr
.9� SCOUR
P COL
° FLOW
° 9 XC T
(E%CI.DAVATE
9 4 °
e Rio
I
B RIPRAP
STONE
A .
d
° a 9
A °
SD' 9 a .4
°
EDGE OF STREAMBED
TOP OF STREAMBANK
HEADER ROCK
(MINIMUM 1'%1'%2')�
CLASS B RIPRAP
BS] STONE
TOP OF STREANBANK
O
��o
4R-107/ 1
FLOW
e A STREAMBEDI
SCOUR POOL ��TC
FOOTER ROCK d
(MINIMUM I'%2'%3')
MIRAR 500% (OR EQUIVALENT)
WOVEN GEOTE%TILE
SF(:TION
A -A'
HER
ROCK CROSS VANE DETAIL
N.T.S.
APPALACHIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
361 SCOTTS CREEK ROM
S—A. N.C. 28779
826-586.1973
FAX: S28.A31.—
',:04 WETLANDS •.
W
:'.
J.
SEAL
1398
•'/•I'.,OKEY B. HENZOr: � .
z
00
I- �_ U
WQz
2: N
o J�
0 U)O
J
0
J
zrm
O �_
U Lf)
Z
O
Iti
~ J
w N Q
Lu
U • co r)
I-
U)
FIELD PARTY:
DRAWN BY: LETICIA RAIMOND
INITIAL DATE:
TODAY'S DATE: OCT. 30, 2003
PATHWAY: SS -CONS. METCO
REVISIONS
N0. DATE BY
SHEET
5
OF 5

W
W W
W W W
W W W W W
W W W W W W
W • W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W • W W W W
■
W W W W ■� ` W W W W
W W W W • W W W
W W W W W W W 1 W W W W
W W W W W W W ■ W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W ■ W W W W W W
251,
W W W W . ■�• W BUFF' ER
W W W W W W W W `■ � � W W
W W W W W W W W W (TYJP W
■
W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ■ L W W W W
•
W W W W W W W W
W W W W ■ W W W
W W W W W W
W W W W W � W W •'
W W W W •
•
W W W
W W W
W W W W
W W W
W W
W
TYPICAL BUFFER
N.T.S.

)O
NOTES:
STEPS IN BAR PLANTING
1. INSERT BAR AS SHOWN, AND PUSH HANDLE FORWARD.
2. REMOVE THE BAR, AND PLACE SEEDLING AT CORRECT DEPTH. II
3. INSERT BAR 3 TO 4 INCHES FROM SEEDLING (TOWARD YOU), AND PULL HANDLE TO CLOSE BOTTOM OF HOLE.
4. PUSH HANDLE FORWARD TO CLOSE TOP OF HOLE.
5. REMOVE BAR, AND CAREFULLY CLOSE THE OPENING WITH YOUR HEEL TO AVOID INJURING THE SEEDLING.
6. "THIS TECHNIQUE WILL NOT BE USED FOR CONTAINERIZED TREES." I
7. DEPTH OF HOLE MUST BE DEEP ENOUGH TO ACCOMODAGTE ENTIRE TAP ROOT. ?
B. AVOID ROOT —PRUNING.
9. AVOID J—ROOTING (SEE © ABOVE). 1�
10. NO SEEDINGS SHOULD BE PLANTED WITHIN THE SEWER LINE RIGHT—OF—WAY.
r\ ut
I � 1
\ %
STEPS IN HOEDAD PLANTING 'I
i
NOTES: tl
1. SWING HOEDAD FROM OVERHEAD DOWNWARD, SINKING THE BLADE ITS FULL LENGTH VERTICALLY INTO SOIL (MINIMUM DEPTH OF SLOT IS
8 INCHES).
2. PULL THE BLADE UPWARD SLIGHTLY BY LIFTING THE END OF HANDLE. 1
3. PUSH THE HANDLE DOWNWARD WHILE PULLING BACK TO OPEN HOLE.
4. WITH THE BLADE IN CAVITY TO HOLD BACK LOOSE SOIL, CAREFULLY PLACE SEEDLING IN HOLE, MAKING SURE ROOTS ARE FULLY
EXTENDING. THEN REMOVE THE BLADE. i
5. CLOSE THE HOLE BY INSERTING HOEDAD BESIDE THE SEEDLING, THEN LIFTING UP AND PUSHING DOWN ON THE HANDLE TO TIGHTEN SOIL.
THEN PUSH SOIL TOWARD SEEDLING. I
6. BE SURE PLANTING SLOT IS CLOSED COMPLETLY.
7.A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) SPECIES OF BARE ROOT TREE SEEDLINGS SHALL BE SELECTED AND INSTALLED.
SEE "APPROVED BARE ROOT SPECIES" LIST (BELOW) FOR ALTERNATIVES.
i
8. "THIS TECHNIQUE WILL NOT BE USED FOR CONTAINERIZED TREES."
BARE ROOT SEEDLING PLANT
N.T.S.
I
i
APPROVED BARE ROOT SEEDLING SPECIES
Planting Palette - Bare Root Tree Seedlings
Redbud (Cercis canadensis)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Cherry birch (Betula lenta)
I
Red oak (Quercus rubra) i
r
White oak (Quercus alba)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
APPALACHIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
3.1 =C S CREEK ROAD
S—A. N.C. 25779
826.53b.1973
FA%: M,31.0313
•: 0F WETLANp S •.
SEAL
139.
•�lCkEy.. B.. lis i
slau7uRF Dore
0
U
w
z
0
j U
az
N
QU
I- z
�0
�U)
Q �
LU m
V J
FIELD PARTY:
DRAWN BY: LET CIA —MOND
INITIAL DATE:
TODAY'S DATE: OCT. 30, 2003
PATHWAY: SS -CONS. METCO
DATE
SHEET
4
OF 5

O
MEANDER U:NG1H 00
FLOW
POOL i. POOL POOL
N
jr1
\ T T 1 6 qo
POOL POOL
I I I 1 1
80.0, 60.0' 40.0' 20.0' 0.00'
f00 \
TYPICAL DESIGN CHANNEL PLAN
N.T.S.
rw
TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
N.T.S.

12"
TYPICAL TURF REINFORCEMENT MATTING
N.T.S.
NOTES: 4
I. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING BLANKETS, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER AND SEED. USE TURF
REINFORCEMENT MATTING CI25 FROM NORTH AMERICAN GREEN OR EQUIVALENT. j
2. BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL BY ANCHORING THE BLANKET IN A 6" DEEP X 6" WIDE TRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" OF
BLANKET EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP -SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR THE BLANKET WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES
APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED
TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" PORTION OF BLANKET BACK OVER SEED AND COMPACTEDISOIL. SECURE BLANKET
OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE BLANKET.
3. FULL LENGTH EDGE OF BLANKETS AT TOP OF SIDE SLOPES MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY
12" APART IN A 6" DEEP X 6" NOE TRENCH. BACKFlLL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. ).
I
4. ADJACENT BLANKETS MUST BE OVERLAPPED APPROXIMATELY 6" AND STAPLED. TO ENSURE PROPER SEAM ALIGNMENT, PLACE THE
EDGE OF THE OVERLAPPING BLANKET (BLANKET BEING INSTALLED ON TOP) EVEN WITH THE COLORED SEAM STITCH^ (IF USING NAG
125) ON THE BLANKET BEING OVERLAPPED.
5. THE TERMINAL END OF THE BLANKETS MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP
X 6" WOE TRENCH. BACKFlLL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING.
100% COIR (COCONUT) FIBER TRIM BARE ROOT SEEDLINGS
(SEE TURF REINFORCEMENT
MATTING DETAIL)
BANKFULL }TV 7.5'
I O -
4' OF LOCAL----'
SUBSTRATE FROM
FROM EXISTING
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION -J
N.T.S.
APPALACHIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
367 SCOTIS CREEK ROAD
SYLVA, N.C. 20779
B ' B6.M7]
F. S28.A]I.0 11
IS ANO
SEAL
1398
'Y��kFY NENs 9. �r•''
z
o�
�_F_U
WQz
N
UJH�
HI
Q�z C)U)O
Ln
0 2: }-
v / < w
z Luco
O�
U (n
FIELD PARTY: MH, LR
DRAWN BY: LETICIA RAIMOND
INITIAL DATE: NOV. 7, 2003
TODAY'S DATE: NOV. 7, 2003
PATHWAY: SS -CONS. METCO
SHEET
3
OF 5

9
n0
Z4
�. C
RMP VERTIC
A�
WETLAND AREA
4-329 Sq . Ft.
0.099 Ac.
WETLAND AREA 2
1481 Sq. Ft.
0.034 Ac.
L50 N
Log
Lbu
COURE
CENTS
PROPOSED STABILIZED STREAM
i

Y F M^D'w'RQM#R 115y.
MNY iv 5 3!!w'"
�
C,toa
is
o7t r , "fix lnao-
r
1'
� y �
s
�1
fl X
APPALACHIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
367 SCOTTS CREEK ROAD
131x� 7 Y„r."
—VA, N.L. 28779
828.86
'�: �.�
:7E7✓f�-
FA%; 929.631.03I.D]G]
lhups3�vh RN4N �fi7•x9f
�-• xt. T
��
y ,•
xww 6rr�ua eNErN Nawott.con
D
..
OF WETLANDSo
S T
SEAL '.
3
098
*��yY ,!'-y=P7'• \
�EkEY B
grt>iwN2t
LOCATION MAP
SCALE: N.T.S.
WETLAND AREA 3
1510 Sq. Et.
0.035 Ac.
�co <�p0
L 4 7
L76 L75�46
I
L-42 THRU L-48 I
DE CREEK / WETLAND FLAGS
TIE LINE I
N 87° 14'00" VU
- 193.13' i
0z
0
�U
w<z
ZN •
LU
m
Q�z
J
�O
OWE
z Lu co
O�
U�
�
0
W�
N
O�w
amp
c U-)
a un
FIELD PARTY: MH, LR
DRAWN BY: LETICIA RAIMOND
INITIAL DATE: NOV. 7, 2003
TODAY'S DATE: NOV. 7, 2003
PATHWAY: SS -CONS. METCO
SCALE: 1°=50I SHEET
2
OF 5

TC

'OG RAPH IC MAP
SCALE: IN.T.S.
APPALACHIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
367 SCOTTS CREEK ROAD
SYLVA, N.C. 28779
828.586.1973
FM' 828.631.OS13
•; o�••WETLAND S ••,
u .
SEAL
1390
NENS�r•
SK—RE ogre
z
O�
I— �- U
LU
�NLU
•
OJ�
m
C)�z
�LnO
JLn
O W�
z�m
O�
U�
FIELD PARTY: MH, LR
DRAWN BY: LETICIA RAIMOND
INITIAL DATE: NOV, 7, 2003
TODAY'S DATE: NOV, 7, 2003
PATHWAY: SS -CONS. METCO
REVISIONS
SHEET
1
OF 5

December 11, 2003
NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Attention: Kevin Barnett
Reference: ConMet Expansion Project
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Barnett:
This letter is in response to your request for additional information dated
December 8, 2003 and our telephone conversation on December 9, 2003. Specifically you
requested 'clarification regarding 'stormwater management on the site in relation to the new
construction. The applicanthas made every effort to manage stormwater from the site in a proper
manner within the constraints of the property boundaries, site topography, and existing facilities.
As such; a response to your comineiits-follows.
-All discharge points will be stabilized to prevent erosion at the facility and prevent on -
site material from being deposited into waters of the State. The post -construction stabilization
measures in the SW3P plan have been submitted and approved by Swain County under their
delegated' ;authority granted by the State to administer the sedimentation and erosion control
program. BMPs include permanent vegetation, ripmp aprons, and ditch liners. Runoff from the
paved area to improve truck access and maneuvering will be sloped at approximately 1 % to 2% to
a 6-foot wide vegetated buffer "followed by a 2:1 vegetated slope prior to entering the stream:
We are unable to discharge the new 48-inch pipe to a vegetated area for treatment prior to
releasing it to the stream due to constraints from site topography and available property. Runoff
from the new building addition is collected in -a roof gutter and downspout system that discharges
directly to a piped system ultimately discharging through the 48-in6h into the stream. Thirty (30)
square yards of riprap at the end of the 48-inch pipe will slow water velocity to non -erosive levels
downstream.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. It is our sincere hope that this letter
provides you with the information that you need to continue processing of the permit. If you have
any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Respectfully,
Chris Grose;;,.: :.:z._ r:..:, :,;:... �."�'"� �' V R
Environmental Permitftng`Coizsulfants, Inc.,
Cc: Steve Norman, Consolidated Metco, Inc'
Sandeis `Tree; Lockwood Greene = -
... 6Nl1�ER.n�IAI iTv sFrriri�,'
P.O. Box 3744 9 Greenville, South Carolina 29608 a [phone] • Fax [phone]

x
Date:
Triage Check List
Protect
Name: Fx-prnj/�"
DWQ#:
County:
To: E-'ARo
Mike Parker
[:]'WaRO Tom Steffens
❑ FRO
Ken Averitte
❑ WiRO Noelle Lutheran
❑ MRO
Alan Johnson
EIWSRO Daryl Lamb
El RRO
Steve Mitchell
From: Telephone: (919)
The Me attached is being forwarded to your foryour evaluation.
Please call if you need zis$,istance.
El stream length impacted
El Stream determination
❑ etlan . d determination and distance to blue -line stirface waters on USFW topo maps
Minimization/avoidance issues
El Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar -Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
El Pond fill
E-1 Mitigation Ratios
0 Ditching'
El Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
El*Check drawings for accuracy
E-1 Is the. application -consistent with pre -application meetings?
El Cumulative impact concern
Comments: n -e
I. r-I I ..

US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: David Baker, Project Manager
Reference: Section 404 Permit Application
ConMet Expansion
Swain County, North Carolina
EPC Project No.: 03pcn085
Dear Mr. Baker:
November 21, 2003
W DS1401 GROUP
DEC 01 2003
WATER QUALIrySEC770
N
Enclosed please find the Pre -Construction Notification Application Form for Activities Affecting
Waters of the United States for the proposed expansion project located in Swain County, North Carolina.
Consolidated Metco, Inc. (applicant) requests USACE authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 39 to fill
288f linear feet (0.03 acres) of stream channel for the purpose of providing level building space for a truck
dock area as part of the ongoing expansion project. Site location, ' project layout drawings, and cross -
sectional drawings are included with the application package.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have anyquestions or need additional
information, please call [phone].
Respec ly,
Chris Grose, MSPH
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Cc: John Dorney, NCDENR Div. of Water Quality (7 copies)
Sanders Lee, Lockwood Greene (1 copy)
Steve Norman, Consolidated Metco, Inc. (1 copy)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (I copy)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (1 copy)
NC State Historic Preservation Office (1 copy)
P.O. Box 3744 • Greenville, South Carolina 29608 • [phone] 9 Fax [phone]

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this.proiect, ulease enter "Not Annlicable" or "N/A"_)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
0 Section 404 Permit ❑ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
❑ Section 10 Permit ❑ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide Permit #39
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ❑
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts ,(verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: Z
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ❑
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Mailing Address: Attn: Steve Norman
PO Box 1457
1821 Hwy. 19 S.
Bryson City, NC 28713
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: snormanna,conmet.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Chris Grose
Company Affiliation: Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
Mailing Address: PO Box 3744
Greenville, SC 29608
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:_ [phone]
E-mail Address: cse.el2c-inckearthlink.net.
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and toads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USES Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may. accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: ConMet Expansion
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 667313131935
4. Location
County: Swain Nearest Town:. Bryson City
Subdivision name. (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take Highway 19 South from
Bryson City. The site is located approximately 1.6 miles west of Bryson City on the south
fright) side of Highway 19 South.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): North: 3921295 East: 723612
(Note — If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 20.47f
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Cochran Branch
8. River Basin: Little Tennessee River Basin
(Note — this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Currently, the site has a manufacturing facility located on it.
The surrounding land use is primarily commercial or undeveloped agricultural lands.
Page 6 of 12

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
overall project involves an expansion of the existing manufacturing facility. A 90,000 ft2
buildinp, will be constructed to the east of the existing facilities away from any jurisdictional
areas. As part of the expansion the applicant must increase the size of the existing buck
dock area. This portion of the work must take place in order to provide a safe area for lard
semi trucks to turn around. Currently, the truck dock area is too small to allow, the safe
turnaround of trucks due to the proximity of the slope associated with an unnamed tributga
of Cochran Branch located on the property. Heavy earth moving equipment will be used for
grading and pipe installation work.
I I.- Explain the purpose of the proposed work:_ The purpose of the proposed work is to provide
a safe turnaround area for large trucks to access the facility.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Verification of the existing_ jurisdictional areas on the property was received on October 28
2003. (Action ID 200430058)
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future permit requests anticipated for this project at the current time
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:_ The proposed impacts involve the
placement of 288 linear feet (0.03 acres) of an.unnamed tributk of Cochran Branch into a
48-inch pipe with associated fill material. This impact will provide the grade necessary to
expand the existing truck dock area.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no)
Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill',
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htip://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g;, freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name**
Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1
Culvert &
associated rip-
rap
288
UT of Cochran Branch
5 ft
perennial
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are. not limited to: culverts and associated rip -rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation .(include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip -rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
*.* Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.jzov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 288 linear feet
Page 8 of 12

4. Individually list all. open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
p
Area of
Impact
p
(acres)
Name of cable ody
(if applicable)
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream, impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ❑ uplands ❑ stream ❑ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw -down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A ,
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VI I., Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts..
The applicant has taken measures to avoid, additional impacts during the construction of the
new building to the east of the existing facility. Original designs had this building located so that
fill material in iurisidictional areas would be necessary for grading but the building was relocated
to the north so that these impacts were unnecessary. The impacts that are to take place are .
unavoidable in that they involve the expansion of an existing truck dock The truck dock cannot
be moved to another location at the facilitv and is unsafe for usage in its current configuration
The slope associated with the UT of Cochran Branch prevents safe usage.
Vim Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12 ,

freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE — In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the -proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., .deed restrictions, conservation easement; etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The applicant has sent a written request to the NC Wetlands Restoration Program for use
as mitigation with this project. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to offset the amount
of mitigationpayment required by restoring a section of the UT of Cochran Branch located
on the property that was previously piped without a permit. Please see Section XIV below.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCNN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 288
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12

IX.
R.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ❑ No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ❑ No ❑
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 1.5A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar -Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250(Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements); or other (please identify )7
Yes ❑ No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone*'
Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1
3
2
1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Existing impervious acreage: 8.6 ac• Proposed impervious acreage: 10.9 ac• Total acreage of site:
20.5 ac — The BMP plan has been approved by Swain County under NC General Statute 113A
Article 4, Regulation 15A NCAC 413.0001 0027
XiI. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Wastewater generated on the site will be routed to the municipal sanitary sewer system for
Brvson'City.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is,this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any.Buffer Rules?
Yes 0. No El See Section XIV below.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
Yes ❑ No 0
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw -down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The applicant has placed a pipe into 180, linear feet of the UT of Cochran Branch previously
without applying for a Section 404/401 permit As part of the present permitting_ process the
applicant will remove this pipe and perform stream stabilization on the 180 foot section of
stream. A restoration plan for these activities is included with this submittal
V% A 0? -y
Applicant/Agent's SWnature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

„�,�, p����
f�
GRAPHIC SCALE
+ado 7 101W 28�9
VICINITY MAP
SWEET NO.
P a` I ' I'
1 inch= 2000feet
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
�p
CONSU�ry(p� �t ' ��y�
LTANTS,
Post Office 0ox3744
omenvme,sC2eeo9
DRAWN BY: csg
Swain County, NC
DATE: 11/132903
4NG.
Phone:[phone]
Fez: (B84)2358289
EPC PROJECT NO.: mpeno8s
USAGE P/N:200430058
OF

a
'`� ! ,�i � r unr GVC O.PY y�rnL AflLOIM1L
"'v51"worD ""5;
1 rid WETLAND AREA #1
�!7 r 4,329 ft2
0.099 ac
WETLAND AREA #3
1,510 ft2
a%���\ 0.035 ac
WATERWAY AREA #1!--
472 ft
2,361 ft j 1
r)
0.054 ac
WATERWAY AREA #3
WETLANDMATERWAY AREA #2 95 ft
90 ft WATERWAY AREA #4 473 ft2
1,481 ft2 48 ft 0.011 ac
0.034 ac 191 ft2
0,004 ac
GRAPHIC SCALE REVISIONS SHEET No.
IRONS L 1; 4 1,° 2I6 °x. e.. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
PE.RMI G 1 inch = 200 feet ConMet Expansion 2
�y�(�v Consolidated Metco, Inc.
CONSULTANTS, �l Gre oR� e0, 37aa DATE: BY: 03 OF 5
Greenville, SC 29608 DATE: NI13I2003 Swain County, NC
e Phone: [phone]
Fax; (BU) 235Mg I EPC PROJECT NO.: 03pcn085 USACE P/N:200430056

V 1 1 \L f—%IYI IIY11 TUB i ��vu v� a..v�•
288 ft Dock Expansion
1,440 ft2
0.03 ac
���� GRAPHIC SCALE
z� q 2I 4�
PERMITTING 1 inch = 40 feet
1Y[UTy�[�J1 Yp 11It g1I�0 A7.tt 1p[(�VTIrg1I�v INC.t Office Box 3744 DRAWN BY: es9
Greenville. SC CONSULTANTS, �Rl �MJ'Phone:(864) 27�3040 DATE: 71/732003
Fax: [phone] EPc PROJECT NO.: 03pcn085
IMPACT DETAIL
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain County, NC'
SHEET NO.
T_ I
OF 5
USACE

1,885
1,880
1,875
Elevation 1,870
(feet)
1,865
1,860
1,855
1,850
PROPOSED GRADE
/— EXISTING GRADE
e
I
1
I\
T
`17I
i
i
i
PROPOSED PIPE
48-inch diameter
BANKFULL AREA
0+00
12.56 ft2 area 0+20
0+40
2.58 ft2 0+60
nil
M
Distance NOT TO SCALE
(feet) km='
e yUF
O
ENVIRONMENTAL
PEr M17M
CONSULTANTS,o
� ���
6 GRAPHIC SCALE 10
I 4 I I
1 inch = 10 feet
REVISIONS
CROSS SECTION
ConMet Expansion
Consolidated Metco, Inc.
Swain County, NC
USACE P/N:200430058
SHEET No.
5
OF 5
�o_
o�,�eri
Zenvilia, SC29608ox 3744
Greenville, SC 29608
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
DATE: : �03
DATE: 11/13I2003
EPC PROJECT NO.: 03pen085

coivAiNEr
Consolidated Metco Inc.
Bryson City Plant
1821 U.S. Hwy.19 South
Bryson City, NC 28713
Date: 11/7/2003
To: Whom It May Concern
From: Steve O. Norman
Re: Environmental Permitting for Expansion
(828)-488-3888
(828)-488-637I
MEMO
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc. 123 W.Stone Avenue, Greenville, S.C. 29609, Phone [phone]. Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 3744, Greenville, S.C. 29608 is authorized to act as my agent in any matters pertaining to the permitting of the expansion of
our current shipping dock area. This includes preparation of permit applications, submission and signing of such permit applications.
Sincerely,
41Z�L
Steve O. Norman
V.P. Operations
Consolidated Metco Inc.

N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Attention: Jeff Jurek
Reference: Request for Use of Wetlands P
ConMet Expansion
Swain County, North Carolina
EPC Project No.: 02pcn085
Dear Mr. Jurek,
Per our conversation, enclosed please
development project in Swain County, North Caa
unnamed tributary of Cochran Branch. This streaa
its association as a tributary of Cochran Branch. '
2-79-69 and it is located .in Little Tennessee P
necessary to the existing truck, turnaround area,
stream on the property will be placed in a pipe wi
impacts to the stream channel exceed 150 linear fe,
Program as Mitigation
find a site location map for a proposed
c)lina. The project will include impacts to an
i is classified as `C' by,the NCDWQ based on
be stream index number of Cochran Branch is
iver basin. In order to provide the grading
total of 288f linear feet (0.03:� acres) of the
h accompanying fill material. Since proposed
t, mitigation for this project is required.
As such, Consolidated Metco, Inc. (applidant) is requesting the use of a payment into the
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program as mitigation. for the proposed project... Fee amounts should
be based on impactsto 288 linear feet of perenniallintermittent stream channel. Thank you for
your assistance in this matter. If you have any further questions or need any additional
information, please contact me at [phone]. 1
Respectfully,
Chris Grose
EnWronmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 3744 9 Greenville, South
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
Carolina 26608
[phone] • Fax [phone]

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 18, 2003
Chris Grose
Environmental Permitting Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 3744
Greenville, SC 29608
Subject: Project: ConMet Expansion
County: Swain
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the decision by the NCEEP to
accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 18, 2003 the stream restoration that is necessary to
satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of miti-aation that the NCEEP will accent for this nroiect is also indicated in this table_
Stream
(linear feet)
Wetlands Riparian
((acres)
Riparian Buffer
ft2
Impacts
288
Mitigation Maximum
576
The stream mitigation will be provided as specified in the 40.1 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for
impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 06010203 of the Little Tennessee River Basin. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
David Baker, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barrett, DENR Regional Office -Asheville
File
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619 NOf%hCarohna
Phone: [phone] FAX: 919=733-5321 1 Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ �atura[[aff

— 1 4
.0 -
4:erA i:i� i�aus '.
Offiee Use Only:
JUL 2 5 2003
USAC;'� � Action ID No. DWQ o.
1V
l f any particular item is not a lliicaf�bletj/oy`,tthii{Fs project, please ente
I. Processing
to
Form Version May 2002
"l:�•t Applicable" or "NIA".)
1. ChsW all of the approvals) requested for this project:
Section 404 Permit
❑ Section 10 Permit 0 Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
❑ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: N1J
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy pause written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ❑
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Pro
grammitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to ttal of PC proposed for
section VIII and check here: []� complete
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolinas twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here:
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant
Name: TM
Telephone Number:_ i$ - �a
N/d. Fax Number._ /ic}
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant:)
Name: ,,L f
Company Affiliation:_
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: nr Fax Number:
E-mail Address: u /�
1A %; 9� N
i; fi OCT 2 2 2003
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly . showing the location of the property with respect t
landmarks such as towns, veers, and roads. Also provide a detailed sit- plan showingto local
erty
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity tOpmap
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and MRCS Soil Survey with the propertyboundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by . 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reducdd to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name ofproject:�AX, fig"
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):19
3, Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): (p 2
'0
4. Location
County: - Nearest Town:
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.)
1 1 E . C-i Q 1 __ — -
% 9
�'R1310 C�atrle�� 3�anch c� - ur n �%� Th szip
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/I,on o�td'
g)�_hLS° 2� ��n. •.12 �►J A3 1
(Note — If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):_Q OC)4 (�
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake);
rs�n�
8. River Basin- I :"I
(Note — this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins.
River Basin map is available at httiD://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ad i 11ma SL)
The
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application __es �l end Q
Page 6 of 12

10. Describe the overall proj
)44
'-J-7` -
in detail, cluding the type of eeuipmerAto be
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed
IV. Prior Project History
ma
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
Project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
Nit) 13
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown onta
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12

1. Provide a written description of the, proposed impacts: D
�' C�•1 P
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Flood lain** Distance to
indicate on ma (acreslp Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts: Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. g°1°g' fill,
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available throw the FEMA
online at httoJ/www.fema_eov. Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saitwater m Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by ar ACE one. Wedand, beaver pond,
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:_ ,.r/*
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number Impact* a of bend of Average Width Perennial or
indicate on ma Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(lin f et) Before Im act
* List each impact separately :1'i lil'id'entify to
dams (separately list impacts due to both struck and fl oding),acts ocation (' elude linear feet before and aftera amend ettlosst am ,
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip -rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
** proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tribu
ry)e nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-96 6 t orhonline at
www.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com
www.mwquest.com etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: '20e % �1/0 > 9" � '
Page 8 of 12

4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, -ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
9cean and any other water of the U.S.) below
eii Water
Op Area of
Site Number =TYpe
t* Im aea of
ct Name of waterbody TYPe of Wp aterbody(indicate on ma (if applicable) (lake :pond, estuary,, sound, (acres)
$ List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. I
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc. p mpacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): El uplands
Describe the method of construction e.. stream El wetlands
spillway, draw -down valve or etc,): (g' dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
illwa Y,
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic,
trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watfrshed draining to pond.
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances,, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was develo
ped. If techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.applicable, discuss construction
T,^ r,a _ i. , - -- - - @ % - -
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for ,projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater, wetlands or greater than or equal, to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12

USACE — In accordance with the Final No'tim of Issuance:
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March q; 2000, and Modification of Nationwide
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic erV onmentnai�c 1 e required when
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the il. mpacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing loss
es of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stlmaide html.
I. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view)
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
�I H�
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP)-. Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
(919) 7335208 to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at httn://h2o enr state nc us/wWdgdex htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):_ ( I
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Ai
Amount of Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve ats Pxpenditure -of public (federal/staie) funds or t?Ie use of public
Oederal/state) land? - p
Yes ❑ No Q'
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ❑ No ❑
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the bufferte s an CAll
es offers must from shown
o Dw a
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photo Q
applicant's discretion. Photographs may also be included at the
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar -Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water SupplBuffer Requirements), or other (please identi
y.
Yes El o[�' If you answered " �?
yes , provide the following Information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact It utred
(square feet) Multiplier.
2
3
1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of ;mitigation of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian.Buffer Restoration t is proposed (i.e., Donation
, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund).-. Please attach allhan : ocementpriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B :.0242' or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order -to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream frAL
om the roperty.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -di or discharge) wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. ) of
NW. Violations (required by DWQ)..
Is this site in violation of g
Yes El No Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
.
Is this an after -the -fact permit lication?
Yes ,❑ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the ' applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in Vadvance of des ir
ed
construction dates to allow processing timefor these permits. However, an may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw -down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
TV /C
Applicant/Agent's SignatureDate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant its provided.)
Page 12 of 12

JX
inil
4r
livI - 7
�+ *z
21
_F Ot-Al"S
3922
-AD
Cey—
We
INA
I IF
Te
jr
04
CO
kf­
LO
Lo
6- M111
04
Ulf
Cl-
SY
Cl)

IS 'Ae-,k 5x
0-
Yj- LA,
vew,
(9,f
A tA ap

United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
107 Park Headquarters Road
Gatlinburg, TN 37738;,___
IN REPLY REFER TO:
D46
Myrrh
19, 2002
Ms. Kelly Becker
N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
Ashville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Ashville, NC 28801
Dear Ms. Becker:
Enclosed are copies of documents for an application to the Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers permit to allow for geological survey activities in the Oconaluftee
River, adjacent to the Towstring bridge in Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
County, North Carolina.
Sz,�ra A)
We request your prompt review and will appreciate your comments and/or approval of
this proposed project. If you have any questions, please call Chiara Palazzolo at (865)
436-1238.
Sincerely,
Susan K. McGill
Chief of Maintenance
Enclosures
cc:
Department of the Army Corp of Engineers
An International "Biosphere: Reserve" and "World Heritage Site"

United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
107 Park Headquarters Road
Gatlinburg, TN 37738
IN REPLY REFER TO:
D46
March 19, 2002
Mr. David Baker
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Ashville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Baker:
This is an application for the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers permit to
allow for geological survey activities in the Oconaluftee River, adjacent to the Towstring
bridge in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Haywood County, North Carolina.
Along with this Nationwide No. 6, Survey Activities, Pre -Construction Permit, I am
enclosing the following required information:
• Request for Environmental Compliance Assessment (RECA) with
accompanying maps
• Environmental Documentation
• Memo to the RECA file
• Copies sent to other agencies for concurrence
The Memo to the RECA file explains why a method change, from using a
trackhoelbackhoe to using a track -drill, was initiated. In an effort to improve water
quality and sewer conditions associated with existing waste water treatment facilities
within the National Park and Reservation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and
Great Smoky Mountains National Park are proposing to tie into the Cherokee Municipal
system. One of the possible alternatives to accomplish this proposed project is the use of
an inverted siphon to cross the Oconaluftee River. The geological survey will help to
determine if an inverted siphon is possible and what methods would be necessary to
install such a system. The permit application explains further about the project.
Copies of this application have been sent to: Tennessee Valley Authority's office in
Morristown, TN; Division of Water Quality office in Ashville, NC; and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission in Waynesville, NC.
An International "Biosphere Reserve" and. "World Heritage Site"

We would like this project to start as soon as the spawning restrictions are lifted,
probably in mid to late April. We request your prompt review and will appreciate your
comments and/or approval of this proposed project. If you have any questions, please
call Chiara Palazzolo at [phone].
Sincerely,
,Susan K. McGill
Chief of Maintenance
Enclosures
cc:
Tennessee Valley Authority
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
An International "Biosphere Reserve" and "World Heritage Site"

Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
❑ Section 10 Permit
' ® 401 Water Quality Certification
❑ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide #6:survey activities
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ❑
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII — Mitigation), check here: ❑
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service; Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Mailing Address: 107 Park Headquarters Road; Gatlinburg, TN 37738
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
[e-mail]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Susan K. McGill, Chief of Maintenance
Company Affiliation: Great Smoky Mountains
Mailing Address: 107 Park Headquarters Road
Gatlinburg, TN 37738
Telephone Number: [phone] or 1235 Fax Number: [phone]
[e-mail]
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Oconaluftee River Exploratory Die
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):Calculated by Ms Ruth at Bryson City Tax Office for
Towstring Area - 7628-0046-6872
4. Location County: Swain Nearest Town: Towstring
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): 2.5 miles from Towstring Community
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
From the town of Cherokee, NC, take the New Found Gap road 5.25 miles north into the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park. Take a right going east onto BIA highway 425, approximately .25 miles until
you cross the Towstrins bridge. Then take a left for about 300 ft. The site is directly adiacent to the river.
The four corners of the proposed site are marked with stakes.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): UTM 17 291693E 39 35395N
(Note — If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The Smokemont road passes by the propose rocky, riverbank site. There are only native wildlife
populations using the natural appearing landscape except for the occasional angler. Further north exists
a water treatment facility, horse concessionaire, and campground.
7. Property size (acres): The proposed site as shown on the may has a square footage of about 150ft x
100 ft. (34435 acres)
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Oconaluftee River
9. River Basin: French Broad
(Note — this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httL://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work:
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCD and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) are
cooperatively planning the replacement of highly deteriorated and non -compliant water and sewer systems
serving the Smokemont Development Area in GRSM by extending municipal water and sewer service from
Cherokee, North Carolina. A proposed alignment is currently being developed. At the Tow String Bridge
section, 2 possible alternatives are being assessed, 1) design an inverted siphon sewer line under the river or 2)
redesign the concrete bridge to accommodate the lines to hang safely and aesthetically beneath it. In an effort
to seek out the best alignment for these lines and determine feasibility of the two alternatives, the (EBCD is
requesting a permit for exploratory digging at the Oconaluftee River. The exploratory drilling with a track -
drill is needed to determine site suitability for installation of an inverted siphon sewer line.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
A track -drill would be used to obtain 6" core samples along the rocky river bank to a depth of approximately
3-5 feet. The core samples will indicate rock formation and guide the determination of alternative methods for
the installation of utility lines. The selected area where the track -drill would operate from appears to be loose
rock which would allow for minimal impact to surrounding vegetation. This area is approximately 150'x 100'
as shown on the maps.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project:
The Smokemont Developed area located to the north of the proposed site, includes a campground, a riding
stable, a back country staging area and Park housing. The area serves approximately 51,300 visitors
annually. Smokemont is the largest development area in North Carolina and is considerably popular. The
campground has 142 campsites and is the only year-round campground on the North Carolina side of the
Park. To the southeast of the proposed site lies the Towstring Community.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No prior jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this proiect in
the past.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
Page 3 of 9

Once the water/sewer proiect has gone through the NEPA process and an alternative selection has been made
in consultation with all applicable regulatory agencies, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park will apply
for a utility crossing permit reflecting the alternative selected.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
N/A. A determination of no significant impact has been made. Please see attached categorical exclusion.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact*
Area of
Impact
acres)
Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no
Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres impacted
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
N/A. A determination of no significant impact has been made. Please see attached categorical exclusion.
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact*
Length of
Impact
(linear feet
Stream Name**
Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secify)
Page 4 of 9

k List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip -rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip -rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
N/A. A determination of no significant impact has been made. Please see attached categorical exclusion.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact*
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ❑ uplands ❑ stream ❑ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw -down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size -of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9

Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower -impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The equipment will be placed along the bank where rock is naturally prevalent and vegetation
minimal. Care will be taken not to take out any of the surrounding trees. A silt fence will be
installed to minimize the amount of sediment introduced into the river. All orifices created by
the track -drill will be refilled following the best management practices. Please see attached
copy of the Categorical Exclusion form that is pending confirmation from Corps. of Engineers.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE — In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A. A determination of no significant impact has been made. Please see attached categorical exclusion.
Page 6 of 9

2.. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP: Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at bm://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/m /index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental.documentation.
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ❑ No ❑ 1
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Page 7 of 9

Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar -Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify, )?
Yes ❑ No ❑ If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone*
Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1
3
2
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
I_f buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 8 of 9

XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
Yes ❑ No ❑
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. -However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw -down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

c.v'-LU- Cof�
Oxtat Smoky Mountains National Park Date Received
(RMS Division Use Only) Request No.
REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
PROJECT TITLE: OCONALUFTEE RIVER EXPLORATORY DIG
Name Chiara A. Palazzolo Date 11-27-01
Project Manager
Name Date 12- 3 'd
Division Chi Concurren
1. Reason and description of action; if project involves ground disturbance include
dimensions of actual area that will be disturbed. Indicate how project is to be completed,
what type of equipment will be used, and other relevant information as appropriate.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBC1) and the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (GRSM) are cooperatively planning the replacement of highly
deteriorated and non -compliant water and sewer systems serving the Smokemont
Development Area in GRSM by extending municipal water and sewer service from
Cherokee, North Carolina. A proposed alignment is currently being developed. At the
Tow String Bridge section, 2 possible alternatives are being assessed, 1) design an
inverted siphon sewer line under the river or 2) redesign the concrete bridge to
accommodate the lines to hang safely and aesthetically beneath it. In an effort to seek
out the best alignment for these lines and determine feasibility of the two bridge
section alternatives, the (EBC1) is requesting an environmental compliance assessment
for exploratory digging at the Oconaluftee River. The exploratory digging is needed to
determine site suitability for installation of an inverted siphon sewer line. A trackhoe
and/or backhoe would be used to explore along the rocky river bank to a depth of
approximately 3-5 feet and determine the amount of solid rock. The selected area
where the backhoe/trackhoe would operate from appears to be loose rock which would
allow for minimal impact to surrounding vegetation. This area is approximately 150'x
100' as shown on the quad map.
2. Does the proposed project (action) support the GMP or other approved planning or
management document? List all documents that apply (Include reference).
This proposed action does support the GMP, which indicates that Smokemont
Development area will be managed at current use levels. The GRSM has a
fundamental obligation to provide basic services to visitors and NPS policy requires
the agency to seek to provide a safe and healthful environment. The proposed project
is consistent with the mandate described in the 2001 National Park Service
Management Policies Section 9.1.5. This policy states that the Service will use
municipal utility systems outside the Park whenever economically and
environmentally practical and it may participate in cost sharing with municipalities in
meeting replacement park utility needs.

3. List all natural resources, cultural resources or visitor experience problems you anticipate
(e.g. digging, proximity to wetlands) and measures that will be taken to reduce impacts
(e.g. installation of silt fencing, delineating no -impact zones, assigning someone to manage
project, etc.).
Equipment will be operating on the bank of the Oconaluftee River, and in some cases
in the river. Silt fence will be installed to minimize the amount of sediment
introduced into the river.
4. Do you plan to bring topsoil into the Park, revegetate or seed affected area? If so, with
what species?
No. The area can be hydro -seeded with native grasses/forbs common to the river
bank habitat or other seed the NPS deems necessary.
5. Date project will be ready for field review:
The site is ready for review. Rick Rivers works for the Department of Human Health
and Services and is the liaison for the EBCI. Please call him at 1-828-497-1837 for a
site visit any time. Or you can contact Chiara A. Palazzolo for a site visit at 1-865-
436-1238.
6. Date project is proposed to begin:
The EBCI would like to begin as soon as possible and await approval from the
GRSM.
7. Attach copy of USGS quad with the project delineated on it. Include large-scale drawings,
photographs, or sketch plans as appropriate.
Copy of the quad map is enclosed.
8. Completed Request for Environmental Compliance Assessment forms should be routed to
the Resource Management & Science Division Chief All Requests for Environmental
Compliance Assessments require a minimum of 45 days to complete and are required to be
reviewed by the Parles Compliance Management Board. Any action or project that will
require consultation with an outside agency will require a minimum of 70 days to complete.
Any action or project that requires T/E species review can only be accomplished during the
growing season.
Revised 09/01

1. Reason and description of the project; include dimensions of actual area that will be disturbed. Indicate
how project is to be completed, what type of equipment will be used, and other relevant information as
appropriate.
To determine site suitability for installation of inverted siphon sewer line. Area along river bank
is very rocky. A Trackhoe and/or Backhoe will be used to explore the -area to a depth of
approximately 3-5 feet and determine the amount of solid rock. The area chosen (approx. 150' x
1001) appears to be loose rock with minimal impact to surrounding vegetation.
2. List all environmental or cultural resources problems you anticipate (e.g. digging, proximity to
wetlands) and measures that will be taken to reduce impacts (e.g. installation of silt fencing,
delineating no -impact zones, assigning someone to manage project, etc.).
Equipment will be operating on the bank of the Oconoluftee River, and in some cases in the
river. Silt fence will be installed to minimize the amount of sediment introduced into the river.
Do you plan to bring topsoil into the Park, revegetate or seed affected area? If so, with what species?
No. The area can be hydro -seeded with grass or other seed if the NPS deems necessary.
4. Date project will be ready for field review:
Please call 1-828497-1837 for a site visit anytime.
5. Date project is proposed to begin:
As soon as allowable.
6. Attach copy of USGS quad with the project delineated on it. Include drawings, photographs, or sketch
plans as appropriate.

it a y .h4 G 4 t, Y`� °.� n kf ,
r �P �'.a, ,• �' (€ -�' t ' d F n � � Pilo t .J �@ , � � �}T� r•�, , o .
sok
4
41
AL
a x�'` e 4 � a z '� 4 _ h i```77�,, `. t � F� �' � ' r �. d" t4 �'i`r ' ,• , �r
� , • �r � 4t a �,--k i�T�Z; a , X 1' �' _ *y.'� .^ ' �� ;
a. tJ
r�
. �k' 9 n, �' ,, '": N. 4y.. r� i3 4' • • d ..x _ k{�SQ j.�x�
Fl ea
a - ,y • rtD , owl e ud, . t � P�',~"qT.#=} Y t " � `f U r-0 3�,�'.N.�i' N , . , �
01.
`+
IF
4 y.
e ,S{ xr ti'H F � � � 7" '.k,` pmjn r, •q �t ly `� of ,[ '
4pv.�7 ap h: '•,• l" `°' c '
] . � t ➢ 4� a•�E E +� 19
�� °t k�,.4' �`� yet F � ��s � y ,• ;<
Ea

0 10 50 Kilometers
0 10 50 Mites
TENRE�SSEE
n
d11
GEORGIA
Asheville
"SITE FOR -PROPOSED
WATER/SEWER PROJECT
ROLINA 11 f:
SOUTH `
AROLINA
i
Location Map
TITLE OF DRAWING canMX Concept Report Graphic WATER/SEWER REPLACEMENT
a°L LOCATION WITHIN PARK
UNITED STATES SMOKEMONT DEVELOPMENT AREA
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NAME OF PARK.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REGION COUNTY STATE
Southeast Swain North Carolina

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS
NATIONAL PARK
/
X�o
�//
� " Smokemont Development Area
�j Campground
dd / Horse Camp
Horse Concession
�o� / .Tow String
Proposed Water/ ' / / ' Ridge
//� z park //
Sewer Line ,�/ / V� wa /
OcOnaluftee
Visitor-Center,41
,CHEROKEE INDIAN RESERVATION, /
-CHEROKEE'/
North-'19
0 1 Kilometer,
441
/
0/ 1 Mile"', /�/ '/-5,'�//
TITLE OF DRAWING
Project Map WATER/SEWER REPLACEMENT
HAnoEML Concept Report Graphic
atavoc€vARa LOCATION WITHIN PARK
UNITED STATES SMOKEMONT DEVELOPMENT AREA
,. „v„ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NAME OF PARK
JTr., Great Smoky Mountains National Park
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REGION COUNTY STATE
Southeast Swain North Carolina

March 12, 2002,
To: RECA File
From: Chiara Palazzolo, Landscape Architect, Maintenance
Subject: Method change for exploratory Dig at Oconaluftee, # 0208
On December P, I sent out a RECA form for the Exploratory Dig at Oconaluftee. In
that RECA form, the means to accomplish the exploratory digging within the proposed
site was the use of a backhoe or trackhoe. In consultation with Rick Rivers, of IHS, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and David Baker of the Corps of Engineers, the
method of proposed exploration has been changed to using a trackdrill and boring 6 inch
wide cores 3-4 feet deep. This proposed change was made in an effort to decrease the
chance of disturbance in the river. As per my discussion with Carroll Schell, the NEPA
coordinator, this memo is being sent to the RECA File and will be presented to the
Compliance Management Board for review.
If there are any questions please contact me at [phone].
Thank you,
Chiara A.Palazzolo
Enclosure
bc:
Gen. Files
CAPalazzolo:memo.to.reca
y

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: X Wildlife Biologist X Historian — RA- Staff Ranger
X , Fishery Biologist X Archeologist — RE Staff Ranger
X Vegetation Specialist _ Cultural Landscape Architect v Other
X I & M Coordinator Museum Curator
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique "species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural resources.
Return your comments to me as soon as possible or by the established return date. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has been scheduled for the next Compliance Management Board Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
Signature , _ - : Date
S
The following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:
no
Revie er Signatto
/ o ✓ . Revised 09/01
Date

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: _,X Wildlife Biologist X Historian _ RA Staff Ranger
__X_ Fishery Biologist X Archeologist _ RE Staff Ranger
X Vegetation Specialist _ Cultural Landscape Architect _ Other
X I & M Coordinator _ Museum Curator .
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural resources.
Return your comments to me as soon as possible or by the established retuni date. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has been scheduled for the next Compliance Management Board Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
Signature
- /Z zov/
Date.
The following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
S�
,q c ��9on�r��-�S
COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:
c5le,e- "q�at .Ceor C'd�4
�i � �— Y �QpZ Revised 09/01
Reviewer Signature Date . .

Oconaluftee River Exploratory Dig
The following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection
with the proposed activity. (Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
According to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, any action, which may affect a
Federally listed, endangered or threatened species requires formal consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The forested area along the Oconaluftee River
contains trees that could be potential summer habitat for the endangered Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis). Important characteristics of summer roost trees for Indiana bats are
structural (i.e., exfoliating bark, tree cavities, crevices, etc.) and are typically found on
dead, hollow, dying, damaged, or very large trees. Therefore, trees proposed to be cut as
part of this project will need to be evaluated as potential roost sites for Indiana bats.
COMMENTS OR RECOMMONDATIONS:
I have informally consulted with Mr. Robert Currie (USFWS) regarding tree removal and
Indiana bats. Based on conversations with Mr. Currie, cutting live trees or the limbs of
live trees at the trunk would not impact Indiana bats provided they do not have
characteristics of summer roost trees for Indiana bats (i.e. exfoliating bark, tree cavities,
crevices, etc.). If removal of trees or limbs -of trees that have these characteristics is
absolutely necessary, it should occur during winter months,(November 15 through April
1) when Indiana bats are hibernating. ' Based on conversations with Mr. Currie and
considering other suitable Indiana- WULAbitat. within the"Park, it is concluded that
removing trees or limbs 'of trees that have characteristics of Indiana bat summer roost
sites for this project during winter months would have no affect on Indiana bats and
therefore informal consultation would be adequate.
Alternatively, removing the trees or limbs of trees that have characteristics of Indiana bat
.summer roost sites during summer months (April 1 though November 15) could impact
Indiana bats. Mitigation efforts would first require -determining the presence of Indiana
bats or alternatively assuming Indiana bats are present and consulting.with the USFWS
based on the -presumed presence of the species. Determining if Indiana bats are present
would require a combination of mist netting conducted according to mist netting
guidelines that are contained in the Agency Draft Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), along with Ana -bat technology and visual
observations during summer months. If Indiana bats are in the area during summer, then
trees would have to be removed during winter (November 15 through April 1) while bats
are hibernating.
References:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)
Revised Recovery flan: Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53pp.

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: Wildlife Biologist X Historian _ RA Staff Ranger
X Fishery Biologist -1-i-Archeologif _ RE Staff Ranger
X _ Vegetation Specialist Cultural Landscape Architect _ Other.
X I & M Coordinator _ Museum Curator
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural resources.
Return your comments to me as soon as possible or by the established return date. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has, been scheduled for the next Compliance Management Board. Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
(CiY
Signature
1Z�( zoo
..Date - --- —
The following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
114r� PV-4>PCVGt"-Q Ares OF (_C,'x'Tw0C'T-X>N v.,,,n-t ..or-- A„J
�XIST1NCr QRi 4C�e . �� FJ�TI-iE'� /�6�t-�AEa�.®cT�cwL V.1DR..L'. �s iL.�i���R�ZI,
COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Revised 09/01
Reviewer Signature Da e

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: Wildlife Biologist X Historian
X Fishery Biologist X Archeologist
X_ Vegetation Specialist _ Cultural Landscape Architect
oo#,1,:&'M-Coordi to1*, _ Museum Curator
19T ;,v ; /9/ro/fy N• oeals
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to'threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
_ RA Staff Ranger
RE Staff Ranger
— Other
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural resources.
Return your comments to me as soon as possible or by the established return date.. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has been scheduled for the next Compliance- Management Board Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
Signature
/ Z • v d/
._.. Date — -- -
The following mitigating actions and/orconstraints:are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
d e` ems. ads any�,Q t6 0V'. `
� 60L o anr�- Cie ua�Q a _ Cb.a-� cup i n�ava�e e(awia 2
s a tcc�t WIA L" aloa a-
UUAAeA u: �..� c� cJ OOUA U � a,r►u=z�.(� c mol c � �Pe( a *A"
COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Z a®/ Revised 09/01
Reviewer Signdue Date

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: X Wildlife Biologist X Historian RA -Staff Ranger
X Archeologist RE Staff Ranger
Vegetation Specialist Cultural Landscape Architect Other
X I & M Coordinator — Museum Curator
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural. rq5ources.
Return your comments to me as soon.
as possible or by the established return date. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has been scheduled for the next Compliance -.Management: Board Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
(0e.-JI V111—''
Signature
-00/
.—Date
Th6 following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, qtp.).'
&ASS. <*-SC&j/4 eGJe?V
0ii V141T
041
pfr I "<�
fq
firms ` �� „ts.�fl
COMMENTS OR COMMENDA I
jI,b "C�c ao-w/o /02x, za Z- f "di'v
a
A
6swnEj/� aw "h(
Revised 09/01
Signature -bate

DIVISION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW OF
REQUESTED ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT
TO: X Wildlife Biologist X Historian
X Fishery Biologist X Archeologist
X _ Vegetation Specialist _ Cultural Landscape Architect
Museum Curator
Please review the attached proposed activity for:
(1) Implications to threatened/endangered species and/or critical habitat.
(2) Implications to special concern/unique species and/or their habitat.
(3) Serious or long-term undesirable environmental effects.
_ RA .Staff Ranger
RE Staff Ranger
Other
(4) Impacts to landscape features, historic structures, or other cultural resources.
Return your comments to me as soon as possible or by the established return date. Return your comments NLT
1/8/2002. This project has been scheduled for the next Compliance Management Board Meeting on: 2/4/2002.
Signature Date
The following mitigating actions and/or constraints are recommended in connection with the proposed activity.
(Refer to appropriate Laws, Regulations, Policies, etc.)
COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIIO
yv 5 ass
Utz./ /YAA - AIL _
Re 'e r Signature
Revised 09/01
Date