20150225 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20130703

Proposed Upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road)
to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road)
Cherokee County
WBS No. 38068.1.1
S TIP No. R -3622B

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In Compliance wi th the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act

APPROVED:

_______ ______________________________________________________
Date Joel B. Setzer , P.E., Division Engineer
Highway Division 14 , NCDOT

Proposed Upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road)
to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road)
Cherokee County
WBS No. 38068.1.1
STIP No. R -3622B

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

June 2013

DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY:
STV /Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28208
Ph: 704 -372 -1885; Fax: [phone] ; E: [e-mail]

_______ _______________________________________________________
Date John N. Johnson , P.E., En gineering Manager
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates

_______ _______________________________________________________
Date Susan F. Paschal, A.I.C.P., Senior Planner
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates

DOCUMENTATION PREPARED FOR:
N.C. Department of Transportation
Highway Division 14
253 Webster Road
Silva , NC 28779
Ph: 828 -586 -2141; Fax: [phone] ; E: [e-mail]

_______ _______________________________________________________
Date Mark S. Davis, Environmental Supervisor
High way Division 14, NCDOT

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Proposed Upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road)
to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road)
Cherokee County
WBS No. 38068.1.1
STIP No. R -3622B

NCDOT Highway Division 14

 NCDOT will co nduct all tree clearing activities in wintertime months, outside of the
maternity window for the Indiana bat , in order to minimize potential impacts to this
species .
 If ditches, vernal pools or other wet areas are disturbed during construction of the proje ct,
NCDOT will construct deeper ditches or new vernal pools in an effort to improve breeding
habitat for the mountain chorus frog.
 NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to minimize
potential erosion and sedimentation related to th e removal of streamside vegetation and
placement of fill material during construction .
 NCDOT with use Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds (such as maximum disturbed
area, maximum side slope, erosion and sedimentation control, etc) during project
construction.
 Once the final design has been completed, and unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S.
have been determined, NCDOT will investigate potential stream and wetland mitigation
on -site if possible. If on -site mitigation is no t feasible, then the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) may be requested to provide mitigation via in -lieu fee credits.
 NCDOT will ensure comparable replacement housing and minimize the inconvenience of
relocation through the Relocation Assistance Program, and in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and/or
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act.
 NCDOT will notify Cherokee County Schools of the construction schedule, so the school
district can plan for short delays.
 A set of right of way plans will be submitted to NCDOT’s Archaeological Group for
review and determination of effects on archaeological site 31CE 787. If the NRHP -eligible
site is going to be adversely affected and effects cannot be avoided, NCDOT will proceed
with delineations of the site and surveys of the uninvestigated area after right -of -way has
been acquired and before construction commences. A data recovery plan will be provided
to SHPO by NCDOT .

R -3622B Environmental Assessment
Green Sheet
June 201 3 Page 1 of 1

I. SUMMAR Y ............................................................................................................................. I
A. T YPE OF A CTION ......................................................................................................................... I
B. D ESCRIPTION OF A CTION ............................................................................................................ I
C. S UMMARY OF P URPOSE AND N EED ............................................................................................ I
D. A LTERNATIVES C ONSIDERED ..................................................................................................... I
E. NCDOT R ECOMMENDED A LTERNATIVE .................................................................................. II
F. S UMMARY OF E NVIRONMENTAL E FFECTS ................................................................................. II
G. P ERMITS R EQUIRED .................................................................................................................. III
H. C OORDINATION ......................................................................................................................... III
I. C ONTACT I NFORMATION .......................................................................................................... III
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPO SED ACTION ....................................................................... 1
A. G ENERAL D ESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1
B. H ISTORICAL R ESUME & P ROJECT S TATUS ................................................................................ 1
C. C OST E STIMATES ....................................................................................................................... 2
III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................ 2
A. P URPOSE OF P ROJECT ................................................................................................................ 2
B. N EED FOR P ROJECT .................................................................................................................... 2
1. Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 2
a. Functional Classification ...................................................................................................... 2
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ............................................................................ 2
1. Roadway Cross Section .................................................................................................... 2
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .................................................................................. 2
3. Right -of -Way and Access Control ................................................................................... 3
4. Speed Limit ....................................................................................................................... 3
5. Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 3
6. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................................................ 3
7. Structure s .......................................................................................................................... 3
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways .................................................................. 3
9. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 3
c. School Bus Usage ................................................................................................................. 3
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity .................................................................................................... 4
e. Accident Data ....................................................................................................................... 4
f. Airports ................................................................................................................................. 4
g. Other Highway Projects in the Area .................................................................................... 4
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ......................................................................................... 5
a. NC Tra nsportation Improvement Program (TIP) ................................................................ 5
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans .................................................................................................... 5
c. Land Use Plans ..................................................................................................................... 5
3. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Need ............................................................................. 5
C. B ENEFITS OF P ROPOSED P ROJECT .............................................................................................. 5
IV. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................... 5
A. P RELIMINARY S TUDY A LTERNATIVES ....................................................................................... 5
1. No -Build Alternative ................................................................................................................ 5

2. Alternative Modes of Transportation ....................................................................................... 6
3. Transportation Systems Management ...................................................................................... 6
4. Build Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 6
B. NCDOT R ECOMMENDED A LTERNATIVE .................................................................................. 6
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEM ENTS ......................................................................................... 7
A. T YPICAL S ECTION AND A LIGNMENT ......................................................................................... 7
B. R IGHT -OF -W AY AND A CCESS C ONTROL ................................................................................... 7
C. S PEED L IMIT AND D ESIGN S PEED .............................................................................................. 7
D. A NTICIPATED D ESIGN E XCEPTIONS ........................................................................................... 7
E. I NTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 7
F. S ERVICE R OADS ......................................................................................................................... 7
G. R AILROAD C ROSSINGS .............................................................................................................. 7
H. S TRUCTURES .............................................................................................................................. 7
I. B ICYCLE AND P EDESTRIAN F ACILITIES ..................................................................................... 8
J. U TILITIES ................................................................................................................................... 8
K. N OISE B ARRIERS ........................................................................................................................ 8
L. W ORK Z ONE , T RAFFIC C ONTROL AND C ONSTRUCTION P HASING ............................................ 8
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFF ECTS OF PROPOSED ACT ION .......................................... 8
A. N ATURAL R ESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 8
1. Biotic Resources ....................................................................................................................... 9
a. Terrestrial Communities ....................................................................................................... 9
1. Maintained/Disturbed ....................................................................................................... 9
2. Pastureland/Agricultural Field .......................................................................................... 9
3. Montane Oak -Hickory Forest ........................................................................................... 9
b. Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 10
c. Aquatic Communities ......................................................................................................... 10
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ........................................................................................ 10
2. Waters of the United States .................................................................................................... 11
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ........................................................................................ 11
b. Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 12
c. Summar y of Anticipated Effects ........................................................................................ 12
d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ......................................................................... 12
e. Anticipated Permit Requirements ...................................................................................... 13
3. Rare and Protected Species .................................................................................................... 13
a. Federally Protected Species ............................................................................................... 13
b. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................................................. 17
c. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ...................................................................... 17
d. Essential Fish Habitat and Tro ut Waters ........................................................................... 17
4. Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 17
B. C ULTURAL R ESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 18
1. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................................................................ 18
2. Archaeological Resources ...................................................................................................... 18
C. S ECTION 4(F )/ S ECTION 6(F ) R ESOURCES ................................................................................ 19
D. F ARMLAND .............................................................................................................................. 19
E. S OCIAL E FFECTS ...................................................................................................................... 20

1. Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 20
2. Neighborhoods/Communi ties ................................................................................................. 22
3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses ............................................................................ 22
4. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................. 22
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................ 22
6. Recreation al Facilities ............................................................................................................ 22
F. E CONOMIC E FFECTS ................................................................................................................ 23
G. L AND U SE ................................................................................................................................ 23
1. Existing and Future Land Use ................................................................................................ 23
2. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ................................................................................. 23
H. I NDIRECT AND C UMULATIVE E FFECTS .................................................................................... 24
1. Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................................ 24
2. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................. 24
I. F LOOD H AZARD E VALUATION ................................................................................................ 24
J. T RAFFIC N OISE A NALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 24
K. A IR Q UALITY A NALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 25
L. H AZARDOUS M ATERIAL .......................................................................................................... 25
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDIN ATION ............................................................................ 25
A. C ITIZENS I NFORMATIONAL W ORKSHOP .................................................................................. 25
B. E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE ....................................................................................................... 26
C. NEPA/404 M ERGER P ROCESS ................................................................................................. 26
D. O THER A GENCY C OORDINATION ............................................................................................ 26

TABLES
T ABLE S -1: S UMMARY OF R ESOURCES AND I MPACTS FOR THE R ECOMMENDED A LTERNATIVE
(O PTION 2) ..................................................................................................................................... II
T ABLE 1: C RASH R ATE C OMPARISONS ................................................................................................. 4
T ABLE 2 : C OVERAGE OF T ERRESTRIAL C OM MUNITIES IN THE S TUDY A REA ..................................... 10
T ABLE 3 : J URISDICTIONAL C HARACTERISTICS OF W ATER R ESOURCES IN THE S TUDY A REA ............ 11
T ABLE 4 : J URISDICTIONAL C HARACTERISTICS OF W ETLANDS IN THE S TUDY A REA ......................... 12
T ABLE 5 : F EDERALLY P ROTECTED S PECIES FOR C HEROKEE C OUNTY ................................................ 13
T ABLE 6 : S OILS WITHIN THE S TUDY A REA ......................................................................................... 18
T ABLE 7 : P OPULATION G ROWTH R ATES , 2000 -2010 .......................................................................... 20
T ABLE 8 : A GE OF P OPULATION , 2010 .................................................................................................. 20
T ABLE 9 : P ERSONS B ELOW P OVERTY , 2010 ........................................................................................ 21
T ABLE 10 : H ISPANIC OR L ATINO AND R ACE , 2006 -2010 .................................................................... 21

APPENDICES
Appendix A Figur es
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1A Typical Section
Figure 2 Notable Features
Figure 3 Topography
Appendix B Natural Resources Technical Report
Appendix C Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix D Preliminary Jur isdictional Determination
Appendix E Historic Architecture & Archaeology Forms
Appendix F Relocation/Displacement Policies

i
Proposed Upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road)
to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road)
Cherokee County
WBS No. 38068 .1.1
STIP No. R -3622B

I. SUMMARY

A. Type of Action

This State Environmental Assessment (S EA) was prepared to evaluate the potential
impacts of STIP No. R -3622B . Based on this assessment , the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) does not ant icipate significant impacts to the environment as a result of
th e proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplemental documentation such as a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

B. Description of Action

STIP No. R -3622 is included i n the Draft 2013 -2023 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and the NCDOT 5 Year Work Program . The STIP identifies Section A A a s the
replacement of Bridge No. 50 over Persimmon Creek. Bridge construction is complete. Section AB
is the upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1309 (Oak Grove Road) to SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road),
excluding the replacement of Bridge No. 50 over Persimmon Creek. Section A B was completed in
April 2013 . The STIP identifies Section B a s the upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point
Road ) to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road).

NCDOT Highway Division 14 is currently assessing the upgrade of NC 294 from Sunny
Point Road to Upper Bear Paw Road. The proposed project length is approximately 2.1 miles (see
Appendix A, Figure 1). The estimated total cost of the project is $3,690,000 . Approximately
$700,000 of th e total cost is for right -of -way, and $2,990,000 is for construction. Right -of -way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 201 4 with construction in FY 201 6 .

C. Summary of Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to improve safety by bringing the roadway geometrics up to
current design standards.

D. Alternatives Considered

Two build alternatives and a no -build alternative were considered for this project. Both
buil d alternatives begin and end at the same locations , and involve widening travel lanes to current
standards . One build alternative (Option 1) follow s existing alignment, with modifications to the
profile of the roadway. The other build alternative (Option 2) includes modifications to the profile
of the roadway and realignment to correct curves in certain locations.

ii
E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative

Afte r careful review , NCDOT propose s Option 2 as the recommended alternative. This
alternative best improve s safety in the project corridor.

F. Summary of Environmental Effects

There are several resources in the project corridor, including the Hickey Cemetery,
Friendship Baptist Church and Cemetery, prime farmlands , residential uses and three businesses.
Due t he limited scope of the project, and the fact that right -of -way acquisitions would be minimal,
substantial impacts as a result of the recommended alternative are not anticipated. Several
relocations may result from the proposed project; however, NCDOT’s R elocation Reports are not
available at the time of this assessment. Additional detail on anticipated relocations will be
available as the functional design plans are further developed and finalized . Table S -1 summarizes
resources in the project corridor f or Option 2 .

Table S -1: Summary of Resources and Impacts for the Recommended Alternative (Option 2)
Resource Impacts - Option 2
Community Facilities 0*
National Register Properties (inc. Eligible) 0
Archaeological Sites (inc. Eligible) 1
Section 4 (f)/ Section 6(f) Properties 0
Relocations <5
Low Income or Minority Populations 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0 **
Federally -Listed Species within Corridor 0***
100 -Year Floodplain Crossings 0
Prime Farmland (acres) <11.6
Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.22
Stream Impacts (linear feet) 245
Construction Cost $2,990,000
Right -of -Way Cost $700,000
Total Cost $3,690,000
*There are community facilities in the project corridor; however, long -term impacts are not anticipated. **There is one mine site (Blue Roc k Materials,
LLC) within the searched area, but no regulatory issues or adverse environmental incidents were identified for this operation. ***None of the identified
federally -protected species were observed in the project corridor, and there are no t know n occurrences in the project corridor.
Anticipated impacts to Waters of the U.S. for the recommended alternative total
approximately 0.22 acre of wetland and 245 linear feet of streams. There are two stream crossings
in the project corridor, with impact s of approximately 67 linear feet and 178 linear feet each.
Mitigation for impacts may be required and will be determined as the functional design plans are
further developed and finalized.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally -protected
(endangered or threatened) species for Cherokee County. Only one of the listed species has a
biological conclusion other than Not Required or No Effect. The biological conclusion for the
iii
Indiana bat is May Affect – Not Likely to Advers ely Affect. NCDOT will conduct all tree clearing
activities in wintertime months, outside of the maternity window for the species, in order to
minimize potential impacts.

G. Permits Required

STIP No. R -3622B may require the widening or extension of existing culverts. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide
Permit 14 would be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
“Waters of the U.S.” In addition, under Sectio n 401 of the Clean Water Act (33.U.S.C. 1341), a
NCDWQ Section 401 General Water Quality Certification would be required.

H. Coordination

Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this State
E nvironmental A ssessment. C om ments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources – State His toric Preservation Office *
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Natural Heritage Program *
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian s – Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Southwestern Commission *
Cherokee County *
Cherokee County Schools *

I. Contact Information

The following person may be contacted for additional information :

Mark S. Davis , Environmental Supervisor
Highway Division 14, NCDOT
253 Webster Road
Silva , NC 28779
Telephone : (828 ) 586 -2141

1

Proposed Upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road)
to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road)
Cherokee County
WBS No. 38068.1.1
STIP No. R -3622B

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPO SED ACTION

A. General Description

STIP No. R -3622 is included in the Draft 2013 -2023 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 5 Year Work
Program . The STIP identifies Section A A a s the replacement of Bridge No. 50 over Persimmon
Creek. Bridge construction is complete. Section AB is the upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1309 (Oak
Grove Road) to SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road), excluding the replacement of Bridge No. 50 over
Persimmon Creek. Section AB was completed in Ap ril 2013 . The STIP identifies Section B as the
upgrade of NC 294 from SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road ) to SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw Road).

NCDOT Highway Division 14 is currently assessing the upgrade of NC 294 from Sunny
Point Road to Upper Bear Paw Road. The p roposed project length is approximately 2.1 miles (see
Appendix A, Figure 1). The estimated total cost of the project is $3,690,000. Approximately
$700,000 of the total cost is for right -of -way, and $2,990,000 is for construction. Right -of -way
acquisitio n is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 201 4 with construction in FY 201 6 .

The roadway modifications proposed as part of STIP No. R -3622B include standardizing
the width of travel lanes and roadway geometrics, upgrading drainage, and matching the ty pical
section of NC 294 east of Sunny Point Road. The typical section includes two 11 -foot travel lanes
with 8 - to 16 -foot grass shoulders and no median. Proposed right -of -way will be approximately 60
feet to 70 feet as needed.

B. Historical Resume & Proje ct Status

A preliminary scoping meeting was held in May 2011. NCDOT Highway Division 14
staff, other NCDOT staff (Professional Services, Work Zone and Traffic Control, Hydraulics,
Roadside Environmental and Roadway) and the consulting team attended the meeting. Attendees
discussed the safety -driven project, and the project limits from Sunny Point Road to Upper Bear
Paw Road. It was determined that the appropriate level of review for the proposed project would
be a State Environmental Assessment (SEA) and would include the evaluation of two alternatives
– one that would follow existing alignment , and another that would be on new alignment as
necessary with adjustments in horizontal and vertical curves. A field scoping meeting followed the
preliminary sc oping meeting. The aforementioned NCDOT and consulting staff met at the site to
discuss and review design challenges and potential solutions.

2

A survey scoping meeting was held in June 2011. NCDOT Highway Division 14 staff and
the prime consultant met to determine a scope of services for the field surveys related to the
proposed project.

C. Cost Estimates

This project is included in the Draft 2013 -2023 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). The total cost in the STIP for Project No. R -3622 i s $24 ,364 ,000 ; however, the project
consists of three sections (A A, AB and B ). The current estimated total cost of the recommended
alternative for Section B , Option 2, is $3,690,000 . Approximately $700,000 of th e total cost is for
right -of -way, and $2,990 ,000 is for construction.

III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT

A. Purpose of Project

The purpose of STIP No. R -3622B is to improve safety by bringing roadway geometrics up
to current design standards .

B. Need for Project

The need for the proposed project results from substandard roadway geometrics. The
existing facility is an undivided two -lane roadway with lane widths less than 11 feet and no usable
shoulders. The roadway modifications proposed as part of STIP Project R -3622B include
standardizin g the width of travel lanes and roadway geometrics, and upgrading drainage. The
improved geometrics will result in increased site distance along this section of NC 294.

1. Description of Existing Conditions

a. Functional Classification

NC 294 is designated as a rural major collector on the NCDOT’s County Maintenance Map
dated March 2010 .

b. Physical Description of Existing Facility

1. Roadway Cross Section

The section of NC 294 between Sunny Point Road and Upper Bear Paw Road (the project
corridor) is an und ivided two -lane roadway with lane widths less than 11 feet and no usable
shoulders.

2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

The horizontal and vertical alignments of NC 294 in the project corridor do not meet the
current design standards.
3

3. Right -of -Way and Acc ess Control

The existing right -of -way in the project corridor varies from 30 feet to 100 feet. There is
no control of access and trucks are restricted. According to NCDOT’s Truck Network Map dated
August 2011, n o through truck trailers longer than 48 f eet are permitted on NC 294 between US
64 -74 and the Tennessee State Line.

4. Speed Limit

The existing speed limit in the project corridor is 45 miles per hour (mph) to 55 mph .

5. Intersections

Eleven road s intersect NC 294 between Sunny Point Road and Upp er Bear Paw Road .
Artemis Drive is a private road on the north side of NC 294 directly across from Sunny Point
Road. Other private roads that intersect the project corridor are Nelson Ridge Road , Magoo Lane,
Old Taylors Ferry Ridge, Sharing Lane, Caroli na Fox Circle and Hayden Lane. State Routes
which intersect the project corridor include SR 1153 (Radford Road ), SR 1310 (Ware Road), SR
1311 (Friendship Church Road), and SR 1152 (Crowe Road ).

There are no traffic signals in the project corridor . Stop signs are located on the following
roads at their intersections with NC 294: Sunny Point Road, Radford Road, Ware Road,
Friendship Church Road, Crowe Road and Upper Bear Paw Road.

6. Railroad Crossings

There are no railroad crossings in the project corri dor .

7. Structures

There are no major structures in the project corridor .

8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways

No bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities or greenways exist in the project corridor.

9. Utilities

Power poles/lines are located on the south side of NC 294 between Sunny Point Road and
Radford Road, and on the north side of NC 294 between Radford Road and Upper Bear Paw Road.
There are aboveground and underground telephone wires in the project corridor as well.

c. School Bus Usage

A ccording to Cherokee County Schools, buses and student drivers use NC 294 to access
Hiwassee Dam School .
4

d. Traffic Carrying Capacity

The 2010 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on NC 294 in the project corridor was
2200 vehicles per day (vpd), with 3% t ruck traffic . The anticipated 2030 AADT in the project
corridor is 6000 vpd , with 3% truck traffic.

e. Accident Data

According to crash data provided by the NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit, there were 12
reported crashes on NC 294 (between Sunny Point Road and Upper Bear Paw Road) from June 1,
2009 to May 31, 2012. Table 1 shows the comparison of crash rates for the analyzed section of
NC 294 and the 2008 -2010 statewide and calculated critical rates, with a 95% level of confidence
for a comparable route type an d configuration. The current crash rates in the project corridor
exceed the statewide crash rates in the total, night and wet categories, but do not exceed the critical
crash rates in any category.

Table 1: Crash Rate Comparisons
Rate Crashes
Crashes p er 100
MVM Statewide Rate* Critical Rate**
Total 12 184.33 177.15 270.64
Fatal 0 0.00 2.02 18.86
Non -Fatal Injury 2 30.72 61.61 119.90
Night 5 76.80 64.26 123.62
Wet 2 30.72 30.27 73.42
*2008 -2010 statewide crash rate for 2 -lane, undivided rural Seco ndary Routes (SR).
**Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence).

f. Airports

There are no airports within one mile of the project corridor.

g. Other Highway Projects in the Area

STIP No. R -3622B is part of a larger NCDOT plan to upgrade al l of NC 294 between US
64 -74 at Ranger and the Tennessee State Line. STIP No. R -3622A is the upgrade of NC 294
between Oak Grove Road and Sunny Point Road, including replacement of Bridge No. 50 over
Persimmon Creek; the bridge replacement is complete and the road widening project was
completed in April 201 3 . Upgrade of the remaining sections of NC 294 has been scheduled for
reprioritization in the STIP.

One other transportation project is also planned in the vicinity. STIP No. B -4462 is the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 148 which carries Bell Hill Road over Persimmon Creek;
right -of -way and construction are scheduled to begin in FY 2017 and FY 2018 , respectively .

5

2. Transportation and Land Use Plans

a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

ST IP No. R -3622 is included in the Draft 20 13 -STIP and the NCDOT 5 Year Work
Program . STIP No. R -3622 includes three sections, and Section B is the upgrade of NC 294 from
Sunny Point Road to Upper Bear Paw Road . Right -of -way acquisition is scheduled to beg in in FY
201 4 with construction in FY 201 6 .

b. Local Thoroughfare Plans

Cherokee County, in conjunction with the Southwestern Rural Planning Organization
(SWRPO) and NCDOT, is preparing a County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) that
should be adopt ed in June 2013 . The SWRPO’s Priority Needs List, dated September 26, 2011,
includes the top 25 priority transportation projects in the region. STIP Project R -3622B is ranked
as the region’s number 21 priority , and Cherokee County’s number 4 priority .

c. La nd Use Plans

The North Carolina Division of Community Assistance is working with the CTP
committee to simultaneously develop a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There are no existing land
use plans.

3. System Linkage/Travel Time/Access Need

The proposed upgra de of NC 294 would improve the route connecting US 64 -74 to State
Highway 68 in Tennessee . The purpose of the project is related to safety , and substantial changes
in travel time and access are not anticipated.

C. Benefits of Proposed Project

STIP No. R -36 22B is expected to improve safety in the project corridor.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

A. Preliminary Study Alternatives

1. No -Build Alternative

The No -Build Alternative offers no improvements to the project corridor . This alternative
assumes that all other projects cur rently planned or programmed in the S TIP will be constructed in
the area as proposed.

T he No -Build Alternative does not address the purpose and need of the proposed action ;
therefore, it is not recommended. I t is used as a basis for comparison of the ot her alternatives.

6

2. Alternative Modes of Transportation

T he inclusion of alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) would not
address the purpose and need of this project since roadway geometrics would remain deficient with
no impr ovements. Therefore, alternative modes of transportation are not proposed as part of this
project.

3. Transportation Systems Managemen t

The inclusion of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvement options (such
as intersection and signal improvemen ts, constructing high occupancy vehicle lanes, and
implementing ITS strategies ) would not fully address the purpose and need of this project since
roadway geometrics would remain deficient.

4. Build Alternatives

The following two build alternatives were c onsidered for this project. Each involves
upgrading existing NC 294 from the intersection with Sunny Point Road to the intersection with
Upper Bear Paw Road, a distance of approximately 2.1 miles.

 Option 1

The roadway modifications proposed as part of O ption 1 include standardizing the
width of travel lanes and roadway geometrics and matching the typical section of
NC 294 east of Sunny Point Road. The proposed new roadway would meet current
design and safety standards. Option 1 also includes modificati ons to the profile of
the roadway on existing alignment.

 Option 2

The roadway modifications proposed as part of Option 2 include standardizing the
width of travel lanes and roadway geometrics, upgrading drainage, and matching
the typical section of NC 294 east of Sunny Point Road. The proposed new
roadway would meet current design and safety standards. Option 2 also includes
modifications to the profile of the roadway and realignment to correct curves in
certain locations.

B. NCDOT Recommended Alterna tive

After careful review, NCDOT propose s Option 2 as the recommended alternative.
Although it may result in greater environmental impacts, given that more additional right -of -way
would be required when compared to Option 1, this alternative best improv es safety on this section
of NC 294 through modifications to the profile and realignment of curves , and thus best meets the
purpose and need . A Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW) was held on July 24, 2012 and
citizens in attendance were generally in fav or of the proposed project because of its safety benefits.
7

V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT S

A. Typical Section and Alignment

The proposed typical section for both build alternatives includes two 11 -foot travel lanes
with 8 -foot to 16 -foot grass shoulders and no med ian. No additional travel lanes or turn lanes are
included (see Appendix A, Figure 1A).

B. Right -of -Way and Access Control

The proposed right -of -way width for this project varies from 60 feet to 70 feet as needed .
No control of access is proposed .

C. Speed Limit and Design Speed

The design speed for the proposed project is 50 mph , and t he posted speed limit would be
45 mph.

D. Anticipated Design Exceptions

N o design exceptions are anticipated .

E. Intersections

The proposed project would include modificati ons to the following intersecting roads:
Radford Road, Ware Road, Friendship Church Road, Crowe Road and Upper Bear Paw Road.
T hese roads would be upgraded so that the typical section includes two 9 -foot travel lanes with 2 -
foot to 10 -foot grass shoulders . Additionally, there would be modifications to the profile and
alignment of intersecting road s .

F. S ervice Roads

No service roads are included as part of the proposed project.

G. Railroad Crossings

No railroad crossings are included as part of the propos ed project.

H. S tructures

No major structures would be replaced or constructed as part of the proposed project, as
streams are carried under the road primarily via corrugated metal pipes. Some corrugated metal
pipes would be replaced or extended as part of the recommended alternative .

8

I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

No bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are planned as part of the proposed project.

J. Utilities

Relocation of aboveground and underground utilities would be required as part of the
p roposed project.

K. Noise Barriers

No noise barriers are planned as part of th e proposed project.

L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasing

During construction of STIP No. R -3622B, traffic would be maintained along the existing
route (NC 294). Traffic control devices will adhere to NCDOT’s Roadway Standard Drawings
dated January 2012. The first construction phase addresses sections of the project that could be
constructed under traffic / utilizing flagging and or lane closures (simple widenin g or wedging).
The second phase address es areas that require temporary pavement, temporary driveway and Y
line connections where large cuts/fills are needed in close proximity of the existing roadway. The
third phase shift s traffic onto temporary asphalt and construct s permanent asphalt, driveway
connections, and Y -line connections. Temporary shoring and portable concrete barriers would be
utilized to provide positive protection during this phase. The last phase shifts traffic to the final
roadway ; all t emporary features would be removed and the final layer of surface course and final
markings and markers would be installed .

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT S OF PROPOSED ACTION

A. Natural Resources

As part of the natural resources assessment for the proposed projec t (see Appendix B), a
study area encompassing approximately 68.60 acres, and consisting of a corridor approximately
11,826 feet (2.23 miles) long and approximately 200 to 400 feet wide centered about the centerline
of the proposed roadway, was reviewed . T he study area is located in the Blue Ridge physiographic
ecoregion of North Carolina and is specifically situated within the Broad Basins ecoregion. The
study area primarily occurs on moderately sloping hills with gently sloping floodplains along
streams, and consisting of fragmented forests, and pastureland. Based on review of the U.S.
Geological Service (USGS) Persimmon Creek topographic quadrangle, elevations within the study
area range between 1600 and 1800 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
Drainage within the northern section of the study area is in a general northeast direction towards
Bearpaw Creek, located in the northwest portion of the study area. Drainage within the southern
portion of the study area is in a general southeast direction towards Persimmon Creek, located
approximately 800 feet southeast of the study area. Surrounding and adjacent land use in the
project vicinity is primarily undeveloped woodland, pastureland and rural residential development.

9

1. Biotic Resources

a. Terrestrial Communities

Terrestrial communities or land uses in the study area were distinguished by plant species,
location in the landscape, past disturbances, and hydrologic characteristics. Based on field review,
three terrestrial communities are located in the study area , including maintained/disturbed,
pastureland/agricultur al field, and mo ntane oak -hickory forest . A brief description of each
community type follows.

1. Maintained/Disturbed

Maintained/disturbed areas include paved roadways, un improved roads, rights -of -way,
rural residential development, and other areas where the vegetation has been periodically mowed,
trimmed, or completely cleared. Maintained/disturbed areas comprise a large portion of the study
area and include NC 294 and ot her intersecting roads, unimproved (dirt/gravel) roads that intersect
NC 294, homes and yard improvements, and rights -of -way adjacent to roadways and utility
corridors. Vegetation present within this community is limited and restricted to the road shoulder s,
rights -of -way adjacent to the roadways, utility corridors, and areas maintained for residential
purposes. Dominant vegetation within these areas consisted of fescue, needle leaf rosette grass,
clover, goldenrod, Japanese honeysuckle, common greenbrier, and smooth sumac.

2. Pastureland/Agricultural Field

Agricultural fields and pasture are located throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation
within this community consisted primarily of herbaceous plants including rye, fescue, dogfennel,
common rush, a nd panic grass. Included within this community are wetland areas that have been
altered by clearing for pastureland and affected by livestock. Two wetland areas were noted within
this community type , and classified as a seep and bog using the NCWAM classif ication . Dominant
vegetation within the seep community includes common rush and Appalachian sedge. Dominant
vegetation within the bog community includes box -elder, swamp rose, sycamore, blackberry,
common greenbrier, Appalachian sedge and needle leaf roset te grass .

3. Montane Oak -Hickory Forest

Fragmented relatively undisturbed upland areas of forest are located within the extreme
northwestern portion, and southeastern portion of the study area. Per Schafale and Weakley’s
Classification of the Natural Com munities of North Carolina , these forested areas can best be
described as montane oak -hickory forest. Dominant vegetation within the canopy of this forested
community included white oak, chestnut oak, American beech, tulip poplar, sour wood, eastern
white pine, and Virginia pine. Dominant vegetation in the understory or shrub layer included red
maple, flowering dogwood, black cherry, mountain laurel, and black gum. Dominant vegetation
along forest margins consisted of Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese pri vet.

10

Table 2 : Coverage of T errestrial C ommunities in the S tudy A rea
Community Coverage (acres )
Maintained/Disturbed 46.55
Pastureland/Agricultural Land 17.30
Montane Oak -Hickory Forest 4.75
Total 68.60

b. Terrestrial Wildlife

Habitat for terrest rial wildlife within the study area is limited due to the small amount of
natural, undisturbed habitat present. The fragmentation of the forests located within the study area
may also provide a barrier to wildlife diversity and utilization of the habitat. Species that were
actually observed within the study area are indicated with an asterisk (*). Mammal species that
commonly exploit the types of terrestrial communities found within the study area include species
such as eastern gray squirrel*, eastern c ottontail rabbit, eastern chipmunk, raccoon, Virginia
opossum, and white -tailed deer. Birds that may utilize the terrestrial communities found within the
study area include American crow, blue jay, American robin*, red -shouldered hawk, red -tailed
hawk, Ca rolina chickadee, Carolina wren, cardinal, tufted titmouse, American kestrel, eastern
bluebird, turkey vulture, wild turkey, and various other bird species. Reptile and amphibian
species that may inhabit the terrestrial communities within the study area i nclude corn snake, black
rat snake, eastern garter snake, copperhead, southern toad, eastern fence lizard, ground skink, five -
lined skink , and mountain chorus frog .

According to a letter from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) dated
Feb ruary 10, 2012, three extant records for the mountain chorus frog was yielded upon review of
the project corridor (Appendix C ). The mountain chorus frog is a species of concern, and is known
to breed in ditches, pools, and other small wet areas near forest s in the southwestern part of the
State.

c. Aquatic Communities

Aquatic communities in the study area consist of two perennial streams and one still water
pond. Perennial streams within the study area are shallow, contain course substrate, and exhibit
mod erate flows. Stream metrics are not conducive to fish habitat; however, benthic
macroinvertebrates, crayfish, southern leopard frog, green frog, and pickerel frog may be
supported. The still water pond has potential to support green sunfish, bluegill, and other native
fish species.

d. Summary of Anticipated Effects

Table 2 describes the acreage of terrestrial communities within the project study area.
Construction activities may affect terrestrial communities through such things as the removal of
vegetati on, soil compaction, and damaging root systems. During construction, there may be
temporary fluctuations in populations of animal species that inhabit these communities. Due to
concerns raised by the NCNHP, NCDOT will mitigate for potential impacts to the mountain
11

chorus frog by constructing deeper ditches, vernal pools, or other measures which may improve
breeding habitat along the project corridor.

Impacts typically associated with in -stream construction may include changes in the
substrate and impacts adjacent to streamside vegetation. Stream metrics in the project study area
are not conducive to fish habitat; however, benthic macroinvertebrates, crayfish, and some species
of frogs may be supported. The nearby still water pond has potential to support green sunfish,
bluegill, and other native fish species. The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill
material during construction may increase erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation
of these areas helps to reduce potential i mpacts by supporting the underlying soils. NCDOT will
implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to minimize these impacts.

2. Water s of the United States

The study area was reviewed for potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in accordance
with the most recent United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stream guidance, and the USACE’s Wetland Delineation
Manual and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Suppl ement to the Manual. Water
resources in the study area are part of the Hiwassee River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code
[HUC] 06020002). The USACE has provided a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)
with regards to the jurisdictional features lo cated within the study area. This PJD and attached
figures in Appendix D show the approximate size and location of these features.

a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments

Two jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 3 ). All jurisdictional
s treams in the study area have been designated as cold water streams for the purposes of stream
mitigation.

Table 3 : Jurisdictional Characteristics of Water Resources in the Study Area
Map ID Length (ft) Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation Required
Ri ver Basin
Buffer
Bearpaw Creek 779 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Stream A (S A ) 1,566 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 2,345

There are no specially classified waterways such as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
Trout Waters, Anadromous Fish Waters, Prima ry Nursery Areas (PNA), High Quality Waters
(HQW), or 303[d] Impaired Waters located within the study area. The study area is not located
within a Water Supply (WS) Watershed protected area. There are no waters designated ORW,
PNA, HQW, or WS within 1.0 mi le of the study area. A unnamed tributary (UT ) to Hickey
Branch, located in the southern portion of the study area, flows into Hickey Branch; which in turn
flows into Persimmon Creek. Persimmon Creek is a C ategory 5 water identified in North
Carolina’s 201 0 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters for habitat comprised of poor ecological and
12

biological integrity for fish communities and aquatic life . It is located approximately 800 feet
south east of the study area.

No benthic or fish monitoring data was ava ilable nor reasonably ascertainable for the study
area.

b. Wetlands

Two jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. Wetland WA and WB
are located in the pastureland/agricultural field community type. Wetland classification and quality
rating data are presented in Table 4 . USACE wetland determination data forms and NCDWQ
wetland rating worksheets for each wetland site are presented in the NRTR .

Table 4 : Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area
Map ID
NCWAM
Classifi cation
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ Wetland
Rating Area (ac)
Wetland A (WA ) Seep Riparian 36 0.05
Wetland B (WB ) Bog Riparian 71 0.17
Total: 0.22
*P -Palustrine, FO -Forested, 3 -Broad -leaved Evergreen, 4 -Needle -leaved Evergreen

c. Summary of Anticipated Effects

Anticipated impacts to Waters of the U.S. are expected to total approximately 0.22 acre of
wetland s and 245 linear feet of streams. The two jurisdictional streams in the project corridor are
expected to have approximately 67 linear feet and 178 linear feet of impacts each. These streams
run underneath the existing road, and therefore cannot be avoided without relocating the road. The
anticipated impact to wetlands is a result of additional right -of -way acquisition needed to realign
the existing road for safety reasons.

d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

Because an UT to Hickey Branch (S tream A), which is located in the study area, flows into
Persimmon Creek (an impaired water), Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds (such as
maximum d isturbed area, maximum side slope, erosion and sedimentation control, etc) will be
implemented during project construction. Through design and construction techniques, NCDOT
will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent possible.
Efforts to avoid and minimize potential impacts were incorporated into the design process;
however, since water resources intersect the project corridor, impacts are unavoidable.

Once the final design has been completed, and unavoida ble impacts to waters of the U.S.
have been determined, the NCDOT will investigate potential stream and wetland mitigation on -site
if possible . I f on -site mitigation is not feasible, then the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR ) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) may be
requested to provide mitigation via in -lieu fee credits.
13

e. Anticipated Permit Requirements

As a result of the anticipated potential impacts, it is expected that a Section 404 permit
application would be r equired. The permit application must be completed during final design
before construction activities commence. While the USACE holds the final decision as to what
permit will be required, it is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit 14 would be required for the
discharge of dredged or fill material in “Waters of the U.S.” In addition, under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (33.U.S.C. 1341), a NCDWQ Section 401 General Water Quality Certification
would be required.

3. Rare and Protected Species

a. Federally P rotected Species

As of December 19, 2011, the USFWS lists six federally protected (endangered or
threatened) species for Cherokee County (Table 5 ). A brief description of each species’ habitat
requirements, the availability of potential habitat within t he study area for each species, and
determinations (Biological Conclusions) regarding potential project -related impacts to each
species follows. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the most current available
literature and/or USFWS correspo ndence.

Table 5 : Federally Protected Species for Cherokee County
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbegii Bog turtle T (S/A) Yes Not Required
Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan riffleshell E No No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T Yes No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Yes MA -NLAA
Pegias fabula Little -wing pearlymussel E No No Effect
Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean E No No Effect
Key: E – Endangered, T – Threatened, T(S/A) – “Similarity of Appearance”, * – May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect

Bog turtle

Habitat Description: Bog turtle habitat consists of open, groundwater supplied (spring
fed), graminoid dominated wetlands along riparian corridors or on seepa ge slopes. These habitats
are designated as mountain bogs by the N orth Carolina Natural Heritage Program , but they are
technically poor, moderate, or rich fens that may be associated with wet pastures and old drainage
ditches that have saturated muddy sub strates with open canopies. These habitats , found between
700 and 4,500 feet above mean sea level in the western Piedmont and mountain counties of North
Carolina, ofte n support sphagnum moss and may contain carnivorous plants. Soil types (poorly
drained silt loams) from which bog turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua, Chewacla,
Dellwood, Codorus complex, Hatboro, Nikwasi, Potomac – Iotla complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate
– Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuckasegee – Cullasaja complex, Tusquitee, Watau ga, and
Wehadkee.
14

Biological Conclusion: Not Required
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the study area to determine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011 . Species listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance do not requir e Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Potential habitat for bog turtle
exists along streams and wet pasturelands adjacent to the streams within the study area; however,
poten tial habitat is minimal and no turtles of any species were observed during the fiel d survey. A
search of the NCNHP record database , completed on December 19, 2011, indicate d no known
occurrences of bog turtle within 2 .0 mile s of the study area .

Tan riffleshell

Habitat Description: Historic occurrences of the Tan riffleshell are kno wn from the
French Broad and Hiawassee Rivers in North Carolina. Currently, the only known viable
population of this species is located in Tazwell County, Virginia. Individuals are typically found
in headwaters, riffles, and shoals in sand and gravel subs trates .

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the study area to determine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011 . Streams within the study area are relatively small in width
(approximately 4 feet) and c ontain minimal shoals with sandy or gravelly substrate that would
provide suitable habitat. Stream metrics are not conducive to providing habitat preferred by the
mussel. No mussels were observed in streams within the study area. The mussel is listed as a n
historic and obscure occurrence, and has not been observed or located within Cherokee county
within the past 50 years. A search of the NCNHP record database , completed on December 19,
2011, indicate d no known occurrences of the Tan riffleshell within 2 .0 mile s of the study area .

Small whorled pogonia

Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid that occurs in young to
maturing (second to third successional growth) mixed deciduous or mixed deciduous/coniferous
forests. The plant d oes not appear to have a preference towards any one soil type or underlying
geologic substrate. In North Carolina, small whorled pogonia is typically found in open, dry
deciduous woods or woods containing white pine and rhododendron. The plant may also b e found
on dry and rocky wooded slopes, moist slopes, ravines lacking stream channels and on slope bases
near braided channels of vernal streams. The plant, which is often limited by shade, requires small
light gaps or canopy breaks, and typically grows u nder canopies that are relatively open or near
areas like logging roads or streams that create long -persisting breaks in the forest canopy.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the study area to deter mine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011. Potential habitat for small whorled pogonia exists within
the montane oak -hickory forest areas located within the study area; however, these forested areas
comprise only a minor portion of the study area and are small and fragmented. No plants were
observed during the December 2011 field survey. An additional survey was conducted on June 14,
2012 during the optimal survey window. No individuals of small whorled pogonia were identified
15

during the survey. The majo rity of the understory located within the montane oak -hickory forests
lacked vegetation, due to over shading from the canopy trees. Over shaded conditions are not
conducive to habitat preferred by the small whorled pogonia. A search of the NCNHP record
dat abase, completed on December 19, 2011, indicated no known occurrences of small whorled
pogonia within 2.0 miles of the study area.

Indiana bat

Habitat Description: The range of the Indiana bat centers on areas within the eastern
region of the United States containing cavernous limestone . The Indiana bat has different summer
and winter habitat requirements. Winter habitat includes caves a nd abandoned mines that typically
contain s tanding water on the ground. Indiana bats migrate to the ir winter habit at between
September and Novem ber where the bats stay until mid -March to early May. Hibernation only
occurs in regions where wi nter temperatures are stable at around 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Suitable
summer habitat includes areas with available roosting, f oraging, and commuting corridors.
Summer roosting habitat includes forests and woodlots contain ing potential roost trees (alive or
dying) with exfoliating bark, cracks, or cr evices or snags that are greater than three inches in
diameter -at -breast height (dbh). Roosting habitat may contain dense or loose aggregates of trees
with varia ble amounts of canopy closure. T ree s greater than three inches in dbh have the potential
to be Indi ana bat summer roosting habitat; however, solid stands of three -inch dbh an d smaller
trees are not consi dered suitable roosting habitat. Suitable roosting habitat would generally consist
of forests with larger trees also present. Bridges may also be used by Indiana bats as summer
roosting habitat . Foraging habitat consists of forested patches, wooded riparian corridors, and
natural vegetation adjacent to these areas. Streams that have been stripped of their riparian
vegetation do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Commuting habitat includes wooded
tracts, tree -lin es, wooded hedgerows, streams , or other such pathways that are within or connecte d
to roosting or foraging habitats . Rivers also serve as foraging habitats and as important migration
routes for the Indiana bat.

Biological Conclusion: MA -NLAA
A pedest rian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the study area to determine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011 . The study area is located in Cherokee C ounty, which is
listed as providing only summer habitat for the Indiana bat. NCDOT Natural Environmen t Section
(NES) staff confirmed during a March 29, 2012 site visit that some m inimal suitable summer or
roosting habitat occurs within the montane oak -hickory forest within the study area, due to the
presence of t rees with exfoliating bark and occurrence o f sizable snags. NCDOT will commit to
restricting clearing activities, if applicable to the project, to wintertime months, outside of the
maternity window for the bat. (USFWS is expected to consider this biological conclusion and
commitment during review o f this draft environmental assessment). No winter habitat was
identified within the study area, as no caves or old mines are present. Additionally, very minimal
riparian buffer occurs adjacent to the streams within the study area; in effect, not providing suitable
foraging habitat. No bats were observed during the survey. A search of the NCNHP record
database , completed on December 19, 2011, indicate d no known occurrences of Indiana bat within
2 .0 mile s of the study area .

16

Little -wing pearly mussel

Hab itat Description: In North Carolina , the little -wing pearly mussel is known from the
Little Tennessee River watershed, where it inhabits small to medium -sized streams with low
turbidity, cool water, and a high to moderate gradient. This mussel can be fou nd buried in gravel
or beneath boulders and slabrock, or lying on top of the substratum in riffles. The mussel can also
be found partly buried or on the surface of the substratum in the transition zone between long pools
and riffles. It has been suggested that the best times to find this mussel are in late spring and in the
late fall, when they are on top or partly buried in the substratum during spawning.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the stu dy area to determine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011 . Streams within the study area are relatively small in width
(approximately 4 feet), have low to moderate gradient, and contain turbid conditions from
livestock alteration. The aforementioned cond itions are not conducive to habitat preferred by the
mussel. No mussels were observed in streams within the study area. The mussel is listed as an
historic occurrence, and has not been observed within Cherokee county within the past 50 years. A
search of t he NCNHP record database , completed on December 19, 2011, indicate d no known
occurrences of the little -wing pearly mussel within 2 .0 mile s of the study area .

Cumberland b ean

Habitat Description: Historically, the Cumberland bean was known from ten riv er
systems in the Cumberland and Tennessee River basins in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia. The Cumberland bean currently survives in only three of those systems.
A relatively strong population exists in a short reach of the Hiwassee River downstream of the
North Carolina/Tennessee State line in Polk County, Tennessee. Although no specimens have
been collected in North Carolina, it is likely that the species occurs in small numbers in the North
Carolina portion of the in the Hiwassee River, where the habitat appears suitable below the
Appalachia Dam, Cherokee County. The Cumberland bean typically inhabits medium -sized
streams to small rivers 15 -65 feet in width . The mussel is found in silt -free sand, gravel, and
cobble substrates in waters with moderate to fast currents and depths less 3 feet. The mussel
frequently occurs in the transition zone between gravel and sand substrates.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted within the study area to determine
potential habitat on December 21, 2011 . No habitat preferred by the Cumberland bean exists
within the study area. Streams within the study area are limited to much smaller widths
(approximately 4 feet) than are typically preferred by the Cumberland bean. Additionally, flows
were moderate and streams mainly consist of gravel and cobbles with some erosion from livestock
impact; therefore, resulting in silted conditions. No mussels were observed within the study area
during the survey. A sear ch of the NCNHP record database , completed on December 19, 2011,
indicate d no known occurrences of the Cumberland bean within 2 .0 mile s of the study area .

17

b. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of protect ed species in 2007, and the
USFWS no longer conducts consultations regarding this species; however, the bald eagle is still
afforded protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 -668c).
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consi sts of mature forests located in proximity to large bodies
of open water utilized for foraging. Large dominant trees within these forests are utilized for
nesting sites and are typically located within 1.0 mile of open water.

A deskto p -GIS assessment of the study area , as well as the area within a 1.13 -mile radius
(1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the pro ject limits, was performed on December 19, 2012 using 2010
color aerials. Dammed portions of the Hiwassee River (Hiwassee Lake), and Persimmon Creek
(Lake Cherokee), are located approximately 0.7 mile from the southern portion of the study area.
The aforementioned lakes may be large enough to be considered a potential feeding source for the
bald eagle; however, since no foraging or nesting habitat is located within the project study area ,
and given the largely cleared and/or disturbed conditions in the area proximal to the project
corridor, a survey of the project study area and an area within 660 feet of the project limits was not
conducted . Additionally, r eview of the NCNHP database revealed no known occurrences of this
species within 2.0 miles of the study area. Due t o the lack of habitat, and minimal impact to
natural resources associated with the proposed project, it has been determined that the pr oject will
not affect the bald eagle .

c. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

As of September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists two Candidate species , Sicklefin redhorse
(Moxostoma sp.) and White fringeless orchid (Planthera integrilabia), for Cherokee County. A
review of NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences of these species within 2.0 miles of the
study area.
d. Essential Fish Habitat and Trout Waters

No Essential Fish Habitat, as regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
is located withi n the study area. Additionally, Division 14 of the NCDOT accessed the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Trout Distribution GIS Database (2011) and
found that no trout are present within 2.0 miles of the study area.

4. Soils

The Cherok ee County Soil Survey identifies nine s oil types within the study area (see
Table 6 ). Reference S ection VI. D. for information regarding farmlands and potential impacts.

18

Table 6 : Soils within the Study Area
Soil Series
Mapping
Unit Drainage Class
H ydric
Status
Ela silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, occasionally
flooded EaA Very Poorly Drained Hydric
Junaluska – Brasstown complex, 8 -15% JbC Well Drained Non -hydric
Junaluska – Brasstown complex, 15 -30% JbD Well Drained Non -hydric
Junaluska – Brasstown comple x, 30 -50% JbE Well Drained Non -hydric
Junaluska – Brasstown – Urban complex, 15 -
30% JnD Well Drained Non -hydric
Junaluska – Tsali complex, 8 -15% JtC Well Drained Non -hydric
Thurmont – Dillard complex, 2 -8% ThB Well Drained Hydric*
Thurmont – Dillard co mplex, 8 -15% ThC Well Drained Hydric*
Udorthents – Urban complex, 0 -5% UfB Well Drained Non -hydric
* - Soils which are primarily non -hydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions

B. Cultural Resources

This project is subject to compliance with the Nati onal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of
the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to assess the effect of their
undertakings on properties in cluded in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
undertakings.

1. Historic Architectural Resources

In a concurrence form dated November 13, 20 12, the NCDOT and North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) agreed that there are no National Register -listed or Study -
listed properties within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). More information was
requested on two properties in the APE, in order to determine if they are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places . These wer e the Hickey House and Friendship Baptist Church
and Cemetery.

In a letter dated May 9, 2013 , S HPO concur red with the findings of the h i storic a rchitectural
r esources s urvey r eport (ER 12 -0188) in that no properties in the APE are eligible for listing in the
National Register. Referenced forms and letters are found in Appendix E.

2. Archaeological Resources

In surveys for the Intensive Ar chaeological Survey and Evaluation for Section B of the NC
294 Improvement Corridor, TIP R -3622B, Cherokee County, North Carolina (dated December
2012 ), three sites were identified. Two of the sites were determined not eligible for listing on the
National Register. One site could not be fully investigated, and was recommended as being eligible
for listing on the National Register.
19

In a letter dated February 7, 2013, SHPO concurred with the findings of archaeological
survey report (ER 12 -0188) in that one site in the APE is eligible for listing in the National
Register under Criterion D. Site 31CE787 is a prehistoric lithic scatter that could provide
substantial data concerning the late prehistoric period to Qualla phase occupation of the area.
Further site delineation, survey of the uninvestigated area and data recovery is recommended if this
site cannot be avoided by construction activities. Referenced forms and letters are found in
Appendix E.

C. Section 4(f)/ Section 6(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 stipulates that the Federal
Highway Administration and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly
owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges, or historical sites (includ ing
private historical sites) unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and all planning has been
done to minimize harm to the property. Because federal funds are not being used for the proposed
project , Section 4(f) does not apply.

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 prohibits the
conversion of any property acquired or developed with LWCF monies to anything other than
public outdoor recreation use without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior. Section 6(f) applies even though federal funds are not being used for the proposed
project; however , no parks (or other relevant properties) are located in the project corridor.

D. Farmland

According the Cherokee County soils data, there are soils protected by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA) located in the study area . The protected soils are Thurmont -Dillard
complex/ThB (prime farmland), Junaluska -Brasstown complex/JbD and Junaluska -Tsali
complex/JtC (farmlands of local importan ce), and Junaluska -Brasstown complex/JbC and
Thurmont -Dillard complex/ThC (farmlands of statewide importance). The approximate number of
acres of protected soils affected by the proposed project is less than 11.6 .

Cherokee County has a Farmland Protect ion Plan (September 2009) in which there are
goals and strategies for farmland protection . In addition, the County Commission authorized the
establishment of Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) in the County. However, the plan has
not been fully impl emented, and there are no Voluntary Agricultural Districts in the vicinity of the
proposed project according to local officials . The Farmland Protection Plan identifies a relatively
large farming operation (229 acres) that straddles Friendship Church Roa d and Ware Road, but it
does not appear, based on site visit observations, that much of the active farming is occurring next
to NC 294 where roadway modifications are proposed. It appears that there is a small garden in
between NC 294 and Radford Road; ho wever, this garden does not appear to be linked to a large -
scale farming operation. See Appendix A, Figure 2 for location of notable features such as farms.
As mentioned previously, neither of these properties are Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and they
represent a small portion of the study area.

20

A preliminary screening of farmland impacts (CPA -106) reveals that STIP No. R -3622B is
not anticipated to have substantial effects, direct or indirect, on farmland that is currently in
production. Because th is project is intended to upgrade the existing road to current design
standards, and the number of travel lanes will not be increasing, right -of -way acquisitions are
expected to be limited. The proposed project is not expected to reduce the demand for far m
support services in the area, nor is it incompatible with existing agricultural uses.

E. Social Effects

1. Demographics

The proposed project would be located in the Shoal Creek Township of Cherokee County.
Over the last decade, Cherokee County’s and S hoal Creek’s population growth have been
relatively slow . North Carolina’s population growth outpaced the growth experienced in Cherokee
County and Shoal Creek by an approximate ratio of 3 to 2 from the year 2000 to the year 20 10 .
Table 7 compares the po pulation growth estimates and rates. Information from the North Carolina
Office of State Budget and Management indicates that population in Cherokee County is expected
to increase to 28,121 by the year 2030. This represents a modest increase of 677 pers ons, or 2.5%
over the course of 20 years.

Table 7 : Population Growth Rates , 2000 -2010
Population
Year 2000
Population
Year 2010
Population
Change
Percentage
Growth
North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483 1,486,170 18.5%
Cherokee County 24,298 27,444 3,146 1 2.9%
Shoal Creek 2,025 2,290 265 13.1%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010, State & County QuickFacts

Cherokee County and Shoal Creek have relatively high percentage s of the population over
the age of 65 when compared to the State (see Table 8 ).

Tabl e 8 : Age of Population, 2010
North Carolina Cherokee County Shoal Creek
Population Percent of
Total (%) Population Percent of
Total (%) Population Percent of
Total (%)
0 -64 8,301,404 87.1 21,160 77.1 1,734 75.7
65 and over 1,234,079 12.9 6,284 22.9 5 56 24.3
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 SF 1, QT -P1

Information about poverty status is shown in Table 9. The Census data indicates that
Cherokee County and Shoal Creek have lower percentages of the population below the poverty
21

level (13.2% and 4.2%, re spectively). By comparison, percentage below the poverty level in North
Carolina is 15.5%.

Table 9 : Persons Below Poverty, 2010
North Carolina Cherokee County Shoal Creek
Below
Poverty
Level
Percent Below
Poverty (%)
Below
Poverty
Level
Percent Below
Poverty (%)
Below
Poverty
Level
Percent Below
Poverty (%)
1,399,945 15.5 3,572 13.2 83 4.2
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006 -2010 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates

A summary of that racial and ethnic data is shown in Table 10 . The Census data indicates
that Cherokee County and the Shoal Creek Township is largely occupied by a white (or non -
minority) population which accounts for 9 2.3% and 95.8 % of the total population s, respectively .
By comparison, the white population in North Carolina is 65.3%. The only minority groups in the
County or Township that exceed State percentages are American Indian and Alaska Native (1.2%
in Cherokee County compared to 1.1 % in North Carolina), and Two or More Races (2.2% in
Cherokee County compared to 1.6% in Nor th Carolina). This data does not suggest that there are
notable minority populations in the vicinity of the project, which is further confirmed by local
officials who are not aware of any special populations in the area.

Table 10 : Hispanic or Latino and Race, 2006 -2010
North Carolina Cherokee County Shoal Creek
Population Percent of
Total (%) Population Percent of
Total (%) Population Percent of
Total (%)
Not Hispanic or
Latino: 8,735,363 91.6 26,756 97.5 2,260 98.7
White alone 6,223,995 65.3 25,341 92.3 2,194 95.8
Black or African
American alone 2,019,854 21.2 327 1.2 5 0.2
American Indian
and Alaska
Native alone
108,829 1.1 336 1.2 25 1.1
Asian alone 206,579 2.2 131 0.5 2 0.1
Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander alone
5,259 0.1 8 0.0 0 0.0
Other race alone 15,088 0.2 3 0.0 0 0.0
Two or more
races alone 155,759 1.6 610 2.2 34 1.5
Hispanic or
Latino: 800,120 8.4 688 2.5 30 1.3
Total 9,535,483 100.0 27,444 100.0 2,290 100.0
Source: US Census Bureau, 2006 -2010 American Community Survey 5 -Y ear Estimates
22

2. Neighborhoods/Communities

Most of the residential development in the vicinity of the project is large lot, single -family;
however, there are a few named , signed , or gated neighborhoods along the project corridor (see
Appendix A, Figure 2). These include Stag’s Leap, a gated community with an entrance at
Artemis Drive ; Nelson Ridge, on Nelson Ridge Road; Taylor’s Ferry Ridge, a signed community
with an entrance at Old Taylor’s Ferry Ridge ; and , Fox Ridge, a gated community with an entrance
a t Carolina Fox Circle. It appears that construction is slow but ongoing in these communities.
Homes in these neighborhoods are set back from NC 294. While there may be some temporary
delays during construction, t he upgrade of NC 294 is not expected to s ubstantially affect these
neighborhoods in the long -term .

3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses

The proposed project would likely result in several relocations (less than five); however,
NCDOT Relocation Reports are not available at the time of thi s assessment. Relocations are most
likely to occur where structures are close to the existing road, such as near NC 294 at Friendship
Church Road . No business relocations are anticipated. NCDOT’s relocation policies are included
in Appendix F .

4. Envir onmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that Environmental Justice principles be incorporated into
all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three environmental principles
are: 1) to ensure the full and fair participat ion of all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision making process, 2) to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on
minority or lo w income populations, and 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of
transportation programs, policies, and activities upon low -income and minority populations.

STIP No. R -3622B is not expected to result in a disproportionately high and adverse eff ect
on minority and /or low -income populations , given that demographic screening and input from
local officials suggests there are not special populations in the study area.

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

N o bicycle or pedestrian facilities were ob served in the project corridor , and none are
planned as part of the propose d project; therefore, no impacts are anticipated .

6. Recreational Facilities

No recreational facilities were observed in the project corridor; therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.

23

F. Economic Effects

Only a few businesses are located along NC 294 between Sunny Point Road and Upper
Bear Paw Road. These include McNabb Air Conditioning and Blue Rock Materials, with signs
located near Magoo Lane, and Anew Era Realty, located betwee n Friendship Church Road and
Upper Bear Paw Road. While there may be some temporary delays during construction, t he
upgrade of NC 294 is not expected to substantially affect operations a t these businesses in the long -
term , and business relocations are not anticipated .

G. Land Use

1. Existing and Future Land Use

The North Carolina Division of Community Assistance is working with the CTP
committee to simultaneously develop a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There are currently no land
use plans (or zoning ordina nces) for the County. Surrounding land use in the project vicinity is
primarily undeveloped woodland, pastureland and rural residential development. The residential
development is typically large lot, single -family; however, there are a few signed or gat ed
neighborhoods along the project corridor as mentioned previously.

The Friendship Baptist Church (with daycare facility and cemetery) is located at the corner
of NC 294 and Friendship Church Road. Impacts to the church buildings and cemetery are not
anticipated; however, some of the land surrounding the church may be altered due to cut/fill from
the project and realignment of Friendship Church Road as it tees into NC 294. While there may be
some temporary delays during construction, the upgrade of NC 294 is not expected to substantially
affect the church in the long -term. USGS topographic maps (Appendix A, Figure 3) suggest that
the Hickey Cemetery is located near Magoo Lane, but it appears to be set back far enough from
NC 294 that impacts would not be anticipated. This cemetery was not visible from NC 294.

There are no schools along NC 294 between Sunny Point Road and Upper Bear P aw Road;
however, Cherokee County Schools indicated that they would appreciate and benefit from the
proposed project, as minimizing curves and correcting narrow roads will help to improve safety for
school buses and student drivers (Appendix C ). Though short delays may be experience d , it is
anticipated that impacts to traffic flow would be minimal during construction. Th erefore , impacts
to school transportation are not expected .

2. Project Compatibility with Local Plans

According to local officials , t he proposed project is consistent with local plans and goals ,
described previously .

24

H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

1. Indirect Effects

S TIP No. R -3622B involves upgrading existing NC 294 from the intersection with Sunny
Point Road to the intersection with Upper Bear Paw Road, a distance of approximately 2.1 miles.
The project does not include additional lanes, new loc ation segments, or modifications that would
increase the capacity of NC 294. T he proposed upgrade of NC 294 will improve the route
connecting US 64 -74 to State Highway 68 in Tennessee; however, the purpose of the project is
related to safety , and substanti al changes in travel time and access are not anticipated.

Population growth in Cherokee County is expected to be relatively slow (less than 1%
annually) over the next couple of decades, and local officials are not aware of any planned
residential or comm ercial development in the area . While there is land available for development,
the market for development is limited and p ublic water and sewer service is not available . There
are no existing land use plans in Cherokee County, but the proposed project is identified in the list
of priority transportation projects for the County. Based on evaluation of the above factors
(identified in NCDOT’s Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
Transportation Projects in North Carolina), STIP No. R -36 22 B is not expected to influence land
development patterns or have substantial indirect effects , and further evaluation is not warranted .

2. Cumulative Effects

STIP No. R -3622B is part of a larger NCDOT plan to upgrade all of NC 294 between US
64 -74 at Ra nger and the Tennessee State Line. STIP No. R -3622A , the upgrade of NC 294
between Oak Grove Road and Sunny Point Road, was completed in April 201 3 . Upgrade of the
remaining sections of NC 294 has been scheduled for reprioritization in the STIP . Cumulat ively,
these projects may improve safety along the route connecting US 64 -74 to State Highway 68 in
Tennessee ; however, t he contribution of STIP No. R -3622B to cumulative effects on notable
features is expected to be minimal.

I. Flood Hazard Evaluation

Che rokee County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program ; however, Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (37004541OOJ, 37004542OOJ) do not reveal areas of special flood hazard in
the project corridor .

J. Traffic Noise Analysis

Because the project does not inv olve increasing the number of lanes or constructing new
roads, the capacity of the roadway is not expected to change and potential noise impacts should be
minimal. General construction noise can be expected from the proposed project , particularly from
pav ing operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. Construction -
related impacts are relatively short -term , and are typically limited to daytime hours .

25

K. Air Quality Analysis

The proposed project would be located in Cherokee Co unty , which complies with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). According to information on the North
Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) website, t he proposed project is located in an
attainment area for ozone, sulfur dioxide, fine par ticulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide .
Because the project does not involve increasing the number of lanes or constructing new roads, the
capacity of the roadway is not expected to change. The proposed project is not anticipated to result
in substa ntial adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.

Because of the limited project scope, potential air quality impacts should be minimal and
primarily related to c onstruction . These types of impacts, such as dust emissions from sandblasti ng
and/or construction equipment, and demolition of existing facilities, are relatively short -term .
Measures should be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction activities, and materials
resulting from construction should be disposed of in accord ance with regulations from the
NCDAQ.

L. Hazardous Material

A Limited Hazardous Materials and Waste Assessment was completed for the proposed
project in March 2012 . Federal and State databases available from Environmental Data Resources,
Inc. (EDR) were reviewed. One item of interest was identified during the database search and
through review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NCDENR records. Blue Rock
Materials, LLC (also listed as McNabb Quarry), located on the south side of NC 294 near Hic key
Branch, is listed as a non -coal mining operation. No regulatory issues or adverse environmental
incidents were identified for this operation.

This limited assessment did not reveal evidence of recognized environmental conditions or
historical recogn ized environmental conditions in connection with the subject corridor. There does
not appear to be a risk of current contamination within the corridor, and no further environmental
testing is recommended at this time.

VII. COMMENTS AND COORDIN ATION

A. Citizen s Informational Workshop

A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on July 24, 2012. NCDOT representatives
were available to answer questions and receive comments about the effect of the proposed project
on the community . Approximately thirteen (13 ) p eople attended. Two written comments were
received, substantiating the general consensus that the project is needed to improve safety in the
corridor.

26

B. Environmental Justice

The proposed project is not expected to result in a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on minority and/or low -income populations given that demographic screening and input
from local officials suggests there are not special populations in the study area.

C. NEPA/404 Merger Process

NCDOT’s Merger process is meant to stre amline project development and permitting by
providing a forum for agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on regulatory
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is typically used by NCDOT’s Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Unit. Because STIP No. R -3622B is a Division project ,
and federal funds are not involved, it is being developed under the North Carolina State
Environmental Protection Act (S EPA ) process . It is not in the NEPA/404 Merger process.

D. Other Agency Co ordination

The following f ederal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this State E nvironmental A ssessment. C omments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources – State Historic Preservation Office *
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Water Quality
N.C . Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Natural Heritage Program *
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians – Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Southwestern Commission *
Cherokee County *
Cherokee County Schools *

Com ments are included in Appendix C . P otential issues have been addressed in this State
Environmental Assessment.

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

C h e r o k e e C o u n t y
M u r p h y
A n d r e w s
¬«2 9 4
U p p e r B e a r P a w R d
S u n n y
P o i n t R d
C r o w e R d
F I G U R E 1 : P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n S T I P P r o j e c t N o . R -3 6 2 2 B C h e r o k e e C o u n t y , N C
¯
N o r t h C a r o l i n a
G e o r g i a
T e n n e s s e e
W a r e R d
¬«2 9 4
P e r s i m m o n C r e e k
L a k e C h e r o k e e
P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n
L e g e n d
S T I P N o . R -3 6 2 2 B
R o a d
R i v e r / S t r e a m
W a t e r B o d y
C o u n t y B o u n d a r y
0 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 .1 2 5 M i l e s
B e a r p a w C r e e k
H i c k e y B r a n c h
P e r s i m m o n C r e e k
B e l l H i l l R
d
A r t e m i s D r N e l s o n R i d g e R d
S h a r i n g L n
O l d T a y l o r s
F e r r y R d g
R a d f o r d R d
C a r o l i n a F o x C i r
F
r i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
C h u r c h R d
H a y d e n L n

FIGURE 1A: TYPICAL SECTION
¬«2 9 4
U p p e r B e a r P a w R d
S u n n y
P o i n t R d
C r o w e R d
F I G U R E 2 : N o t a b l e F e a t u r e s S T I P P r o j e c t N o . R -3 6 2 2 B C h e r o k e e C o u n t y , N C
W a r e R d
¬«2 9 4
P e r s i m m o n C r e e k
L e g e n d
S T I P N o . R -3 6 2 2 B
R o a d
R i v e r / S t r e a m
W a t e r B o d y
N a n t a h a l a N a t 'l F o r e s t
M c N a b b F a r m
H i c k e y C e m e t e r y
F r i e n d s h i p B a p t i s t
A n e w E r a R e a l t y
S t a g 's L e a p
N e l s o n R i d g e
T a y l o r 's F e r r y R i d g e
F o x R i d g e
0 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 .7 5 0 .1 2 5 M i l e s
B e a r p a w C r e e k
H i c k e y B r a n c h
P e r s i m m o n C r e e k B e l l H i l l
R
d
A r t e m i s D r
S h a r i n g L n
O l d T a y l o r s
F e r r y R d g R a d f o r d R d
C a r o l i n a F o x C i r
F
r i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
C
h u r c h R d
H a y d e n L n
¯
N e l s o n R i d g e R d
M c N a b b A i r C o n d i t i o n i n g &B l u e R o c k M a t e r i a l s (s i g n )
G a r d e n
L a k e C h e r o k e e
¬«2 9 4
U p p e r B e a r P a w R d
S u n n y
P o i n t R d
C r o w e R d
F I G U R E 3 : T o p o g r a p h y S T I P P r o j e c t N o . R -3 6 2 2 B C h e r o k e e C o u n t y , N C
W a r e R d
¬«2 9 4
P e r s i m m o n C r e e k
L a k e C h e r o k e e
L e g e n d
P r o j e c t S t u d y A r e a
R o a d
R i v e r / S t r e a m
W a t e r B o d y
C o u n t y B o u n d a r y
0 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 .1 2 5 M i l e s
R a d f o r d R d
F
r i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
C h u r c h R d
¯

APPEND IX B
NATURAL RESOURCES
TECHNICAL REPORT

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Upgrade of NC 294 between SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road ) and SR 1312 (Upper Bear
Paw Road)
Cherokee County, North Carolina

STIP R+3622B
WBS Element No. 38068.1.1

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Bran ch
Natural Environment Unit

July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................... 1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 2
3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 4
4.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................................... 4
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed ..................................................................................................... 4
4.1.2 Pastureland/Agricultural Field ....................................................................................... 4
4.1.3 Montane OakHickory Forest......................................................................................... 4
4.1.4 Terrestrial Community Impacts ..................................................................................... 5
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 5
4.3 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................................................... 6
4.4 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................... 6
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................. 6
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits ................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environme ntal Concern ................................ 7
5.4 Construction Moratoria ..................................................................................................... 7
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ........................................................................................... 8
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Wa ters .................................................... 8
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation ........................................................................................ 8
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts ....................................................................... 8
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts ............................................................................ 8
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ...................................................................... 8
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 13
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ................................................................. 14
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 14
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 15
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 37. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 8. Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified i n Report
Appendix C Stream and Wetland Forms
Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors
Appendix E Jurisdictional Determination Letter (Pen ding)

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils in the study area. ...................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area. .................................................................. 3
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resourc es in the study area. ...................... 3
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in th e study area.................................. 5
Table 5. Physical characteristics of water resourc es in the study area. ...................... 6
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetland s in the study area. ........................ 7
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Ch erokee County. .............................. 9
Table 8. Candidate species listed for Cherokee Cou nty. ............................................ 1 4

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
1 July 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) proposes to widen and
upgrade NC 294 between SR 1130 (Sunny Point Road) a nd SR 1312 (Upper Bear Paw
Road) in western Cherokee County, NC (Appendix A – Figure 1).

At present, this section of NC 294 is a twolane fa cility with a variable lane width and no
usable shoulder. There is no control of access on N C 294. As part of the natural resources
assessment for the proposed project, a study area e ncompassing approximately 68.60
acres, and consisting of a corridor approximately 1 1,826 feet (2.23 miles) long and
approximately 200 to 400 feet wide centered about t he centerline of the proposed
roadway, was reviewed.

This Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) summ arizes the results of the natural
resources assessment and has been prepared to assis t in the preparation of a State
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed proj ect.

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS

The documentation of natural resources and determin ation of environmental
consequences associated with the proposed project w ere conducted in accordance with
the NCDOT Natural Environment Unit (NEU) standard o perating procedures and the
NRTR template dated December 2010.

STV/RWA Environmental Scientists Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton reviewed the
study area on December 20, and 21, 2011, and June 1 4, 2012 to document natural
resources, including jurisdictional waters of the U .S., habitat communities, and habitat for
federally protected species. Potential jurisdiction al waters of the U.S. were identified
within the study area. A field verification meeting with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has not been completed; however, a ‘Request for Jurisdictional
Determination’ (JD) has been submitted to the USACE . The date of field verification
with the USACE, along with the USACE’s Determinatio n of Jurisdiction is pending.

The principal personnel contributing to this docume nt were:

Principal
Investigator: Brandon Fulton, LSS, PWS
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, 2003
Experience: Environmental Scientist, STV/RWA, 2 011Present
Owner/Principal, Carolina Environmental Consult ants, Inc., 20092011
Field Office Manager, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 20082009
Project Manager, Soil and Environmental Consult ants, 20042008
Environmental Scientist, Environmental Investig ations, 20032004
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS/GIS, soil evaluations and
mapping, Section 404/401 permitting

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
2 July 2012
Investigator: Steven Busbee, PWS
Education: M.S. Forest Resources, 2001; B.S. Fi sheries and Wildlife Biology, 1997
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, STV /RWA, 2005Present
Environmental Scientist, Carolina Wetland Ser vices, Inc., 20042005
Environmental Scientist, CZR, Inc., 20022004
Biologist, LPG Environmental and Permitting S ervices, 20012002
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS/GIS, natural resource
assessments, Section 404/401 permitting

3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The study area is located in the Blue Ridge physiog raphic ecoregion of North Carolina
and is specifically situated within the Broad Basin s ecoregion. The study area primarily
occurs on moderately sloping hills with gently slop ing floodplains along streams, and
consisting of fragmented forests, and pastureland (Appendix A, Figure 2). Based on
review of the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) Persim mon Creek topographic
quadrangle, elevations within the study area range between 1600 and 1800 feet above
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Drainage within the northern section of the
study area is in a general northeast direction towa rds Bearpaw Creek, located in the
northwest portion of the study area. Drainage withi n the southern portion of the study
area is in a general southeast direction towards Pe rsimmon Creek, located approximately
800 feet southeast of the study area. Surrounding and adjacent land use in the project
vicinity is primarily undeveloped woodland, pasture land and rural residential
development.

3.1 Soils

The Cherokee County Soil Survey identifies nine soi l types within the study area (Table
1).

Table 1. Soils in the study area.
Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Ela silt loam, 02% slopes, occasionally
flooded EaA Very Poorly
Drained Hydric
Junaluska – Brasstown complex, 815% JbC Well Drain ed Nonhydric
Junaluska – Brasstown complex, 15
30% JbD Well Drained Nonhydric
Junaluska – Brasstown complex, 30
50% JbE Well Drained Nonhydric
Junaluska – Brasstown – Urban
complex, 1530% JnD Well Drained Nonhydric
Junaluska – Tsali complex, 815% JtC Well Drained N onhydric
Thurmont – Dillard complex, 28% ThB Well Drained H ydric*
Thurmont – Dillard complex, 815% ThC Well Drained Hydric*
Udorthents – Urban complex, 05% UfB Well Drained N onhydric
* Soils which are primarily nonhydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
3 July 2012
3.2 Water Resources

Water resources in the study area are part of the H iwassee River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 06020002). Two streams were identified in the study area
(Table 2). The location of each water resource is s hown in Appendix A – Figure 3. The
physical characteristics of these streams are provi ded in Table 3.

Table 2. Water resources in the study area.
Stream Name Map ID NCDWQ Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bearpaw Creek Bearpaw Creek 166 C
UT to Hickey Branch SA 1632 C

Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resourc es in the study area.
Map Id Bank
Height (ft)
Bankful
Width (ft)
Water
Depth (in)
Channel
Substrate

Velocity

Clarity
Bearpaw
Creek 3 4 6 Sand, Cobbles Moderate Clear
SA 2 3 5 Sand, Cobbles Moderate Clear

One pond is located in the study area, and is posit ioned on the north side of NC 294,
approximately 1080 feet north of the intersection o f NC 294 and Friendship Church Road
(Appendix A – Figure 4). The pond has been dug in h igh ground, and a pipe has been
installed to allow flow from Bearpaw Creek to feed the pond. No outlet or natural
significant nexus was identified; therefore, the po nd was concluded to be non
jurisdictional.

One marginal feature (MA) is located approximately 125 feet south of Ware Road
(Appendix A – Figure 5). MA begins inside a spring box on the western side of NC 294
within the study area, runs through a culvert below the road, and exits east of NC 294.
The feature runs parallel to NC 294, turns perpendi cular into a field adjacent to the road,
and dissipates through sheet flow into the field. T he marginal feature contains weak
characteristics commonly associated with streams. A site meeting with the USACE is
pending for verification of the delineation, and to obtain a jurisdictional determination
regarding the marginal feature.

There are no specially classified waterways {i.e., Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
Trout Waters, Anadromous Fish Waters, Primary Nurse ry Areas (PNA), High Quality
Waters (HQW), or 303[d] Impaired Waters} located wi thin the study area. The study area
is not located within a Water Supply (WS) Watershed protected area. There are no waters
designated ORW, PNA, HQW, or WS within 1.0 mile of the study area. A UT to Hickey
Branch, located in the southern portion of the stud y area, flows into Hickey Branch;
which in turn flows into Persimmon Creek. Persimmon Creek, identified within the North
Carolina 2010 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters for habitat comprised of poor
ecological and biological integrity for fish commun ities and aquatic life (Category 5), is
located approximately 800 feet southeast of the stu dy area.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
4 July 2012
No benthic or fish monitoring data was available no r reasonably ascertainable for the
study area.

4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES

4.1 Terrestrial Communities

Terrestrial communities or land uses in the study a rea were distinguished by plant
species, location in the landscape, past disturbanc es, and hydrologic characteristics.
Based on the field review, three terrestrial commun ities, including maintained/disturbed,
pastureland/agricultural field, and montane oakhic kory forest were identified in the
study area; please see Appendix A, Figure 8 for the approximate location and extent of
these terrestrial communities in the study area. A brief description of each community
type follows. Scientific names for all species rep orted below are included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
For the purposes of this report, maintained/disturb ed areas include paved roadways,
unimproved roads, rightsofway, rural residential development, and other areas where
the vegetation has been periodically mowed, trimmed , or completely cleared.
Maintained/disturbed areas comprise a significant p ortion of the study area and include
NC 294 and other intersecting roads, unimproved (di rt/gravel) roads that intersect NC
294, homes and yard improvements, and rightsofway adjacent to roadways and utility
corridors. Vegetation present within this community is limited and restricted to the road
shoulders, rightsofway adjacent to the roadways, utility corridors, and areas maintained
for residential purposes. Dominant vegetation with in these areas consisted of fescue,
needle leaf rosette grass, clover, goldenrod, Japan ese honeysuckle, common greenbrier,
and smooth sumac.

4.1.2 Pastureland/Agricultural Field
Agricultural fields and pasture are located through out the study area. Dominant
vegetation within this community consisted primaril y of herbaceous plants including rye,
fescue, dogfennel, common rush, and panic grass. In cluded within this community are
wetland areas that have been altered by clearing fo r pastureland and affected by livestock.
Two wetland areas were noted, identified as WA and WB on Figures 4 and 6,
respectively (Appendix A). WA and WB were classifie d as a seep and bog, respectively,
using the NCWAM classification. Dominant vegetation within the seep community
includes common rush and Appalachian sedge. Dominan t vegetation within the bog
community includes boxelder, swamp rose, sycamore, blackberry, common greenbrier,
Appalachian sedge and needle leaf rosette grass.

4.1.3 Montane OakHickory Forest
Fragmented relatively undisturbed upland areas of f orest are located within the extreme
northwestern portion, and southeastern portion of t he study area. Per Schafale and
Weakley’s Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina , these forested
areas can best be described as montane oakhickory forest. Dominant vegetation within
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
5 July 2012
the canopy of this forested community included whit e oak, chestnut oak, American
beech, tulip poplar, sour wood, eastern white pine, and Virginia pine. Dominant
vegetation in the understory or shrub layer include d red maple, flowering dogwood, black
cherry, mountain laurel, and black gum. Dominant v egetation along forest margins
consisted of Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese prive t.

4.1.4 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be im pacted as a result of clearing,
grading, and paving activities associated with cons truction of the new roadway. The total
coverage of each terrestrial community type within the study area is presented below
(Table 2).

Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in th e study area.
Community Coverage (acres)
Maintained/Disturbed 46.55
Pastureland/Agricultural Field 17.30
Montane OakHickory Forest 4.75
Total 68.60

4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife

Habitat for terrestrial wildlife within the study a rea is limited due to the small amount of
natural, undisturbed habitat present. The fragment ation of the forests located within the
study area may also provide a barrier to wildlife d iversity and utilization of the habitat.
Species that were actually observed within the stud y area are indicated with *. Mammal
species that commonly exploit the types of terrestr ial communities found within the study
area include species such as eastern gray squirrel*, eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern
chipmunk, raccoon, Virginia opossum, and whitetail ed deer. Birds that may utilize the
terrestrial communities found within the study area include American crow, blue jay,
American robin*, redshouldered hawk, redtailed ha wk, Carolina chickadee, Carolina
wren, cardinal, tufted titmouse, American kestrel, eastern bluebird, turkey vulture, wild
turkey, and various other bird species. Reptile an d amphibian species that may inhabit
the terrestrial communities within the study area i nclude corn snake, black rat snake,
eastern garter snake, copperhead, southern toad, ea stern fence lizard, ground skink, five
lined skink, and mountain chorus frog. According to a letter from the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NC NHP) dated February 10, 2012, three extant records for the
mountain chorus frog were yielded upon review of th e project corridor. The mountain
chorus frog is a species of concern, and is known t o breed in ditches, pools, and other
small wet areas near forests in southwestern NC. Af orementioned areas disturbed during
road improvements will be mitigated by NCDOT; inclu ding construction of deeper
ditches, vernal pools, or other measures which may improve breeding habitat along the
project corridor once the project is constructed.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
6 July 2012
4.3 Aquatic Communities

Aquatic communities in the study area consist of tw o perennial streams and one still
water pond. Perennial streams within the study area are shallow, contain course substrate,
and exhibit moderate flows. Metrics of the stream a re potentially not conducive to fish
habitat; however, benthic macroinvertebrates, crayf ish, southern leopard frog, green frog,
and pickerel frog may be supported. The still water pond has potential to support green
sunfish, bluegill, and other native fish species.

4.4 Invasive Species

Two invasive species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina
were observed within the study area. The species i dentified were Chinese privet (Threat),
and Japanese honeysuckle (Threat). Both Chinese pri vet and Japanese honeysuckle were
observed growing in the small forested areas locate d on the northwestern and
southeastern portions of the study area. Additiona lly, the aforementioned species were
observed within the wetland communities and vegetat ed corridors along streams within
the study area. Chinese privet and Japanese honeysu ckle are identified as a threat to
habitat and natural areas and NCDOT will manage the se species as appropriate.

5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.

The study area was reviewed for potential jurisdict ional waters of the U.S. in accordance
with the most recent USACE and N.C. Division of Wat er Quality (NCDWQ) stream
guidance, and the USACE’s Wetland Delineation Manua l and the Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Regional Supplement to the Manual.

Two jurisdictional streams were identified in the s tudy area (Table 5). The locations of
the streams are depicted in Appendix A – Figures 4, 6 and 7. The physical characteristics
and water quality designations of each jurisdiction al stream are detailed in Section 3.2.
All jurisdictional streams in the study area have b een designated as cold water streams for
the purposes of stream mitigation.

Table 5. Physical characteristics of water resourc es in the study area.
Map Id Length (ft)
Classification
(ft)
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
River Basin Buffer
Bearpaw
Creek 779 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SA 1566 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 2345

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
7 July 2012
Two jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. Wetland WA and WB
are included within the pastureland/agricultural fi eld community type (Appendix A –
Figures 4 and 6, respectively). Wetland classificat ion and quality rating data are
presented in Table 6. The wetlands in the study are a are within the Hiwassee River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 06020002). USACE wetland determination data
forms and NCDWQ wetland rating worksheets for each wetland site are presented in
Appendix C. Descriptions of the terrestrial communi ties at each wetland site are
presented in Section 4.1.

Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetland s in the study area.
Map Id NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ Wetland
Rating Area (ac.)
WA Seep Riparian 36 0.05
WB Bog Riparian 71 0.17
Total 0.22

5.2 Clean Water Act Permits

The upgrade and widening of NC 294 will potentially require the widening or extension
of existing culverts. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit 14 will b e required from the USACE for
the discharge of dredged or fill material in “water s of the U.S.” In addition, under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33.U.S.C. 1341), a NCDWQ Section 401 General
Water Quality Certification will be required. If im pacts to waters of the U.S. exceed
NWP thresholds, an Individual Permit will be requir ed.

The study area is included within the Tennessee Val ley Drainage basin. The NCDOT,
as part of the permit process, will be required to apply to the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) for a Section 26a Permit.

5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environme ntal Concern

The study area is not located in a stateregulated Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
county; therefore, no CAMA Areas of Environmental C oncern (AEC) are located within
the study area and a CAMA permit from the North Car olina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM) will not be required for the pro ject.

5.4 Construction Moratoria

Division 14 of the NCDOT accessed the North Carolin a Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) Trout Distribution GIS Database (2011) and no trout are present within 2.0
miles of the study area. No trout waters or anadrom ous fish habitat are located within the
study area; therefore, no construction moratoria wi ll be required.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
8 July 2012
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

No streams, associated streamside riparian zones, o r protected stream buffers, as
administered by NCDWQ, are located within the study area.

5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Wa ters

No Section 10 Navigable Waters, as designated by th e USACE pursuant to the Rivers
and Harbors Act, are located within the study area.

5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation

5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

A UT to Hickey Branch (SA), located in the southern third of the study area, flows into
Persimmon Creek. Persimmon Creek is approximately 8 00 feet southeast of the study
area and is identified within the North Carolina 20 10 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Subsequently, Design Standards for Sensitive Waters heds will be implemented during
project construction.

Through design and construction techniques, the NCD OT will attempt to avoid and
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the gre atest extent possible.

5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts

Once the final design has been completed, and unavo idable impacts to waters of the U.S.
have been determined, the NCDOT will investigate po tential stream and wetland
mitigation onsite if applicable. Additionally, if onsite mitigation is not feasible,
mitigation will be provided by the North Carolina D epartment of Environment and
Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EE P).

5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species

As of December 19, 2011, the USFWS lists six federa lly protected species for Cherokee
County (Table 7). A brief description of each spec ies’ habitat requirements, the
availability of potential habitat within the study area for each species, and determinations
(Biological Conclusions) regarding potential projec trelated impacts to each species
follows. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the most current available
literature and/or USFWS correspondence.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
9 July 2012
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Ch erokee County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbegii Bog turtle T (S/A) Yes Not Required
Epioblasma florentina
walkeri Tan riffleshell E No No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T Yes No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Yes MA NLAA
Pegias fabula Littlewing pearlymusel E No No Effect
Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean E No No Effect
E – Endangered
MA NLAA – May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affec t
T – Threatened
T(S/A) – Threatened due to similarity of appearance

Bog turtle
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: April 1 – October 1 (v isual surveys); April 1June 15
(optimal for breeding/nesting); May 1June 30 (trap ping surveys)

Habitat Description: Bog turtle habitat consists o f open, groundwater supplied
(spring fed), graminoid dominated wetlands along ri parian corridors or on
seepage slopes. These habitats are designated as m ountain bogs by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, but they are tec hnically poor, moderate, or
rich fens that may be associated with wet pastures and old drainage ditches that
have saturated muddy substrates with open canopies. These habitats, found
between 700 and 4,500 feet above mean sea level in the western Piedmont and
mountain counties of North Carolina, often support sphagnum moss and may
contain carnivorous plants. Soil types (poorly dra ined silt loams) from which bog
turtle habitats have been found include Arkaqua, Ch ewacla, Dellwood, Codorus
complex, Hatboro, Nikwasi, Potomac – Iotla complex, Reddies, Rosman, Tate –
Cullowhee complex, Toxaway, Tuckasegee – Cullasaja complex, Tusquitee,
Watauga, and Wehadkee.

Biological Conclusion: Not Required
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011 by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. Species listed as threatened due to similarity
of appearance do not require Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Potential
habitat for bog turtle exists along streams and wet pasturelands adjacent to the
streams within the study area; however, potential h abitat is minimal and no turtles
of any species were observed during the field surve y. A search of the NCNHP
record database, completed on December 19, 2011, in dicated no known
occurrences of bog turtle within 2.0 miles of the s tudy area.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
10 July 2012
Tan riffleshell
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: Historic occurrences of the T an riffleshell are known from the
French Broad and Hiawassee Rivers in North Carolina . Currently, the only
known viable population of this species is located in Tazwell County, Virginia.
Individuals are typically found in headwaters, riff les, and shoals in sand and
gravel substrates.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011 by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. Streams within th e study area are relatively
small in width (approximately four feet) and contai n minimal shoals with sandy or
gravelly substrate that would provide suitable habi tat. Stream metrics are not
conducive to providing habitat preferred by the mus sel. No mussels were
observed in streams within the study area. The muss el is listed as an historic and
obscure occurrence, and has not been observed or lo cated within Cherokee county
within the past 50 years. A search of the NCNHP rec ord database, completed on
December 19, 2011, indicated no known occurrences o f the Tan riffleshell within
2.0 miles of the study area.

Small whorled pogonia
USFWS optimal survey window: mid May to early July

Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia is a pe rennial orchid that occurs in young to
maturing (second to third successional growth) mixe d deciduous or mixed
deciduous/coniferous forests. The plant does not a ppear to have a preference
towards any one soil type or underlying geologic su bstrate. In North Carolina,
small whorled pogonia is typically found in open, d ry deciduous woods or woods
containing white pine and rhododendron. The plant may also be found on dry and
rocky wooded slopes, moist slopes, ravines lacking stream channels and on slope
bases near braided channels of vernal streams. The plant, which is often limited
by shade, requires small light gaps or canopy break s, and typically grows under
canopies that are relatively open or near areas lik e logging roads or streams that
create longpersisting breaks in the forest canopy.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. Potential habitat for small whorled pogonia
exists within the montane oakhickory forest areas located within the study area;
however, these forested areas comprise only a minor portion of the study area and
are small and fragmented. No plants were observed during the December 2011
field survey. An additional survey was conducted on June 14, 2012 during the
optimal survey window. No individuals of small whor led pogonia were identified
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
11 July 2012
during the survey. The majority of the understory l ocated within the montane oak
hickory forests lacked vegetation, due to over shad ing from the canopy trees.
Over shaded conditions are not conducive to habitat preferred by the small
whorled pogonia. A search of the NCNHP record datab ase, completed on
December 19, 2011, indicated no known occurrences o f small whorled pogonia
within 2.0 miles of the study area.

Indiana bat
USFWS optimal survey window: Summer (May 15 to Augu st 15) and Winter (January
15 to February 15)

Habitat Description: The range of the Indiana bat centers on areas within the
eastern region of the United States containing cave rnous limestone. The Indiana
bat has different summer and winter habitat require ments. Winter habitat includes
caves and abandoned mines that typically contain st anding water on the ground.
Indiana bats migrate to their winter habitat betwee n September and November
where the bats stay until midMarch to early May. Hibernation only occurs in
regions where winter temperatures are stable at aro und 40 degrees Fahrenheit.
Suitable summer habitat includes areas with availab le roosting, foraging, and
commuting corridors. Summer roosting habitat inclu des forests and woodlots
containing potential roost trees (alive or dying) w ith exfoliating bark, cracks, or
crevices or snags that are greater than three inche s in diameteratbreast height
(dbh). Roosting habitat may contain dense or loose aggregates of trees with
variable amounts of canopy closure. Trees greater than three inches in dbh have
the potential to be Indiana bat summer roosting hab itat; however, solid stands of
threeinch dbh and smaller trees are not considered suitable roosting habitat.
Suitable roosting habitat would generally consist o f forests with larger trees also
present. Bridges may also be used by Indiana bats as summer roosting habitat.
Foraging habitat consists of forested patches, wood ed riparian corridors, and
natural vegetation adjacent to these areas. Stream s that have been stripped of
their riparian vegetation do not appear to offer su itable foraging habitat.
Commuting habitat includes wooded tracts, treeline s, wooded hedgerows,
streams, or other such pathways that are within or connected to roosting or
foraging habitats. Rivers also serve as foraging h abitats and as important
migration routes for the Indiana bat.

Biological Conclusion: MA NLAA
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011 by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. The study area is located in Cherokee county,
which is listed as providing only summer habitat fo r the Indiana bat. Natural
Environmental Section (NES) staff confirmed during a March 29, 2012 site visit,
that minimal suitable summer or roosting habitat oc curs within the montane oak
hickory forest within the study area, due to the pr esence of trees with exfoliating
bark and occurrence of sizable snags. NCDOT will co mmit to restricting clearing
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
12 July 2012
activities, if applicable to the project, to be per formed only during wintertime
months (prior to April 15), outside of the maternit y window for the bat. No winter
habitat was identified within the study area, as no caves or old mines are present.
Additionally, very minimal riparian buffer occurs a djacent to the streams within
the study area; in effect, not providing suitable f oraging habitat. No bats were
observed during the survey. A search of the NCNHP r ecord database, completed
on December 19, 2011, indicated no known occurrence s of Indiana bat within 2.0
miles of the study area.

Little+wing pearly mussel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the little wing pearlymussel is known from the
Little Tennessee River watershed, where it inhabits small to mediumsized
streams with low turbidity, cool water, and a high to moderate gradient. This
mussel can be found buried in gravel or beneath bou lders and slabrock, or lying
on top of the substratum in riffles. The mussel can also be found partly buried or
on the surface of the substratum in the transition zone between long pools and
riffles. It has been suggested that the best times to find this mussel are in late
spring and in the late fall, when they are on top o r partly buried in the substratum
during spawning.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011 by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. Streams within th e study area are relatively
small in width (approximately four feet), have low to moderate gradient, and
contain turbid conditions from livestock alteration . The aforementioned
conditions are not conducive to habitat preferred b y the mussel. No mussels were
observed in streams within the study area. The muss el is listed as an historic
occurrence, and has not been observed within Cherok ee county within the past 50
years. A search of the NCNHP record database, compl eted on December 19,
2011, indicated no known occurrences of the little wing pearly mussel within 2.0
miles of the study area.

Cumberland bean
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: Historically, the Cumberland bean was known from ten river
systems in the Cumberland and Tennessee River basin s in Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Cumberland bean currently survives in
only three of those systems. A relatively strong p opulation exists in a short reach
of the Hiwassee River downstream of the North Carol ina/Tennessee State line in
Polk County, Tennessee. Although no specimens have been collected in North
Carolina, it is likely that the species occurs in s mall numbers in the North
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
13 July 2012
Carolina portion of the in the Hiwassee River, wher e the habitat appears suitable
below the Appalachia Dam, Cherokee County. The Cum berland bean typically
inhabits mediumsized streams to small rivers 1565 feet in width. The mussel is
found in siltfree sand, gravel, and cobble substra tes in waters with moderate to
fast currents and depths less than three feet. The mussel frequently occurs in the
transition zone between gravel and sand substrates.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A pedestrian reconnaissance survey was conducted wi thin the study area to
determine potential habitat on December 21, 2011 by Environmental Scientists
Steven Busbee and Brandon Fulton. No habitat prefer red by the Cumberland bean
exists within the study area. Streams within the st udy area are limited to much
smaller widths (approximately four feet) than are t ypically preferred by the
Cumberland bean. Additionally, flows were moderate and streams mainly consist
of gravel and cobbles with some erosion from livest ock impact; therefore,
resulting in silted conditions. No mussels were obs erved within the study area
during the survey. A search of the NCNHP record dat abase, completed on
December 19, 2011, indicated no known occurrences o f the Cumberland bean
within 2.0 miles of the study area.

5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of ma ture forests located in proximity to
large bodies of open water utilized for foraging. Large dominant trees within these
forests are utilized for nesting sites and are typi cally located within 1.0 mile of open
water.

A desktopGIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13mile radius
(1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on December 19, 2012 using
2010 color aerials. Dammed portions of the Hiwasse e River (Hiwassee Lake), and Lake
Cherokee (Persimmon Creek), are located approximate ly 0.7 mile from the southern
portion of the study area. The aforementioned lakes may be large enough to be
considered a potential feeding source for the bald eagle; however, since no foraging or
nesting habitat is located within the project study area, and given the largely cleared
and/or disturbed conditions in the area proximal to the project corridor, a survey of the
project study area and an area within 660 feet of t he project limits was not conducted.
Additionally, review of the NCNHP database revealed no known occurrences of this
species within 2.0 miles of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, and minimal impact
to natural resources associated with the proposed p roject, it has been determined that the
project will not affect the bald eagle.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
14 July 2012
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

As of September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists two Candi date species for Cherokee County
(Table 8). A review of NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences within 2.0 miles
of the study area.

Table 8. Candidate species listed for Cherokee Cou nty.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Present
Moxostoma sp . Sicklefin redhorse No
Planthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid* Yes
*Historic Record – the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.

5.11 Essential Fish Habitat

No Essential Fish Habitat, as regulated by the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), is located within the study area.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
15 July 2012

6.0 REFERENCES

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineer s Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y871, U. S. Army Engineer Waterw ays Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Griffith, G. E., et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey.

National Marine Fisheries Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s
Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v2.0 (Accessed Januar y, 2012).
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatm apper.html

NatureServe. 2007. NaturesServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
applications]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington Virginia.

N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resour ces, Division of Water Quality.
Last Updated February 9, 2012. North Carolina Water Quality Classifications by
NC River Basin. Hiwassee River Basin. (Accessed Dec ember 2011).
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get/fil e?uuid=e948639fb5404a28
843a5ce71902c98d&groupId=38364

N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resour ces, Division of Water Quality.
2010. Environmental Sensitivity Map. Cherokee Count y.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/maps

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource s, Division of Water Quality.
2007. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Hiwassee River Basin. Raleigh, North
Carolina. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/hiwass ee

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource s, Division of Water Quality.
2002. Basinwide Assessment Report. Hiwassee River Basin.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/hiwass ee

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource s, Division of Water Quality.
2010. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List: Integrated 305(b)
and 303(d) Report.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_fil e?uuid=a2c87e9aa5fd420e
b9b709ae0241ce4a&groupId=38364 .

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resource s, Division of Water Quality.
2004. Basinwide Information Management System: Wat er Body Reports.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.h tml .

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2008. Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
16 July 2012

N.C. Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Man agement Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.

N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11 . N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Wate r Quality. Raleigh, N.C.

N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2012. County Recor ds Search. List of Federal and
State Protected Species for Cherokee County, North Carolina. Available:
http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/search/findCounty.php ?countySearch=cherokee&sci
Name=&comName=&sRank=&gRank=&nameCategory=&protStat us=.

N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Element Occu rrence Search Report: Cherokee
County, North Carolina. http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/siterequest.html .

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Nort h Carolina Mussel Atlas:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/wildlife_species_con/WSC_Mussel_5.htm . (Accessed:
December 19, 2011).

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. M anual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroli na Press. 1183 pp.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifica tion of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolin a Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh , North Carolina. 325 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern M ountains and Piedmont
Region . Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz.
ERDC/EL TR1009.Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Re search and
Development Center.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources C onservation Service. 1990. Soil
Survey of Cherokee County, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. National We tlands Inventory. Persimmon Creek
Quadrangle (7.5minute series).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. USFWS Regio n 4: Southeast Region, North
Carolina Ecological Services. Threatened and Endan gered Species in North
Carolina: Cherokee County. Updated December 19, 20 11. http://www.fws.gov/nc
es/es/countyfr.html .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2 012. Bog Turtle in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nces/reptile/bogtur.html .

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP R3622B, Cherokee County, N.C.
17 July 2012
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2 012. Cumberland Bean in North
Carolina. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/F000.html .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2012. Indiana Bat in North
Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/nces/mammal/indianabat.html .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed December 2 012. Information on Threatened
and Endangered Species: Smallwhorled Pogonia.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listedspecies/sm all_whorled_pogonia.html .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed Devember 2 012. Tan riffleshell.
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/F010.html . (Accessed: February 14,
2008).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Surve y Windows for North Carolina’s
Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nces/es/plant_survey.html .

United States Geological Survey. Persimmon Creek, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5minute series) 1978.

Appendix A
Figures

0
1
2
0.
5
Miles FIGURE 1 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:Cherokee County, NC VICINITY MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
o
r
e
s
t
Ref. North Carolina Roads Data Layer (NCDOT 2011)³
LA
K
E

CH
E
R
O
K
E
E
t u 129 t u 19
t u 64 29
4
29
4
60
11
t u 64
t u 74
W a
r
e

R
o a d B e l l H i l l R o a d
R a n g e r R o a d
S
a
n
d
y

G
a
p
R
d .
O a k r i
d
g
e

R
o
a
d
F r i e n d s h i
p

C
h
u
r c h R d
W al k e r R d .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR

1
1
3
0

(
S
u
n
n
y

P
o
i
n
t

R
o
a
d
)
HI
W
A
S
S
E
E
RI
V
E
R
t u 74
t u 129 t u 19 11
R
a
d
f
o
r
d

R
o
a
d
C r o w e R
o
a
d
S
R

1
3
1
2

(
U
p
p
e
r

B
e
a
r

P
a
w

R
d
)
P
a
n
t
h
e
r
T
o
p

R
o
a
d
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Feet FIGURE 2 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:PERSIMMON CREEK TOPOGRAPHY QUAD PROJECT STUDY AREA MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Ref. USGS 7.5 Minute Topography Map [Persimmon Creek (1978)] ³
29
4
29
4
F r i e n d s h i p C h u r c h R
o
a
d
C
r
o
w
e
R o a d
R a d f o r d R
o
a
d
C a n d
y

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

R
o
a d
W a r e R
o
a
d
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
S R 1 3 1 2 (U p p e r B e a r Pa
w R d )
SR

1
1
3
0

(
S
u
n
n
y

P
o
i
n
t

R
d
)
0
0
.
2
5
0
.
5
0.
1
2
5
Miles FIGURE 3 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Ma
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
Po
n
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³
F r i e n d s h i p C h u r c h R o a d
W a r e R o a d
G r
o
v
e

R
o
a
d
Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand3held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR

1
3
1
2

(U
p
p
e
r

B
e
a
r

P
a
w

R
o
a
d
)
SR

1
1
3
0

(
S
u
n
n
y

P
o
i
n
t

R
o
a
d
)
29
4
29
4
FI
G
U
R
E

4
FI
G
U
R
E

5
FI
G
U
R
E

6
FI
G
U
R
E

7
R
a
d
f
o
r
d

R
d
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
2
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
1
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
3
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
4
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
Feet FIGURE 4 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
No
n
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
n
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH handheld GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
29
4
29
4
Be
a
r
p
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
;

0
.
0
3
4

a
c
r
e
,

2
8
0

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
9
7
0
7

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
6
5
5
8

W
Be
a
r
p
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
Be
a
r
p
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
;

0
.
0
6

a
c
r
e
,

4
9
9

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
7
4
3
1

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
4
2
4
3

W
Po
n
d
;

N
o
n
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
Du
g

I
n

U
p
l
a
n
d
,

0
.
1
3

a
c
r
e
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
7
9
1
6

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
4
1
5
4

W
We
t
l
a
n
d

W
A
;

0
.
0
5

a
c
r
e
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
7
5
5
1

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
4
3
6
3

W
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
1
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
;
~3
2
.
0

l
f
.
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
Feet FIGURE 5 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Ma
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand2held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
29
4
29
4
Ma
r
g
i
n
a
l

F
e
a
t
u
r
e

M
A
;

0
.
0
1

a
c
r
e
,

1
8
0

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
3
3
4
1

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
0
3
3
3

W
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
;

~3
5

l
f
.
W
a
r
e

R
o
a
d Rad f o rd Road
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
Feet FIGURE 6 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R.3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand2held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
29
4
29
4
SA
;

0
.
0
7

a
c
r
e
,

8
1
7

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
6
6
7
8
6

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
8
6
5
0
3

W
We
t
l
a
n
d

W
B
We
t
l
a
n
d

W
B
We
t
l
a
n
d

W
B
We
t
l
a
n
d

W
B
;

0
.
1
7

a
c
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
6
6
7
8
6

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
8
6
5
0
3

W
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
2
3
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
;

~2
0

l
f
.
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
Feet FIGURE 7 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R.3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand1held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
29
4
29
4
SA
;

0
.
0
4

a
c
r
e
,

5
3
6

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
6
0
6
8
5

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
8
4
6
2
2

W
SA
;

0
.
0
2

a
c
r
e
,

2
1
3

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
6
5
8
5
4

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
8
4
7
2
6

W

Appendix B

Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report

Plants

Common Name Scientific Name
American beech Fagus grandifolia
Appalachian sedge Carex appalachica
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Black cherry Prunus serotina
Black gum Nyssa sylvatica
Boxelder Acer negundo
Chestnut oak Quercus prinus
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
Clover Trifolium sp.
Common greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Common rush Juncus effusus
Dogfennel Eupatorium capillifolium
Eastern white pine Pinus strobus
Fescue Festuca sp.
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Goldenrod Salidao sp .
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia
Needle leaf rosette grass Dicanthelium aciculare
Panic grass Dicanthelium sp.
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Rye Lolium sp.
Smooth sumac Rhus glabra
Sour wood Oxydendron arboreum
Swamp rose Rosa palustris
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Virginia pine Pinus virginiana
White oak Quercus alba

Animals

Common Name Scientific Name
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American kestrel Falco sparverius
American robin Turdus migratorius
Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus
Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta

Common Name Scientific Name
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix
Corn snake Elaphe guttata
Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis
Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus
Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Fivelined skink Eumeces anthracinus
Green frog Rana clamitans
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Ground skink Scincella lateralis
Pickerel frog Rana palustris
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Redtailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Redshouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Southern toad Bufo terrestris
Southern leopard frog Lithobates sphenocephalus
Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana
Whitetailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Appendix C
Stream and Wetland Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site : Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*
Stream Determinat ion (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name :

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of st ream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not ra ted; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance ) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified us ing other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:

12-20-11 NC 294, STIP R-3622B 35.078123 N
84.194521 W Brandon Fulton Cherokee
Persimmon Creek
21.5
10
7
38.5
Perennial RPW, Bearpaw Creek
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site : Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*
Stream Determinat ion (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name :

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of st ream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not ra ted; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance ) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified us ing other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:

Sketch:

12-20-11 NC 294, STIP R-3622B 35.066795 N
84.186503 W Brandon Fulton Cherokee
Persimmon Creek
17.5
10
8
35.5
Perennial RPW SA, aka, UT to Hickey Branch
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version

Project Name __________________________________Neares t Road ________________________
County ____________________ Wetland area _______acres Wetland width ________feet
Name of evaluator ________________________________________ Date ___________________

Wetland location
___ on pond or lake
___ on perennial stream
___ on intermittent stream
___ within interstream divide
___ other: ___________________________

Adjacent land use
(within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
___ forested/natural vegetation ____%
___ agriculture, urban/suburban ____%
___ impervious surface ____%
Soil series: __________________________
___ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
___ predominantly mineral - non-sandy
___ predominantly sandy

Dominant vegetation
(1) _________________________________
(2) _________________________________
(3) _________________________________
Hydraulic factors
___ steep topography
___ ditched or channelized
___ total wetland width 100 feet

Flooding and wetness
___ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
___ seasonally flooded or inundated
___ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
___ no evidence of flooding or surface water

Wetland type (select one)*
___ Bottomland hardwood forest
___ Headwater forest
___ Swamp forest
___ Wet flat
___ Pocosin
___ Bog forest

___ Pine savanna
___ Freshwater marsh
___ Bog/fen
___ Ephemeral wetland
___ Carolina bay
___ Other: _____________________________
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt or bra ckish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage _________ x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _________ x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal ________ ** x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat _________ x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value _________ x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education _________ x 1.00 =

Wetland
rating
** Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonp oint source disturbance within ½ mile upstream, ups lope, or radius

NC 294; STIP R-3622B NC 294
Cherokee ~0.05 76x30
Brandon Fulton, Steven Busbee 12-20-11
X X
X
X
5
80
15
Ela silt loam
X
Juncus effusus
Carex sp .
Common Fescue/Ryegrass
X
X Seep
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
8
10
4
8
2
36
Wetland WA
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version

Project Name __________________________________Neares t Road ________________________
County ____________________ Wetland area _______acres Wetland width ________feet
Name of evaluator ________________________________________ Date ___________________

Wetland location
___ on pond or lake
___ on perennial stream
___ on intermittent stream
___ within interstream divide
___ other: ___________________________

Adjacent land use
(within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
___ forested/natural vegetation ____%
___ agriculture, urban/suburban ____%
___ impervious surface ____%
Soil series: __________________________
___ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
___ predominantly mineral - non-sandy
___ predominantly sandy

Dominant vegetation
(1) _________________________________
(2) _________________________________
(3) _________________________________
Hydraulic factors
___ steep topography
___ ditched or channelized
___ total wetland width 100 feet

Flooding and wetness
___ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
___ seasonally flooded or inundated
___ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
___ no evidence of flooding or surface water

Wetland type (select one)*
___ Bottomland hardwood forest
___ Headwater forest
___ Swamp forest
___ Wet flat
___ Pocosin
___ Bog forest

___ Pine savanna
___ Freshwater marsh
___ Bog/fen
___ Ephemeral wetland
___ Carolina bay
___ Other: _____________________________
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt or bra ckish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage _________ x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _________ x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal ________ ** x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat _________ x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value _________ x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education _________ x 1.00 =

Wetland
rating
** Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonp oint source disturbance within ½ mile upstream, ups lope, or radius

NC 294; STIP R-3622B NC 294
Cherokee ~0.166 600x40
Brandon Fulton, Steven Busbee 12-20-11
X X
X
X
5
80
15
Ela silt loam
X
Alnus serrulata
Acer rubrum
Juncus effusus
X
3
3
3+1
4
4
2
12
12
20
8
16
3
71
Wetland WB
X

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors

Investigator: Michael Iagnocco, PWS
Education: B.S. Biology, 1978
Experience: Senior Scientist/Senior Project Manager, STV/RWA, 2003Present
Senior Scientist/Natural Resources Principal, L AW/MACTEC, 1996
2003
Environmental Scientist, CEA & Woolpert, 1980 1996
Responsibilities: Natural Resources Group Leader, w etland and stream delineations,
natural resource assessments, Section 404/401 permi tting

Appendix E
Jurisdictional Determination Letter (Pending)

APPENDIX C
COMMENTS FROM FEDERA L,
STATE, & LOCAL AGENC IES

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Office of Archives and History
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
Location : 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address : 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax : [phone]-6599

February 23, 2012

Susan Paschal
STV Incorporated
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28208
[e-mail]

Re: Proposed Roadway Improvements along NC 29 4 between SR 1130 (Sunny Point Rd.) to SR 1312-A
(Upper Bear Paw Rd.), R-3622C, Cherokee County, ER 12-0188

Dear Ms. Paschal:

We have received notification of the above project from Steve Williams, NCDOT Division 14.

There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the loca tion or significance of archae ological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation and the density of archaeological sites in the area, there is a high
probability for the presence of prehistori c or historic archaeological sites.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeolog ical remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Two copies of the resulting archaeol ogical survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.

A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarc h/resource/consultants.htm . The archaeologists listed, or
any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.

We have conducted a search of our maps and files an d located the following structures of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of this project:

• Frank Garland House (CE 0112), located on the west side of SR 1128 (0.7 miles south of SR 1127),
surveyed by the 1981 Cherokee County Survey;
• Hickey House (CE 0117), located on the west side of NC 294 (0.3 miles north of SR 1130), surveyed
in 1981;
• Mason-McNabb House (CE 0142), located on the west side of SR 1312 (0.2 miles north of NC 294),
surveyed by the 1979 Far West Regional Survey and again in 1981;
• Taylor Log House (CE 0180), located on the east side of NC 294 (0.1 miles north of SR 1130),
surveyed in 1981; and,
• Wood House (CE 0188), located on the west side of NC 29 4 (0.3 miles north of SR 1152), surveyed in
1981.

Site data from the hardcopy Cherokee County survey maps have not yet been added to our GIS and thus do
not appear on HPOWEB.

The last county-wide survey in Cherokee County was co mpleted in 1981. Therefore, we recommend that a
Department of Transportation architectural historian iden tify and evaluate any structures over fifty (50) years
of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10 6 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY JURISDIC TIONAL
DETERMINATION

0
0
.
2
5
0
.
5
0.
1
2
5
Miles FIGURE 4 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R-3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
Po
n
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
t
l
a
n
d
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³
F r i e n d s h i p C h u r c h R o a d
W a r e R o a d
G r
o
v
e

R
o
a
d
Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH hand3held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR

1
3
1
2

(U
p
p
e
r

B
e
a
r

P
a
w

R
o
a
d
)
SR

1
1
3
0

(
S
u
n
n
y

P
o
i
n
t

R
o
a
d
)
29
4
29
4
FI
G
U
R
E

5
FI
G
U
R
E

6
FI
G
U
R
E

7
FI
G
U
R
E

8
R
a
d
f
o
r
d

R
d
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
2
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
1
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
3
Da
t
a

P
o
i
n
t
3
4
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
Feet FIGURE 6 STV/RWA Project No.Title:Client:Approved By:Date:Drawn By:MTD WBF 03/12/2012 MAI 2515451 Project:DIVISION 14 PROPOSED UPGRADE OF NC 294 STIP: R.3622B CHEROKEE COUNTY, NC Checked By:JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
Le
g
e
n
d
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
No
n
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
Ref. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Aerial Photography [Cherokee County, NC (2010)]³Notes:1. Potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S were delineated by STV/RWA during the field review conducted on December 20, 2011. Potential jurisdictional boundaries have been marked in the field with blue and white striped tape and locations approximated using a Trimble GeoXH handheld GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for planning purposes only. 2. Jurisdicitional boundaries of waters of the U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to change following verification. 3. This map is not a survey, and is intended for planning uses only. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
29
4
29
4
No
n
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
;

0
.
0
1

a
c
r
e
,

1
8
0

l
f
.
La
t
:

3
5
.
0
7
3
3
4
1

N
Lo
n
g
:

8
4
.
1
9
0
3
3
3

W
Cu
l
v
e
r
t
;

~3
5

l
f
.
W
a
r
e

R
o
a
d
R a d f o r d R o a d

APPENDIX E
HISTORIC ARCHITECTUR E &
ARCHAEOLOGY FORMS

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location : 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address : 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone/Fax : [phone] -6599

May 9, 2013

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mary Pope Furr
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways

FROM: Ramona M. Bartos

SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Widen NC 294 from Sunny Point Road (SR
1130) to Upper Bear Paw Road (SR 1312 -A), R -3622B, Cherokee County, ER 12 -0188

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 2013, transmitting the above report.

For the purpose of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we c oncur, barring
additional information to the contrary, that the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National
Register:

 Hickey House (C E 0117);
 Friendship Baptist Church and Cemetery (CE 0224); and,
 The remaining properties listed in t he Appendix .

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your coo peration and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 -807 -6579 or renee.gledhill -
[e-mail] . In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

cc: Clay Griffith, Acme Preservation Services, [e-mail]

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Pat McCrory , Governor Office of Archives and History
Susan W. Kluttz, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Kevin Cherry, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
Location : 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address : 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone/Fax : [phone] -6599
February 7, 2013

MEMORANDUM

TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways

FROM: Ramona M. Bartos

SUBJECT: Widen and Upgrade NC 294 from SR 1130 to SR 1312 -A, R -3622B, Cherokee County,
ER 12 -0188

Thank you for your letter of December 20, 2012 , transmitting the archaeological survey report for the above
project.

During the course of the survey, three sites were located within the project area. For purposes of compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following site is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:

31CE787 31CE787 is a prehistoric lithic scatter that could provide
s ubstantial data concerning the late prehistoric period to
Qualla phase oc cupation of the area.

TRC recommends that further site delineation, survey of the uninvestigated area, and data recovery be
undertaken at 31CE787 if this site cannot be avoided by construction activities. We concur with these
recommendations, and look f orward to receipt of the data recovery plan.

In addition, we concur that archaeological sites 31CE786 and 31CE788 are not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. These site s do not retain sufficient subsurface integrity or artif act density
to yield information important to history or prehistory.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Sectio n 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Paul Webb, TRC

APPENDIX F
RELOCATION/DISPLACEM ENT
POLICIES