R4440

y .w STA7F °
4aN d y. v.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FROM: Bryan Kluchar, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: TIP Project Number R-4440 NCDOT Division 14
SR 1364 and SR 1114 Improvements (Needmore Road)
From SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to existing pavement in
Swain County
State Project Numbers 14C.056010 and 14C.087019
WBS Number 35597.1.1
Concurrence Point #2 and Field Meeting Minutes
Two Concurrence Point #2 meetings were held for the project. The first meeting was held in
Raleigh on September 20, 2005 in the Board Room of the Transportation Building. The second
concurrence meeting was held in Bryson City at the Southwestern Community College's Swain
Center (SCC) on December 13, 2005. The second meeting was held in conjunction with a field
review meeting.
FIRST CONCURRENCE MEETING
The following people were in attendance at the September 20, 2005 meeting:
September 20, 2005
Angie Pennock - USACE - videoconference Keith Paschal - NCDOT Structures
Marella Buncick - USFWS - videoconference Ryan Mullins - NCDOT Hydraulics
Christopher Militscher - USEPA Andrew Nottingham - NCDOT Hydraulics
Harold Draper - TVA - videoconference Mark Staley - NCDOT Roadside Environmental
Brian Wrenn - NCDENR DWQ Roy Shelton - NCDOT PDEA
Marla Chambers - NCWRC Teresa Hart - NCDOT PDEA
Sarah McBride - NCDCR SHPO Ed Lewis - NCDOT PDEA HEU
Joel Setzer - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Tim Gardiner - NCDOT PDEA HEU
Jamie Wilson - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Shane Peterson - NCDOT PDEA HEU
Paul White - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Mary Pope Furr - NCDOT PDEA HEU
Mark Davis - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Jennifer Cathey - NCDOT PDEA HEU
Brian Burch - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Chris Underwood - NCDOT PDEA NEU
Jody Kuhne - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Linda Fitzpatrick - NCDOT PDEA NEU
Richard Hadison - NCDOT Div 14 - videoconference Linwood Stone - NCDOT PDEA
Roger Thomas - NCDOT Roadway Design Karen Reynolds - NCDOT PDEA
Mike Little - NCDOT Roadway Design Bryan Kluchar - NCDOT PDEA
Brian Mayhew - NCDOT Traffic Safety
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

September 20, 2005 meeting handouts included an agenda, aerial mapping, and acid rock
drainage information (provided by Jody Kuhne). A video of the project area was presented.
During the concurrence meeting, the videoconference connection to Asheville was intermittent
resulting in approximately 45 minutes of lost meeting time.
1. Purpose of the Meeting
To reach consensus on the alternatives to be studied and carried forward
2. Project Description
• SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) is an unpaved secondary road located along the
Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties.
• Project limits extend from SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to the existing
pavement in Swain County. Total project length is approximately 3.7 miles.
• The Purpose and Need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for
local residents that currently use Needmore Road; reduce existing sedimentation from
Needmore Road into the Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
the existing high quality natural resources including but not limited to water quality,
habitat and vegetation, and reduce existing maintenance costs associated with Needmore
Road.
3. Current Schedule
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI: October 2006
Construction: Sections A, B, and D-2007
Section C-Post Year
4. Constraints
• Chris Underwood identified the Little Tennessee River as critical habitat for the federally
protected Spotfin chub, Appalachian elktoe, and Littlewing pearly mussel.
• Wetland #1 is located near the northern terminus of the project between Needmore Road
and the Little Tennessee River.
• The existing right of way for the road is maintained from ditch line to ditch line.
• Jody Kuhne provided information on Geotechnical "hot rock". Since there are no
alternates selected for study, no excavation quantities of hot rock are available. There
was concern for any excavated hot rock entering the Little Tennessee River. Brian Wrenn
will provide hot rock information for the Murphy Bypass project for informational
purposes.
• Keith Paschal indicated Bridge 78 over Tellico Creek is not scheduled for replacement as
part of the project. It has 10 years of remaining life.
• Mike Little indicated that AASHTO low volume standards allow flexibility in design.
The typical section could include an 18-foot travelway from shoulder to shoulder.
Division 14 Standards recommend a minimum lane width of 9 feet with 2 foot usable
shoulder unless guardrail is needed.
• Portions of the road are prone to flooding. Needmore Road was damaged by Hurricane
Ivan in 2005.

• Brian Mayhew presented the 3 year crash history of the road. There were 5 reported
crashes of low severity resulting in a crash rate above the statewide average, but not
above the critical rate. From his expert opinion perspective, he made the following
observations:
1. Low severity crashes are reflective of low vehicle speeds.
2. Paving alone will not improve the safety of the road.
3. Signing and lane markings will be needed.
4. Narrower lanes with wider shoulders improve safety.
5. Even if improvements are made to Needmore Road, the number of crashes will likely
remain the same.
• Shane Peterson provided Archaeological information. The fish weir within the Little
Tennessee River, near Tellico Creek, is the only site considered eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The Yellow Bear and Oo-San-Ter-Take Reservations date
back to the early 1800's and are located near Tellico Creek.
• Jennifer Cathey provided information on the Tellico Creek Rural Historic District. The
district is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• The NCWRC will be developing a Management Plan for the Needmore Tract; however,
there is no target date for completing the plan. The first step in developing the plan is
getting recommendations from Natural Heritage. `Campsites along Needmore Road have
already been blocked off. Ultimately, a campsite may be developed somewhere in the
Needmore Tract. The NCWRC recommends pave in place with warning signs and other
means to slow traffic.
4. Other Items
Because of time constraints the merger team suggested meeting in the field to view the
project area and then continuing the concurrence meeting nearby.
FIELD REVIEW
The field review meeting was held on December 13, 2005. The meeting began at 9:00 am in
Macon County. The following people attended the field meeting and subsequent concurrence
meeting.
December 13, 2005
Steve Lund - USACE Paul White - NCDOT Div 14
Marella Buncick - USFWS Mark Davis - NCDOT Div 14
John Fridell - USFWS Owen Anderson - NCDOT Div 14
Christopher Militscher - USEPA Jody Kuhne - NCDOT Geotechnical
Harold Draper - TVA Mike Little - NCDOT Roadway Design
Brian Wrenn - NCDENR DWQ Keith Paschal - NCDOT Structures
Marla Chambers - NCWRC Andrew Nottingham - NCDOT Hydraulics
Joel Setzer - NCDOT Div 14 Linwood Stone - NCDOT PDEA
Jamie Wilson - NCDOT Div 14 Bryan Kluchar - NCDOT PDEA
1? I fp
The field review began at the southern terminus of the project at the intersection of Needmore
Road and SR 1369 (Tellico Road). The existing width of Needmore Road was measured at
various locations. The measurements represent the approximate width of the road, not including
shoulders. Stationing is referenced to the aerial mapping distributed with the concurrence
meeting information.
• Needmore Road @ Tellico Road (Station 204+50): Width = 16 feet
A
f Il
.r
z i'. . _.a' try WY
• Needmore Road @ Bird Branch (Station 194+50):
Width 16 feet
Photo looking South
Steep Slope on west side
Bird Branch parallels Needmore Road on east side
• Bridge over Tellico Creek (Station 178+30):
Total horizontal clearance = 19 feet-1 inch
Photo looking North
Discussed if existing bridge should be replaced as part of
the improvements. Determined that the bridge will not
be replaced when developing alternates.

• Needmore Road @ High Lonesome Road (Station 177+00): Width =over 18 feet
• Needmore Road @ Ledbetter Branch (Station 117+00):
Width = 18 feet - 6 inches
Photo looking East
Waterfall just upstream
• Needmore Road @ drainage pipe (Station 103+00):
Width = 17 feet
Photo looking West
Discussion focused on hot rock options including
shotcrete which is a type of concrete applied directly to
the surface of the rock face (similar to forming the walls
of a swimming pool). If an alternate impacts the hot rock,
additional width (minimum 5 feet) is needed to construct a
catch basin/ditch for treatment and neutralization. No hot
rock waste sites should be located within the Needmore
1

,L.
", i j
11 • it
Tract.
• Needmore Road @ Rock Face (Station 92+50):
Width = 16 feet
Photo looking East
Narrowest width is at Station 93+00 = 14 feet
Construction of 1/4:1 slope may be possible
Endangered Appalachian elktoe shell found on river
rocks below the road.
• Needmore Road @ Station 78+00: Width = 19 feet
• Needmore Road @ Loudermilk Creek (Station 64+00): Width = 15 feet
• Needmore Road @ Loudermilk Creek and unstable rock
(Station 64+00): '
Photo looking Northwest.
Mountain on left contains very hot and unstable rock.
Geotechnical recommends not impacting rock from
Station 55+00 to 65+00.
Little Tennessee River is near elevation of road.
Narrowest width = 14 feet at Station 60+00
• Needmore Road @ Wetland (Station 40+00):
Width = 16 feet
Photo looking Northeast into wetland from road
Rock on West side of road is not hot
SECOND CONCURRENCE MEETING
The second Concurrence Meeting was held immediately following the field review at the SCC
Swain Center located on US 19/74 west of Bryson City. The following was discussed:
1. When responding to area emergencies, both Macon County and Swain Counties have medical
centers (hospitals) to treat patients.
2. The pave in place alternate can include speed limit signs as well as curve warnings and other
ways to calm traffic.
3. An alternate route to Needmore Road is NC 28, which is located on the opposite side of the
Little Tennessee River.
'1 0
4. Brian Wrenn indicated the AASHTO Standard Alternative and Low Volume Road
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project because they would place fill
into the Little Tennessee River. Joel Setzer suggested combining the AASHTO Alternatives
into one alternative and varying the width between 14 and 18 feet to meet the purpose and
need.
5. The USFWS suggested replacing the bridge at Tellico Creek as part of the project., The
bridge has a remaining life of 10 years and the replacement is not included in the scope of the
project. Additionally there is no funding for replacing the bridge with the project. Therefore,
the existing bridge will not be replaced.
6. John Fridell suggested adding an alternative on new location upslope from Needmore Road.
Marla Chambers indicated a new location project would still have problems associated with
road improvements. Building a new road on the steep mountainside would result in high
environmental impacts. The Appalachian Trail is located on the ridge just west of Needmore
Road. Therefore, a new location alternative will not be considered.
7. Alternatives Carried Forward
A. No Build Alternative - This alternative only maintains the existing gravel/dirt road.
Maintenance includes the cost of adding gravel. Information on flooding is also needed.
B. No Pave with Selective Improvements Alternative - Selective improvements include
drainage, buffer, and maintenance issues. Since these improvements are subject to
interpretation, an itemized list (including cost) is needed for the next concurrence
meeting.
C. Pave in Place -18 feet Maximum Alternative - This alternative only paves the existing
roadway width of Needmore Road. Although the existing roadway width generally varies
from 14 to 19 feet, the maximum pavement width will be no wider than 18 feet.
D. Pave in Place - Improve where you can Alternative - The improvements for this
alternative include paving the existing variable roadway width as well as improving the
road and shoulders without impacting hot rock or placing fill into the Little Tennessee
River. Stream and sensitive area impacts would be minimized.
E. Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with Design Exceptions Alternative - This
alternative combines Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with design exceptions.
Division 14 Secondary Road Standards include a minimum roadway width of 18 feet with
shoulder widths of 4 feet and 6 feet. Therefore, the total typical section width for this
alternative is 28 feet. The design exceptions can reduce the shoulder widths as well as
the roadway width below 18 feet; however, the roadway width will not be reduced to
14 feet.
The merger team and meeting attendees concurred with the above alternatives carried
forward (Concurrence Point #2). The next concurrence meeting will discuss the impact
quantities associated with the alternatives. Alternatives can also be eliminated at the next
meeting..
I
- --- --------------------- --

M*
I•

s--
-?-- -S??-cis-- ?. - ?- - ?-?---1--____?n?s----?---,?--??? 1---?,?f-------------- ----
-P 4- N JfAl
- ---

i
•
1
-_?? _r? ?? ate, -?- - 6°?'? - ?? ?- ????--- -?-,?--??=-??'? - ?0--?-??
se-Lf
G

--- --- --------
------- -- d?-- J -- - - - - - -- - --- - - - --- --- -- - ---

•
---?-,
• 71
?I-
?-
??
?.
rQ J
RESE
' R?IT
l Jr `
INANTIAI
,9 1114
i
' ? 1113 .k
1114
DEHART ?e
BALD -? '-

N TI ON

L

1134 \1135

?
131
130 SH E
KNOB
MICA
?? FORES
1133
p o A 1311132 1133
ze
^'
PEAKS BAL
.
tx /^ PINACL
KNOB m

_ C 0
9:00 a.m.
Meet at intersection of SR 1364 (Needmore Rd) and SR 1369 (Tellico Road) near
Stiles (See Macon County map)
Directions from US 19/74 in Swain County:
South on SR 1113 to SR 1114 continue south to end of project at SR 1369 in
Macon County.
9:00 a.m.
Meet at intersection of SR 1364 (Needmore Rd.) an d SR 1369 (Tellico Rd.) near Stiles.
From Franklin: NC 28 north then left onto SR 1370 and over Little Tennessee River.
Turn right and continue to intersection of SR 1364 (Needmore Road).
BALD ? ?

r PINNACLE
?' ?
1364 FWOB 135 /' G{N OQ `
\ `•x LL
?

- "? 1 360 ` 1424 ` a `
-163
-
28
136
10
1 1455 1361
1473
s
1

\
11 2 m 1357
1348
0 l 1353 1351
1341
.
.
1364 m e e 5 0 1
j.2 1352. Liberty Ch

1370
s 3
a L ;;^a
8 g o P
"
1354 Lea"rmon 4 3
-
_
44
- 1367 9 1369 Sflles _ - X1
1353 <?v, •e
1

1- 1369
m 353
)
1356
1355, 013
+? `
49
1345
Tellic rte` 1372 , 1370 Etna _
,erg
S '
472
'
m1366
, ., - e w
1368
-
e 1 14
720
e
0
341
t ?CO"oe
?
56 29 F
,
1371
/ .+
L1 ,
Cakr

1445
1459 s
4 e
pgs , 1340
loll
+s
c
\
ry W Mill 2 1 43
1 7
4
1339
134
/ 1 _
a
MACON COUNTY •'1372 `
453' 467 1338 LYLEIQrt

a 1474 ' '145e 13
+R 0
1376 Rw 1334
a g 388 1 /ROPER KNOB 1 133:
IPM 1427 1 4
s
29
°

139f? ' 1390 - 1^ 2
1421 m
0 1377
a s
1378 a 1335 .
"VV
1
c , -
1335

-
r ?? - 1428
J i
' 1393
1
1387

? Macon county

carport d'
` r

-
r
O/
_
Dean
396
1
r , 13 7 1

l ' ?l

/ RIDGE
-,
TRIMONT /
1 1
Franklin 4
• y
11.1 >

` , n
POP. 3,58 • . %- r
STATE

r 23
64 f
%
SITE VISIT AND CONCURRENCE POINT 2
ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
TIP Project Number R-4440
SR 1364 and SR 1114 Improvements (Needmore Road)
From SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
State Project Numbers 14C.056010 and 14C.087019
NCDOT Division 14
December 13, 2005
AGENDA
1. Purpose of the Meeting
• Provide the Merger Team an opportunity to visit the project area and discuss alternatives on-site.
• To reach consensus on the alternatives to be studied and carried forward
2. Project Description
• SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) is an unpaved secondary road located along the Little
Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties.
• Project limits are from SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain
County. Total project length is approximately 3.7 miles.
• The Purpose and Need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for local residents
that currently use Needmore Road; reduce existing sedimentation from Needmore Road into the
Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the existing high quality natural
resources including but not limited to water quality, habitat and vegetation, and reduce existing
maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
3. Current Schedule
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI: October 2006
Construction: Sections A, B, and D-2007 Section C-Post Year
4. Environmental and Design Constraints
• Little Tennessee River with federally protected species: Spotfin chub, Appalachian elktoe,
Littlewing pearly mussel
• Wetland #1
• Geotechnical "hot rock"
• Archaeology and Historic Architecture
• Bridge 78 over Tellico Creek
• Characteristics of the road - maintained right of way from ditch line to ditch line
• Road flooding
5. Alternatives Carried Forward
These alternatives represent a starting point for the discussion:
• No Build
• Pave in place
• Pave in place with selective improvements
• AASHTO very low-volume local road design
• Division 14 secondary road standards
6. Other Items
AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
0<?
SFp O?
?YFT??? FNR ?2
SgNp ?.qT ???
RgNV
cy
10:30AM - Bryan Muchar, NCDOT PDEA
TIP R-4440, SR 1364 and SR 1114 Improvements (Needmore Road) and From SR
1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County. Division 14
Team Members
Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PDEA
Steve Lund (for Angie Pennock), USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Harold Draper, TVA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Matt Roark, Southwestern RPO (non-signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Jamie Wilson, Division 14
Mark Davis, Division 14
Roger Thomas, Roadway Design
Mike Little, Roadway Design
Andrew Nottingham, Hydraulics
Keith Paschal, Structural Design
Jody Kuhne, Geotechnical, Asheville
Brian Mayhew, Traffic Safety
Linwood Stone, PDEA
Eric Midkiff, PDEA
Chris Underwood, PDEA NEU
Shane Petersen, PDEA HEU
Jennifer Cathey, PDEA HEU
Tim Gardiner, PDEA HEU
* The purpose of this meeting is to achieve Concurrence Point 2.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o?
SFp Vl
D
wFrca,?osNR. w 2 200?
aNOS o'i, e
DEPARTLVIFNT OF TRANSPORTATION *09
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Militshcher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Harold Draper, Tennessee Valley Authority
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ /Wetlands
Sarah McBride, NC Dept of Cultural Resources - HPO
Matt Roark, Southwestern RPO
FROM: Bryan Kluchar 64c--
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: TIP Project Number R-4440
SR 1364 and SR 1114 Improvements (Needmore Road)
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
State Project Numbers 14C.056010 and 14C.087019
NCDOT Division 14
Concurrence Point 2
You are invited to attend a concurrence meeting for the subject project on September 20,
2005 in the Board Room of the Transportation Building in downtown Raleigh. You will
be notified of the meeting time at a later date. The purpose of this meeting (Concurrence
Point 2) is to decide on the alternatives to carry forward for more detailed study.
The proposed project is located along SR 1369 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) in Macon
and Swain Counties. The project is included in the NCDOT 2006 to 2012 Transportation
Improvement Program and proposes to improve the unpaved secondary road located
adjacent to the Little Tennessee River.
An agenda and constraints map is attached for your review and reference during the
meeting. If you prefer to video conference from a remote location, please contact me at
your earliest convenience at [phone] extension 216.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
CONCURRENCE POINT 2 - ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
TIP Project Number R-4440
SR 1364 and SR 1114 Improvements (Needmore Road)
From SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
State Project Numbers 14C.056010 and 14C.087019
NCDOT Division 14
AGENDA
1. Purpose of the Meeting
To reach consensus on the alternatives to be studied and carried forward
2. Project Description
• SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) is an unpaved secondary road located along the Little
Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties.
• Project limits are from SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain
County (See Figure 1). Total project length is approximately 3.7 miles.
• The Purpose and Need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for local residents
that currently use Needmore Road; reduce existing sedimentation from Needmore Road into the
Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the existing high quality natural
resources including but not limited to water quality, habitat and vegetation, and reduce existing
maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
3. Current Schedule
State Environmental Assessment/FONSI: October 2006
Construction: Sections A, B, and D-2007 Section C-Post Year
4. Environmental Constraints
• Little Tennessee River with federally protected species: Spotfin chub, Appalachian elktoe,
Littlewing pearly mussel
• Wetland #1
• Geotechnical "hot rock" (see attached)
• Archaeology and Historic Architecture
5. Design Constraints
• Bridge 78 over Tellico Creek
Characteristics of the road - maintained right of way from ditch line to ditch line
Road flooding
6. Alternatives Carried Forward
These alternatives represent a starting point for the discussion:
• No Build
• Pave in place
• Pave in place with selective improvements
• AASHTO very low-volume local road design
• Other Alternatives/Combinations
7. Other Items
izi

• ?1
C
b • x\
V z
?? `

lit
cc cc Zt

O

Z

Q

._ cz r y
Z Q
W Z Q
O Z 3 W
O
O
O=fQ
z CL

L-Li O

V °u o

? 0 W Lu z O

0 O
s
Ir1
O
Q
j '3 c x ?F ; Rxt ?y
0? N `L
ZZVZ
xgoo V) Q
Q)
'^ a
OLL > cz ZEE
O
O
-_j
x
<° 0,
z
z0caW O v
b

2S
'i LLJ
O
O V)
2

?
OJ-
J p
\C? \ O
Q
N p?
00
OJl?
w
V)
j
J
r ?`P N

t Q? ',gR,36 \\
t o
RD t o ? zi

P pN ?
HIGH ? ti
PA
L 2?j
00
cli
?
L
'
'• ?6 Q
Cl-
OJ
It
^e '`
co
U-)
(e? OQ?i
Lift/e ` off`
,- j U O
Q
I -k-
p Od '
? W,
?

EEpMpRE 4
N
? \ 0 \'
?
\ cr-
N
LLJ
J zl{?
LLI
W
O O
1
Z LIJ U?V d??G o
O ziZ `9
IC)
?
Q

i
Net Neutralization Potential Results for "Hot" Rock
Positive NNP results indicate the basic chemistry component, or, it's ability to neutralize
acid. Negative NNP results indicate greater levels of acidic potential. Empirical
experience shows values between -5 and -15 are benign as long as some neutralization
potential is present.
Net Neutralization Potential Results Net Neutralization Potential Results
Station Sample # NNP Station Sample # NNP
1+50 14 -5.689 57+50 39 2.795
5+50 15 -4.219 57+65 37 3.199
11+50 1 0.329 57+90 36 2.485
14+50 16 0.746 58+00 34 3.855
15+25 2 3.483 58+75 45 -3.202
16+00 la 3.98 59+00 44 -14.642
17+70 2a 15.672 59+00 5a -14.036
21+00 3 2.36 59+25 29 4.725
24+00 3a -8.532 59+40 11 -13.526
24+50 17 1.493 59+50 10 -15.691
25+00 4 0.983 59+90 42 -22.822
29+00 5 2.488 60+00 43 -25.351
31+90 18 2.325 60+25 30 -16.55
35+50 6 -10.216 60+30 41 -16.701
35+70 32 2.358 61+75 21 6.762
36+50 4a 10.945 63+00 12 0.703
37+00 19 -12.465 63+35 46 1.949
37+00 33 3.98 63+50 28 4.258
38+00 7 2.736 63+75 47 -42.48
44+00 8 3.234 64+25 49 -7.39
54+50 9 2.545 64+40 13 -4.024
55+00 25 -6.507 64+50 6a 8.706
55+50 20 -10.833 65+00 27 3.913
55+95 24 2.514 65+10 48 -21.04
57+00 35 -0.58 66+00 50 3.48
57+15 38 3.483 67+90 22 6.958
57+25 31 3.855 92+10 23 -9.439
57+35 40 -16.481 100+00 26 -22.352
R-4440 Needmore Rd Meeting Details
Subject: R-4440 Needmore Rd Meeting Details
From: "Bryan D. Kluchar" <bdkluchar @dot. state.nc.us>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:22:05 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>, chris militscher
<[e-mail]>, "Harold M. Draper" <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Marla J. Chambers"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, sarah mcbride
<[e-mail]>, Linwood Stone <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Joel Setzer <[e-mail]>, "Jamie Wilson, PE"
<[e-mail]>, Paul White <paulwhite @dot. state.nc.us>, Mark Davis
<markdavis @dot. state.nc.us>, "Jody Kuhne, LG, PE" <[e-mail]>,
"Mike W. Little" <mlittle @dot. state.nc.us>, "Roger D. Thomas PE"
<rthomas @dot. state.nc.us>, Keith Paschal <kpaschal @dot. state.nc.us>, Neb
Bullock PE <nbullock@ dot. state.nc.us>, Andrew Nottingham
<[e-mail]. nc.us>, Teresa Hart <thart @dot. state. nc. us>
Thank you all for planning to attend the R-4440 (Needmore Road) field review and
concurrence meeting next week (Tuesday, December 13th). Please bring your
concurrence information from September's meeting (another agenda is attached).
We will meet at the intersection of SR 1364 (Needmore Road) and SR 1369
(Tellico Road) at the southern terminus of the project in Macon County at 9:00
a.m. A large van will be used for transport during the field review. Attached are
Swain County and Macon County maps with directions to the meeting site. Please
let me know, at your earliest convenience, if you are unsure of the meeting location
on Needmore Road.
If you need assistance or have a message on Tuesday morning, please contact the
Division 14 office [phone].
After the field review, we will travel to the SCC Swain Center for the remainder of
the meeting. The Swain Center is located 5 1/2 miles west of Bryson City on US
19/74 between NC 28 south and the high bridge over the Little Tennessee River.
There is a link to a map with directions below.
SCC Swain Center 60 Almond School Rd
Bryson City, NC 28713
828.488.6413
map link:
1 of 2 12/8/2005 4:22 PM
R-4440 Needmore Rd Meeting Details
htt-p://www.southwestemcc.edu/centers/swain.htm
Please contact me if you need additional information or have questions.
Thanks again,
Bryan
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
919-733-7844 ext 216
2 of 2 12/8/2005 4:22 PM
Hampton Inn Franklin, North Carolina - Official Hotel Site
&&Wpft rFrankCzn
Directions and Transportation
I-40: take Highway 23 to Franklin and go to Holly Springs Shopping Center, turn
Directions and left to Cunningham Road and the hotel is up the hill. From Asheville: I-26 to I-40 to
Transportation Highway 23.
Make a Reservation From Atlanta Ga, I-95 to Gainesville, GA. Then Hwy 23/441 N to Franklin, NC.
Proceed to second light and turn right on 64 E Bypass. Continue to next traffic
signal and turn right onto Hyatt Rd. Just before Wal-Mart, at Holly Springs
Shopping Center, turn left on Cunningham Road to the Hampton Inn.
From Knoxville, TN, I-40 E to Exit 407 (Hwy 66). Then Hwy. 66 Which becomes
Hwy 441 through Gatlinburg, TN, to Sylvia NC. Proceed approminately one mile and
turn left at traffic signal onto Hyatt Road. Just before Wal-Mart, at Holly Spring
Shopping Center, turn left on Cunningham Road to the Hampton Inn.
Local Airports
ASHVILLE AIRPORT
Distance from hotel: 65 mi.
Drive time:
Directions: I-26 WEST, EXIT 9 TURN RIGHT TO FIRST LIGHT THEN TURN RIGHT
Getting to and from the Airport
''l Mil Y I iiton at ors
A proud member of the Hilton family of fine hotels.
1 of 1 12/8/2005 4:13 PM
0 _!SD- 4_?..
- ---? "lo
_--
-- - - --------
` ??-vs -----

b "V-4 4-- 4-\ Dk a kv \ 4 - - _'6 s
-------- - SCE .

y4i
- - ------ -- --saw- s---? --? ?` -- P ----------` ` ------------- -------- - -----------
----------- -
AT
?..r
-------- --- -------- --- ?d)IA"?- - -Q --G - t 0 --'.k We? ------- -------------- --- ------

----- -- =-w?--??, ---- ? - - ?"------ --- --
YLS ? ?timr o
-- - - --- - --------- - - ----
- - - --- -- ---- -- --- -- -----------
---- -------- ----- --- -----
m
------
__ - --- -- --, - --mod ---a? _. ?.??- - - - - - - - -_ - -- -- -- - -- -- ----- - - _ _ - -- - - - - - --- - - -- ---- -
----- °?-boo-?---mss-- ?? ??-n??. 4-r - - _ -- _----- - ----- -- ---
-------- ------
LJ_1 -L r-" LILL_j LID. yn ULV Iv-l 11 11'..rn- - I. i I -.--- - _ -_ . ___ .
Assessing the Potential Environmental Impact of Acid Rack Drainage (ARD) and
Metal Leaching (ML) for the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project Between
Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia
Stephen Barrett, Rens Verburg, Valerie Bertrand, Cheryl Ross, Jeff Fillipone and Dave Mundayl
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the study completed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment to
assess the Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) and Metal Teaching (MI.) potential of proposed new rock
cuts that will be constructed as part of the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project. The Sea to
Sky Highway, that extends from Vancouver to Whistler, British Columbia, is currently being
upgraded in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. An ARDIML assessment was
required to evaluate potential environmental effects to freshwater and marine environments from
rock cuts and waste rock generated during the highway upgrade. The paper presents the
approach to and findings of the ML/ARD assessment, and concludes by describing key factors
for consideration when planning such studies, as well as some options available to mitigate
potential impacts.
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation (MoT) is in the final stages of negotiating a
Design Build Finance Operate (D1317M) Contract for upgrading of the Highway 99 corridor froth
Horseshoe Bay to Whistler. The project involves selective widening of the existing highway to
4-lane and 3-lane sections and construction of safety upgrades throughout the remainder of the
corridor.
As part of the environmental review process, a study was ouzdertaken by Golder Associates Ltd.
to determine the potential environmental effects from ARD and MT generated from the new rock
cut faces and waste rock, generated during excavation. This involved characterizing the rock over
a 44 km section from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish (Preliminary Alignment (PA) Sections 1 to 8)
and a 23 km section frc(m Cheakamus Canyon to Function Junction in Whistler (PA Sections 14
to 1$) where the new rock cuts were proposed (Figure 1).
' Authors Address:
Stephen Barrett and Valerie Bertrand; Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Golder Associates Ltd, $00 - 4260 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5C 6C6. Canada
Rens Verburg and Cheryl Ross; Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Golder Associates inc., 200 - 18300 NF Union Hill Road, Redmond, Washington, 98052, USA
Jeff Fillipone and Dave Munday; Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Gelder Associates Ltd., Suite 220 -174 Wilson Street, Victoria, BC, V9A 7N6, Canada
451
4 -S2
Figure 1 - Project Location Plun
It, ; _L_6 IJ Ll ' : LIO UCLj I G`.f11 Y 1 •..,n? '. 1 v ? i non - , , ---
Preliminary design for the project proposed a total of approximately 70 rock cuts that would
produce approximately 1.8 million m3 of excavated rock (neat line - no swell factor applied). Of
the total rock excavated, 250,000 m3 was estimated to be surplus, although the local imbalances
at either end of the project were much larger (SNC, 2003).
The objectives of the study were 1) to characterize the material to be excavated with respect to
its ARD/ML potential; 2) to identify environmental effects based on the assessed ARA/ML
potential; and 3) to determine suitable re-use or disposal options for the excavated material. This
included assessing the potential for re-use of the non-acid generating material as manufactured
aggregate products for sale to interested third parties.
2.0 ARD I ML EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Metal loading to the environment can adversely affect aquatic ecosystems. Although metal
leaching may occur under neutral pH conditions, because the mobility of many metals increases
as pH decreases, acidic conditions generally enhance metal leaching. Generation of ARD occurs
when reactive sulfides such as pyrite, a common iron sulphide, are exposed to water and oxygen,
resulting in formation of a solution that is generally characterized by a low pH, elevated
dissolved metal concentrations, and total dissolved solids, with sulfate being the principal
contributor. Runoff :from rock cuts where sulfide oxidation has occurred may result in metal
loading (e.g., iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu) and zinc (2n)) to freshwater and marine
environments. The chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the rocks will determine which
metals and the quantity of metals that will be released, while the characteristics of the receiving
environment will control the mobility of the metals and other constituents.
In freshwater and marine environments, exposure of aquatic organisms, such as fish and benthic
invertebrates, to metals may occur through a variety of pathways including dermal uptake,
absorption though the gill membrane, and ingestion of water and/or prey.
Specific examples of potential adverse environmental effects include, but are not necessarily
limited m:
• Toxic interactions from reduced pH and increased metal concentrations;
• Sediment toxicity where trace metal concentrations are high; and
• Reduced habitat availability caused by precipitate settling.
Adverse impacts to organisms may range from acute toxicity to bioaccumulation in the food
chain to behavioural or reproductive effects. Degradation of the aquatic environment has the
potential to result in reduced species richness and abundance and/or n shift from pollution-
sensitive to pollution-tolerant species.
Typically ARD / ML issues are identified at mine sites, but they have also been identified on
some civil engineering infrastructure projects, such as the access road to IIalifax Airport. If the
potential problem is not identified early on in the design process so it can be mitigated, it can
become very expensive to control after the project has been constructed.
453
3.0 '.MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 FIELD MAPPING PROGRAM
The first step in the ARD / ML assessment was to develop a geologic model, which identified the
number, type and location of the significant lithological units present along the project corridor
(Figure 2). The model was based on existing geological mapping, supplemented by a limited
field program to verify the location of geologic contacts, lithologic type and mineralogy, as well
as to document alteration/mineralization, rock texture or structure relevant to an ARD / ML
assessment. Once completed, the geologic model was superimposed over the preliminary
highway designs to select sampling locations for the laboratory testing program.
The final model consisted of a relatively simple geologic framework consisting of three overall
lithologic packages from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish and eight individual lithologies from
Cheakamus Canyon to Function Junction. The lithological groupings were as follows:
Horseshoe Bay to Squamish (PA Sections 1 to g)
1) 7?vrn Island Group (f'JT): Metamorphic rocks of the pre-Jurassic Twin Island Group
2) Coast Plutonic Complex (CPC): Intrusive, granitic rocks of the Mesozoic Coast Plutonic
Complex, consisting of late Jurasssic granodiorite (gdz), Squamish Pluton granodiorite (gdl),
granite (g) and quartz diorite (qd); and
3) Gambier Group (IKo). Marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the lower Cretaceous
Gambier Group.
Cheakamus Canyon to Function Junction (PA Sections 14 to I6)
I ) Garibaldi Group (PRG): Basalt flows
2) Gambier Group (KG'v): Dacite and andesite flows.
3) Metadiorite (JKdi). Chloritized, locally foliated diorite.
4) Slollicum Schist (NISI): Chlorite, pyllite and slate
5) Quartz Diorite (m/Jgd): Quartz diorite and minor granodiorite
6) Greenstone (Trigs): Metavolcanics and schists
7) Gneiss (gn): Quartzofeldspathic gneiss
8) Granodiorite (Kgd): Cretaceous Granodiorite
3.2 GEOCHIEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM
The geochemical characterization program was designed to provide sufficient information to
assign a bulk ARD / ML potential to each lithology to be excavated. This evaluation included
sampling and geochemical characterization of rock samples collected along the alignment. At
select sampling locations, field-scale ]each testing (i.e., wall washing) was conducted for
comparison to the results of lab-scale leaching tests. Water quality sampling of creeks was
conducted to establish background conditions and to assess the environmental impacts of
existing rock cuts.
454
U_ . -4 C,
n

WWATr
IOLIMO
R d
M/dgNMMMII ?
/Ifr
10'UI'?
sQ?? A1Q
r utt
woe, M
Tx; to
R
E BAY
M J"J
KMM
OWMNBM
4860
ffowa"
Won

MO1 "Rif
4"YM
7AWARR
Maw
I=NQV
4? w+w ?-rypt/
M'?R---?tCT1CM
NOW
?Y111R
M?
az?Na7?raan?
Figure x - Simplified GeologiC41 M0401
455
Rock samples were collected for geoehemical characterization. The sampling density was
sufficient to provide a screening level of study, with an understanding that more detailed testing
would be completed during detailed design, following finalization of rock cut locations. At each
sample location, a 5-kg to 8-kg composite sample was collected from the rock face over a linear
distance of two to three meters. Individual samples were confined within one lithology or to a
zone of distinct character within a lithology.
A total of 54 rock samples were tested in the laboratory, including four duplicates for evaluation
of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). To characterize the ARD and ML potential of the
samples, the following analyses were conducted:
• Acid Base Accounting (ABA) including the following analyses:
- Acid Potential (AP) by sulphur speeiation (total sulphur and sulphate sulphur) analysis;
- Bulk Neutralization Potential (NP) by modified Sobek;
- Carbonate Neutralization Potential (CaNP) by total. inorganic carbon (TIC) analysis; and
• Paste pH.
s Whole rock chemistry and mineralogical analysis; and
• Satic leach testing (i.e., Shake Flask Extraction (SFE)).
ABA and whole rock chemical analyses were conducted on all 54 samples. Ten samples were
submitted for mineralogical analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD), focusing on the identification
of acid buffering minerals such as carbonates and acid generating minerals such as sulphides
(pyrite). Representation of each of the major rock types was considered in sample selection.
Sample selection was biased toward those samples with high sulfide contents or high total
inorganic carbon, indicating the possible presence of carbonate minerals. This analysis was
intended to determine the nature of neutralizing and acid generating minerals and further
determine the amenability of the mineral assemblage in the rock to generate ARD.
Metal leaching potential was evaluated on a sub-set of 30 samples using SFE. The SFE test
represents a standard, short-term, static leach test aimed at determining the readily-soluble
component of a material. Sample selection considered spatial and volumetric representation of
rock units along the highway alignment. SFE Samples were crushed, and split into coarse (2.8 to
9.5 mm) and fine (less than 2.8 nun) fractions and subjected to a 24-hour test using de-ionized
water as the lixiviant. Testing of both a coarse and a fine fraction allowed evaluation of the
effect of grain size on metal leaching. Test leachates were filtered and analyzed for dissolved
metals.
At six sampling locations, field-scale leach testing (wall washing) was conducted for comparison
with the laboratory testing results. The wall washing tests were conducted following the
standard procedure outlined in Price, 1997. The wall waslu.ng tests were performed prior to the
start of the Fall and Winter wet season on the west coast. The results of these tests were
therefore considered to be, representative of conditions that reflect extended weathering
throughout the dry season. Generally, the "first flush" of the wet season results in peak or worst-
case metal loading, as stored acidity and metals in secondary minerals that have accumulated on
the rock face over the dry season are removed and collected in the rinsate,
456

Water quality samples were also collected from creeks and from Howe Sound to establish
background water quality. Each water sample was analyzed for total and dissolved metals, major
anions, hardness, total dissolved and total suspended solids (TDS and TSS), conductivity and
pH.
An example of the drawings used to summarize the results of the field mapping and laboratory
testing programs is shown in Figure 3. Information shown on these drawings included:
• Geologic units;
• Lithologic descriptions;
• Rock sample locations and identification numbers;
Approximate proposed road cut limits;
• Indicators of A.RD potential;
• Metal concentrations in SFL test leachates exceeding fresh water and marine aquatic life
guidelines; and
• Surface water sample locations and identification numbers.
4.0 DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The approach developed for this study considered the potential effect of ARDIML from final
rock cut faces and from re-use or disposal of the excavated rock. A quantitative method was
used to predict metal loading from rock cuts, while potential environmental effects from the re-
use and disposal of excavated rock were discussed qualitatively and mitigation strategies were
proposed to preclude or minimize environmental impacts.
The approach is represented graphically in the linkage diagram shown in Figure 4. This diagram
provides a conceptual framework to describe and evaluate the potential environmental effects
that the rock cut faces and the re-use and disposal options for the excavated materials could have
on freshwater and marine aquatic life.
4.1 ARD POTENTIAL
As no regulations or guidelines currently exist with respect to the analysis of reactive rock
material encountered during road construction, rock sample analyses follows those outlined for
the mining industry in Price 1997, Following these proceduavs, the potential of a geologic
material to generate ARD is evaluated by comparing the ararrount of neutralizing minerals
expressed as neutralization potential (NP), to the amount of sulphide minerals expressed as the
maximum acid potential (AP) present in the rock. This ratio is referred to as the Neutralization
Potential Ratio (NPR). Price's suggested guidelines :For interpretation of the NPR are presented
in Table 1 below.
457
f yf
f
?? ?? ``, ,rte ?r r ? • ,?

? ?? ? ? ? a a 7 a #

Cp
? ? ? j{ Y i ? 7 i
Z
71NMI/WOIM •YM40,M
f9
jays
a? fill' fltt
i

458
- - - - - - - - - - - -
owl
Y+0 f
b ? 1+f
r?
U p
Q
a> L?' rq
v iu
a,

U o

C!?
0 1?1
? .ca
W ?
n?
ul
0-4

459
__ 1C.'. Li 7.-10 L7GU i G?ni,i n- -" i r.- - I- ? __ __ . ___ . _
TABLE 1: ACID ROCK DRAINAGE SCREENING CRITERIA (PRICE 1997)
Potential for Initial Screening Comments
ARD Criteria
Likely NPR <1 Likely acid generating, unless sulphide minerals are non-
reactive.
Possible I <NPR<2 Possibly acid generating if NP is insufficiently reactive or is
(uncertain) depleted at a rate faster than sulphides.
Low 2<NPR<4 Not potentially acid generating unless significant
preferential exposure of sulphides along fractures planes, or
extremely reactive sulphides in combination with
insufficiently reactive NP.
None NPR >4
For the purposes of the assessment, rock having a NPR value above a was considered to be non-
acid generating. All rock having a NPR less than 4 was considered as having the potential to
generate ARD. For racks with NPR values between 2 and 4, classification as potentially acid-
generating (PAG) was considered conservative. After further analysis, these materials may not
require special handling or disposal procedures depending on their potential to leach metals.
Price (1997) also presents a number of other criteria which may be applied to assess the ARD
potential of a rock. While these criteria were not used as the primary screening tool in this study,
they were used as secondary means to check the conclusions drawn from the NPR's.
The first criteria, evaluates acid generation potential using the sulphide sulphur content and the
paste pH. Materials with a sulphide sulphur content less than 0.3 wt. % and a paste pH greater
than .5.5 are considered non-potentially acid generating (NPAG) and require no further
environmental testing. Exceptions occur where the rock matrix consists of base poor minerals
(e.g., quartz), or where the sulphide minerals contain metals that may leach under weakly acidic
to alkaline conditions. Rock characterized as havuag an NPR value below 2, and having a total
sulphur content greater than 0.3 % is considered as PAG material under this criterion and
consequently, would require additional investigation.
The second criteria, evaluates ARD potential by calculating the Net Neutralization Potential
(NNP), which is the difference between AP and NP values (NNP - NP - AP). A negative NNP
value is deemed to represent rock having a potential to generate acidic drainage, whereas a
positive NNP reflects a likelihood that any acid generated by the rock will be neutralized.
4.2 ML POTENTIAL
Metal leaching rates (i.e,, amount of metal per unit surface area (kglm2)) were calculated for each
of the major rock types using SFE and wall washing test results. Leaching rates were calculated
for aluminum and copper, as these were considered to be the metals most likely to leach at
concentrations above water quality standards based on the results of the SFE tests. To quantify
460
the potential environment effects due to ML loading from the final rock cut faces, the following
additional work was undertaken:
Certain drainages were selected for detailed loading analysis from the proposed rock cuts.
For each of these, the total surface area of all planned rock cuts within the basin was
calculated. The total surface area of the rock cuts was multiplied by the ML potential to
calculated the mass (kg) of aluminum and copper loading.
2. Hydrological analysis was undertaken to derive two scenarios:
The predicted typical summer low flow for selected crceks'along the alignment. The
10 year, June to September, 7 day low flow in any stream was correlated with the
contributing drainage area, based on calibration data from applicable nearby stream
gauging stations; and
Resultant predicted peak stream flow corresponding to a typical fall "first flush"
storm event. For the Horseshoe Bay to Squamish section of the study area, this
analysis was based on a 4-day, 60 nun rainfall event recorded at the Britarmia Beach 1
Furry Creek climate station from September 12-15, 1996, and extrapolated to other
selected drainages. For the Cheakamus Canyon to Function Junction section of the
study area, this analysis was based on a 2-day, 44 nun rainfall event recorded at the
Cheakamus River near Brackendale from October. 13 to 14, 1999.
Metal concentrations were calculated at three locations for the "first flush" fall storm
event: (1) concentrations iii rtmoff from rock cuts prior to any dilution in the receiving
environment, (2) the in-stream concentration once the runoff is fully diluted, and (3) the
concentration within Rowe Sound based on the loading derived from the drainage basins
under consideration.
Simulation of metal loading from the first flush storm event was intended to be representative of
a worst case metal loading scenario. First flush storm events generally cant' a high chemical
load, due to the accumulation of oxidation products containing stored metals and acidity on rock
surfaces over the summer months (due to lower precipitation).
Predicted metal concentrations were compared to the following criteria for the protection of
freshwater and marine aquatic life to determine potential environmental effects:
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environ.inent's (COME) Canadian Environmental
Quality Guidelines (CEQGs) (updated 2001) (Selected Maximum Acceptable
Concentrations: Al < 5 pg/L and Cu < 2 )4g/L);
The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's (MWLAP) British Columbia Approved
Water Quality Guidelines (Criteria) (1998; updated 2001); and,
The MWLAP's A Compendium of Working Water. Quality Guidelines for British Columbia
(1998; updated 2001)-
461
V. Ic"c=UU.lJ LJ7.-40 U ui-1. 11 ?n_ vi'11i-n??i iLv a--- i_i_. _._
The two sets of water quality criteria for B.C. are collectively referred to as the BC Water
Quality Guidelines (BCWQGs).
5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM A.RD
Based on the results of the ABA testing, the following; rock types along the corridor exhibited a
NFR < 4 in the sa.rnples tested:
TABLE 2: Lithologies Containing Samples with a NPR <4
Design Section I.ithotsgy aqd Ruck Type Number of Samples Number of Samples with
Tested an NPR < 4
PA Section 1 Coast Plutonic Complex 3 1
d2 Granodiorite
PA Section 2 Coast Plutonic Complex 3 1
qd-d (Quartz Diorite,
Diorite
PA Section-') Strongly oxidized, sulphur 1 t
stained shear zone within
Gambier Group )KG
Andesite
PA Section 3 Gambier Group IKG 1 1
Andesite
PA Section 3 Coast Plutonic Complex 1. 1
d z Diorite
TEA Section 3 Gambier Group IKG 2 2
(Volcanic Breccia
Conglomerate)
PA Section 4 Gambier Group 1KG 2 2
Andesite and Tuf
PA Section 415 Gambier Group JKG 3 3
(Argillite)
PA Section 7 Gambier Group 1KG 2 2
(Argillite, Siltetone and
Sandstone
PA Section 7 Gambier Group IKG l 1
(Basalt and Feldspar
Pa h
PA Section 8 Coast Plutonic Complex 4 1
gdl (Granod.iorite from
S uamish Pluton
PA Section 15 Greenstone Tr]gs 1 1
Chloritized Am hibolite
While the Coast Plutonic Complex (CPC) rocks did contain samples with NPR < 4, their bulk
ARD potential was classified as non-acid generating, as the total sulphur contents were less than
0.3 wt. % and paste pH values were greater than 7. These rocks were typically characterized by
462

moderately low bulk (Sobek) NP values ranging from 2 to 132. For all but one sample, carbonate
NP values were lower than Sobek NP values, indicating that carbonate minerals were not
considered to provide significant neutralization capacity. NP was considered to be likely
provided by less reactive alurnino-silicate minerals, which was supported by the results of
mineralogical analysis. The maximum AP value recorded was 1.9, from a total sulphur content
of 0.06 %. Only six of the 19 CPC samples had measurable concentrations of total sulphur, with
the highest concentration measured at 0.06 wt. %.
The Twin Island Group (PJT) rocks had no samples with NPR < 4, and as such, were also
classified as non-acid generating.
All of the rock types (andesite, argillite, tuff, volcanic breccia and basalt) in the Gambier Group
Lithology (IKa) exhibited potential to generate ARD (NPR < 1). With the exception of one
sample from a small rock cut in PA Section 2, paste pH values for IKo samples were neutral to
alkaline. The samples had NP values ranging from 3.5 to 18.1 and AP values ranging from
below the detection limit (<0.2) to 40.3. Carbonate NP values were generally much lower than
Sobek. NP values, indicating that carbonate minerals do not appear to provide any significant
neutralization capacity. NP was again considered to be likely provided by less reactive alumino-
silicate minerals. The Gambier Group rocks exhibited a wider range of sulphur and sulphide
content than rocks in the other lithologies along the alignment. Total sulphur contents ranged
from below detection (< 0.01 wt. %) to 5.2 wt. %, with an average value of 0.53 wt. % (sulphide
values below detection were assumed equal to one half the detection limit in the average
calculation).
The overall ARD potential of rocks between Squamish and Whistler (.PA Sections 14 to 16) was
found to be as low, with the exception of one sample in the Greenstone lithology (TrJgs) with a
NPR of 0.7. The low A.RD potential was attributed to low total sulphur contents, with over 80%
of samples in this section of the highway reporting total sulphur below 0.1 wt. %. As noted
earlier, a minimum sulphide content of 0.3 wt. % is generally applied as the threshold, above
which, a rock type may have ARD potential.
6.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM ML
Based on the metal loading analyses completed for the study, aluminum and copper
concentrations were found to exceed CFQG's and sometimes 13CWQG's at the base of the
proposed rock cuts, but were found generally to be below the CEQG's and the BCWQG's in the
receiving stream or waterbody. Drainage basins where the CEQG's were exceeded in the
receiving stream are listed in Tables 3 and 4. When reviewing these results, it was noted that in
each case, the background water quality already exceeded the CEQG's requirements for the
respective metal.
Z NP and AP values expressed in units of tonnes CaCO3 equivalent per 1000 tonnes of rock.
463

Table 3: Prodicted Aluminum Concentration in Receiving Stream
Receiving Total Rack Cut First Flusb Background Aluminum Predicted
Stream Area Flow Dissolved Load Aluminum
Aluminum Stream
Coaccutration
m: m'/s ug/L 9 ug/L
Sclufteld 2,300 0.094 18 3 18.3
Rundle 7,280 0.079 23 63 31.7
Table 4: Predicted Copper Concentration in Receiving Stream
Receiving Total Rock Cut First Flush Background Copper Load Predicted
Stream Arca Flow Dissolved Copper Stream
Copper Concentration
m' m3/s ug/L 9 ug/L
Sclufield 2,300 9.094 2 1 2.1- 1
The small increases in predicted metal concentrations in the receiving environment during the
first flow event were also considered to be conservative, because of the assumption of direct
discharge from the rock cut :face to the receiving stream or water body. In reality other factors
may diminish the concentration of dissolved metals entering the receiving environment. These
could include:
Dilution -- it is likely that impacted rock drainage water will combine with other drainage
sources such as runoff from the widened highway prior to entering the receiving
watercourse / waterbody;
Attenuation - depending on the distance to the receiving watercourse / waterbody and the
substrate encountered, metals dissolved in the rock drainage water may adhere to soils
and other surfaces through variety of physicochemical processes; and
Precipitation - metals dissolved in solution may react with other compounds and
precipitate out of solution if the concentrations are high enough. In many cases, the
newly synthesized compound is chemically inert.
In terms of the impact on Rowe Sound., the total predicted increases in aluminum and copper
loading for all drainages analyzed were 66 g and 3 g, respectively. These additional loads were
considered minor when compared to the background loads from large drainages such as
Britannia, which alone were estimated to discharge 8.2 kg of Al and 5.7 kg of Cu into Howe
Sound over the course of the same 24-hour first flush event.
'W'hile the results of the metal loading analysis indicated that the environmental effects would
likely be small, it was considered prudent that a surface water quality monitoring program be
established to verify the environmental assessment results both during and after construction.
Should localized effects be identified by the monitoring program, mitigation measures could be
464
J _'-lO?JEJ t?•'tiU vuJiv..i u+a?n` ..i, ._`..`?? ?_.______ _ ___ __
initiated to minimize the impact. Mitigation options proposed included shotcreting of cut faces
to isolate them from surface water, lining of the ditches with lime or limestone and construction
of a more complex leachate collection and treatment systems.
7.4 POTENTIAL EFFECTS FROM RE-USE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
ROCK
The preliminary design project scope indicates that approximately 1,140,000 m3 of rock will to
be excavated along the highway corridor between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish and a further
640,000 m3 of rock will be excavated along the highway corridor between Cheakamus Canyon
and Function Junction (SNC, 2003). Of the total excavated, 140,000 m3 was anticipated to be
PAG material between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish, with remainder anticipated to be NPAG.
No PAG material was anticipated to be excavated between Ch.eakamus Canyon and Function
Junction.
Once the PAG material was identified, potential environmental effects were determined for each
of the potential re-use and disposal options, including any handling and temporary stockpiling
issues as the material is taken from the excavation and applied to its designated end-use or
disposed of in a waste rock pile or ocean disposal site. Areas where ARD/ML could be
generated and discharged if not properly managed include:
• Muck piles at the site of the excavation,
• Temporary stockpiles required for aggregate processing;
• Temporary stockpiles required prior to fill placement;
• Waste rock dumps;
• Temporary stockpiles required for ocean disposal; and
• At barge loading sites.
Any discharge from these sources would be additive to the metal loading from the rock cut faces.
In addition, due to the larger surface area of the blasted rock compared to that of the excavated
cut face, the metal loading could be larger from the excavated FAG material than from the cut
face itself.
As the potential for re-use of the PAG material as bulk fills or aggregates was determined to be
limited, a decision was made towards the end of the study to dispose of all PACT tmterial -
generated by the project either in a designated Ocean Disposal Site to limit its ability to oxidize
or within the abandoned Britannia mine workings located in PA Section 6. -The Britannia mine
option was considered to be feasible from an ARD/ML perspective, because the groundwater
discharge from the thine has been designated for treatment irrespective of the highway upgrades,
as part of the mine's closure plan. By adopting this materials management strategy, the potential
environmental effects from the excavated PAG material were again considered to be small and
any local effects which may occur during the transportation of the material to the disposal site
could be mitigated using standard environmental best management practices for contaminated
soil.
465
8.0 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN PLANNING FUTURE STUDIES
Based on our experience conducting this assessment, important factors which should be
considered when planning similar studies are as follows;
Early definition of the project scope is important, as the results of the assessment are
highly dependent on the location of the proposed cuts and the volume of excavated
material to be generated from them. If the assessment is completed when the project
scope is still poorly defined, there is a risk that multiple revisions will need to be
undertaken, at additional cost to the Owner;
2. Because the project scope may change considerably during the conceptual and
preliminary design stages of a project when the environmental assessment needs to be
undertaken, and because of the associated cost of late scope changes outlined above, it is
best to conduct the environmental assessment using a phased approach. The initial
sampling and testing programs should provide a screening level of assessment, with
comprehensive testing of individual cuts reserved until later in the design process, when
the cut locations, excavation volumes and potential ARD/ML issues are better known and
understood;
I When conducting detailed testing of individual cuts, it is important to test the entire cut
length within a potentially problematic lithology, even if adjacent samples tested during
the screening level study in this particular unit do not indicate a potential problem. This
is important, as ARD potential can not be determined from visual inspection alone and
can vary considerably within a given exposure.
4. During the construction phase of the project, it is important to conduct water quality
monitoring in the vicinity of the excavated cuts and down stream of any stockpiles of
PAG materials, to verify the assessment results. While the assessment methodology
should be designed to produce reasonable, yet conservative results, the many variables
which inevitably arise when simulating such complex processes, always lead to some
uncertainty in the results. A well designed monitoring program is a useful means to
overcome such concerns.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Golder. Associates Burnaby, Victoria and
Seattle staff that provided technical and administrative support to the paper's authors during the
study. We would also like to acknowledge Al Brown and Angela Buckingham of the Ministry of
Transportation, who were the Owner's representatives for the project and who reviewed the
paper and authorized its publication.
466
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Bryan Kluchar, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: August 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Needmore Road (SR 1364/SR 1114) improvements, Macon and Swain Counties.
TIP No. R-4440.
In our recent telephone conversation we discussed possible options for improvements to
Needmore Road in Swain and Macon counties. I have since consulted with other North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists familiar with the project and reviewed my
files in order to provide the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) our position
and concerns for this project.
As you know, Needmore Road is a narrow dirt and gravel road, which runs along a
portion of the Little Tennessee River that flows between Franklin, NC and Fontana Lake. The
Little Tennessee River in that area is considered one of the most significant aquatic habitats in
North Carolina, as well as the southeastern United States. The river supports populations of
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula), both
federal and state Endangered, and is designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub (Cyprinella
monacha), federal and state Threatened. Numerous other state listed and rare species inhabit the
Little Tennessee River in this area. The North Carolina Chapter of the Nature Conservancy is in
the process of purchasing 4,400 acres of land along Needmore Road and the adjacent river to
protect this rare and sensitive ecosystem.
While the road has been under consideration for widening and paving, the NCWRC
recommends a paving-in-place alternative, which would reduce sediment input into the river
from runoff and periodic flooding. We understand that at least one area of the road has a
tendency to wash out. Although we support stabilizing the area(s) to prevent further
sedimentation impacts and look to NCDOT for low-impact stabilization solutions, any
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 0 Fax: [phone]
Needmore Road, Little Tennessee River
Swain and Macon Counties 2 August 26, 2003
stabilization along the Little Tennessee River will need to consider the potential impacts to rare
& endangered species, especially mussels. NCWRC is willing to assist with mussel surveys or
relocations, if necessary.
Needmore Road is a popular spot for camping and fishing. We are concerned for the
public's safety while enjoying the natural resources of the area. Some areas along the road have
limited site distance and many motorists travel the road at unsafe speeds. Cutting into the
adjacent slopes to improve site distance is likely undesirable due to the acidic nature of the rock
in the area. We understand that the unpaved portion of the road is not posted for speed, while a
paved section in Swain County has a 35-mph speed limit. We recommend a number of measures
be investigated to slow traffic in order to improve public safety, while preventing negative
impacts to the rare and valuable resources and preserve the rural character that makes it a popular
recreational area. We suggest that the measures considered include posting a 35-mph maximum
speed limit and installing speed bumps, rumble strips, guardrails and/or warning signs in
appropriate areas.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input in the planning stages of this project and
look forward to continue working with you on it. If you have any questions, please contact me at
[phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Sarah McRae, NC NBP
Wib Owen, NCWRC
Worksheet for Purpose and Need
Needmore Road
Purpose and Need of the Project
The purpose and need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel
(eUe.?S
for local residents that currently use Needmore Road, reduce existing sedimentation from
Needmore Road into the Little Tennessee River, and reduce existing maintenance costs
associated with Needmore Road.
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN WORDING FROM THE STATEMENT IN
THE PURPOSE AND NEED REPORT.
• ,y?ealucz ?.?c?f : a?wc.e'.'s1'G, °°?- /. ? /? ^? ,? Q ? ? ) ?} ? ??
"Z 7b YA-0- PC- -?
Road User Costs
1. NC 28
45 miles - 17 miles = 28 miles
28 miles(200 vehicles/day)(3 days)($0.365/mile) = $ 6,132/ year (2002)
2. US 19-23-74 to US 441
89 miles - 50 miles = 39 miles
39 miles(200 vehicles/day)(3days)($0.365/mile) = $ 8,541/year (2002)
3. US 19-74 to SR 1310
52 miles - 17 miles = 35 miles
35 miles(200 vehicles/day)(3 days)($0.365/mile) = $ 7,665/year (2002)
PURPOSE AND NEED REPORT
SR 1364 / SR 1114 (NEEDMORE ROAD)
MACON COUNTY
SWAIN COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO.: 6.972062T
STATE PROJECT NO.: 6.992193
TIP PROJECT NO. R-4440
ow?
O
C4?
0?
ti

z
10
PF TR
December 7, 2001
??1QRTW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
II. Need For the Proposed Project
A. Purpose and Need Statement 1
B. Project Setting 1
C. Project History 2
D. Agency Coordination 2
E. Existing Conditions 3
Conclusion 6
Macon & Swain Counties
SR 1114/SR 1364 (Needmore Road)
State Project No. 6.992193
State Project No. 6.972062T
TIP Project No. R-4440
August 23, 2001
1. INTRODUCTION
An environmental document is being prepared for this project in accordance with
the requirements set forth in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This is an
informational document intended for use by state and federal agencies and the public. As
such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the
proposed action. This project is using a combination of Transportation Improvement
Program funds and secondary road improvement funds for planning, design and
construction.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose and Need
The need for the proposed project is to reduce sedimentation into the Little
Tennessee River, improve the quality of travel for local residents that use Needmore .
Road, and reduce maintenance costs. Needmore Road is designated as a local rural route
between Franklin, N.C. and Bryson City, N.C. A 1000-foot section of Needmore Road in
Swain County is prone to flooding due to its proximity to the Little Tennessee River.
Frequent floods wash sediment across the roadway and into the Little Tennessee River,
make the road impassable except in four-wheel drive vehicles, and produce substantial
maintenance requirements. During the dry months of summer, the dust stirred up on the
road settles on the surrounding vegetation and into the river itself.
The proposed project calls for improving the unpaved portion of Needmore Road
(SR 1364/ SR 1114) to reduce sedimentation into the Little Tennessee River, provide
citizens with a dependable, local road while maintaining the integrity of this
environmentally sensitive area, and reducing maintenance costs.
B. Project Setting
Needmore Road runs between Swain and Macon Counties from SR 1113 in
Swain County to SR 1374 in Macon County. Please reference Figure 1. The project
begins at the paved portion of Needmore Road located in Swain County and terminates at
SR 1370 in Macon County. The road winds through a very rural setting, loosely
following the Little Tennessee River. The view varies between a tree lined road with
camping areas to narrow passes where the river flows close on one side of the road and
rock hills abut the other side.
The headwaters of the Little Tennessee River start in Georgia. The river flows
through the town of Franklin, North Carolina into Lake James and then on to Fontana
Lake located on the border of North Carolina and Tennessee. The stretch of the Little
Tennessee River from Franklin, North Carolina to Fontana Lake is considered to be one
of the most significant aquatic habitats in North Carolina as well as in the southeastern
United States. The Appalachian elktoe mussel, little winged pearlymussel, and spotfin
chub are listed as Federally endangered species for both Swain and Macon Counties. For
a list of Federally protected species for these two counties, reference Appendix A. The
reach is designated as a critical habitat for the spotfin chub. The Little Tennessee River
also supports numerous other rare species as well as a substantial smallmouth bass
fishery.
C. Project History
The improvements to Needmore Road began as a NCDOT Division 14
Design/Construct project funded separately by Swain County, District 2, and Macon
County, District 3. In May 1997, District 3 applied for a Nationwide No. 14 Permit to
extend existing culverts and add new ones where required in conjunction with the
proposed improvements to Needmore Road in Macon County. Due to the critical habitat
designation, a Section 7 consultation was required for the project. At this meeting, held
August 11, 1997, natural resource agencies raised concerns over the potential for
secondary and cumulative environmental impacts. Because of the potential of impacts to
endangered species and growing local controversy among the citizens, it was determined
that this project did not comply with state minimum criteria. Therefore, a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (State EA/FONSI) must be
prepared. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that Swain and Macon Counties
submit a combined application for an Individual Permit for the proposed construction on
Needmore Road. The project was added to the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) in January 2001 to fund the anticipated additional environmental studies and design
effort to complete the project.
D. Agency Coordination
The first agency coordination meeting was held on July 19, 2000 to discuss the
purpose and need for the project and possible alternatives. At that meeting, the agencies
requested additional information to better support the purpose and need for the project.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis reevaluated the traffic counts,
requested hydraulic studies to determine the extent and frequency of flooding, and
evaluated safety issues. Additionally, the agencies expressed concerns about secondary
and cumulative impacts to this environmentally sensitive area due to possible
development once the road is improved. These comments were based on the alternatives
presented at the time of the meeting.
E. Existing Conditions
1. Typical Section
The existing paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain County has two nine foot
lanes with grass shoulders of varying widths. The unpaved section of Needmore Road in
both Swain and Macon Counties has a hard packed surface of dirt and gravel and a cross-
section that varies in width from 16 feet to 20 feet. The existing alignment in Swain
County has a series of sharp curves with poor horizontal sight distance. An existing stone
retaining wall can be found where the roadway width is 16 feet. Please reference Figure
1. The combination of inadequate roadway width and poor sight distance makes this area
a safety hazard. The paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain County has a 35-mph
posted speed limit. The unpaved portion is not posted for speed. Please reference
Appendix C for photographs of the existing road conditions.
In Macon County, Needmore Road is carried over Tellico Creek, a tributary to the
Little Tennessee, by a single span, steel I-beam bridge. The bridge, Bridge No. 78, has
timber back walls and timber railings. The clear roadway width is 19.1 feet. This
structure will not be replaced under this project. It has a sufficiency rating of 50.9.
2. Environmental Conditions
The Little Tennessee River in this area is environmentally important for several
reasons. One of those reasons is the existing mussel population. The Appalachian Elktoe
E S ec3c5and the little winged pearlymussel are indigenous to these waters. Mussels, which are
lterfeeders, are very sensitive to changes in the environment and the abundance or
S?e??^ absence of these species is an indication of the health of a body of water. Historically,
redhaty- every stream and river had mussel populations indigenous to that particular habitat.
Mussels of one type of habitat cannot be moved and repopulated in different habitats.
s?,ESl?;n Cl6l Therefore, a particular species is unrecoverable once they and their habitat are destroyed.
?/(rGt?1a s??re? The biggest threats to mussels are the sedimentation and pollution of streams and rivers.
Sediment is produced from many manmade activities; including grading, farming, and
WiW1i ReSoaceS development in close proximity to bodies of water.
Cris me
5 - (o s`? 15kJL Sediment filled runoff from existing unpaved roads also contributes to the overall
.r,usscls sedimentation of our streams. A two-year study involving monitoring stations would be
n? ane ash required to accurately estimate the amount of sediment lost to The Little Tennesse River
due to flooding and runoff. Currently, this project does not have the funding to
accomplish this type of extensive monitoring. Therefore, past maintenance records were
used to estimate the amount of material lost into the river on a yearly basis. The amount
of sediment into the Little Tennessee River off of Needmore Road is estimated to range
from 70 tons to 372 tons. Please see the information contained in Appendix B.
The area surrounding the Little Tennessee River is designated as a critical habitat
for the spotfin club. Numerous threatened, endangered, and federal species of concern
are native to both Macon and Swain Counties. A list of these species can be found in
Appendix A.
In Swain County, there are areas of acidic rock that could be impacted by road
improvements. If excavated, this acidic rock must be handled and neutralized properly.
3. Traffic Data
Traffic counts were reevaluated qualitatively by NCDOT. The original volumes,
reported at the July 19, 2000 meeting, are accurate. There is not enough seasonal
variation to merit a more extensive study.
a. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes on Needmore Road are light. Current traffic volumes are 200
vehicles per day. The estimated volumes for the design year, 2025, are 400
vehicles per day.
b. Accident Data
Accident rates for Needmore Road were obtained for three years, 1996 to 1999, .
on the stretch of Needmore Road from SR 1113 in Swain County to SR 1372 in
Macon County. The state accident rate for two-lane, rural secondary roads is
261.86 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The accident rate in
Swain County is 196.08 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled which is
below the state average. There were no fatalities reported. The accident rate in
Macon County is 754.72 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled which is
three times the state average. The majority of the accidents involved a single
vehicle running off of the road.
4. Hydrology
A hydraulic study was conducted in an area straddling the Macon Co./Swain Co.
line. Please reference Figure 1. The existing road in this area has a history of flooding
and washing out. The hydraulic study involved field surveys to establish cross sections
and running the Hec-Ras model to replicate existing conditions. This baseline picture of
existing conditions will be used to compare future alternatives. The study also
established how often the road is flooding in its present state. The model was run for
storm events ranging from the two- year storm to the 500-year storm: The elevations for
the study used an assumed datum because the interest was in the difference in elevation
between the road and the water surface elevation of the river during the various storm
events. Based on this study, the road floods during the five-year storm. This means,
technically, the road will be flooded every five years. However, during the two-year
storm event, the water surface elevation of the river is only six inches from overtopping
the road.
5. System Linkage
Needmore Road is a local road that connects Graham County and Bryson City with
Franklin, N.C. People commute from Bryson City and areas within Graham County to
work and shop in Franklin. Alternate routes must be used when Needmore Road is
impassible.
a. Alternate Routes
NC 28. Traffic originating in Graham County or the Needmore community can
choose to travel NC 28 to Franklin. The distance is approximately 45 miles from both
destinations. The distance is only 17 miles if you travel down Needmore Road. NC 28 is
a two-lane road with switchback curves. The road hugs the mountain with steep drop-
offs and no safety guardrail.
US 19-23-74 to US 441. Traffic originating in Bryson City can use US 19-23-74
to US 441. This route would be approximately 89 miles. To travel to Franklin by way of
Needmore Road is approximately 50 miles.
US 19-74 to SR 1310. Commuters from Graham County can take US 19-74
toward Murphy and then turn back on SR 1310 (Wayah Road) in Macon County. This is
approximately 52 miles in length. SR 1310 runs through Wayah State Game Refuge.
b. Emergency Vehicles
NCDOT Division 14 prepared a report addressing this issue. According to this
report, EMS service is not eliminated when the road is flooded or impassible. Both
counties have a mutual aid agreement to respond to isolated areas near the county lines.
Additionally, an EMS unit is being considered for the West Swain Volunteer Fire
Department which is located at the junction of US 74 and SR 1113. Macon Medical
Center in Franklin, N.C. is the preferred hospital in this region. However, in a life-
threatening situation, EMS personnel would transport a patient to the nearest medical
facility.
c. School Buses
Currently, no school buses from either county use the unpaved portion of
Needmore Road for their routes.
6. Land Use
The existing land use in the area is very rural. There is some new development on
SR 1110 (Wiggins Creek) and this road has been upgraded to secondary road standards as
required by law. Currently, there is no land use plans for this area. The only
requirement to build or develop in this area would be the normal building and septic
permits. The county commissioners recently created by resolution a Watershed
Association. But they only get involved when the commissioners refer the issue or
project to them.
The land bordering sections of the project is included in the Needmore Tract. The
Needmore Tract is a 4,500-acre tract of land consisting of 3,400 acres in Swain County
and 600 acres in Macon County. The remaining 500 acres are scattered along
Burningtown and Tellico Creeks. This tract of land, originally held by Nanahala Power
and Light Company, was recently transferred to Crescent Resources, which is a
subsidiary of Duke Power Company. Crescent Resources works to develop land owned
by Duke Power. The Land Trust of the Little Tennessee is trying to bring this tract of
land under conservatorship in order to preserve it. Swain and Macon Counties have both
passed resolutions asking that Crescent Resources preserve the traditional uses of the
4,500 acres tract.
7. Maintenance Costs
Needmore Road must be routinely graded and new mateial added in areas that have
been washed out or deeply rutted by storms. Routine grading, according to maintenance
records, occurs twice a month. The ditches are cleaned out on an average of 2-3 times
per year. The cost of this maintenance is estimated at approximately $17,000 per year.
Conclusion
The purpose and need for improving Needmore Road involves both environmental
concerns (controlling sedimentation and maintaining the integrity of this valuable natural
habitat) and socioeconomic concerns (providing a reliable and safe local road and
reducing maintenance costs). While this road does not show a capacity problem, it does
provide system linkage in an area that is not abundant in good roads in an area of North
Carolina that is economically depressed. When this road is not operational, it increases
travel time and out of pocket costs for the local traveler. When this road floods, it dumps
additional sediment into a critical link of the Little Tennessee River that is a critical
habitat.
NCDOT has the opportunity to create partnerships among state and national
agencies, private industry, and local citizens' groups to come up with alternatives and
find a good solution. In a larger sense, it provides an opportunity to define common
ground between the state legislative mandate to pave all unpaved secondary roads and the
National and State Environmental Policy Acts which look to preserve the land in a
healthy and balanced manner.

:czgs? : J -? :/emu ;a• `
To
U o
?i ?' a+ •?' : ?. ? ? .fit ^` ? ?n° •.+ 1
Inc .
LLJ
Z
•
W N L,L
Z m Z c W
Q N a N W cD r
;? ,?,g 1 3 W Z a 0 0
ZZ2= a:
.,`, `` ?I 1c tI JO.LOQ O ¢ W Z
tr) •?. In
o;:U. 'Z ¢ c O 3
LN~? - ro7 V0Oc? LL.
c N
ac •? N - OQ>O> Z O
c Z=nauZ, O a
_ N g N
C] o ?( m) ?
? Y 9
a N c?
?
to
1? 2
fn
(0
-'m ) In?-
aO c
C\l
I , tnl
O `
N. ; ? ?•\ i 101 ? W
Z p /
ao crt /0 'M
rn bI N ,? - mi -
NI Bf?S - ? ?
co NO
rr i..
',, ?•
IL -Z
u
Z
i
_ W O)

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
SWAIN COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Spotfin chub, Hybopsis monacha - Little Tennessee River, main channel from the
backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation:
Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - Main stem of the Little Tennessee
River (Tennessee River system), from the Lake Emory Dam at Franklin, Macon County,
North Carolina, downstream to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County,
North Carolina; and main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system),
from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina.
downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, Norte.
Carolina.
Spruce-fir moss spider, Microhexura montivaga - Proposed critical habitat designation
(see the October 6, 2000, Federal Register 65:59798-59814;
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Olive-sided flycatcher
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Spotfin chub
Eastern cougar
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Spruce-fir moss spider
Southern rock vole
Sicklefin redhorse
Eastern small-footed mvotis
Indiana bat
Aegolius acadicus
C'ontopus borealis
Corynorhinus rafrnesquii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha
Felis concolor couguar
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Loxia curvirostra
Microhexura montivaga
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis
Moxostoma sp.
Myotis leibii
Myotis sodalis
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Threatened
Endangered*
Endangered
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered

Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC summer habitat)
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Olive darter
Northern pine snake
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Margarita River skimmer
Clingman covert
Februarv 26, 2001
Percina squaniata
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Sorer palustris punctulatus
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis
Sylvilagus obscurus
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Macromia margarita
Mesodon wheatleyi clingmanicus
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC**
FSC
Page 44 of 51
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Lost Nantahala Cave spider Nesticus cooperi FSC
Noonday globe (=snail) Patera clarki nantahala Threatened
Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC**
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odoratc: FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Southern Oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Mountain catchfiN Silene ovato F S C
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Hairy blueberry Faccinium hirsutum FSC
A Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsond FSC
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation:
Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - Main stem of the Little River (French
Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake Power Plant, downstream to its confluence
with the French Broad River.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)1
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotomafloridana haematoreia FSC*
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC*
Fchruarv `6 200/ 'd
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Carolina grass-of-parnassus
Harperella
LENOIR COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Invertebrates
Tar River crayfish
Vascular Plants
Sensitive jointvetch
Georgia indigo-bush
Venus flytrap
LINCOLN COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Michaux's sumac
MACON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Parnassia caroliniana FSC
Ptilimnium nudosum Endangered
Picoides borealis Endangered
Procambarus medialis FSC
Aeschynomene virginica ' Threatened*
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Dionaea muscipula FSC*
Hexastvlis nan flora Threatened
Rhus michauxii Endangered*
Spotfin chub, Hybopsis monacha - Little Tennessee River, main channel from the
backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation:
Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - Main stem of the Little Tennessee
River (Tennessee River system), from the Lake Emory Dam at Franklin, Macon County,
North Carolina, downstream to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County,
North Carolina.
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
Green salamander
Bog turtle
Olive-sided flycatcher
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Spotfin chub
Cerulean warbler
Sicklefin redhorse
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Olive darter
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Aimophila aestivalis
Aneides aeneus
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Contopus borealis
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha
Dendroica cerulea
Moxostoma sp.
Myotis sodalis
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Percina squamata
Svlvilagus obscurus
Thryomanes bewickii altus
FSC
FSC
T(S/A)1
FSC
FSC
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
Endangered
(summer habitat/winter records)
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC

V
February 26, 2001 Page 28 of 51
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Margarita River skimmer
Lost Nantahala Cave spider
Littlewing pearlymussel
Tawny crescent butterfly
Carolina skistodiaptomus
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Piratebush
Glade spurge
West Indian dwarf polypody
Small-whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchflv
Virginia spiraea
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon
Rafinesque's bia eared bat
Hellbender
Spotfin chub
Gray bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Olive darter
Paddlefish
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel
Sculpted supercoil
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Macromia margarita
Nesticus cooperi
Pegias fabula
Phyciodes batesii maconensis
Skistodiaptomus carolinensis
Speyeria diana
Buckleya distichophylla
Euphorbia purpurea
Grammitis nimbata
Isotria medeoloides
Juglans cinerea
Lysimachia fraseri
Monotropsis odorata
Saxifraga caroliniana
Senecio millefolium
Silene ovate
Spiraea virginiana
Cephaloziella obtusilobula
Plagiochila sharpii
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Porella japonica var. appalachiana
Acipenser fulvescens
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Hybopsis monacha
Myotis grisescens
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Percina squamata
Polyodon spathula
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Paravitrea ternaria
Vascular Plants
Piratebush
Glade spurge
Butternut
Buckleya distichophylla
Euphorbia purpurea
Juglans cinerea
Endangered
FSC**
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC
Threatener
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC*
FSC
Threatened*
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered*
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FebruarY 26. 2001
gage 2v of

11?...'z ..?..._... ..,._?...Si_? ^-:_. _. _... ._ _. _.._
. F
? ...:.t>Irau.3:..e.:.......:...'?at•Srre?'r...u.?" ....?:..:?' - .?.. _. ? _ .. .___..u,...?.-. ... _. c4?.
,.
•_.
__.•_
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUBJECT PROJECT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY DATE STATION
P. O. BOX 23201
CHECKED BY DATE .
?? STIt No- iHEiT OF
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 2761 /

f ! t !?
Zfi a ? {?-i . _ Z ??3 A-ML tcn --
2oo.. i ES?,ina A Fl- . 26 Aw,s Sec/,?men ? ?v?rr? e eri? ? er? ?
1 1,

.... , ,,,as ? ? _ _ .. ??....._ J r.' _.._.... . ??. w: ?r a,....w.'J?J.. . e. ....i . ..._ .. <.......cr. .......w..-?..... ?.. ... icSa.:1.1SwS.-.....{?••.x:i:?:-
Subject: [Fwd: Needmore Rd.(cost estimate)]
Date: Mon. 19 Jun 2000 07:44:53 -0400
From: "Joel Setzer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Karen Capps PE <[e-mail]> --
CC: Rick Styles <[e-mail]>
Per your request.
Subject: Needmore Rd.(cost estimate)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:41:18 -0500
From: Wayne Lynch <wlynZ:[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Joel Setzer <[e-mail]>
CC: Ralph Cannady <[e-mail]>
1
1
s Joel,
Approx. maint.cost for Needmore Rd. with normal winter weather
and machining on average of 2 times per month is as follows. I
estimated 2 hrs. per machining.
spot stab, 200 tons ABC stone @ 5.60/ton = $1120.00
25 hrs. for SWB dump @ 9.58/hr = 293.50
25 hrs. for TW @ 15.85/hr = 396.25
48 hrs. for grader @ 16.73/hr = 803.04
48 hrs. for operator @ 15.85/hr = 760.80
Approx. Total Cost = 3373.59 _
I of] 6/20/00 8:28 Alit
4,u.?...`?, 5.?...ri.?nt ?.y ...-. .?.. .. f .. ._.....W..y.?ciw_t.ru.rr.?.t.3 ... .a.u. rn r., ,...[..n.I.....?iE_..%CS.r,a....?.._, .. _i. x .v+..a. r.. r.. ?.. 1?.-?. ter..
1
Subject: Needmore Rd - Maint costs
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:09:24 -0400
From: Rick Styles <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Karen Capps PE <[e-mail]>
Karen,
It will cost about $13,000.00 dollars per year to maintain the section of roadway in Swain county. This
includes normal and routine maintenance cost, such as:
1- Machining $2300.00
2- Spot Stabilization $3400.00
3- Seasonal Repair $5500.00
4- Snow Removal & De-icing $1800.00
* At least once a year the low lying sections of the road are flooded. The typical section including
roaFway and shoulders must be re-built.
I hope this is helpful.
Rick Styles
I of 1 6/20100 8:19 AM
Sharp Curve in Swain County
Showing Poor Sight Distance
And Space Constraints
Sharp Curve Showing
Poor Sight Distance
Needmore Road
Note Close Proximity of River

Ruts Formed in Needmore Road
After Heavy Rainfall
K1
i`

?x
1
Needmore Road
PURPOSE AND NEED
s
ALTERNATIVES REPORT
SR 1364 / SR 1114 (NEEDMORE ROAD)`-'
MACON COUNTY
SWAIN COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO.: 6.972062T
STATE PROJECT NO.: 6.992193

C*41
0?

z
14
JU? 3 2000

-IAORT _
Introduction
Proposed Action
Purpose and Need
Project Setting
Existing Conditions
Project History
Proposed Alternatives
Project Cost
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vicinity Map
Area of Concern
Typical Section
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
INTRODUCTION
An environmental document is being prepared for this project in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This is an
informational document intended for use by state and federal agencies and the public. As
such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the
proposed action. Although this project is a state funded project and is not schduled in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), there are environmental and socio-economic
impacts that need to be properly evaluated.
PROPOSED ACTION
Needmore Road (SR 1364/ SR 1114) is located in Macon and Swain Counties. It is a
local rural route that is located beside the Little Tennessee River. The proposed
improvements call for widening, paving, and upgrading the unpaved portion of
Needmore Road.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for local residents
that use Needmore Road and to reduce sedimentation into the Little Tennessee River.
Needmore Road is designated as a local rural route between Franklin, N.C. and Bryson
City, N.C. Needmore Road is prone to flooding due to its location in the Little Tennessee
River floodplain. Frequent floods wash sediment across the roadway and into the Little
Tennessee River, make the road impassable except in four-wheel drive vehicles, and
produce substantial maintenance requirements. The road has substandard pavement
width and poor sight distance in some locations. Please reference Appendix A
The purpose of the proposed action is to upgrade the road in order to ensure the safety of
the traveling public, minimize the washing of sediment into the Little Tennessee and to
provide a quality local road.
PROJECT SETTING
Needmore Road runs between Swain and Macon Counties from SR 1113 in Swain
County to SR 1374 in Macon County. Please reference Figure 1. The project begins at
the paved portion of Needmore Road located in Swain County and terminates at SR 1370
in Macon County. The road winds through a very rural setting, loosely following the
Little Tennessee River. The view varies between a tree lined road with camping areas to
narrow passes where the river flows close on one side of the road and rock hills
composed of pyritic rock (acid rock) abut the other side.
The Little Tennessee River has its headwaters starting in Georgia. It flows through the
town of Franklin, N.C. and feeds Fountana Lake, located on the border of North Carolina
and Tennessee, before flowing on into Tennessee. The stretch of the Little Tennessee
River from Franklin, N.C. to Fontana Lake is considered to be one of the most significant
aquatic habitats in North Carolina as well as the southeastern United States. The
Appalachian elktoe mussel, little-wing pearly mussel, and spotfin chub, all listed as
Federally endangered species, have been found in abundance in this river. For a list of
Federally protected species for these two counties, reference Appendix B. The reach is
designated as a critical habitat for the spotfin chub. Virginia spirea, a threatened plant,
also occurs in this area. The Little Tennessee River also supports numerous other rare
species as well as a substantial smallmouth bass fishery.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain County has an existing cross-section
composed of two nine foot lanes with grass shoulders of varying widths. The unpaved
section of Needmore Road in both Swain and Macon Counties has a hard packed surface
of dirt and gravel and a cross-section that varies in width from 16 feet to 20 feet. The
existing alignment in Swain County has a series of sharp curves with below standard
sight distance. The paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain County has a 35- mph
posted speed limit. Currently, the traffic volume is estimated at 200 vehicles per day.
The projected traffic volume in the design year 2025 is 400 vehicles per day.
In Macon County, Needmore Road is carried over Tellico Creek, a tributary to the Little
Tennessee, by a single span, steel I-beam bridge. The bridge has timber backwalls and
timber railings. The clear roadway width is 19.1 feet. This structure will not be replaced
under this project.
In Swain County, there are areas of pyritic rock that could be impacted. If excavated, this
rock must be handled and neutralized properly or acid runoff from the cuts will leach into
the river.
PROJECT HISTORY
The improvements to Needmore Road began as a NCDOT Division 14 Design/Construct
project funded separately by Swain County, District 2, and Macon County, District 3. In
May 1997, District 3 applied for a Nationwide No. 14 Permit to extend existing culverts
and add new ones where required in conjunction with the widening and paving of
Needmore Road in Macon County. The project was being processed under State
Minimum Criteria. At a Section 7 consultation meeting, held on August 11, 1997,
concerns were raised over the potential for secondary impacts due to increased traffic
volumes, secondary land development, and the amount of land slated to be disturbed.
Therefore, this project does not meet the guidelines for State Minimum Criteria and must
be processed as a State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(State EA\FONSI). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has requested that Swain and
Macon Counties submit a combined application for an Individual Permit for the proposed
construction on Needmore Road.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
The four alternatives for this project ar6,1-build; ave in place; ide ave, and
upgrade the existing alignment to minimum secondary road standards`;?and a combination
of pave in place and widen where necessary. The no-build alternative (Alternative # 1)
would maintain the road in its existing condition. The pave in place alternative
(Alternative # 2) would pave the existing alignment with no additional improvements.
The third alternative (Alternative # 3) proposes to improve the existing unpaved portion
of SR 1364 / SR 1114 (Needmore Road) by widening it to two 9-foot lanes with 5-foot
grass shoulders and culverts and ditches where required. The improvements will follow
the existing alignment except where it is necessary to shift that alignment to minimize
impacts.
Swain County has an environmental area of concern as shown in Figure 2. The road in
this area is 16 feet wide with the river on one side of the road and acid rock the other
side. Alternative 3a in this area proposes to widen the road toward the Little Tennessee
River. Alternative 3b proposes to widen away from the river and excavate into the
mountainside. Both alternatives propose to raise the existing road three feet to correct the
flooding problem in this area.
The fourth alternative is a combination of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. It will also
have the same two options as Alternative 3 in Swain County but proposes to pave in
place where there is adequate roadway width.
PROJECT COST
The current project cost for the improvements to Needmore Road are summarized in the
table below.
ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alternative 1 $16,373.59
Alternative 2 $ 431,250.00
Alternative 3a $ 620,000.00*
Alternative 3b $ 1,560,000.00
Alternative 4a $ 582,082.00*
Alternative 4b $ 629,332.00
* Note: Alternatives 3a and 4a do not include the cost of any
mitigation.
* See Appendix C for Cost Estimates.
all,
\= ,: t' U o
I I
°.?
cm t
,? w'AC?// S oQI1??
_ O
Z ?
Ln li
\ ` . JJ ? Z v_ F c w
> LO
1 1?r? _ •?l =?Z CO O
ml J\
?` I _tQ=QQ c w Z
a' C`1 -I op -I,- a c c
-?__ YD? Q Q W W p l` O 3
N
?-_.. oZ?-Z U
cuo
Q?>_Q> O = C
U Z all'
LO
<m
L) O -
n? ? ? ?I S: `cl o c
` C
v CD ; Ln \ 6 3 c' i
<z
_ZZ
? _ NI
C i E, ?I?? Q ?j r (7
ccv ' Q ??I ml c
_? ,?? - I C t?0*1 i w w
`c I c :z c
??p m c
(rj
I
N B(?gb 1 N ?- _ m Cl) -
O w OBI ?
J 11;
76
z C.
H Y:. ? ? 1
_ c
l1 M A
ACC ` L N .e I
4llF••. c
1.4
1 at.
1
'Pt
'./t
` ,
QI
.16
1 ?
?.1 m
U O
_U
?Y
N
G

C
c OI - ZHQLUZi O CL 3
vi
..??` -? m 9 tl w
00
I N N

% I

c

O
M
Um
UO S
: ILnl
c - 6 .3

Z Y
C-
Ln

i -

/ kl`
??. ?/ I Nl O w
a : I Z
1 - W c
0 a

` 10
I m

U1
c
c R ?
l r ?I
rnl
Ic
c
NI Bf?sb . _ ••- IDI
Q _ Coto t
E'I
(0 ?v
LL o d-z i '
a a v ri
w
a J
Z U m
1. .
" w
,1 11 cr m 8 .
N c_n D_

U-
v w
z a v
W a
C ° Z
w Ln

LL-
?-
Z N
Q N Q N F c w
cD 1-
a }H}
w Z< p ('I Z

- O O
Q =aQ E N ¢ O
ZZ20?
OP
?
~ Z
¢ 0 = a
?'
'
zQ Z OLL03
(u ::E ¢ o N
24-OV0 Q w w
~ZN?? C O Z Z
TYPYCAT. Sx', ION
State Road Number: SR 1114
Needmore Road
Swam County
I
G.:HpF.
18' P?v YtE,vT
?*-- 507'7-0,V i:h`ANNEL
Y-
i
I
A NORMAL CROWN =114" PER FT., MAX. SUPEREL. - to
B SHDR SLOPE -1" PER FT., MAX. ROLLOVER - b%
C CUT SLOPE : 1:1 MAX. OR AS SLOPED STAKED
D FILL SLOPE: 11/2;1 MA FOR SOIL OR AS SLOPED STAKED
Sharp Curve in Swain County
Showing Poor Sight Distance
And Space Constraints
Sharp Curve Showing
Poor Sight Distance
Needmore Road
Note Close Proximity of River

Ruts Formed in Needmore Road
After Heavy Rainfall
f _
s'? aY 'dt Y '?}."_
ykX?f `. v ? ? ? ?
Needmore Road
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Sensitive jointvetch Aeschynomene virginica Threatened*
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC*
LINCOLN COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered*
MACON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Spotfin chub, Hybopsis monacha - Little Tennessee River, main channel from the
backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line.
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Cyprlnella (=Hybopsis) monacha Threatened
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita FSC**
Lost Nantahala Cave spider Nesticus cooper! FSC
Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phydodes batesii maconensis FSC
Carolina skistodiaptomus Skistodiaptomus carolinensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyerla diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhardi FSC
Glade spurge ' Euphorbia purpurea FSC
West Indian dwarf polypody Grammitis nimbata FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotna medeoloides Threatened
December 20, 1999 Page 28 of 50
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Virginia spnaea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Porella japonica var. appalachiana FSC
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens FSC*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raftnesquii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha Threatened*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered*
Sculpted supercoil Paravitrea ternaria FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
MARTIN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslou* FSC
Invertebrates
Chowanoke crayfish Orconectes virginiensis FSC
Vascular Plants
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
December 20, 1999 Page 29 of 50
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Small-whorled pogonia
Isotria medeoloides
Threatened
SWAIN COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Spotfin chub, Hybopsis monacha - Little Tennessee River, main channel from the
backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha Threatened
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered*
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Sicklefm redhorse Moxostoma sp. FSC
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotomafloridana haematoreia FSC*
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Southern water shrew Sorer palustris punctulatus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied 'Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscures FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita FSC**
Clingman covert Mesodon wheadeyi clingmanicus FSC
Spruce-fir moss spider Microherura montivaga Endangered
Lost Nantahala Cave spider Nesticus cooperi FSC
Noonday globe (=snail) Patera clarki nantahala Threatened
Littlewmg pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC**
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
December 20, 1999 Page 43 of 50
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii. FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
TYRRELL COUNTY
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Red wolf Canis rufus EXP
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
UNION COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Savanna lilliput Tozolasma pullus FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus C 1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus sehweinitzii Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
VANCE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
December 20, 1999 Page 45 of 50
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUBJECT PROJECT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS COUNTY
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARED BY ?Gi3c DATE !?•' ' °O STATION
P. O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27611 CHECKED BY DATE STIR NO SHEET OF

s

i

_ .3A 1 ?. O? F 11 i r? ?[i vcr j .;
- i

Z ?c O t
_ _ __. ?c2o occ. ov
r
3 20c- /1crn?yo / cs cc ?oclc? - _/, 30?? . uo <s_?? ,
,.^,•
o0 GA'L' J<

.f Q
....._.
?_?cs ?•
(./Z?/528_"J a J.?c: /Y?, /C?, i 7
!7C0
'M• lCi
vP RUC
'
J
??,noi7 r ?ray? / U?G?acc

PG.c /? Pl?cc 3.oa? . _ 1175, GOC m•/c) _ .
coo
°
,
.,
Is.

S C-Gi
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. Candidate Project
Route SR-1114 (Swain) and SR-1364 (Macon)
From SR-1113 (Swain) to SR-1374 (Macon)
Typical Section Paring (18') and Shoulder Construction
Prepared By: Doug Lane 6/12/00
Requested By: Karen Capps (PD & EA, Rm 416) 6/12/00
[Page]
County: Swain-Macon
CONSTR.COST
5575,0110
Line
Item
Des Sec
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount

Fine Grading 38,600 SY $ 1.00 $ 38 600.00

8" Aggregate Base Course 13.750 Ton $ 15.00 $ 206,250.00

Asphalt Cement 199 Ton $ 250.00 $ 49.750.00-

2" I-1 Surface Course 3.200 Ton $ 35.00 $ 112.000.00

Shoulder Construction 29 MLF $ 800.00 $ 23.200.00

Traffic Control 3.31 Miles $ 5,000.00 $ 16.550.00
Thermo and Markers 3.31 Miles $ 8,000.00 $ 26,480.00

T r.*1,
'2 2-1 luv
a ... Misc. & Mob (10% Paving Only) 1 LS $ 47.170.00
- - -- - - --? %-UHLd 44- 1. %,oaL ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... .................. 520,000.00
E. & C. (10%) ........................ .................. $ 55,000.00
DDL Cost: Construction Cost ........................ .................. S 575,000.00
DDC Cost: $575,000 x 0.75 = $431,250 /3-31 Miles= $173,716 /Mile Say $175,000/ Mile
Subject: [FNvd: Needmore Rd.(cost estimate)]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun. 2000 07:44:53 -0400
From: "Joel Setzer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Karen Capps PE <kcapps@dot. state. nc. us>
CC: Rick Styles <rstyles@dot. state. nc.us>
Per your request.
- - ------- - -- -
Subject: Needmore Rd.(cost estimate)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:41:18 -0500
From: Wayne Lynch <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Joel Setzer <[e-mail]>
CC: Ralph Cannady <[e-mail]>
1
Joel,
Approx. maint.cost for Needmore Rd. with normal winter weather
and machining on average of 2 times per month is as follows. I
estimated 2 hrs. per machining.
spot stab, 200 tons ABC stone @ 5.60/ton = $1120.00
25 hrs. for SWB dump @ 9.58/hr = 293.50
25.hrs. for TW @ 15.85/hr = 396.25
48 hrs. for grader @ 16.73/hr = 803.04
48 hrs. for operator @ 15.85/hr = 760.80
Approx. Total Cost = 3373.59
I of 1 6/20/00 8:28 AM
Subject: Needmore Rd - Maint costs
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:09:24 -0400
From: Rick Styles <rstyles@dot. state. nc. us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Karen Capps PE <[e-mail]>
Karen,
It will cost about $13,000.00 dollars per year to maintain the section of roadway in Swain county. This
includes normal and routine maintenance cost. such as:
1- Machining $2300.00
2- Spot Stabilization $3400.00
3- Seasonal Repair $5500.00
4- Snow Removal & De-icing $1800.00
* At least once a year the low lying sections of the road are flooded. The typical section including
roadway and shoulders must be re-built.
I hope this is helpful.
Rick Styles
I of 1 6/20/00 8:19 AM