MISC TIP 3

W AL Michael F. Easley, Governor
.
0? QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?
C/) r? Coleen Sullins, Director
"I Division of Water Quality
© 'C
September 25, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Comments on the State Environmental Assessment related to the proposed New Route
from SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) South of US 64/23/441,
Macon County, WBS Element No. 40118.1.1, TIP R-4748, State Clearinghouse No. 08-
0070.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated August 10, 2007. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. It is unclear why the Alternative D alignment was chosen for the non-bridge alternative. It appears
that Alternatives A, B and C could be proposed as non-bridge alternatives as well. Each alternative
could maintain their respective alignments without the bridge across the Little Tennessee River.
Please provide a rationale explaining why the Alternative D was chosen and why Alternatives A, B,
and C cannot be non-bridge alternatives.
3. Section 4.2.4 in the referenced document states that the proposed developments of the library and
the community college will "spur development on Siler Road." It also discusses the strong
residential growth in the area for second homes and retirees. In the area immediately around the
proposed road, residential development that would "cater to students of the community college" is
predicted. It seems that the development activities predicted in this area as a result of the proposed
road will be high impervious surface type developments. These developments will result in
increased stormwater runoff, pollutant loading and impacts to aquatic habitats. DWQ feels that
because a portion of the proposed road's purpose and need is to facilitate economic development,
the Town of Franklin should work in coordination with DOT and the resource and regulatory
agencies to develop a growth plan for the area. The goal of this plan would be to develop strategies
for smart growth which would reduce the impacts to water quality. The strategies. would address
enhanced stormwater BMPS, riparian buffers, impervious surface limitations, resource preservation,
etc.
None mffiCarolina
Transportation Permitting. Unit ?uCallr?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opaortunitv/Affinnative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
General Comments:
4. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
7. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single:
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
8. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue
to include. an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
9. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
10. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
11. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
12. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
2
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
13. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
14. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
15. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
16. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application.
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
17.. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
18. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
19. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
20. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
21. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters; streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
22. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or
outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
23. Jf foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number:3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
24.. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
25.. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP -
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activiti
es.
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be.: used, to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
26. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent'
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
27. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
28. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage.. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed,
sized and installed.
29. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible..
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the. construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Shall you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
4

cc: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, AshevilleField Office
Jake Rigsbee, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Parker, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
5
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Recgived Date Response Due (firm deadline)
3L )0-I `? as m
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air - Soil & Water - Marine Fisheries
- Fayetteville _ Water - Coastal Management
Mooresville Aquifer Protection v-"(Jildlife MoAc.. &?,Atx-r.S
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer - Forest Resources
- Washington - Water Resources _ Environmental Health
Wilmington - Parks & Recreation - Solid Waste Mgmt
Winston-Salem r Quality - Radiation Protection
?<ate
- er
Air Quality - Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed
- No comment
- Insufficient information to complete review
r? oFN ®?
Nps R, ??
ANp ry'?%r• , ?j
Other (specify or attach comments) STORk?'G?<?
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD) TO SR 1 662 (WILEY
BROWN ROAD) SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
WBS ELEMENT No. 401 18.1.1
' T.I.P. PRo.JECT No. R-4748
' ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
J7/1?
SUBMITTED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Date of Approval P Gregory j. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
i
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 115150 (BILER ROAD) TO SR 1 C 62 (WIL.EY BROWN ROAD)
SOUTH OF US +6 412 3/4 4 1
MACON COUNTY
WBS ELEMENT NO,. 401 1 S.1 .1
T.I.P. PROa moT NO. R=4744
AUGUST 2007
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
^-
Date
Date
Q ,
Liz. asckitx, AICI' ?,
yansportation Planning roup Manager
DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-ltd?
4'd Alld,
Date Undrea Majo `
IIt?t Project Development Engineer
'?!o
zt;`'?c-A 0 A R
k
w .?. X..?
Date 09AL ?s Bridges, PE
022109
,. ?,. `cect Engineer
.t
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR I GGO (BILER ROAD) TO SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON "COUNTY
WBB ELEMENT No. 401 1 B.1 .1
T.I.P. PROJECT No. R-4748
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 14 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification
Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been
agreed to by the NCDOT:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NCDOT will coordinate with Macon County if the project will result in impacts to the greenway along
the Little Tennessee River.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. BRANCH, HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT UNIT
A comprehensive archaeological survey of the project area will be conducted prior to construction to
identify archaeological resources that may be in the area and to analyze potential effects that may result
from the project.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH, NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT UNIT
If an alternative is chosen that crosses the Little Tennessee River, a Section 7 Formal Consultation and
subsequently a Biological Assessment will be produced for spotfin chub designated critical habitat.
If additional impacts to wetland WB result from construction activities associated with this project,
investigation into the extent of the permitted impacts will be conducted.
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT, HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND DIVISION 14
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be adhered to for`sediment and erosion'control
procedures.
NC Division of Land Resources and NC Wildlife Resource Commission requirements for disturbances
within trout buffers will be followed.
DIVISION 14
In-water work in the Little Tennessee River will be prohibited from May 1 to July 15 to protect the egg
and fry stages of smallmouth bass.

GREEN SHEET PAGE 1 OF 1

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT I AUGUST 2007

16,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Summary
1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project ................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... .1-1
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................................. .1-1
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action .............................................................................................. .1-1
1.5 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... .1-2
1.5.1 Project Setting .............................................................................................................. .1-2
1.5.2 Modal Interrelationships ............................................................................................. .1-2
1.6 Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. .1-2
1.6.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................. .1-2
1.6.2 Economy ....................................................................................................................... .1-4
1.7 Transportation Plans .................................................................................................................. .1-6
1.7.1 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program .................................................. .1-6
1.7.2 Thoroughfare Plans ......................................................................................................1-6
1.8 Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................................................1-6
1.8.1 Existing Characteristics ............................................................................................... .1-6
1.8.2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... .1-7
1.8.3 Projected Conditions ....................................................................................................1-8
1.9 Accident Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 1-10
1.10 Benefits to State, Region, and Community ............................................................................ 1-11
2.0 Alternatives ..............................
............................................................. 2-1
2.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.3 Alternative C .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.4 Alternative D ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.5 Transportation Systems Management Alternative .................................................. 2-3
2.2.6 Mass Transit Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.7 Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.8 Access Control .............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.2.9 Bikeways /Sidewalks ..................................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.10 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 2-4
3.0 Social, Economic and Environmental Effects .................................................................3-1
3.1 Social .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Neighborhood and Community Services .................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.3 Environmental justice ................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.4 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks ......................................................... 3-6
3.4.1 Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 3-6
3.4.2 Geotechnical Issues ...................................................................................................... 3-6
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.5 Natural Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.5.1 Topography and Geology .......................................................................................... . 3-7
3.5.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................ .3-7
3.5.3 Farmland ....................................................................................................................... .3-8
3.5.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... . 3-9
3.5.5 Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................ 3-10
3.5.6 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.5.7 Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................ 3-12
3.5.8 Jurisdictional Resources ............................................................................................ 3-13
3.5.9 Protected Species ........................................................................................................ 3-15
3.5.10 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species .................................... 3-21
3.6 Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 3-24
3.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................................................... 3-25
3.8 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 3-26
3.8.1 Transportation Conformity ...................................................................................... 3-27
3.8.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ........................................................................ 3-27
3.9 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 3-28
3.9.1 Noise Abatement Strategies ...................................................................................... 3-30
3.9.2 Construction Noise .................................................................................................... 3-30
3.10 Construction Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-31
3.11 Summary of Social, Economic and Environmental Effects .............................................. 3-31
4.0 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4-1
4.1 Potential for Indirect and Cumulative Effects ....................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Conflict with Local Plan .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Explicit Economic Development Purpose .............................................................. 4-1
4.1.3 Planned to Serve Specific Development .................................................................. 4-1
4.1.4 Stimulation of Complementary Land Development .............................................. 4-2
4.1.5 Influence on Intraregional Land Development Location Decisions ................... 4-2
4.1.6 Notable Features in the Impact Area ........................................................................ 4-2
4.2 Analysis of Indirect and Cumulative Effects .......................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Change in Accessibility (Travel Time Savings) ........................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Change in Property Values ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Forecasted Growth ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Land Supply vs. Land Demand .................................................................................. 4-3
4.2.5 Availability of Water and Sewer ................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.6 Market for Development ............................................................................................ 4-4
4.2.7 Water Quality and the Natural Environment .......................................................... 4-4
4.2.8 Local Public Policy ....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 ICE C onclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 4-4
5.0 Comments and Coordination ...........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Scoping Meeting ........................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.2 Section 404/NEPA Merger Process ......................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Other Meetings ............................................................................................................. 5-3
5.2 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.1 Newsletter ...................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2 Citizens Informational Workshop ............................................................................. 5-3
5.3 Distribution of the Environmental Assessment ............... ........................................ 5-4
5.4 Public Hearing ............................................................................................................................. 5-4
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
IV
6.0 List of References and Technical Reports ......................
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Agency Correspondence
Appendix C - Concurrence Forms
Appendix D - Public Involvement
Appendix E - Noise Analysis Tables
LIST OF TABLES
.................................... 6-1
Table 1. Population by Race . .......................................................................................................................... 1-3
Table 2. Age Distribution ................................................................................................................................1-4
Table 3. Education Status . .............................................................................................................................. 1-4
Table 4. Income and Poverty Status ..............................................................................................................1-4
Table 5. Employment by Industry ............................................................................................................... ..1-5
Table 6. Existing 2005 AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ........................................................ ..1-7
Table 7. Existing 2005 AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) ................................................... ..1-7
Table 8. Average Daily Traffic Projections (vehicles per day) . ............................................................... .. 1-8
Table 9. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ...................................................... ..1-9
Table 10.2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) ............................................... ..1-9
Table 11.2030 Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ........................................................... 1-10
Table 12.2030 Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) . ..................................................... 1-10
Table 13. Summary of Alternative Costs .................................................................................................... ..2-4
Table 14. Potential Business and Residential Relocations . ...................................................................... .. 3-3
Table 15. Potential Utility Crossings by Alternative ................................................................................... 3-4
Table 16. Underground Storage Tank Locations ...................................................................................... .. 3-6
Table 17. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ....................................................................... 3-12
Table 18. Impacts to Waters of the United States . ................................................................................... 3-15
Table 19. Federally-Protected Species for Macon County ....................................................................... 3-16
Table 20. Federal Species of Concern in Macon County ......................................................................... 3-22
Table 21. Noise Abatement Criteria ............................................................................................................ 3-28
Table 22. Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations . ..................................................................................... 3-29
Table 23. Comparison of Build Alternatives - Major Crossings .............................................................3-32
Table 24. Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives ........................................................................3-33
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
V
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION/PURPOSE AND NEED
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to provide transportation
improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) in Macon
County. The project is included in the NCDOT 2007-2013 State Tran.rfiortation Improvement Program (TIP) as
Project R-4748.
' The purpose of the proposed project is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of
Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area. Development currently
underway in the study area includes a regional library and a community college on Siler Road.
II. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Four new location alternatives are under study for the project. Alternatives A, B, and C connect Siler
Road to Wiley Brown Road by bridging the Little Tennessee River. Alternative D provides a new
roadway east and west of the river, but does not bridge the river. Alternatives range in length. Alternative
A is 1.09 miles, Alternative B is 0.96 mile, Alternative C is 0.91 mile and Alternative D is 1.26 miles long.
The proposed facility consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four-foot
paved. A roundabout option is provide for all alternatives where they tie into existing roadways east of
the Little Tennessee River.
III. PERMITS REQUIRED
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for authorized construction, expansion, modification,
or improvement of linear transportation crossings in Waters of the United States, such as bridges and
culverted road crossings, when adverse environmental effects are minimal. Permit conditions for
NWP 14 include, but are not limited to, the following:
¦ Discharges are less than 0.5 acres in non-tidal waters.
¦ Less than 300 linear feet of channel impacts.
The USACE holds discretion to put any project into the Individual Permit JP) process if a sensitive
wetland or stream system is being impacted or if the community presents significant concerns. Due to the
nature of the project, it is possible that the parameters for an NWP 14 listed above could be exceeded, in
which case an 1P would be required. IP's are generally reserved for projects with potential for substantial
environmental impacts. An IP requires a full public interest review, including public notices and
coordination with involved agencies, interested parties, and the general public.
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit 33 when construction activities necessitate the use of temporary
structures such as cofferdams, placement of access fill material, or dewatering of the construction site.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) is issued for any activity, including bridge
repair, maintenance, or construction activities which may result in a discharge into Waters of the United
States. The NCDWQ issues its own IP and may issue a WQC #3404 if an NWP 14 is required by the
USACE or a WQC #3366 if an NWP 33 is required by the USACE. An NCDWQ Section 401 WQC is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit. Since the proposed project is located in a
designated "Trout" county, the authorization of an NWP by the USACE is conditioned upon
concurrence of the WRC.
r
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
VII
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management District.
A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction or development
involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project was evaluated for impacts to the human and natural environment. Potential
impacts are summarized in Table S-1.
Table S-1. Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives.
Impacts ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A' Alternative 'B Alternative C Alternative D-
Schools, Churches, Cemeteries 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 4 5 8 13
Historic Properties 0 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites* 0 0 0 0
Federal Listed Threatened or Endangered
Species Present Within Corridor+ No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No
State Listed Species,- 0 0 0 0
Forest Impacts (acres) 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58
Important Farmlands# (acres) 2.51 5.27 9.41 10.77
Residential Displacements 0 0 4 6
Business Displacements 0 0 0 1
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts^ (number/acre) 1/0.024 0/0 0/0 0/0
Stream Impacts^ (number/linear feet) 1/580.5 0/0 0/0 1/311
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges, Gamelands, Parks 0 0 0 0
Impacted Noise Receptor' 1 1 1 1
Section 4(o Impacts, Federal Lands 0 0 0 0
Low Income/Minority Population Impacts No No No No
Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas 1 1 1 0
Existing and Proposed Greenway Crossings 1 1 1 0
* GIS Data. Additional studies to be conducted. % State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species
+Virginia spiraea and small-whorled pogonia not present; Little Tennessee River is listed as Critical Habitat for spotfin chub.
# Includes Prime/Unique Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide or Local Importance.
Delineated; Jurisdictional status not yet determined. ' Calculated using Alternative A as worst-case scenario.
Terrestrial and aquatic impacts include impacts for mechanized clearing ten feet beyond slope stakes.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
VIII
V. COORDINATION
This project was coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and the public. Efforts
were undertaken early in the project's planning stages to involve agencies, local officials, and citizens in
the project development process. A Citizens Informational Workshop for the project was held on
February 15, 2006 in the Town of Franklin. The project study area and NCDCIT TIP project alignment
were presented at the workshop.
N VI. CONTACT
' Additional information regarding the proposed project and Environmental Assessment can be obtained
by contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
IX

t

1

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
1 . 1 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, (North Carolina General Statutes Article I Chapter
113A) as codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 1, Chapter 25. The project is included
in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as Project Number R-4748.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is located in Macon County, North Carolina just south of the town of Franklin and
US 64/23/441 (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). It will provide transportation improvements in the vicinity
of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). The proposed project as shown in the
NCDOT TIP includes a new location roadway connecting Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and a new
crossing of the Little Tennessee River. Three alternatives that include a river crossing and a fourth
alternative that does not include a river crossing are under consideration. Alternatives range in length.
Alternative A is 1.09 miles, Alternative B is 0.96 mile, Alternative C is 0.91 mile and Alternative D is 1.26
miles long.
1.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is important to improve access to land available for development and to improve
transportation service in the project area. Presently, there is limited access to land available for
development between Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. Several tracts of land are currently being
developed or are slated for future development in this area. Traffic in the project area is expected to
increase and Level of Service on the existing roadways is expected to degrade substantially by the year
2030. This increased traffic on existing infrastructure will lead to increased travel times and delays for
roadway users.
1.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed action is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of
Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area.
The proposed project will create additional access to sites currently proposed for institutional and
commercial development on both the east and west side of the Little Tennessee River and will facilitate
better traffic circulation between these sites. As these sites develop, they will provide new jobs that could
enhance the area's economy. Currently, US 64/23/441 is the only crossing of the Little Tennessee River
in the project area. Proposed improvements will help separate local and regional traffic and improve
traffic flow, minimizing the rate at which projected increases in traffic will result in lower Level of Service
on existing roads and improving traffic safety.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-1
1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.5.1 PROJECT SETTING
The project is located in the central part of Macon County. Macon County is bordered to the south by
the state of Georgia, to the west by Clay and Cherokee Counties, to the north by Swain County, and to
the east by Jackson County. Portions of the proposed project are within Town limits (see Figure 1 in
Appendix A).
There are large tracts of undeveloped land in the study area, primarily wooded west of the Little
Tennessee River and open field east of the river. There are three major water bodies: the Little Tennessee
River, the Cullasaja River and Cartoogechaye Creek. General land use in the study area is rural residential.
Some areas are transitioning to business and institutional uses, particularly along Siler Road. Other land
uses include a commercial area along US 23/441 that provides restaurant, retail, and small business
services to the community. More details on land use are located in Section 3.1.1.
1.5.2 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
RAILROADS
There are no railroads in the vicinity of the proposed project.
AIRPORTS
The Macon County Airport is located approximately three miles northwest of Franklin. The airport is
open to the public and has a service breakdown of approximately 58 percent local general aviation, 33
percent transient general aviation, four percent air taxi, and four percent military (www.airnav.com).
TRANSIT
There is currently no fixed route transit system operated by Macon County or the Town of Franklin.
BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
In the vicinity of the project, US 64 is part of the Mountains to Sea NC Bike Route 2. The Mountains to
Sea route is approximately 700 miles long and extends from the western North Carolina mountains to the
Atlantic Ocean (NCDOT, Mountains to Sea, North Carolina Bicycling Highways). US 64 is also part of a local
loop bicycle route that includes Franklin, Bryson City, and Sylva (NCDOT, August 1992).
1 .6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
1.6.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
According to US Census Bureau statistics, Macon County grew by 26.9 percent from 1990 to 2000. The
Town of Franklin grew by 21.5 percent during this same time period. The current population is
approximately 3,600 persons, but doubles during the spring, summer, and fall because of tourism. This
increase in population provides an increased demand on local roads and the need for goods and services.
The total population for Macon County in 2000 was estimated at 29,811. Macon County's population is
projected to grow by 17.2 percent between 2000 and 2010, by 15.3 percent between 2010 and 2020, and
by 12.6 percent between 2020 and 2030.
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-2
r
Macon County and the Town of Franklin have few minorities compared to statewide figures (Table 1). In
particular, there is a broad gap between county and Town concentrations of Black or African American
persons compared to the state level. Other than a few mobile homes along Siler Road that appeared to be
in poor condition, no low-income or minority communities were observed during a visit to the project
area.
Table 1. Population by Race.

Population by Race North Macon Franklin
Carolina County
5,804,656 28,969 3,330
White alone 72.1% 97.2% 95.4%
1,737,545 357 69
Black or African American alone 21.6% 1.2% 2.0%
99,551 84 11
American Indian or Alaskan Native 1.2% 0.3% 0.3%
113,689 117 22
Asian 1.4% 0.4% 0.6%
83
3,
98 5 1
Native Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander 309
3 30.1% 30.1%
186,629 91 17
Other race 2.3% 0.3% 0.5%
103,260 188 40
Two or more races 1.3% 0.6% 1.1%
8,049,313 29,811 3,490
Total 100% 100% 100%
378,
63 45 10
5
Hispanic or Latino of any race* 9
4.7% 4
1.5% °
3.0%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000.
* Hispanic or Latino populations are not considered as a single racial group, but are included within all
other racial groups.
The median age for Macon County is approximately ten years higher than the state median age and the
percentage of persons in the 20-44 years age group is lower in Macon County and Franklin than this age
group statewide (Table 2). This may be indicative of younger people leaving the area for better job
opportunities in larger towns and cities and retirees finding the area an attractive place to settle. Macon
County and Franklin have approximately the same percentages of high school graduates or higher as the
statewide average. Both Macon County and Franklin have lower percentages of Bachelor's Degree or
Higher education level citizens than the statewide average (Table 3).
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-3
Table 2. Age Distribution.
Age Cohort North Carolina Macon County Franklin j
19 years and under 2,193,6 30 6,652 815

27.2%
22.4% 0
23.4%
20-44 years 3,078,043 8,17
7 1,05
5
38.3% 0
27.4% 0
30.2%
45-64 ears
Y 1,808,862 8,319 801
22.5% 27.9% 23.0%
65 years and older 969,048 6,666 819
12.0% 22.3% 23.5%
Median age 35.3 45.2 42.3
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000
Table 3. Education Status.
North Macon
Franklin
Carolina County
High School Graduate or Higher 78.1% 77.3% 81.5%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 22.5% 16.2% 15.9%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000
1.6.2 ECONOMY
The Town of Franklin has a lower median household income than the County (Macon) and state (Table
4). This corresponds to a relatively high poverty level, at 20.9%. Four manufacturing plants in the area
closed in the mid 1990s, resulting in a loss of approximately 2,000 jobs.
Table 4. Income and Poverty Status.
North Macon
Frinlclin
Carolina County
Median Household Income (1999) $39,184 $32,139 $21,534
Persons Below Poverty Level 12.3% 12.6% 20.9%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Historically, Macon County's economy was based upon agriculture and the timber industry, and then
transitioned to manufacturing. As noted above, several manufacturing plants in the Franklin area closed
in the last decade. Macon County's planner noted that some people who previously worked in the
manufacturing industry have been able to transition to construction work building second homes, which
is a strong market in the area.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-4

1

The economy of Macon County relies heavily on tourism. As noted in Section 1.6.1, the Town of
Franklin's population doubles during the tourist season. The Macon County Recreation Master Plan (Macon
County and Haden Stanziale, September 13, 2005) lists major natural amenities of the County as the
Nantahala National Forest, the Appalachian Mountain Range, the Little Tennessee River, and the
Appalachian Trail. The Town of Franklin is the county seat.
Major industrial employers in the Franklin area include Caterpillar Industries, Whitley Products, Zickgraf
Industries, Duotech Services, and Tektone Manufacturing (www.franklin-chamber.com). Lowe's Home
Improvement, which is located on US 23/441 near Siler Road, is a major employer in the vicinity of the
proposed project.
' In general, Macon County's unemployment rate over the last ten years has not fluctuated dramatically on
an annual basis. The annual average unemployment rate in 2006 was 4.5 percent. The statewide rate for
that year was 4.8 percent. The most recent figures available show the Macon County unemployment rate
at 4.1 percent in June 2007, and the statewide unemployment rate at 5.1 percent in June 2007.

Table 5. Employment by Industry.
Sector North Carolina' Macon County Franklin
Agriculture/Forestry/Mining 1.6% 2.6% 4.7%
Construction 8.2% 14.5% 13.2%
Manufacturing 19.7% 11.5% 7.6%
Wholesale Trade 3.4% 1.4% 1.6%
Retail Trade 11.5% 14.9% 14.0%
Transportation/Warehousing/Utilities 4.6% 2.9% 2.7%
Information 2.3% 1.8% 1.9%
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 6.0% 5.1% 5.6%
Professional/Scientific/Management/

Administrative
7.7%
7.2%
9.6%
Educational/Health/Social Services 19.2% 18.3% 24.6%
Arts/Entertainment/Accommodation/

Food Services
6.9%
9.7%
5.8%
Other Services 4.6% 6.4% 4.8%
Public Administration 4.1% 3.6% 3.8%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-5

1.7 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
1.7.1. NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The NCDOT 2007-2013 TIP lists the proposed project as R-4748. There are no other TIP projects in the
study area.
1.7.2 THOROUGHFARE PLANS
Currently, there are no comprehensive transportation plans available for the area. A thoroughfare plan
dated January 2005 did not include the proposed project.
The Southwestern Commission serves as the lead planning agency for the Rural Transportation Planning
Organization (RPO) serving Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, Jackson, and Swain Counties. An annual
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) update lists current infrastructure needs across
the region. The CEDS did not list the proposed project because it is broad based and does not list
specific projects.
1.121 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.13. EXISTING
CHARACTERISTICS
Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road connect directly
or through other local roads to US 64/23/441.
US 64/23/441 is a four-lane divided highway with
shoulders and a grass median. The speed limit near
the project area is 55 miles per hour (mph). Two
parallel bridges on US 64/23/441 cross the Little
Tennessee River in the vicinity of the proposed
proj ect.
a.£v,
t,
{ .ryl ?..li ?•??.y??**.V11E
A partial-clover interchange currently links
US 23/441 and US 64/23/441 just north of the study
area. South of US 64/23/441 and northbound through
the interchange, US 23/441 is a partially divided four-
lane roadway with shoulders. In the vicinity of the
intersection with Siler Road, there is a concrete median
and turn lanes. The speed limit in this area is 45 mph.
Looking east across US 231441 at Siler Road.
Siler Road is a two-lane rural roadway with grass
shoulders. A signalized intersection provides access to
US 23/441 approximately 1,000 feet south of the
US 64/23/441 interchange. Wiley Brown Road is also a
two-lane rural roadway with grass shoulders. Dowdle
Mountain Road has a signalized at-grade intersection at
US 64/23/441. NCDOT Division 14 recently added
this temporary signal to address safety concerns Dosvdle Mountain Road at intersection with Wiley
associated in particular with bus and other traffic Brown Road (left).
traveling to and from Macon Middle School on Wells Grove Road. Dowdle Mountain Road is a two-lane
rural roadway with grass shoulders and serves as a collector for several local roads including Wiley Brown
Road and Wells Grove Road. There are no sidewalks near the project area.
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-6
1.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
I
The 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) along US 64/23/441 between US 23/441 and SR 1701 was 22,000
vehicles per day (vpd). The 2005 ADT along US 23/441 between US 64/23/441 and Siler Road was
22,600 vpd. Truck traffic was approximately three percent along US 64/23/441 and one percent along
US 23/441. Siler Road's ADT in 2005 was 400 vpd, while SR 1701 has an ADT of 3,000 vpd.
Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed for both signalized and unsignalized intersections in the project area.
LOS is a qualitative measure that characterizes the operational conditions within a traffic stream and the
perception of traffic service by motorists and passengers. The Transportation Research Board's Highway
Capacity Manual generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels are used, ranging
from A to F. For roadways, LOS A indicates no congestion while LOS F represents more traffic demand
than road capacity and extreme delays. The engineering profession generally accepts LOS D as a
minimally acceptable operating condition for signalized intersections.
' Under existing 2005 conditions, two of three signalized intersections operate at LOS B or better with
minimal delays and queuing (Table 6). The unsignalized intersection of SR 1687 at US 23/441
experiences LOS F conditions during the PM peak period. The critical movement is the eastbound
movement on SR 1687. In contrast, all other unsignalized intersections operate at an acceptable LOS in
2005 (Table 7).

Table 6. Existing 2005 AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections)

Intersections 2005
NM Pea}. PM Peak
US 23/441 @ US 64 EB Off ramp/ Franklin Plaza C C
US 23/441 @ SR 1660 (Siler Road) B B
US 64 @ SR 1701/ SR 1702 (Oak Forest Lane) B A
Source: Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662
(Fiky Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
Table 7. Existing 2005 AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections)

roach
Critical A
Intersection' 8 2005
-
pp
; AM Peak PM Peak
SR 1158 (Womack Street) @ US 23/441 (EB critical) C C
US 64 Off Ramp @ US 23/441 (WB and NB left critical) B B
SR 1687 (Allman Drive) @ US 23/441 (WB and EB critical) C F
SR 1659 (Dowdle Mountain Road) @ SR 1701 (EB critical) C B
Source: TraffzcAnalysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 xiley
Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
R-4746 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-7

1.8.3 PROJECTED CONDITIONS
To calculate projected conditions, a background growth rate was identified for the project based on long-
range population forecasts and historical traffic growth trends. Studies indicate that through traffic on US
64/23/441 is growing at a higher rate than the local roadway network. This reflects substantial growth of
regional through trips utilizing US 64/23/441. For this reason, US 64/23/441 was assigned a higher
growth rate than other roadways. In addition to background growth rates, trips generated by anticipated
development were analyzed for projected conditions. Table 8 shows projected 2030 ADT for No-Build
and Build conditions and includes scenarios with expected background growth as well as with anticipated
development.
By the year 2030, traffic is expected to more than double along US 64/23/441 between US 23/441 and
Dowdle Mountain Road under No-Build conditions. Development in the area is expected to generate an
additional 13,500 vpd along US 64, resulting in a total projected ADT of 59,300 vpd. Traffic is expected
to increase by approximately 72 percent along US 23/441 between US 64/23/441 and Siler Road by the
year 2030 under No-Build conditions. Development in the area is expected to generate an additional
14,600 vpd in this area, resulting is a total projected ADT of 46,200 vpd. The proposed project shows a
reduction in projected ADT for both background growth only and with expected development.
Projections for Siler Road indicate that 2030 ADT under No-Build conditions will be 600 vpd with
background growth only, and 11,800 vpd with anticipated development. Build conditions with
background growth are expected to be 3,900 vpd. Development is projected to add an additional 7,200
vpd, for a total of 11,100 vpd. Projected 2030 ADT on SR 1701 is 4,200 vpd with background growth
under No-Build conditions. Development would increase ADT to 11,400 vpd. Under Build conditions,
ADT is projected at 7,500 vpd for background growth, and 14,400 vpd with development.
For a new location crossing of the Little Tennessee River, the projected 2030 ADT at the new bridge is
3,300 vpd with background growth only, and 10,400 vpd with expected development. Alternative D
would not provide a new crossing.
Table 8. Average Daily Traffic Projections (vehicles per day).
2030 No-Build 2030 No-Build 2030 Build with 2030 Build with
Roach aN -,ithBack( ground viith Expected Background Expected
Gro,, th Development Gt0vN"th Development
US 64 between US 23/441

and SR 1701 45,800 59,300 42,500 48,900
US 23/441 between

US 64/23/441 and Siler Rd. 31,600 46,200 28,300 37,900
Siler Road near US 23/441 600 11,800 3,900 11,100
SR 1701 south of US 200
4 11
400 7
500 14
400
64/23/441 , , , ,
New bridge over Little N/A N/A 3,300 10
400
Tennessee River ,
Source: TracAnalysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown
Road) .youth of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-8
Level of Service for AM and PM peak hours was evaluated for 2030 No-Build and Build scenarios. This
evaluation assumed that planned development in the study area would be in place. LOS predictions for
the No-Build scenario are presented in Tables 9 and 10 for signalized and unsignalized intersections,
respectively. LOS predictions for the Build scenario are presented in Tables 11 and 12 for signalized and
unsignalized intersections, respectively.
For signalized intersections, Tables 9 and 11 show that Build conditions will improve the AM peak
period LOS at the US 23/441 and US 64 eastbound off ramp intersection. Conditions are expected to
deteriorate in the AM peak period at the US 64 and SR 1701/SR 1702 intersection under the Build
scenario. The LOS for PM peak conditions at all signalized intersections, and the AM peak conditions at
the US 23/441 and Siler Road intersection are expected to remain unchanged from No-Build to Build
conditions.
Table 10 shows that three of four unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at LOS F under 2030
No-Build conditions. Table 12 shows no projected changes in LOS for unsignalized intersections under
Build conditions.
Table 9. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections).

Intersections 2030 No-Build
AM Peak PM Peak
US 23/441 @ US 64 EB Off ramp/ Franklin Plaza C C
US 23/441 @ SR 1660 (Siler Road) D D
US 64 @ SR 1701/ SR 1702 (Oak Forest Lane)* D E
Source: TraffcAnalysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 9660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662
(Wiley Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
*Phasing revised to include split phase left turns for the side road.
Table 10. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections).

roach
Intersection & Critical A 2030 No-Build
pp AM Peak PM Peak
SR 1158 (Womack Street) @ US 23/441 (EB and WB critical) F F
US 64 Off Ramp @ US 441 (WB critical) C C
SR 1687 (Allman Drive) @ US 23/441 (EB and WB critical) F F
SR 1659 (Dowdle Mountain Road) @ SR 1701 (EB and WB critical) F F
Source: Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Sher Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown
Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-9
Table 11. 2030 Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections).

Intersections 2030 Build
ANN Peak PM Peak
US 23/441 @ US 64 EB Off ramp/ Franklin Plaza B C
US 23/441 @ SR 1660 (Siler Road) D D
US 64 @ SR 1701 / SR 1702 (Oak Forest Lane)* E E
Source: TraffzcAnaysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Sher Road) to SR 1662
(Wiley Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
*Phasing revised to include split phase left turns for the side road.
Table 12.2030 Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections).
2030 Build
Intersection & Critical Approach
ANI Peak PNI Peak
SR 1158 (Womack Street) @ US 23/441 (EB and WB critical) F F
US 64 Off Ramp @ US 441 (WB critical) C C
SR 1687 (Allman Drive) @ US 23/441 (EB and WB critical) F F
SR 1659 (Dowdle Mountain Road) @ SR 1701 (EB and WB critical) F F
Source: Trafc Analysis Technical Memorandum, New Location Roadway from SR 1660 (Sher Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown
Road) south of US 64/23/441, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., April 2007.
1.9 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Traffic accident information was analyzed for several roads within the project area for the time period of
June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2005. There were a total of eight accidents on Siler Road from US 23/441 to the
dead end. Six of the eight accidents occurred at the intersection of Siler Road and US 23/441. There were
no fatalities. The total crash rate was 1,525.45 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. There was one
accident on Wiley Brown Road from SR 1701 to Dowdle Mountain Road. There were no fatalities. The
total crash rate was 434.48 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. The 2003-2005 statewide crash rate for
rural secondary roads was 365.78 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles.
US 23/441 was analyzed from Allman Drive to the US 64/23/441 interchange. There were 35 accidents,
with concentrations at Allman Drive, and the two entrances to Franklin Plaza, which is located on
US 23/441 across from Siler Road and adjacent to the US 64/23/441 interchange. There were no
fatalities. The total crash rate was 407.85 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles. The 2003-2005 statewide
crash rate for rural United States roads was 147.09 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-l0
US 64/23/441 was analyzed from US 23/441 Business Interchange Ramps to SR 1701/Oak Forest Lane.
There were a total of twelve accidents, none of which included fatalities. Three accidents occurred at the
double bridges that cross the Little Tennessee River. Two accidents occurred at SR 1701 /Oak Forest
Lane. The rest were scattered throughout the studied section. The total crash rate was 41.27 crashes per
100 million vehicle miles. As noted above, the 2003-2005 statewide crash rate for rural United States
roads was 147.09 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles.
' 1 .1 O BENEFITS TO STATE, REGION, AND COMMUNITY
Current and future developments in the proposed project area may play a role in the economic success of
the community and region. New jobs associated with these developments could help relieve poor
' economic conditions in the area. In consideration of the planned growth for this area, this project is
expected to enhance the safety and general welfare of regional residents and commuters by providing an
alternative local travel route for the flow of employees, goods, services, and traffic.
It is important that actions taken in the area are timely and well-planned. This project will ensure that
appropriate access to educational facilities and development sites is provided, and that traffic volume is
properly managed.
71

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1-11

J

2.0 ALTERNATIVES
A range of alternatives were studied to address the project purpose and need and to minimize adverse
impacts to the human and natural environment. This section identifies and summarizes the evaluation of
these alternatives. A preferred alternative has not been selected.
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build alternative assumes that there would be no transportation improvements in the study area
to connect Wiley Brown Road to Siler Road, or to connect Siler Road to US 23/441. The No-Build
alternative provides for maintenance of the existing transportation routes, which may include roadway
patching and resurfacing, and shoulder and ditch maintenance. This alternative assumes that future travel
demand would be placed on existing roads. The No-Build Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need
and has been removed from further consideration.
2.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
There are four Build alternatives for the project. Alternatives A, B, and C cross the Little Tennessee
River, linking Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. Alternative D provides secondary access to Siler Road
from US 23/441 as well as improvements on the east side of the Little Tennessee River, but does not
cross the river (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A).
Proposed intersection improvements for all alternatives realign the section of Dowdle Mountain Road
east of SR 1701 to south of the gas station, increasing the distance of the intersection from
US 64/23/441. A roundabout option is provided for all alternatives where they tie into existing roadways
east of the little Tennessee River.

Proposed improvements for all
alternatives remove the existing DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER WITH MEDIAN U-TURN
signal at the intersection of
US 64/23/441, SR 1701 and
SR 1702 (Oak Forest Lane). A
"Superstreet" intersection design
consisting of directional crossovers
and a median U-turn is proposed.
All movements (thru, left and right
turns) are permitted on
US 64/23/441. Traffic on SR 1701
and SR 1702 is restricted to right
turns onto US 64/23/441.
Through and left turn movements
from SR 1701 are directed to a
median U-turn crossover approximately 1,200 feet east on US 64/23/441. Through and left turn
movements from SR 1702 would exit US 64/23/441 westbound at the US 23/441 interchange and re-
enter eastbound onto US 64/23/441.
All alternatives include lengthening the left and right turn lanes for SR 1701 on US 64/23/441 to provide
additional storage.
R-4746 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2-1

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A
Alternative A travels adjacent to US 64/23/441, functioning similar to a service road (see Figure 2 in
Appendix A). It is approximately 1.09 miles long. Alternative A realigns the northern end of Siler Road
(approximately 0.39 mile from US 23/441), and continues east on new location connecting to Dowdle
Mountain Road. A signal is warranted at the intersection of Alternative A and Dowdle Mountain Road
within the design year of the project but will not be installed until traffic demands increase.
TWical Section and Design Criteria - The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with
eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 360-foot long bridge
crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with four-foot shoulders on each
side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and
side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with four legs at the
intersection of Alternative A and Dowdle Mountain Road. This would replace the signalized
intersection.
2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B
Alternative B is approximately 580 feet south of US 64/23/441 and is 0.96 mile long (see Figure 2 in
Appendix A). Alternative B realigns the northern end of Siler Road (approximately 0.48 mile from
US 23/441), and continues east on new location connecting to US 64/23/441. Dowdle Mountain Road is
realigned to form a "T" intersection with Alternative B.
Typical Section and Design Criteria - The proposed road consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-
foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 345-foot long bridge crossing
the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with four-foot shoulders on each
side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and
side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights.
Roundabout 012don - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative B and Dowdle Mountain Road.
2.2.3 ALTERNATIVE C
Alternative C realigns Siler Road (approximately 0.63 mile from US 23/441), and continues east on new
location connecting to US 64/23/441 (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned
to form a "T" intersection with Alternative C. About 460-feet of the greenway adjacent to the Little
Tennessee River will be relocated under the bridge. This alternative is approximately 0.91 mile long.
Typical Section and Design Criteria - The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with
eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 380-foot long proposed
bridge crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with a four-foot shoulder
on each side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13
percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative C and Dowdle Mountain Road.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2-2
2.2.4 ALTERNATIVE D
Alternative D is on new location beginning at the intersection of Allman Drive and US 23/441,
extending Siler Road approximately 0.29 mile toward the Little Tennessee River (see Figure 3 in
Appendix A). Alternative D continues on the east (approximately 0.13 mile from the Little Tennessee
River) connecting to US 64/23/441. Both Allman Drive and Dowdle Mountain Road are realigned to
form "T" intersections with Alternative D. Alternative D includes improvements to US 23/441. The
median on US 23/441 at Siler Road will be closed and the signal at the intersection will be removed. A
new signal will be located to the south at the intersection of US 23/441 and Allman Drive. Alternative D
is approximately 1.26 miles long.
T3:pical Section and Design Criteria - The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with
' eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). The design speed is 40
mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum
and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative D and Dowdle Mountain Road.
2.2.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of a
roadway within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing
or adding additional through lanes to the existing road. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping,
signing, signalization, and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements. Examples
of TSM operational improvements include traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control, and
signal timing changes. TSM improvements alone would not increase capacity or improve levels-of-service
enough to prevent failing traffic conditions in the future design year 2030. Therefore, the TSM
Alternative does not meet the purpose and need and is eliminated from further consideration.
2.2.6 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The project study area is not currently served by mass transit. A mass transit alternative would not
address the purpose and need of the proposed project. It would not provide access to sites slated for
development and would only minimally address the current traffic flow problems in the area. In addition,
it would not be a reasonable alternative because of potential lack of demand, dispersed residential areas
and employment centers, and diversity of trip origins and destinations. The Mass Transit Alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
2.2.7 RIGHT-OF-WAY
The expected right-of-way for the proposed project is between 100 and 300 feet, depending upon
topography and which alternative is selected.
2.2.8 ACCESS CONTROL
The project does not control access from properties adjacent to the proposed facilities. Siler Road and
Wiley Brown Road currently have no control of access. Access to connecting roads is provided with at-
grade intersections. Access to adjacent properties is provided with driveways. Full access control is
designated along US 64/23/441 interchange ramps.
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2-3

2.2.9 BIKEWAYS/SIDEWALKS
There are no designated bicycle lanes or pedestrian accommodations on roads that will adjoin the
proposed project. None are currently planned for the new roadway.
2.2.1 O COST ESTIMATE
Construction cost estimates for project alternatives are provided in Table 13. The cost estimates for
Alternatives A, B and C include the cost of constructing a new bridge over the Little Tennessee River.
Project estimates shown in the 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement Program are $100,000 for right-
of-way, $8,000,000 for construction, $88,000 for mitigation, and $400,000 in prior year costs.
Table 13. Summary of Alternative Costs
Construction
Alternative A
Alternatkc I3
Altcrnati? c C
Altcrnaticc D
Option
Intersection $6,800,000 $8,100,000 $7,400,000 $8,200,000
Roundabout Option $6,500,000 $7,900,000 $7,400,000 $8,300,000
Right-of-way $923,000 $1,730,000 $1,656,500 $2,385,000
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2-4
' 3.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
t This chapter describes the possible effects of the proposed project on existing and anticipated future
characteristics of the project area. The impacts described in this chapter include those related to social
and economic conditions, cultural resources, environmental justice, hazardous materials and underground
storage tanks, air quality, noise, the natural environment, biotic resources, and indirect and cumulative
impacts. Anticipated permitting requirements and mitigation are also discussed. Copies of related agency
correspondence are included in Appendix B.
3.1 SOCIAL
Demographic and economic data are presented in Section 1.6.
3.1.1 LAND USE
' Most of the land in the study area is zoned as Residential and is in rural residential use. Exceptions occur
along US 23/441 and at US 64/23/441 and SR 1701. Much of the land in the vicinity of the proposed
alternatives undeveloped land in the study area, primarily wooded west of the Little Tennessee River and
open field east of the river. Much of the land in the vicinity of the proposed alternatives is forested west
of the Little Tennessee River and pastureland and open field east of the river.
Land along Siler Road is in transition from rural residential to business, institutional, and more densely
' developed residential uses. Several homes near the US 23/441 intersection have been demolished to
make way for other uses. Approximately 80 to 88 residential units are planned for construction near a
recently developed bank at US 23/441 and Siler Road. A six-building campus for Southwestern
Community College, which will be the college's main campus, is under construction on the southern end
of Siler Road. A regional library is planned adjacent to the college.
Approximately 11 acres of property has been purchased south of Siler Road and north of SR 1687
(Allman Drive). Potential plans for this property include restaurants and retail along US 23/441 and a
mixed-used development with a walkable-type community consisting of residences and service
businesses.
Other new development is also being planned in and near the study area north and south of
US 64/23/441 west of the Little Tennessee River. A resort theme park with extensive retail and other
activities modeled after the fictional town of Mayberry is proposed north of US 64/23/441. Support
services such as hotels, restaurants, and retail shops designed to fit in with the Mayberry development
theme are proposed south of US 64/23/441.
Another potential land use change may occur on the east side of the Little Tennessee River south of
US 64/23/441. Information obtained at separate meetings with Macon County's planner and the
Mayberry developer indicates that a big box retailer is looking at the property for purchase and
negotiations are in the "due diligence" stage. Typically, this type of development encourages additional
commercial and service-related businesses on out-parcels.
The Town of Franklin is in the process of developing a growth plan. The draft form of the plan (Prindples
of Growth for the Town of Franklin, September 26, 2006) is available on the Town's website. The Plan
emphasizes preserving Franklin's sense of place and traditional character. Mixed-use development is
encouraged that will promote connectivity, walkability, and a sense of community. The Plan supports
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-?
compact building design that will direct communities to grow vertically rather than horizontally, reducing
the footprint of new development, impervious surfaces, and stormwater runoff. Protection of the natural
environment is important in the Plan because the area's rivers and mountain landscapes are considered
closely tied to the Town's sense of place. Community and stakeholder collaboration is encouraged. The
Town supports incorporating into the Zoning Ordinance a process to facilitate neighborhood
compatibility meetings between developers and neighboring property owners and residents for
developments likely to have considerable impact.
3.1.2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
In general, community services and facilities include emergency services such as fire, police and EMS,
community centers, schools and universities, libraries, senior centers, hospitals, prisons, and places of
worship.
The study area receives fire and emergency management services from the Town of Franklin. Some areas
in the southeastern portion of the study area are served through Clark's Chapel Fire District. The Macon
County Sheriff's Office serves citizens who are outside of Town of Franklin limits. None of these service
providers are located within the study area.
An urgent care facility is located on the west side of US 23/441 near the US 64/23/441 interchange.
Macon Middle School is located on Wells Grove Road. It is outside of the study area but is a major
generator of traffic within the study area.
3.1.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
LAND LINE IMPACTS
The proposed project will likely result in new land uses because of improved access to undeveloped sites.
As previously discussed, the surrounding area is mostly rural residential.
Although the project may induce changes in land use, it is not inconsistent with the emerging trend of
residential and rural uses transitioning to business and institutional uses in the study area. There are no
local land use plans, but citizens who attended the project's Citizens Informational Workshop voiced
their support of the new road, in particular to provide improved access for the community college and
library, and to improve traffic flow in the area.
EMPLOYMENT
The Town of Franklin has a high percentage of persons below the poverty level. The high percentage
could in part be due to a high number of retired persons living on fixed incomes, but could also be due
partly to the lack of good paying jobs in the area. The proposed roadway will provide access to areas
slated for development. These developments are expected to result in employment opportunities.
However, restaurant, hotel, and retail businesses would not likely offer many high paying positions.
RELOCATIONS
It is anticipated that Alternative D will have one business relocation and six residential relocations (Table
14). Alternative C is expected to result in four residential displacements. Alternatives A and B, and the
No Build Alternative will not result in any residential or business displacements.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-2

Table 14. Potential Business and Residential Relocations.
Relocation Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Residential 0 0 4 6
Business 0 0 0 1
All property acquisitions are subject to the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended. This Act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced
from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by Federal and federally assisted
programs, and establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Relocation assistance payments and counseling will be provided to persons and businesses in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act, as
Amended, to ensure adequate relocation and a decent, safe, and sanitary home for displaced residents. All
eligible displaces will be entitled to moving expenses. All benefits and services will be provided equitably
to all residential and business relocates without regard to race, color, religion, age, national origins and
disability as specified under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
' will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
' ¦ Relocation Assistance
¦ Relocation Moving Payments
i ¦ Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The noted regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are compensated fairly for the loss
' of value to their property.

J
IVE11914HORM70D COHESION
The proposed project will not separate any existing neighborhoods, or isolate portions of the existing
community. Part of the project's purpose is to create access to sites slated for development. This new
development would impact the surrounding community by changing the rural character to a more
suburban character. While some residents may be in favor of this type of change, others may experience
distress as the characteristics of their surroundings become less rural.
TRAVEL PATTERNS AND ACCESSIBILITY
If a new location route that bridges the river is chosen, it would connect major developments that are
anticipated on both sides of the Little Tennessee River and provide an alternate route for traffic traveling
between these locations. This would minimize the amount of traffic that would utilize the regional roads
for local trips. Alternatives A, B, and C would provide new access to Siler Road from the east, and could
decrease response times for Clark's Chapel Fire and Rescue, particularly to citizens along Siler Road.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-3
Alternative D is not expected to change travel patterns since it will not provide a bridge across the Little
Tennessee River. However, it (Alternative D) will provide increased accessibility to land currently being
developed or available for development east and west of the river.
urIc/r/Es
Several utilities extend along Siler Road. A water line owned by the Town of Franklin is located on the
north side of Siler Road from US 441 to the community college. A gas line owned by Toccoa Natural
Gas and a phone line owned by Verizon extend along the south side of Siler Road from US 441 to the
community college.
Utilities along Allman Drive include a water line owned by the Town of Franklin and a television cable
owned by MediaCom. Both extend from US 441 on the south side of Allman Drive.
A sewer line for the community college will extend along the west side of the Little Tennessee River. A
major transmission line owned by Duke Energy extends along the east side of the river. Other overhead
lines also run along roads throughout the project area.
Balsam West owns a fiber optic line located parallel to US 64 on the south side from US 441 to Dowdle
Mountain Road. The line extends on the west side of Dowdle Mountain Road to the intersection with
Wiley Brown Road, then extends under Dowdle Mountain Road and continues on the north side of
Wiley Brown Road. A Verizon phone line is located on the north side of Dowdle Mountain Road.
Table 15 shows the estimated number of utility crossings associated with Alternatives A through D.
Table 15. Potential Utility Crossings by Alternative.
Utilitv Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Water line north of Siler
Road 2 2 2 2
Gas line 1 1 1 2
Phone lines 2 3 4 5
Fiber optic lines 2 1 1 1
Major transmission line 1 1 1 --
Sewer line -- 1 -- --
Water line south of

Allman Drive
2
Television cable -- -- -- 2
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-4
PEDESTRIANS AND BIKES
' No pedestrians or cyclists were observed in the project study area during field visits. There are no
designated bike lanes or pedestrian accommodations on Siler Road, Wiley Brown Road, or Dowdle
Mountain Road. Alternatives for the proposed project do not include plans for pedestrian or cyclist
t accommodations. The project is not expected to impact pedestrians or cyclists in the study area.
The greenway adjacent to the Little Tennessee River will require minor realignment for Alternative C.
This realignment is not expected to negatively or positively impact greenway users.
SERVICES
' Alternatives A, B, and C provide emergency responders alternative access across the Little Tennessee
River from the east to properties in the area west of the Little Tennessee River that include some
residential uses, the proposed developments to support the Mayberry theme park, and the community
' college and library. It is anticipated that Alternatives A, B and C would enhance emergency response
times to these properties. Alternative D is not expected to provide notable increases in emergency
response times.
' 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Scoping comments received from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated January 5, 2006, indicate that the project would not affect
any historic structures. The SHPO indicates that there are no known recorded archaeological sites within
the project area. However, the project area has not been surveyed to determine the location or
significance of archaeological resources and based on the hydrology and topography of the area, as well
as the density of sites in the region, the probability for the presence of sites is high. The SHPO
recommends a comprehensive survey of the area and assessment of potential affects be made prior to the
initiation of construction (see Appendix B). The NCDOT has committed to performing a comprehensive
survey on the selected alternative (see Green Sheet).
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The purpose of federal Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, is to identify, address, and avoid
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low-
income populations.
The Department of Transportation Order 5610.2 (1991) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Order 6640.23 define Adverse Effects, in part, as the totality of significant individual or cumulative
human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may
include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water
pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction
or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's
economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private services; vibration;
adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations;
increased traffic congestion; isolation; exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals
within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant
delay in the receipt of benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities."
These Orders also define disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income
populations as an adverse effect that:
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-5
1. Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population; or
2. Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably
more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-
minority population and/or non low-income population.
Mobile homes on Siler Road near the eastern end are expected to house low-income persons. Alternative
C may impact three mobile homes on Siler Road and Alternative D may impact two of mobile homes on
Siler Road, which could result in displacements. Alternative D could also impact two additional mobile
homes near its western terminus that may house low-income persons. The project has the potential to
benefit the local community through increased economic vitality and employment opportunities. Though
a small number of low-income persons could be impacted through displacements, the project is not
expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on
populations of minorities or low-income persons.
3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
3.4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on a field study conducted by NCDOT in January 2006, two active underground storage tank
(UST) sites were identified within the project area. These sites are listed in Table 16. No hazardous
waste sites, landfills, or other geo-environmental concerns were noted. Soil and groundwater assessments
will be conducted at each of the UST sites, if necessary, after identification of the selected alternative and
prior to right-of-way acquisition.
Table 16. Underground Storage Tank Locations.
Site UST Owner Address UST Facility
ID Number Atlticihated Impacts
(Severity)
Petroleum
1 Mountain Energy Corp 15 Allman Drive 0-035422 contaminated soil
(Negligible to Low
Petroleum
376 Dowdle Mountain
2 BB&R
LLC 0-036698 contaminated soil
, Road
Le li ble to Low
3.4.2 GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
NCDOT conducted an abridged geotechnical investigation for 0.6 mile of new alignment from SR 1660
to SR 1662, which includes a new bridge over the Little Tennessee River. A subsurface investigation was
not conducted for this project, although borings from the foundation investigation of US 64/23/441
were reviewed.
Along the investigated corridor, valley slopes were noted to be steep with no outcrops of rock observed.
Ridgetop soils are intensely weathered with a thick clay mantle underlain by deep silty saprolite. Side
slopes are anticipated to have a thin clay residuum underlain by some silty saprolitic soil and weathered
rock. Valley soils are anticipated to be predominantly sandy and from ten to 16 feet deep with a dense
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-6
basal alluvial cobble layer underlain by saprolite and weathered rock. Hard rock encountered in borings
at the US 64/23/441 site was variable in depth ranging from 10.5 feet to deeper than 38 feet below the
streambed.
Alignments A, B and C may require a tall bridge with drilled shaft foundations for the interior bents and
piles for the end bents. Most of the earthwork may be fill requiring borrow. Preliminary findings
indicate slopes should be constructed at 2.1 (Horizontal.Vertical) or flatter.
1 3.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Field investigations were conducted by qualified biologists from April 2006 through June 2006 to assess
the existing natural environment within the project area. Details of the methodology and investigations
supporting the information provided in this section are provided in the Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) completed in November 2006. A copy of the NRTR can be reviewed in Room 447
(Library) of the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.
3.5.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The proposed project is located in east-central Macon County in the Mountain physiographic province of
western North Carolina. The geography of the county is predominantly mountainous, with steep areas
following major rivers and streams. Narrow, gently sloping floodplains exist along most of the streams
I and rivers. Elevations in the project study area range from approximately 2,010 feet above mean sea level
(msl) along the Little Tennessee River, at the US 64/23/441 bridge, to approximately 2,160 feet above
msl at the southwestern end of the project study area, as depicted on the Franklin and Corbin Knob,
North Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle maps.
3.5.2 SOILS
The process of soil development depends on both biotic and abiotic influences. These influences include
past geologic activities, nature of parent materials, human influences, plant and animal activity, time,
climate, and topographical position. Soil associations are defined as landscapes that exhibit distinctive
' development patterns, and usually vary in slope, stoniness, drainage, and other physical characteristics.
Three general soil mapping associations are present within the project study area: Rosman-Reddies-Toxaway,
Hayesville-Braddock, and Evard-Cowee-Saunook.
' Soils within the Rosman-Reddies-Toxaway general soil association are nearly level, well drained to very
poorly drained soils that are very deep to moderately deep to strata of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Rosman
soils make up about 25 percent of this map unit, Reddies soils make up about 17 percent, and Toxaway
soils make up about ten percent. Other soils prevalent within this general soil map unit are Arkaqua,
Biltmore, Dellwood, and Nikwasi soils on the floodplains, and Dillard, Hemphill, and Statler soils on the
stream terraces. Most areas of this unit have been cleared of trees and are used for pasture or crops.
' This general soil map unit is found on the floodplain and slopes along the Cullasaja River in the eastern
extent of the project area.
Soils within the Hayesville-Braddock general soil association are gently sloping to moderately steep, very
' deep, well drained soils primarily found on uplands and high stream terraces. Hayesville soils make up
about 46 percent of this map unit and Braddock soils make up about 18 percent. Other soils prevalent
within the general soil map unit are Saunook soils in coves, on toe slopes, and along drainageways;
Dillsboro soils on high stream terraces; Cowee and Evard soils on low mountains; and Nikwasi and
Reddies soils on floodplains. Within the project area, this general soil map unit is located between the

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-7

Cullasaja River and the Little Tennessee River, and includes the Little Tennessee River floodplain. It is
also found along US 23/441 in the western extent of the project area.
Soils within the Evard-Cowee-Saunook general soil association are strongly sloping to very steep, very
deep to moderately deep, well drained soils. They are typically found on uplands. This map unit is the
most common general soil map unit in the county, representing about 38 percent. Evard soils make up
about 41percent of this map unit, Cowee soils make up about 18 percent, and Saunook soils comprise
nearly 11 percent. The minor soils include Trimont soils on north to east facing side slopes; Dellwood,
Nikwasi, and Reddies soils on floodplains; Cullasaja and Tuckasegee soils in coves; Chestnut and
Edneyville soils on intermediate mountains; and Fannin soils on low mountains. Most areas of this unit
are used for timber production as well as for public recreation activities such as hiking, camping, fishing,
hunting, and sightseeing. The Evard-Cowee-Saunook general soil unit comprises the majority of the
project study area, predominantly the area between the Little Tennessee River and US 23/441.
HYOR/C SOILS
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic
vegetation. A growing season is the portion of a year when the soil temperature measured 20 inches
below the soil surface is above 41 °F (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Based on data available from
the NRCS National Weather and Climate Center stations the growing season for Macon County generally
occurs between mid-April and mid-October.
Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are completely hydric throughout the mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils
are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils, usually in depressional areas or along the
border with other soil units. Based on the Macon County soil survey, one Hydric A soil map unit occurs
in the project area: Toxaway loam (ToA). This soil map unit is found in the northern portion of the
Cartoogechaye Creek floodplain and in the northwest portion of the Little Tennessee River floodplain.
3.5.3 FARMLAND
All alternatives include soils that are recognized as important farmlands by the US Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (www.nc.nres.usda.gov/programs/
soilsurvey/primefarmland.html). Important farmlands include three categories of soils: prime farmlands,
unique farmlands, and statewide importance. Federal agencies are directed to consider impacts to
important farmlands under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. State agencies are directed to consider
impacts to farmlands under North Carolina Executive Order 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands.
Farmland conversion impact rating forms were completed for this project and sent to the NRCS for
assessment of impacts to important farmlands. Estimated impacts to important farmland soils are 2.51
acres from Alternative A, 5.27 acres from Alternative B, 9.41 acres from Alternative C, and 10.77 acres
from Alternative D. None of the important farmland soils that could be impacted by the proposed
project are in areas known to be managed for crop production. A minor amount of these soils are within
an area along the Alternative B alignment that may be used for timber production. Based upon impact
rating forms and estimated impacts, no further coordination with the NRCS is anticipated.
Areas used by small family farms for livestock grazing may be impacted by Alternatives B, C, and D.
Alternative C appears most likely to bisect grazing areas that would result in potential challenges in
moving livestock. A livestock crossing facility could be considered, but since these are small family farms
with limited livestock rather than large livestock operations, a livestock crossing facility may not be
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-8

warranted. Farmers may incur expenditures associated with changes in grazing operations, such as new
' fencing.
' 3.5.4 WATER RESOURCES
The project study area is located within Little Tennessee subbasin 04-04-01 in North Carolina. The study
area is in USGS hydrologic unit 06010202. A total of 15 streams make up the water resources present in
the study are, including: the Little Tennessee River and seven of its unnamed tributaries (UTs), the
' Cullasaja River and two of its UTs, and Cartoogechaye Creek and three of its UTs.
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Per NCDWQ
guidelines, tributaries not listed in NCDWQ records are assumed to have the same classification as the
' waterbody they drain to. The Little Tennessee River and its tributaries are designated Class C. Class C
indicates waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
' survival, agriculture and other uses. The Cullasaja River and Cartoogechaye Creek are designated Class
B Tr by NCDWQ. Class B indicates waters used for primary recreation (swimming, skin diving, water
skiing, and similar uses) and other uses suitable for Class C. Trout water (Tr) indicates freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The North Carolina Division of
Land Resources requires a 25-foot vegetated buffer between trout waters and graded construction sites.
No high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply waters (WS I-V) or
critical areas (CA) occur within the study area. There are no NCDWQ buffer rules currently in force for
' the Little Tennessee River Basin.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting
' water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Waters may be excluded from the list if existing
control strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution will achieve the standards or uses (NCDWQ,
1999 and 2002). North Carolina's 303(d) report is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies in the state. There are no 303(d) listed streams in the study area. Sections of the Cullasaja
' and Little Tennessee Rivers upstream of the project area are listed on the draft 2006 Integrated 305(b)
and 303(d) Report as having impaired biological integrity, specifically upon aquatic life. The report
suspects that the problem is due to constructed dams, as well as sources outside state jurisdiction or
boundaries. No benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted for this project.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality data.
' The type of water-quality data or parameters collected is determined by the waterbody's classification and
corresponding water quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of waterbodies,
meaning how well a waterbody supports its designated uses. An ambient monitoring station (AMS) is
located on Cartoogechaye Creek at SR 1152 in Macon County (G0130000), approximately 0.15 mile
upstream of its crossing of US 441/23, and approximately 800 feet west of the western project terminus.
There are two AMS locations on the Little Tennessee River. One AMS is located at NC Highway 28
' near Ioda in Macon County (G2000000), approximately 5.0 miles downstream of the US 64/441/23
crossing. The second Little Tennessee River AMS is located at SR 1651 near Prentiss in Macon County
(G0035000), approximately 2.9 miles upstream of its US 64/441/23 crossing. At these locations,
turbidity, fecal coliform, copper, and iron occasionally exceeded reference levels. These data are
primarily associated with large rainfall events and represent relatively minor water quality concerns.
Bioclassification criteria have been developed that are based on the number and type of benthic
' macroinvertebrates (primarily Orders: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera) present in streams
and rivers because they are very sensitive to the effects of water pollution. Streams and river reaches are
then given a bioclassification rating that ranges from "Excellent" to "Poor" based on benthic
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-9
macroinvertebrate collection data. These bioclassifications, which have been developed for North
Carolina's major ecoregions, are used to assess the various impacts of both point source discharges and
non-point source runoff. Eleven NCDWQ benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations are located on
waterbodies that occur in the study area; however, none of these locations occur within the study area
itself.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
permit. According to the April 13, 2006 list of active NPDES permits issued by NCDWQ, there are 11
permitted dischargers within the 04-04-01 subbasin. There is one major discharger in the subbasin,
Town of Franklin - Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on the Little Tennessee River
approximately 2.3 miles downstream of the project study area. The Town of Franklin WWTP is a
municipal plant discharging approximately 1.65 million gallons per day (MGD). The remaining ten minor
dischargers are also located outside of the project study area; however, because they are all located
upstream, they are within shared watersheds to the project area. The closest of the minor dischargers,
Macon Middle School WWTP, is located along the Cullasaja River approximately 0.5 mile upstream of
the project area. This is the only discharger within a one-mile radius of the project study area.
The primary sources of water quality degradation in rural and moderately undeveloped areas are non-
point sources of discharge, which include agriculture, surface water runoff, and construction activities.
Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased sedimentation
and turbidity. Long-term construction related impacts to water resources include substrate
destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature fluctuations
within the channel due to removal of streamside vegetation.
3.5.5 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three plant communities were observed in the project study area: mixed pine/hardwood forest, oak-
hickory forest, and urban/disturbed land (see Figure 5 in Appendix A).
The mixed pine-hardwood forest community is found in the moderate to higher elevations throughout
the project area. This community is a variation of the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest identified by
Schafale and Weakley, with an increased amount of pine. These communities occur on acidic soils in
lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes, ravines, and occasionally well-drained small stream bottoms.
Under natural conditions they are uneven-aged with old trees present; however, there are only a few
locales within the project study area that contain older trees. This lack of older trees or large areas of
uneven aged timber can be attributed to past disturbance activities such as agriculture and forest
management. This community commonly represents the stage in the succession of forest development
following disturbance. Reproduction occurs mainly in canopy gaps, with disturbed areas having
increased amounts of pines and weedy hardwoods such as yellow poplar and sweetgum. The dominant
species include shordeaf pine, loblolly pine, sweet gum, northern red oak, eastern red cedar, and red
maple. This community represents about 31 percent of the project study area.
The oak-hickory forest community makes up less than one percent of the project study area. This is
likely due to the significant land conversions that have taken place over the past 100 years. The oak-
hickory forest typically follows the pine-hardwood forest in the forest succession, which followed the
original clearing; therefore, much time has to pass before the forest returns to the oak-hickory vegetative
community. The oak-hickory forest is located in areas that have not had significant disturbance for a
long time (>40 years). Often these areas were found to be either too steep, too rocky, or the soils too
basic for good agricultural land. There is only one example of this type of vegetative community in the
project study area located on a steep, south-facing slope overlooking the Cartoogechaye Creek floodplain.
The canopy is dominated by a diverse number of oak species including northern red oak, white oak, black
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-10
J

oak, and post oak (Ouercus stellata), with pignut hickory (Caryaglabra) and mockernut hickory (Carya
' tomentosa) spread throughout. Other species commonly present include red maple, flowering dogwood,
eastern red cedar, southern sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
The urban/disturbed community is the most dominant vegetative community, making up about 64
percent of the project study area. It consists of areas that are periodically maintained by human
influences, such as roadside and power line rights-of-way, regularly mowed lawns, commercial and
industrial properties, and open areas. This community is prevalent throughout the project study area,
t primarily in the form of open cattle pasture. Vegetation within these areas tends to be low growing and
contains many species of annuals and perennials, including broomsedge, Bermuda grass, foxtail grass
(Seteria spp.), and blackberry. The tree species include honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), American beech,
' northern red oak, and white oak. Small man-made wetland areas such as stormwater and sedimentation
retention ponds are located in this community. Most of these areas are federally non-jurisdictional
wetlands.
1 3.5.6 WILDLIFE

i

1

The forested and man-dominated communities in the project study area offer a good diversity of
foraging, nesting, and cover habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Species that may be associated with these types of communities are described below. An asterisk (*)
indicates the species that were directly observed or for which evidence was noted during field
reconnaissance.
Reptile species associated with the project study area likely include timber rattlesnake (Crotalus borridus)
and rat snake (Elapbe obsoleta). Timber rattlesnakes inhabit rocky hillsides and river valleys, and forage
primarily on small mammals. The northern water snake is commonly observed resting on overhanging
limbs and logs at the water's edge, and it forages primarily on fish and amphibians. Rat snakes are very
common, inhabiting most any environment in the state. They forage on small mammals, birds, and eggs.
Other reptiles such as the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) are also present within the project study area. The eastern box
turtle is a docile turtle that feeds on a wide variety of plants and small animals. The eastern fence lizard is
commonly found in the urban/disturbed environment feeding on small to medium sized invertebrates.
The five-lined skink is often observed scurrying along fences or rocks in full sunlight, feeding on
arthropods such as spiders, crickets, grasshoppers, and beetles.
Many bird species may inhabit or migrate through the project study area. These include the downy
woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), barn
swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor), American
robin* (Turdus migratorius), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Game species such as woodcock (Scolopax minor), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) and wild turkey (Meleagris
gallopaw) may also be present. Predatory species include red-tailed hawk* (Buteo famaicensis) and eastern
screech owl (Otus asio).
A diverse mammal population is expected to inhabit the project area and surrounding landscape. Virginia
opossum (Dide0bis virginiana), star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), eastern cottontail* (Sylvilagus floridanus),
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel* (Sdurus carolinensis), eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys bumulis), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern spotted skunk
(Spilogale putorius), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are likely inhabitants of the project region.
In addition, bats such as the little brown myotis (Myotis ludfugus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus),
and Rafinesque's big-eared (Plecotus rafinesquii) may be present in the project study area.
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-1 1

ANTICIPATED 116PACT3 TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities are provided in Table 16. Impacts were predicted based on
preliminary roadway designs.
Table 17. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities

C
lt
T Acres of Impact
om(IlUn
e
VPC
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C Alt. D
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58
Oak/Hickory Forest - - - -
Urban/Disturbed Community 10.23 14.53 19.3 21.17
FOE::: 18.4 25.0 20.38 27.75
Source: Mulkey, Inc., November 2006 and Mulkey, Inc., January 2007
Impacts are based upon mechanized clearing ten feet past slope stakes.
Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal species which utilize terrestrial areas is anticipated during
the course of construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and subterranean organisms will be directly
impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
Habitat reduction or fragmentation may also occur when an ecosystem is disturbed and can lead to
creation of smaller or isolated biotic communities. Competitive forces in the adapted communities will
result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
3.5.7 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
A diversity of aquatic habitat is expected throughout the project area because of several factors, including
fast flowing water and a relatively well-protected watershed. This environment creates a fairly rich
species diversity of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and fish living interdependently.
The project study area likely exhibits a diverse amphibian population. Species such as the eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viiidescens), and various salamanders including the mountain dusky (Desmognathus
ochrophaeus), two-lined (Eurycea bislineata), Jordan's (Plethodon jordant), and red (Pseudotriton Tuber) may exist
within the project study area. Newts and salamanders forage on insects, both aquatic and terrestrial,
crustaceans, worms, and other organisms along the forest floor and the various tributaries. The eastern
newt spends its juvenile life in wooded areas adjacent to streams. Once it reaches adulthood, the newt
inhabits primarily streams. Salamanders can be found in a variety of habitats, though most are associated
with small streams and seepages. Salamanders are found primarily in terrestrial habitats immediately
adjacent to streams or other aquatic habitats under rocks, leaves, and woody debris. In addition, spring
peepers (Hyla crucifer) and pickerel frogs (Rana palustris) are also likely present. Spring peepers mainly
inhabit woodlands while pickerel frogs are found along shaded streams and wet areas. No amphibians
were observed during field surveys.
Reptiles that spend the majority of their lives in aquatic communities and are somewhat common
throughout this portion of North Carolina include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Turtles eat small invertebrates, insects, snails, and small aquatic plants, and
they nest both in the water and on dry land. The northern water snake eats primarily small fish and
amphibians and is often found on the edges of streams, in wetlands, and on low, overhanging vegetation.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3- 1 2

t
There are only a few aquatic mammals in the Mountains; however, species such as muskrat (Ondatra
#bethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and mink (Mustela vison) are likely to utilize waters in and around the
' project area. These animals are generally secretive and nocturnal. Both the muskrat and beaver are
herbivores; however, the mink is carnivorous, feeding on small fish, reptiles, and mammals.
' Fish that are likely to utilize waters in the project study area include smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), Tennessee shiner (Notropis leudodus), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brook trout (Salvelinus
' fontinalis). These fish feed on a variety of living and organic matter, including algae, insects, worms,
crustaceans, snails, and detritus. The trout species are often from stocked populations introduced into
Cartoogechaye Creek and the Cullasaja River both in and around the project study area. Comments
received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) indicate that Cartoogechaye
' Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) in the project vicinity
and the Cullasaja River is DPMTW just upstream of the project.
' C
OMMUNITIES
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO AQUAT/C
Project construction for road widening or new roadway alignment will impact soils and topography
' within the project area. The primary sources of water quality degradation in developed and urban areas
are non-point sources of discharge, which include surface water runoff and construction activities. Short-
term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include loss of aesthetic values,
increased sedimentation, and turbidity. Long-term construction-related impacts to water resources
' include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible
temperature fluctuations within the channel resulting from removal of streamside vegetation. Precautions
should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources from runoff and erosion in the project area.

Aquatic communities are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment. Impacts from construction
activities may result in long-term or irreversible effects. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid
spillage and to control runoff. Such measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
' provisions for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management PracticesforProtection of Surface Waters (BMPs - PSW)
' and sedimentation control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the
project. Long-term impacts to water resources may include permanent changes to the stream banks and
temperature increases caused by the removal of stream-side vegetation.
The removal of stream-side vegetation and placement of fill material during construction contributes to
' erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts by
supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and
' other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand bars may be
formed both at the site and downstream. Increased light penetration from the removal of stream side
vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic
life that depends on high oxygen concentrations.

3.5.8 JURISDICTIDNAL RESOURCES
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States."
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative agency of the Clean
' Water Act; however, the USACE has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement
of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-13

Surface waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) and wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual states for regulation of discharges into
"Waters of the United States." Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution Control and
Environment" and codified in NCAC 15A, the NCDWQ has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act.
SURFACE WATERS
The NCDWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for the majority
of the year (greater than 90 percent of the time). These channels usually have some or all of the
following characteristics: distinctive stream bed and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or
discharge. An intermittent stream is defined as a clearly defined channel that contains water for all but
the driest months of the year. Both perennial and intermittent streams are jurisdictional under state and
federal regulations. There are 15 stream channels located within the project study area (see Figure 6 in
Appendix A). Agency verification was conducted with the USACE and NCDWQ to determine the
jurisdictional status of the study area streams on July 21, 2006. The NCDWQ concurred with the
jurisdictional status of all streams in the study area. No concurrence has been issued by the USACE as of
the date of this report.
During the agency verification meeting it was mentioned by the USACE that the UT to Cullasaja River
was previously impacted by prior construction activities. If additional impacts to the stream result from
construction activities associated with the current project, investigation into the extent of the permitted
impacts should be conducted to determine additional mitigation requirements.
WETLANDS
Wetlands are defined by the USACE as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater long enough and frequently enough under normal conditions to support a prevalence of
vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Based on this. definition, delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands is based on the presence of three diagnostic indicators: hydrophyric vegetation,
hydric soils, and hydrology.
Four wetland areas that have been identified and located within the project study area (Figure 6). These
wetland areas were verified by the USACE during the agency verification meeting held on July 21, 2006.
Original field investigations resulted in the delineations of five wetland areas; however, one of these
wetlands (wetland WA) was determined to be non-jurisdictional by the USACE. Plat maps showing the
location and coordinates of all wetland boundaries within the study area have been submitted to the
USACE for signature, however, written concurrence has not been received from the USACE as of the
date of this report.
During the agency verification meeting it was determined that impacts to wetland WB (see Figure 6 in
Appendix A) had been previously permitted under a separate development project. If additional impacts
to wetland WB result from construction activities associated with this project, investigation into the
extent of the permitted impacts will be conducted.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-14
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
' Impacts to "Waters of the United States" are estimated based on preliminary designs and include
mechanized clearing ten feet past slope stakes (Table 18). The NCDWQ may consider areas directly
beneath a bridge to be impacted due to hand clearing and other disturbances resulting from construction.
' Table 18 does not include impacts resulting from bridging.
Table 18. Impacts to Waters of the United States.
Alternative Wetland Impacts
(ac.) Surface WaterImpacts
(if.)
A 0.024 580.5
B - -
C - -
D - 311.0
Source: Mulkey, Inc., November 2006 and Mulkey, Inc., January 2007
' The No Build Alternative would not impact Waters of the United States.
3.5.9 PROTECTED SPECIES
' Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
' species classified as federally-protected be subject to review by the USFWS. Prohibited actions which
may affect any species protected under the ESA are outlined in Section 9 of the Act.
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered (E) or threatened (T) are recorded in
' Section 4 of the ESA. As defined by the ESA, an endangered species is any plant or animal, which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A
threatened species is any species, which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
' future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
FEOERALLY PROTECTED SPEC/ES
Table 19 lists federally-protected species occurring in Macon County as of the USFWS May 10, 2007 list.
Species descriptions and biological conclusions follow. Natural Heritage Program (NIP) data (updated
March 2007) were reviewed on May 10, 2006 and May 14, 2007 to determine if any protected species
were identified near the project area. If suitable habitat for a protected species was present, pedestrian
surveys were conducted.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-15
Table 19. Federally-Protected Species for Macon County.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status Suitable
Habitat Bioloflical
T conclusion
Bog turtle Clemmys mublenbegii Threatened (S/A)t Yes N/A
Indiana bat (S)2 Myotis sodalis Endangered No No Effect

Spotfin chub
Erimonax monacbus
Threatened
Yes May Affect, Likely
to Adversely Affect
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered Yes No Effect
Little-wing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered Yes No Effect
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened Yes No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened Yes No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma kneare Endangered No No Effect
Threatened due to similarity of appearance.
2 Summer habitat
In addition to species listed as endangered or threatened, critical habitat areas are also recorded under
Section 4 of the ESA. As defined by USFWS, critical habitat is "specific geographic areas, whether
occupied by a listed species or not, that are essential for their conservation and that have been formally
designated by rule published in the Federal Register." As of the May 10, 2007 list, the USFWS identified
the Little Tennessee River as critical habitat for spotfin chub (Erimonax monacbus) from the backwaters of
Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line. This section of the Little Tennessee
River was listed September 22, 1977 in Federal Register 42:47840-47845 and includes those portions of
the Little Tennessee River in the project study area.
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenberg*)
Federal Status: Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
State Status: Threatened
Bog turtles are a small (3- to 4.5-inch) turtle with a weakly keeled carapace (upper shell) that ranges from
light brown to ebony. The species is readily distinguished from other turtles by a large, conspicuous,
bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and are only
infrequently active above their muddy habitats during specific times of the year and temperature ranges.
They can be found during the spring mating season from June to July and at other times from April to
October when the humidity is high, such as after a rain event, and temperatures are in the 70os. Bog
turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those
which have soft muddy bottoms. Appropriate habitat for the bog turtle consisting of bogs, swamps,
marshy meadows, and other wet environments with muddy bottoms does exist in the project area. The
bog turtle is listed as threatened (similar appearance) [T (S/A)] due to its similarity of appearance to
another rare species that is listed for protection. T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation
of the Endangered Species Act.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-16
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
' Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Unlisted
' The Indiana bat is a small flying mammal less than two inches (5.1 centimeters) long with a wingspan of
nine to 11 inches (22.9 to 27.9 centimeters) wide. It weighs about 0.3 ounces (9.3 grams) and has fur that
is brownish to grayish black above and buff to light brown below. The Indiana bat feeds only on insects,
including moths, beetles, flies, bees, wasps, flying ants, and mosquitos. It hibernates from October to
' April in large, dense clusters of up to several thousand individuals and requires caves and mines with
stable temperatures between 38°F and 43°F and high relative humidity. After emerging from
hibernation, the bats migrate to their summer roosting and feeding areas in eastern woodlands. A few
' individuals have been found under bridges and in old buildings, and several maternity colonies have been
found under loose bark and in the hollows of trees.
During the summer, Indiana bat maternity colonies require dead or dying trees with loose bark, a nearby
' water source, and areas to hunt for insects. The bats congregate under loose bark for warmth and
protection from the weather and predators. Summer foraging by females and juveniles is limited to
riparian and floodplain areas. Creeks are apparently not utilized if riparian trees have been removed.
I Females gather in maternity colonies of 25 to 300 individuals and give birth to a single young bat between
late June and early July. The young bats can fly within a month of birth. Males may roost in the vicinity
of the maternity colony, but not with the females and young. The bats spend the latter part of summer
building up fat reserves for their winter hibernation (USFWS, 1999).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
' Suitable habitat for the Indiana bat consisting of caverns, abandoned mines, snags, or shaggy-barked
mature trees is not present in the project study area. The NCNHP does not list any occurrences of the
Indiana bat within a one-mile radius of the project area. Therefore, this species will not be impacted as a
' result of project construction.
Spotfin chub (Errmonax monachus)
Federal Status: Threatened
State Status: Threatened
The spotfin chub is a small species that grows to a maximum size of 3.6 inches (9.2 centimeters) in
' length. The body is elongate with a distinctive large black spot in the caudal region. The mouth is
inferior and it usually has one pair of minute, terminal labial barbells. Juveniles and adult females are
olive colored above with the sides largely silvery and the lower parts white. Large nuptial males have
brilliant turquoise-royal blue coloring on the back, side of the head, and along the mid-lateral part of the
' body; lesser blue is found in at least some fins; all fins are tipped with satiny white during peak
development of color. Based on observations and morphological comparisons, it appears that the
spotfin chub is a sight feeder, selecting minute insect larvae from clean substrates.
' The age of sexual maturity is unclear since no observations of reproductive behavior are known. Its
maximum life span is suspected to be less than four years. Capture dates of specimens in breeding
' condition suggest that spawning occurs in June, possibly beginning in May and extending into July. It is
not unlikely that spotfin chub constructs nests or guards its eggs because none of the other chub species
that are close relatives have this behavior
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-17
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for spotfin chub consisting of rocky runs and pools in streams and small to medium-
sized rivers is present throughout the project area. The NCNHP lists one occurrence of spotfin chub in
the Cullasaja River approximately 0.25 mile upstream of the project study area. The occurrence was
noted by the NCNHP in 2001 and is located near the intersection of Wells Grove Road and SR 1653.
Additionally, the Little Tennessee River is designated as critical habitat for the spotfin chub in the project
area. If an alternative is chosen that crosses the Little Tennessee River, then a Section 7 Formal
Consultation and subsequently a Biological Assessment will be needed for the spotfin chub designated
critical habitat.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to about 3.2 inches in
length, 1.4 inches in height, and one inch in width. Juveniles generally have a yellowish-brown outer shell
surface, while the adult outer shell is usually dark brown to greenish-black in color. Rays may be
prominent on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell. Many individuals have only
obscure greenish colored rays. The inside shell surface is shiny, often white to bluish-white, changing to
a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell. Some specimens
may be marked with irregular brownish blotches.
The Appalachian elktoe is known to be endemic only to the upper Tennessee River system in western
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-
sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. It is most
often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and
gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to
be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with
accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe consisting of shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with
cool, well-oxygenated, moderate to fast flowing water is not present in the project study area. According
to a conversation with the USFWS, surveys performed in the past did not find mussels at the project
location; it was determined that suitable habitat does not exist there for the Appalachian elktoe.
Additionally, the NCNHP does not list any occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe within a one-mile
radius of the project area.
Little-wing pearlymussel (Pegias fibula)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The little-wing pearlymussel is a mollusk which is found in the drainage basins of the Tennessee and
Cumberland Rivers. No current populations are known to exist in North Carolina; however, an obscure
record of a population in Cherokee County from more than fifty years ago exists. The shells are small,
rarely exceeding 1.4 inches (35 mm) in length. The beak consists of heavy, subconcentric ridges, these
being most prominent and persistent on the posterior ridges. The inside of the shells are whitish to
salmon colored. The little-wing pearlymussel inhabits cool, clear, high-gradient streams. It is usually
found lying on top of or partially imbedded in sand and fine gravel between cobbles in only six to ten
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-18

inches (15.2 to 25.4 cm) of water, often in riffles. Host fish for this mussel include the greenside darter
(Etbeostoma blennioides) and the emerald darter (E. baileyz) (Bogan, 2002).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for little-wing pearly mussel consisting of cool, clear, high-gradient streams is not present
in the project study area. According to a conversation with the USFWS, surveys performed in the past
did not find mussels at the project location; it was determined that suitable habitat does not exist there
for the little-wing pearlymussel. The NCNHP does not list any occurrences of the little-wing
pearlymussel within a one-mile radius of the project area.
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
' Federal Status: Threatened
State Status: Endangered
Small-whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae with long, pubescent roots and a
smooth, hollow stem 3.8 to ten inches (9.5 to 25 centimeters) tall terminating in a whorl of five or six
light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and measure up to 1.6 to 3.2 inches (8 by 4
centimeters). It is distinguishable from similar species such as purple fiveleaf orchid (I. verticillata) and
Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana) by its hollow stem. These plants arise from long slender roots
with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green leaves. The single flower is
approximately one inch (2.5 centimeters) long, with yellowish-green to white petals and three longer
green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring from mid-May to mid June. This plant is believed to be
self-pollinating by mechanical processes. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended periods
of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of
the spring growing season.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in young as well as maturing (second- or third-growth) forests, but
typically grows in open, dry deciduous woods and areas along stream with acidic soils. It also grows in
rich, mesic woods in association with white pine and rhododendron. Habitat is characterized by sparse
to moderate ground cover, open understory canopy, and proximity to clearings such as roads, streams or
canopy gaps. When it occurs in habitat where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling
density, flowering appears to be inhibited.' Decaying organic matter such as wood litter from fallen limbs
and trees, leaves, bark or stumps may be important for plant growth as various types of decaying
vegetation are found in habitat of extant populations.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the small-whorled pogonia consisting of open, dry deciduous woods with acid soils
and rich cove hardwoods is present in the project study area, primarily along the rivers and larger streams.
A pedestrian survey was conducted on June 6, 2006. No occurrence of small-whorled pogonia was
found in the project study area during the plant-by-plant survey. In addition, the NCNHP does not list
any occurrences of the small-whorled pogonia within a one-mile radius of the project area. This project
will have no effect on this species.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana)
Federal Status: Threatened
State Status: Endangered
Virginia spirea is a clonal shrub with a modular growth form. It grows from two to ten feet tall (one to
three meters) tall and usually has arching and profusely branching stems. The alternate leaves are ovate
to lanceolate, 1.2 to six inches (three to 15 centimeters) long and 0.8 to two inches (two to five

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-1 9

centimeters) wide and mucronate. They have an acute base and are glaucous beneath and may be darker
green above. Margins are entire to completely serrate with coarse to fine single teeth that are occasionally
curved. Yellowish-green to clear pale white flowers are produced on a two to 8.7 inch (five to 22
centimeter) corymb from late May to late July.
Habitat for Virginia spirea is along occurs along rocky, flood-scoured banks of medium sized streams or
on meander scrolls and point bars in gorges or canyons, natural levees, or braided areas of lower reaches
near the stream mouth. These areas may be susceptible to disturbance from flooding and exhibit early-
successional growth characteristics that are essential to this plant's survival. The bedrock surrounding
Spiraea habitat is primarily sandstone and soils are acidic and moist. Spiraea grows best in full sun, but it
can tolerate some shade.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea consisting of sunny flood-scoured, high-gradient rocky riverbanks,
braided areas of lower stream reaches, gorges and canyons, and disturbed rights-of-way is present in the
project study area. NCNHP lists one occurrence of Virginia spiraea within a one-mile radius of the
project area. This occurrence was recorded in 1991 and is located approximately 0.5 miles downstream
of the project study area on the east bank of the Little Tennessee River, approximately 1,000 feet north
of the confluence of the Little Tennessee and Cullusaja Rivers. A pedestrian survey of all suitable
habitats, including the banks of the rivers and large streams, roadside rights-of-way, and greenway areas
was conducted on June 6, 2006. No occurrence of Virginia spiraea was found in the project study area
during the plant-by-plant survey. Project construction will not impact this species.
Rock gnome lichen (G,ymnoderma lineare)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Threatened
Rock gnome lichen consists of a dense colony of narrow, strap-like lobes, the tips of which are blue-gray
on the upper surface and usually shiny white below, with the color darkening to black near the base of
the lobes. The slightly branched lobes are less than 0.06 inch across, between 0.4 to 0.8 inch long, and
grow parallel to the substrate, with tips that stand up almost erect. Fruiting occurs from July to
September producing extremely small, black or brown fruiting bodies, which occur at the tip of the lobes.
Rock gnome lichen only grows in areas with a great deal of humidity and fog, and rarely below 5,000 feet
msl. Rock gnome lichen has been observed in deep gorges at elevations below 5,000 MSL; however,
these locales are rare. A vertical rock face is required to support the lichen. The rock habitat often
receives seepage water, is located in coniferous forests, and is located on a north-facing slope. However,
rock gnome lichen does occur on moist, partially shaded southern or western aspects.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen consisting of moist coniferous forests on north-facing slopes
above 5,000 feet msl is not present in the project study area. The NCNHP does not list any occurrences
of the rock gnome lichen within a one-mile radius of the project area. Project construction will not
impact this species.
R-4746 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-20
I
3.5.1 O FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE PROTECTED
SPECIES
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and Candidate (C) species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7. Species
designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. Species designated as C (formerly Candidate 1 species) are defined as taxa
under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing.
The USFWS lists 47 FSCs and one C species known to occur in Macon County. Table 20 provides FSCs,
their state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the project study area. Information
presented was obtained from the NCNHP Macon County species list last updated March 2007. On
occasion, NCNHP records differ from USFWS records. Sometimes a species may be listed by one agency
and not the other, or there may be discrepancies in whether the species record is considered Historic or
Obscure. The USFWS listing is deferred to in this report for species spellings and listings as FSCs. Both
agency records are noted in the table regarding Historic and Obscure status.
Three known populations of FSC species were identified within the project vicinity. The first species, the
olive darter (Percina squawata), represents two of the three known populations within the project vicinity.
The first population is located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the intersection of US 23/441 and
New Horizon Road in Cartoogechaye Creek. This population was recorded by NCNHP in 1993. The
second population of olive darter is located in the Little Tennessee River immediately south of the
US 64/23/441 bridge crossing. This population was recorded by the NCNHP in 1995. The olive darter
occurs in fast riffles and among boulders in small to medium-sized rivers with a gravel and rubble
substrate. The second species, the Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscures), was found immediately
adjacent to the project study area just north of stream SD (UT to Little Tennessee River). The
Appalachian cottontail inhabits woods, shrubby areas, and brushy areas. It occurs almost exclusively in
dense conifers and deciduous cover at high elevations. Depending on the alternative selected, the
population of olive darter located in the Little Tennessee River could be impacted by the proposed
project.

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-21

Table 20. Federal Species of Concern in Macon County.
Common Name Scientific Nan) c.
Federal
Status
State
Status
Habitm
Present
Vertebrates
Appalachian Bewick's wren* Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC E Yes
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC SR Yes
Bachman's sparrow* Aimophila aestivalis FSC SC No
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC SR Yes
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii FSC SC Yes
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC E No
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC SC Yes
Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 FSC T No
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC Sc Yes
Olive-sided flycatcher* Contopus cooperi FSC SC No
Pygmy salamander Desmognathus wnghti FSC SR No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat* Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC T Yes
Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC None No
Seepage salamander Desmognathus aeneus FSC SR Yes
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. 1 C SR(PT) Yes
Smoky dace Clinostomus funduloides ssp. FSC SC Yes
Southern Appalachian eastern
woodrat Neotoma fZoridana haematoreia FSC SC Yes
Southern rock vole* Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC Sc Yes
Southern water shrew Sorexpalustrispunctulatus FSC Sc Yes
Wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratum FSC SC Yes
Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus vanus appalaebiensis FSC SC Yes
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta vancosa FSC None Yes
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria diana FSC None No
Little Tennessee mussel Lexingtonia sp. cf. dolabelloides FSC None Yes
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-22

1

Common Name Scientific' Name Federal
Status State
Status Habitat
Present
Lost Nantahala cave spider Nesticus coopoi FSC SR No
Margarita River skimmer** Macromia ivaTanta FSC SR Yes
Mayfly Serratella spiculosa FSC None Yes
Southern Tawny crescent butterfly Phydodes batesii snaconensis FSC SR No
Non-vascular plants
Anderson's melon-moss* Brachymenium andersonii FSC SR-L No
Liverwort Cephalo!lella obtusilobula FSC None No
Liverwort* Plagiochila sharpii FSC SR-L No
Liverwort* Plagiochila sullivantii var sullivantii FSC SR-T No
Liverwort* Plagiochila viginica var caroliniana FSC SR-T No
Liverwort* Porella wataugensis FSC SR-L No
Vascular plants
Blue Ridge ragwort Packera millefolium FSC T No
Butternut Juglans cinera FSC None Yes
Cuthbert turdehead* Chelone cuthbertii FSC SR-L No
Darlington's spurge Euphorbia puipurea FSC SR-T No
Dwarf aster* Euybia mirabilis FSC SR-T Yes
Dwarf polypody fern Grammitis nimbata FSC E No
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC E Yes
Gorge filmy fern Hymenophyllum tayloriae FSC E No
Granite dome goldenrod Solidago simulans FSC SR-L No
Gray's saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC SR-T No
Mountain catchfly* Silene ovata FSC SR-T Yes
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC E Yes
Sweet pinesap** Monotropsis odorata FSC SR-T Yes
Torrey's mountain-mint* Pycnantheum torrei FSC SR-T Yes
R-474B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-23
Notes:
Federal Threatened and Endangered species are also under state protection, but are not included in this table.
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a portion of its
range."
FSC Federal Species of A species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
Concern consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
SC Special Concern Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain
regulations.
SR Significantly Rare Any species which has not been listed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the NC Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
C Candidate Species which are very rare in North Carolina and are substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. They are also rare throughout their ranges and their fate depends on conservation in NC.
These species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened if habitat destruction continues.
PT Proposed A species which has been formally proposed for listing as Threatened but has not yet completed the
Threatened legally mandated listing process.
* Historic Record The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Historic Record The date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
3.6 PERMITS
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for authorized construction, expansion, modification,
or improvement of linear transportation crossings in Waters of the United States, such as bridges and
culverted road crossings, when adverse environmental effects are minimal. Notification to the USACE
District Engineer is made by submitting the Preconstruction Notification form to the applicable
regulatory field office. The Asheville Regulatory Field Office reviews and approves permit applications
for Macon County. Permit conditions for NWP 14 include, but are not limited to, the following:
¦ Discharges are less than 0.5 acres in non-tidal waters.
¦ Less than 300 linear feet of channel impacts.
The USACE holds discretion to put any project into the Individual Permit (IP) process if a sensitive
wetland or stream system is being impacted or if the community presents significant concerns. Due to the
nature of the project, it is possible that the parameters for an NWT 14 listed above could be exceeded, in
which case an IP would be required. IPs are generally reserved for projects with potential for substantial
environmental impacts. An IP requires a full public interest review, including public notices and
coordination with involved agencies, interested parties, and the general public.
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit 33 when construction activities necessitate the use of temporary
structures such as cofferdams, placement of access fill material, or dewatering of the construction site.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) is issued for any activity, including bridge
repair, maintenance, or construction activities which may result in a discharge into Waters of the United
States. The NCDWQ issues its own IP and may issue a WQC #3404 if an NWP 14 is required by the
USACE or a WQC #3366 if an NWP 33 is required by the USACE. An NCDWQ Section 401 WQC is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit. Since the proposed project is located in a
designated "Trout" county, the authorization of an NWP by the USACE is conditioned upon
concurrence of the WRC.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-24
I
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management District.
A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction or development
involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
3.7 MITIGATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy
which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is
to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance
of impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA and
the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. The following methods are
suggested to avoid adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.

I

I

¦ Consideration of all alternative courses of action, including a "no build" alternative.
¦ Within constraints related to the purpose and need of the project, and where possible, move
roadway alignment away from surface waters and wetlands.
Attempts will be made to completely span the Little Tennessee River; however, it is likely not feasible for
the proposed project to completely avoid impacts to Waters of the United States.
Minimi.Zation includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts
to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road
shoulder widths. The following methods are suggested to minimize adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States:
¦ Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation during project
construction.
¦ Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized.
¦ Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management.
¦ Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
¦ Use responsible litter control practices.
Any widening associated with the upgrading of existing roadway will be performed within the existing
right-of-way to the maximum extent possible. This will minimize the amount of impacts to areas which
are currently undisturbed.
8-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-25

Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, or creation for wetland and stream functions
and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. Compensatory mitigation is not
normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetland" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required.
It is the decision of the USACE and NCDWQ to require mitigation for impacts associated with project
construction. The USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
NCDOT and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) which states that EEP will
provide compensatory mitigation to NCDOT for jurisdictional impacts related to roadway projects after
onsite mitigation measures are exhausted.
Natural resources investigators searched for potential on-site mitigation areas for the proposed project.
All potential stream and/or wetland mitigation areas within the project study area were considered.
Promising stream mitigation sites include two UTs to the Little Tennessee River. The first stream is on
the south side of US 64/23/441, east of the Little Tennessee River. This site appears to have only one
property owner and approximately 865 linear feet of non-buffered, channelized stream. The property is
currently used for pastureland, and the stream has been highly degraded by cattle. The second stream
restoration site is located north of US 64/23/441, west of the river. This site is currently in a highly
impacted state due to ongoing construction activities. Approximately 670 linear feet of stream channel
has been impacted by channelization and vegetation removal. There appears to be only one property
owner for this site, and parts of the stream are within the existing NCDOT right-of-way. Additional
information on stream mitigation potential can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report.
There is one potentially suitable site for on-site wetland restoration immediately adjacent to the project
study area. The site is located adjacent to a stream north of US 64/23/441 in the Little Tennessee River
floodplain. The existing wetland area has been impacted by ongoing construction activity, primarily from
the discharge of fill material into the wetland boundary. Earth work and replanting would be required to
restore this wetland area.
3.B AIR QUALITY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA) for six pollutants considered harmful to
public health and the environment: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM1o
and PMZ.5), ozone, and sulfur oxides. States are directed to implement the CAA through development of
an EPA approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles is carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide
(CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels.
Exposure to elevated levels of CO can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning
ability and performance of complex tasks. Since highway motor vehicles are a substantial source of CO
emissions, CO monitoring in urban areas is focused on traffic-oriented sites.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed in the project area to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed roadway improvements. Various residential and commercial
receptor sites were studied, and modeling was performed on the anticipated worst-case receptor site, in
the vicinity of the intersection of SR 1659 (Dowdle Mountain Road) and US 64. The computer model
CAL3QHC (2.0) - A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections was
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-26

1
used for the analysis. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for 2006, 2011, and 2030
' using EPA's Mobile Source Emission Factors and the MOBILE6 computer model.
The predicted one-hour average CO concentrations for 2006, 2011, and 2030 were 5.10 ppm, 4.30 ppm,
and 4.30 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted concentrations with NAAQS indicates that no
violations of the maximum permitted one-hour CO standard of 35 ppm will occur. The NAAQS
maximum CO concentration permitted for an eight-hour period is nine ppm. Since the worst-case
prediction for the proposed project is less than nine ppm, it can be concluded that the eight-hour average
will be less than nine ppm. Results of the CO analysis indicate that the proposed project will conform to
the North Carolina SIP. The project is not expected to create an adverse effect on air quality.
During project construction, all materials from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the site, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State air
quality implementation plan (SIP) for air quality compliance. Any burning will be performed under
constant surveillance and care will be taken to avoid risks to the public. Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the level of dust generated by construction when necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.

3.8.1 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY
In North Carolina, EPA has designated the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) as the lead
agency for enforcing federal laws and regulations dealing with air pollution in North Carolina. The State
legislature enacted air quality rules for Air Pollution Control Requirements under North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 15A NCAC 2D, with Air Quality Permit Procedures mandated under
15A NCAC 2Q. These air pollution control regulations require transportation projects to conform to the
pollution control plans in areas where poor air quality has led to a designation as a non-attainment area.
The project is located in Macon County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable since the proposed
project is in an attainment area. The project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
3.8.2 MOBILE SOURCE AIR Toxics (MSATS)
The EPA has identified six priority mobile source air toxics (MSATS), which are set forth in an EPA final
rule, Control of Emissions of Ha.Zardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 97235). These are benzene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particle matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-
butadiene. These air toxics are suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects. Unlike the
criteria pollutants, air toxics do not have National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) associated
with them.
Given the emerging state of the science and of project-level analysis techniques, there are no established
criteria for determining when MSAT emissions should be considered a significant issue in the NEPA
context. For projects warranting MSAT analysis, the six priority MSATS should be analyzed. Depending
on the specific project circumstances, the FHWA has identified three levels of analysis:
¦ No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects;
¦ Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or
¦ Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT
effects.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-27
This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the
existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the No-
Build alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality
impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and does not cause any special MSAT concerns.
Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.
3.9 NOISE
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures for use in the planning
and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Procedures forAbateznent of Higbtvay Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. One factor for
considering traffic noise mitigation is when future noise levels either approach or exceed the criteria
levels for each activity category. For the proposed project, the identified receptors are residential
(Category B) and business (Category C). Noise abatement criteria levels are shown in Table 21.
Table 21. Noise Abatement Criteria.
r
Activity
Categorv

eq(h)

escription of Activity Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
A 57 and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
(Exterior) those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.

B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
(Exterior) residences motels hotels schools> churches> libraries> and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A
(Exterior) or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
(Interior) libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
The magnitude of noise is described by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure called sound pressures. Since
the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (db). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used for vehicle noise measurements because it places emphasis on the frequency
characteristics that correspond to human subjective response to noise. Sound levels measured by this
method are expressed as dBA. Sound pressure levels are referred to as Leq (h), or equivalent sound level,
8-4746 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-28
which is the level in dBA of constant sound that would contain the same acoustic energy in an hour as
' the actual sound, which varies over time. This allows the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise to be
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
An analysis was performed using TNM® 2.5 procedures to determine if the proposed project would
substantially increase noise in the area and require noise abatement measures. NCDOT uses a ten to 15
dBA increase in noise level to define a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. The analysis focused
on traffic noise, which is a composite of noise from a vehicle's engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-
roadway interaction.
Ambient noise levels were measured at four locations near of the proposed project corridor. This noise
level information was collected to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise level increases. Measured noise levels at the four locations ranged from 54.7
dBA to 74.6 dBA (Table 22).

J

Table 22. Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations.
Noise
Site Location Description Level
(dBA)
600 feet east of Bank in northeast corner of parking lot 70
1 feet from edge of Siler Road westbound and 100 feet from Asphalt 62.1
US 441 Northbound on-ramp
15 feet from off of US-441 Northbound edge of pavement
2 and 250 feet from the Little Tennessee River Bridge Grassy 74.6
northbound approach
3 15 feet from Dowdle Mountain Road edge of pavement 250 Grassy
y 67.5
feet between US 441 and Dowdle Mountain Road
4 15 feet from Wiley Brown Road southbound shoulder and Grassy
y 54.7
500 feet south of Dowdle Mountain Road
The noise model was used to evaluate noise levels at a number of receptors near the proposed project
corridor. Ambient noise levels ranged from 43.7 dBA to 59.2 dBA. The Leq traffic noise exposures for
all receptors in close proximity to the project are listed in Table E-1 (see Appendix E). The predicted
noise level increases for all receptors associated with the proposed project range up to +13.7 dBA. One
commercial receptor is expected to experience a substantial increase in noise level by the year 2030 under
build conditions. Table E-2 in Appendix E lists the criteria for determining the significance of noise
increase levels.

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-29

3.9.1 NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Since there is an impacted
receptor due to highway traffic noise in the project area, consideration for noise abatement measures
must be given. A description of noise abatement strategies is provided below.
¦ Traffic Management: Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations, can provide effective noise abatement. Past project experience has shown
that a reduction in the speed limit of ten mph would result in a noise level reduction of
approximately one to two dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to three
dBA and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a
viable noise abatement measure. Traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for
noise abatement because of the negative effect on roadway capacity and level-of-service of the
proposed facility.
¦ Sound Barriers: Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a
measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable
measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect traffic noise emissions. These measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. In addition, businesses,
churches, and other related establishments located along the road require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these
two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
¦ Property Acquisition: The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize
noise impacts is not considered to be a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to
acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost per benefited
receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended
because this could be accomplished through land use control at the local planning level.
¦ Vegetation: The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project
because of the substantial right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers effective. Research
conducted by FHWA has shown that a vegetative barrier should be approximately 100-feet wide to
provide a three-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a five-dBA reduction, substantial
amounts of additional right-of-way would be required. The cost to purchase additional right-of-way
and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost allowed per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were
identified that would be impacted by this project.
Traffic noise abatement is not recommended and noise abatement measures are not proposed.
3.9.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of the proposed project are expected to be earth and pavement
removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations.
Considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to
daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-3?
I
I

3.1 O CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Short-term construction impacts associated with the Build alternatives may occur in the areas of water
quality, natural resources, noise, and air quality. In addition to the methods to minimize impacts to water
quality described in Section 3.7, potential construction-related impacts can be minimized by adherence to
the following established construction methods:
All materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in
accordance with the applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP
for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D .0520. Care will be taken to ensure burning will be
done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
¦ Measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading,
and paving. General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech interference for passersby
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly from paving
operations and from earth-moving equipment during grading operations. Noise construction impacts
during project construction are of short duration and transmission loss characteristics of surrounding
wooded areas and other natural and man-made features will moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise. Such noise will be limited to daylight hours as much as possible.
¦ Provisions will be taken during construction to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and construction
damage to forested areas outside of the right-of-way and construction limits. Trees outside of the
construction limits should be protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree trunks
by heavy equipment, exposing roots, and smothering trees from flu dirt around the base.
' ¦ Strict adherence to the sedimentation and erosion control plan will be required, including limiting
areas and duration of exposed earth and stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as possible.
' ¦ Traffic service in specific areas of the project may be subject to brief disruptions during construction.
Measures will be taken to maintain the flow of traffic.
. 3.1 1 SUMMARY OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Alternative A may affect Critical Habitat in the Little Tennessee River and a minor amount of wetlands.
This alternative has the greatest amount of stream impacts and could potentially affect the Little
Tennessee River (Upper River) Aquatic Habitat Significant Natural Heritage Area.
Alternative B could affect Critical Habitat in the Little Tennessee River and would have the greatest
amount of forest impacts. This alternative could also affect the Little Tennessee River (Upper River)
Aquatic Habitat Significant Natural Heritage Area.
Alternative C may affect Critical Habitat in the Little Tennessee River as well as the Little Tennessee
River (Upper River) Aquatic Habitat Significant Natural Heritage Area. This alternative has the lowest
amount of forest impacts and would potentially cause four residential displacements.
' Alternative D does not cross the river and is the only alternative that has no impacts to the 100-year
floodplain. This is the longest of the alternatives and it has the most major utility crossings. Alternative D
would have the greatest impacts to important farmland soils, the highest number of residential

R-4748 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3-3 1