HomeMy WebLinkAboutA-0009C_Final EA_8-26-20ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Corridor K, Appalachian Highway Development System STIP Project No. A-0009CWBS Element No. 32572.1.FS10FA No. APD-0074(178)Photo Source: Graham County Travel & Tourism (2018)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSubmitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303Corridor K, Appalachian Highway Development System STIP Project No. A-0009CWBS Element No. 32572.1.FS1FA No. APD-0074(178)FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HIGHWAY DIVISION 14UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERSUNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE_______________________ __________________________________________Date For John F. Sullivan, III, PEDivision Administrator Federal Highway Administration _______________________ __________________________________________Date Wanda H. Austin, PE, CPMProject Development Engineer NCDOT Division of Highways, Division 14
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSubmitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303Corridor K, Appalachian Highway Development System STIP Project No. A-0009CWBS Element No. 32572.1.FS1FA No. APD-0074(178)PREPAPRED FORNCDOT HIGHWAY DIVISION 14BYSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. TGS ENGINEERS_______________________ __________________________________________Date Amy C. Sackaroff, AICPProject Manager Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. _______________________ __________________________________________Date Stacy B. Oberhausen, PE, CPMProject ManagerNCDOT/TGS Engineers
Photo Source: Graham County Travel & Tourism (2018)
A NOTE TO THE READER
What’s in this document?
This Environmental Assessment (EA) summarizes the potential environmental impacts and benefits of proposed improvements to a portion of
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridor K in Graham County.
This document is streamlined to address issues and resources relevant to the project setting and the decision-making process. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 encourages documents to “concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question,
rather than amassing needless detail” (40 CFR 500.1). To maintain brevity, supporting technical studies (such as a traffic analysis, cultural
resource studies, noise analysis, and others) are incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepared this environmental document in accordance with the requirements set forth
in the NEPA. NCDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are the respective state and federal lead agencies for the proposed project.
This EA explains:
Project Need
& Purpose
Alternatives
Considered
Impacts &
Benefits
Avoidance &
Minimization
Measures
Mitigation
Measures
How did the project evolve to what it is today?
This project was first proposed under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and has reached various
points in the project development process over the past several decades. Historically, the Graham County portion
of Corridor K was presented as a four-lane, median divided highway on new location with 0.5-mile dual tunnels
under Stecoah Gap. This design was pursued for a number of years, resulting in a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) in 1984 and a Draft Supplemental EIS in 2008. After a pause in 2011 to conduct a regional
study and develop County Comprehensive Transportation Plans, the project was restarted in 2015.
In July 2015, transportation and resource agency leadership met to reinitiate studies under a "fresh look" approach
that emphasized early and continuous input and participation of local elected officials and local government
staffs as well as Tribal staff and federal/state regulatory and resource agencies. This team worked together to
identify the needs of the study area and conduct studies to determine design options that would meet those
needs. Traffic studies were used to evaluate the number and type of lanes for the project with the goal of finding a
‘right-size’ design that best addresses mobility and reliability needs while minimizing impacts. As such, the
alternatives described in this EA evaluate two-lane design options with passing and climbing lanes as needed to
meet the project’s purpose and need.
What happens next?
A Public Hearing will be held in Summer/Fall 2020 during which the public can review and make comments on the
EA, technical studies, and maps of the preliminary alternative. After a 30-day comment period following the Public
Hearing, NCDOT and FHWA along with the environmental resource agencies will evaluate all input received, as well
as, the potential impacts and evaluation summarized in this EA and identify the Recommended Alternative.
Unless additional studies are required, a final environmental document called a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is anticipated. The FONSI will describe how the Least Environmentally Damaging and Practicable
Alternative was identified and include responses to comments received during the Public Hearing and comment
period.
This Environmental Assessment is available online at the project website:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k
and can be viewed at the following locations:
NCDOT District 14 Office
191 Robbinsville Road
Andrews, NC 28901
NCDOT Graham County Maintenance Yard
2447 Tallulah Road
Robbinsville, NC 28771
If you have any comments about the proposed project, please send your comments to:
Corridor K Project Management Team
c/o TGS Engineers
706 Hillsborough Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27603
CorridorK@tgsengineers.com
Environmental Assessment August 2020 Green Sheet - Project Commitments
STIP A-0009C
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
STIP Project No. A-0009C
WBS Element No. 32572.1.FS10 Corridor K, Appalachian Highway Development System
Graham County
Division 14 Construction and Geotechnical Unit – Acidic Rock
Excavation in the ZWE unit is being studied under thin section microscopy and NNP (acid-base accounting) as part
of current geotechnical investigations that run through Summer 2021. Mitigation is determined by acid-producing-
potential levels. If needed, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will develop a Project
Special Provision to deal with any necessary handling and treatment of acidic rock.
Division 14 Construction – Waste Material
Hazardous waste material is anticipated to result from construction. NCDOT will not place hazardous waste in areas
with jurisdictional resources.
Division 14 Construction – Trout Streams
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) will coordinate with NCDOT on moratorium needs during further project
development or during project permitting. Trout supporting streams and a 25-foot buffer will be identified on
erosion control plans and later delineated in the field so that the contractor avoids disturbance in those streams
and their buffers during the prescribed moratorium period. A trout buffer variance, most likely along Sweetwater
and Stecoah creeks, may also be required on the project and coordinated with the Division of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Land Resources.
Implement Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North
Carolina during design and construction.
Division 14 Project Development – Hazardous Spill Basins
Investigate on the potential implementation of hazardous spill basins at Hydraulic Sites 2 and 3 during final design.
Division 14 Project Development – Vegetation
Herbicide treatments will be coordinated with the US Forest Service on the road easement.
Environmental Assessment August 2020 Green Sheet - Project Commitments
STIP A-0009C
Division 14 Project Development Team; Biological Surveys Group – Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat
A tree clearing moratorium will be held from October 15 – April 15 during construction duration for Indiana bat and
northern long-eared bat.
Division 14 Project Development – Archaeology
Section 106 effects determinations pending the results of an intensive archaeological survey report for the
Preferred Alternative. The results of the intensive study and the project’s effects on archeological resources will be
documented in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Archaeological Sites 31GH34, 31GH78, 31GH94, 31GH599, 31GH673, and 31GH691 are eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D and currently fall within the Area of Potential Effects
(APE) for the proposed project. Although avoidance is recommended, the sites do not warrant preservation in
place. If portions of the sites are determined to be adversely affected, those areas will be mitigated by a data
recovery plan once right-of-way and easements are acquired.
Archaeological Site 31GH46 is NRHP-eligible under Criterion D and may be eligible as Criterion A depending upon
further research. This site will be avoided during the construction phase of the project including any staging
activities. If avoidance is determined not possible, consultation with SHPO and consulting parties is required.
Archaeological Sites 31GH45 could not be assessed for the NRHP due to denial of access by the landowner, while
Archaeological Site 31GH723 could not be fully assessed for the NRHP due to adjacent impervious material and
other disturbances. Subsurface testing (including additional deep trench testing) at these sites and other
properties that were inaccessible during the survey will be done once right-of-way and easements are acquired by
NCDOT.
If these sites or any newly identified sites are determined eligible for the NRHP, NCDOT will coordinate with State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other consulting parties as identified on appropriate mitigation. All
potential mitigation at these sites will be covered in the e106 Form for adverse effect and incorporated in the
stipulations of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Division 14 Project Development - Design Team; Division 14 Construction – Historic Architecture
John and Mattie Colvard House: Tree surveying to avoid trees during construction – replace any
balled/burlapped trees that cannot be avoided.
John and Ruby Cody House: Protective measures for stone wall that lines driveway.
Cheoah Historic District: Minimize tree cutting and restore landscaping after temporary detour is removed.
Environmental Assessment August 2020 Green Sheet - Project Commitments
STIP A-0009C
Division 14 Project Development - Design Team; Division 14 Construction – Historic Architecture, Archaeology
As a result of the meeting held with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on August 10, 2020,
NCDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) committed to enter into a Section 106 Programmatic
Agreement (PA). A PA is appropriate when it is difficult to fully determine how a particular undertaking may affect
historic properties or the location of historic properties and their significance and character. The PA will outline
procedures, roles and responsibilities, and continued consultation through final design, right of way and
construction.
The PA will include consultation from the consulting parties identified during the Section 106 process. It will also
include signatory parties from entities with land ownership, such as the US Forest Service and the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians (EBCI). The following topics may be covered in the PA:
• Effects calls from June 1 including conditions
• Periodic design reviews and consultation points
• Principles to follow
• Avoidance and mitigation measures
• Archaeology reviews
• Unanticipated discovery
• Course of action to develop a memorandum of agreement (MOA) if necessary for archaeology
• Specifications or aspects of the roadway alignment
The intent of the PA is to get a No Adverse Effect (NAE) call for the entire project for both historic and archaeology
sites. The PA will be executed prior to the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Division 14 Construction and Project Development - Design Team – Appalachian Trail Parking Lot
Ensure adequate turnaround for vehicles exiting the Appalachian Trail parking lot on NC 143.
Access to the Appalachian Trail will be maintained during construction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Photo Source: Graham County Travel & Tourism (2018)
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
3.0 PROJECT IMPACTS
4.0 AGENCY &PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1-1 AUGUST 2020
What is being studied?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) is studying roadway improvements from
Robbinsville to Stecoah in Graham County to provide the
transportation infrastructure necessary for the well-being
of residents and regional travelers. Doing so would
improve reliability and mobility in the area.
This region is known as Corridor K of the Appalachian
Development Highway System (ADHS) – a network of road
corridors that Congress established in 1965 to provide a
safe, efficient transportation system for the Appalachian
Region. Corridor K extends from Dillsboro in Jackson
County to I-75 in Cleveland, Tennessee.
Given the challenges associated with the region's
mountainous terrain and sensitive natural habitat, the
proposed project is among the last of the ADHS corridors
to be completed.
After a four-year pause from 2011 to 2014, NCDOT
reinitiated studies for Corridor K improvements in 2015.
Local officials, state and federal agencies, external
stakeholders, and the public were engaged early in the
process on the best use of NCDOT’s balance of funds for
ADHS to improve reliability and mobility in the area.
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Corridor K is a complex project given the area’s abundant
natural and cultural resources.
SECTION CONTENTS
What is being studied?........................................................1-1
Why is the project needed?...............................................1-2
What is the purpose of the project?..................................1-4
1-2 AUGUST 2020
A project team comprised of approximately 35 individuals
from various federal, state, and local organizations,
participated in a highly collaborative planning process.
This process allowed for the exploration of a wide range
of options, refining the project scope and resulting in the
improvements assessed in this Environmental Assessment
(EA). Additional details on early studies can be found in
the Design Study Report (DSR).1
Why is the project needed?
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Roadways within the study area typically have steep
grades and sharp curves. Roadways may have paved or
unpaved shoulders of varying widths or no shoulders at all.
The roadway network in Graham County is limited with
only three highways: US 129, NC 143, and NC 28. Grades
often exceed 6% in mountainous areas, most notably near
Stecoah Gap on NC 143, where the grade reaches 8%.
The posted speed limit in Robbinsville along US 129 and
NC 143 is 35 miles per hour (mph). South of the Five Point
Road intersection, the posted speed limit on US 129 is 45
mph. East of the US 129/NC 143 intersection in
Robbinsville, the posted speed limit is 45 mph for
approximately one mile before transitioning to 55 mph.
The posted speed limit on NC 28 is 55 mph. There are
locations throughout the corridor where advisory speeds
are 35, 40 and 45 mph respectively.
1 NCDOT. Design Study Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. November 2019. Photo Credit: Graham County Travel and Tourism
1-3 AUGUST 2020
PHYSICAL NEEDS
Limited roadway options: Local travel from Robbinsville to
Stecoah in Graham County is limited to three two-lane
roads: US 129, NC 143, and NC 28. Reliability of these two-
lane roadways is impaired by any type of blockage or
disruption due to winter weather, fog, washouts,
landslides, fallen trees, traffic incidents, vehicle
breakdowns, or slow-moving vehicles. Such situations
adversely affect travel time as travelers must wait or
back track.
Steep grades, narrow shoulder widths, and sharp curves
on US 129, NC 143, and NC 28 affect travel speed and
opportunities to pass slower vehicles.
Over-capacity of roadway segments: US 129 between NC
143 and SR 1155, and NC 143 between 3-lane section at
SR 1275 and SR 1277 are predicted to be over capacity
by 2040 {2015 Graham County CTP}.
MOBILITY NEEDS
Local officials and the public residing in the area desire
improved access to employment, medical facilities,
commercial centers, and educational facilities to better
serve the 67% of employed Graham County residents that
commute to jobs outside of the county. Approximately
1,000 jobs in Graham County are filled by workers that
commute in from other counties, most commuting in from
Cherokee County {2015 Graham County CTP}.
All paved roads into and out of Graham County are
primarily two-lane and there is an inability to pass slower
vehicles over substantial distances (“up to 19 miles”) {2015
Graham County CTP}.
A combination of steep grades, tight curves, and heavy
vehicles causes impaired mobility and constrained freight
movement {2015 Graham County CTP}.
Emergency medical service response times are frequently
affected by roadway conditions and the volume/type of
traffic encountered while responding to emergencies.
This factor has resulted in the loss of life according to input
provided by local officials {Project Team Meeting
September 30, 2015 through October 1, 2015}.
1-4 AUGUST 2020
What is the purpose of the project?
The project purpose is to provide the transportation infrastructure
necessary for the well-being of local residents by improving
mobility and reliability between the existing four-lane section on
NC 28 at Stecoah and US 129 in Robbinsville.
This project is following the NEPA/404 Merger process,
which is described in further detail in the box below.
WHAT IS THE NEPA/404
MERGER PROCESS?
It is a process that combines the NEPA
environmental review with Section 404
permitting to streamline project development
and permitting for projects that have
competing resources. It is a shared-decision
making process that allows agencies to
discuss and reach agreement on various
project decisions (called Concurrence Points).
2-1 AUGUST 2020
2.1 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED & DROPPED
Prior to entering the NEPA environmental review stage, FHWA and
NCDOT team members utilized an innovative corridor planning tool
called Quantm™. Quantm is an alignment optimization program that
develops optimized routes in consideration of design criteria inputs,
construction costs, and environmental features. The software can be
used to obtain a representational cost range for potential study
alignments and can be used to refine an existing alignment within an
established roadway corridor. These corridors were analyzed and
documented in the Design Study Report (DSR).
Public meetings were held in February 2019 to present the public with
proposed study corridors from Andrews to Stecoah. Input from the
public, feedback provided by environmental advocacy groups, and
the lack of available funding for the entire corridor contributed to the
decision to remove the Andrews to Robbinsville portion of the project
from the current study area. The State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) identifies the remaining portion of Corridor K from
Robbinsville to Stecoah as A-0009C (which includes the previously
designated ‘B’ portion from Robbinsville to Cheoah).
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
SECTION CONTENTS
2.1 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED & DROPPED……................2-1
2.2 DETAILED ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED & DROPPED ….........................2-2
2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE……………………………………………………..2-9
2.4 TYPICAL SECTIONS……………................................................................2-14
The Design Study
Report (Section 3.0)
provides detailed
information
on Quantm studies
and study corridors.
Scenarios Presented at February 2019 Public Meetings
Improve Existing Alignment will be studied at a
later date during the National Environmental
Policy Act planning process.
2-2 AUGUST 2020
2.2 DETAILED ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED & DROPPED
Many alternatives were considered through the NEPA process, but ultimately dropped due to design constraints, local
input, cost restraints, and environmental impacts. The alternative sections shown below result in nine alternatives and are
detailed on the following pages.
2-3 AUGUST 2020
R-1E Intersection/Roundabout
These alternative sections, included in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, and 9, utilized Five Point Road (SR 1275) between its
intersections with US 129 and NC 143. The realignment
provided a new alternative section for through-traffic
traveling between US 129 south of Robbinsville and NC 143
east of Robbinsville, reducing traffic at the current
US 129/NC 143 intersection. It would have corrected
horizontal and vertical curvature on SR 1275 to NC route
standards. Intersections could be addressed with either
T-intersections or roundabouts at the intersections of the
realigned Five Point Road (SR 1275) and US 129 and NC 143.
N
N
2-4 AUGUST 2020
R-1E Refined
The R-1E alternative initially included a long
bridge on Five Point Road (SR 1275) over
Tulula Creek. R-1E Refined was developed
and studied to provide an alternate crossing
to Tulula Creek. The alternate crossing was
proposed to be further south on US 129.
N
2-5 AUGUST 2020
S-2 This alternative section, included in Alternatives 2, 5, and 8, included improving existing NC 143 from SR 1275 (Five Point
Road) to just east of SR 1222 (Orr Branch Road). East of Orr Branch Road, the alternative section transitioned to new
location north of NC 143 to a two-lane 4,445-foot long tunnel under existing NC 143 and the Appalachian Trail. The
alternative section then crossed over NC 28 on a new 1,050-foot long bridge and over SR 1238 (Bill Crisp Road) and
Edwards Branch on a new 1,130-foot long bridge before terminating at the existing four-lane section of NC 28. The new
location section included 2.0 miles of climbing lanes.
N
2-6 AUGUST 2020
SW-1A This alternative section, included in Alternatives 3, 6, and 9, was inspired by ideas offered by environmental
stakeholders. It included improving existing NC 143 from SR 1275 (Five Point Road) to just east of SR 1222 (Orr Branch
Road). East of Orr Branch Road, the alternative section transitioned to new location south of NC 143, which included a
two-lane, 5,416-foot long tunnel under existing NC 143 and the Appalachian Trail. East of the proposed tunnel, the
section intersected NC 28 and widened NC 28 to a three-lane facility with alternating passing/climbing lanes. The new
location section included 0.5-mile of climbing lanes.
N
2-7 AUGUST 2020
NC 28 Relocation
This alternative section
originated out of coordination
with local officials, residents, and
environmental stakeholders
wishing to see an alternative
section that improved the
existing NC 143/NC 28
intersection, relocated NC 28 to
address the winter hazards
associated with Barbershop Hill,
and avoided the Stecoah
Heights community north of
existing NC 28. The section
relocated NC 28 to the eastern
side of Barbershop Hill.
N
2-8 AUGUST 2020
S-6 This alternative section included improving existing NC 143 from SR 1275 (Five Point Road) to Stillhouse Branch. At
Stillhouse Branch, the option transitioned to a new location section, including a 3,263-foot long tunnel underneath NC 143
and the Appalachian Trail. The alternative section continued on new location westward, paralleling Cody Branch before
turning northward following the south side of Stecoah Valley.
N
2-9 AUGUST 2020
WHY ALTERNATIVES WERE DROPPED?
ALTERNATIVE DROPPED WHEN? WHY?
R-1E
Intersection
or
Roundabout
May 20, 2020 Merger
Concurrence Point 2
Meeting
The alternative section would create a high number of business relocations and is not
supported by Graham County government officials for this reason.
R-1E Refined January 29, 2020
Project Team Meeting
R-1E Refined was an interim alternative section developed to investigate ways to minimize
aquatic impacts incurred by R-1E. The need for R-1E Refined was eliminated as subsequent
hydraulic design reduced aquatic impacts in R-1E. Local officials agreed that there was no
longer a need for R-1E Refined. This alternative section was eliminated before detailed
alternatives were identified.
S-2 May 20, 2020 Merger
Concurrence Point 2
Meeting
The S-2 operations and maintenance costs associated with the tunnel are estimated to be a
notable portion of the Division 14 annual maintenance budget. Construction costs would
exceed bi-annual allocation for Division 14 and available funding through ADHS. Based on
high construction costs, high annual operations and maintenance costs, and the lack of
available funding, S-2 was not carried forward.
In addition to the tunnel costs, there are the following impacts and challenges:
- A high number of relocations in the Stecoah Heights community.
- An area of high acid-producing rock requiring a mitigation plan and double corrosive
protected anchors. Any water wells impacted by construction would need to be
replaced and monitored in perpetuity.
- S-2 is located within an Indiana bat roost boundary (federally protected species).
- Two tall, long, curved bridges with steep grades. They present a large long-term
financial investment and challenges for managing travel during icy weather.
SW-1A May 20, 2020 Merger
Concurrence Point 2
Meeting
Like S-2, the SW-1A operations and maintenance costs are estimated to be a notable
portion of the Division 14 annual maintenance budget. Construction costs would exceed
the bi-annual allocation for Division 14 and available funding through ADHS. This alternative
section is not carried forward due to these costs and the lack of available funding.
NC 28
Relocation
January 29, 2020
Project Team Meeting
The alternative section is not feasible due to hydraulic design concerns associated with
potential deviation from established drainage patterns within the watershed. The design was
also located in a cut section which did not achieve the purpose of improving the roadway’s
exposure to sunlight. This alternative section was eliminated before detailed alternatives
were identified.
S-6 October 9, 2019
Merger Concurrence
Point 2 Meeting
S-6 impacts the most sensitive, restrictive USFS management areas. It is the most intrusive
alternative section to the Appalachian Trail visual field; and most impactful to known listed
species. This alternative section was eliminated before detailed alternatives were identified.
2-10 AUGUST 2020
2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The selection of the Improve Existing Alternative (Alternative 1) as the Preferred Alternative was based on early public
input, interagency coordination, and meetings with local officials.
This alternative would improve the existing alignments of US 129, NC 143, and NC 28 between Robbinsville and Stecoah,
increasing shoulder widths and adding passing/climbing lanes for the length of the project.
The following pages show sections of Alternative 1. Detailed mapping of Alternative 1 can be found here.
N
2-11 AUGUST 2020
F
Cost Estimates Alternative 1
Roadway Construction $104,200,000
Right-of-Way $14,795,888
Utility Relocation $6,611,000
Land Bridge $5,000,000
Total Cost $130,606,888
N
Proposed improvements in
Robbinsville include resurfacing,
adding a right-turn lane from
US 129 to NC 143, and sidewalks from
Robbinsville High School’s entrance
on NC 143 to the intersection of
US 129 and SR 1275 (Five Point Road).
COST ESTIMATES
The table below reflects cost estimates for Alternative 1.
2-12 AUGUST 2020
Alternative 1 would include passing lanes and eight-foot paved shoulders
eastward along NC 143 toward Cheoah. Alternative 1 includes
dedicated left-turn lanes at Robbinsville High School, Five Point Road,
Mountain Creek Road, Tatham Road, and Sweeten Creek Road.
2-13 AUGUST 2020
Near the Appalachian Trail (AT), Alternative 1 would provide both
eastbound and westbound climbing lanes and eight-foot paved shoulders
on NC 143. A land bridge would provide a grade-separated crossing for
both pedestrian users of the AT and wildlife.
2-14AUGUST 2020
Alternative 1 would provide alternating passing/climbing lanes, a
multi-use path, and an eight-foot paved shoulder along existing
NC 28 in Stecoah. It would also include a slight realignment of Bill Crisp
Road to create a four-leg intersection with NC 28 and Stecoah Road.
2-15AUGUST 2020
2.4 TYPICAL SECTIONS
Along US 129 and NC 143 in Robbinsville, the proposed typical section is three lanes including a center turn lane or
occasional left and right turning lanes, and five-foot sidewalks. Sidewalks are proposed on NC 143 from the Robbinsville
High School entrance to the US 129 and SR 1275 (Five Point Road) intersection.
Center Turn Lane Typical Section
NC 143/US 129 in Robbinsville
*shoulder typical may vary in final design
2-16AUGUST 2020
The typical section for much of the remainder of the project includes two 12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders, including
eight feet of pavement and two feet of grass, with passing and climbing lanes throughout.
*shoulder typical may vary in final design
Passing/Climbing Lane Typical Section
NC 143/NC 28
2-17AUGUST 2020
The typical section at the Appalachian Trail includes four 12-foot lanes with eight-foot paved shoulders, two-foot grass
shoulders, and a tiered retaining wall.
Appalachian Trail Typical Section
*shoulder typical may vary in final design
2-18AUGUST 2020
A land bridge is proposed to facilitate the crossing of wildlife and pedestrians across NC 143, and would relocate the
Appalachian Trail in the middle of the land bridge. The land bridge would be approximately 160 feet long, 220 feet wide,
and 29-feet tall filled with earth material and planted.
Land Bridge Typical Section *shoulder typical may vary in final design
2-19AUGUST 2020
A multi-use path is proposed along NC 28 from Hyde Town Road (SR 1230) from its western intersection with NC 28 to its
eastern intersection with NC 28. The typical section here includes three 12-foot lanes with a 10-foot paved multi-use path.
Multi-Use Path Typical Section
NC 28
*shoulder typical may vary in final design
3-1AUGUST 2020
What are the Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative?
TABLE 3.1: PROJECT IMPACTS
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.1 Historic
Architecture
Resources 1
No. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any historic
architecture resources as determined in coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP). Of the 38 historic properties and two historic districts (HDs) (Robbinsville
Downtown HD and Cheoah HD) identified within the area of potential effect (APE),
17 buildings, 2 historic districts (HDs), and the Appalachian Trail are eligible for the
National Register of Historic Properties. (The Appalachian Trail was previously
determined eligible for the NRHP but has not been officially listed to date.)
S Background On June 1, 2020, the effects of the proposed project on historic
architecture resources were assessed on 16 properties: 13 buildings, 2 districts, and
the AT. Of the 20 eligible properties, it was determined that 4 buildings were
located outside of the revised Area of Potential Effect and, thus, effect calls were
not made on them. The results of the effects determinations are as followed:
No Adverse Effect (7 sites): Appalachian Trail, John and Mattie Colvard House,
Cody House, John and Ruby Cody House, John A. Cody House, Randolph-Stewart
House, and Cheoah Historic District.
Appalachian Trail: On June 1, 2020 there were 2 designs for the AT, both involving
a pedestrian bridge. Each design received Section 106 Effects determinations. A 2-
lane design received a No Adverse Effect call; a 4-lane design received an Adverse
Effect call.
As a result of the meeting held with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) on August 10, 2020, the NCDOT
and FHWA committed to enter into a
Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
(PA). A PA is appropriate when it is difficult
to fully determine how a particular
undertaking may affect historic resources
or the location of historic resources and
their significance and character. The PA
will outline procedures, roles and
responsibilities, and continued
consultation through final design, right of
way and construction.
The intent of the PA is to get a No Adverse
Effect (NAE) call for the entire project for
both historic and archaeology sites. The
PA will be executed prior to the Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The PA will include consultation from the
consulting parties identified during the
Section 106 process. It will include
signatory parties from entities with land
1 Historic Architecture Survey Report. prepared for ADHS Corridor K. April 2020.
3.0 PROJECT IMPACTS Anticipated impacts
to National Forest System
(NFS) land are shaded
blue for quick reference.
S Background s
Background is provided
where additional context
may help the reader
understand the basis for
an impact conclusion.
3-2 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.1 Historic
Architecture
Resources
(cont.)
Since June, NCDOT continued to explore design options at the AT, including how to
accommodate animal passage as suggested during coordination with various
environmental advocates. The current design in the preferred alternative at the AT
involves four lanes and a land bridge which will carry the AT over the road. NCDOT,
in coordination with the USFS, NPS, Appalachian Trail Conservancy and the NC
SHPO, was able to determine a placement of the land bridge, which involves a
relocation of a portion of the AT, such that visual effects on the AT would be greatly
reduced.
On August 10, 2020, in a meeting involving the SHPO, EBCI THPO, NCDOT Cultural
Resources, FHWA, and the ACHP, it was agreed to move forward declaring a No
Adverse Effect (NAE) at the Appalachian Trail with a commitment to enter a PA that
outlines procedures, roles & responsibilities, and continued consultation through the
project.
No Effect (9 sites): Robbinsville First Baptist Church, Old Mother Church and
Cemetery, Patton Gywnn Denton House, The Hut, Robbinsville Downtown Historic
District, Delma and Mary Ruth Shuler House, Stecoah School, Stecoah Baptist
Church, and the Boxed House.
For additional information, see the concurrence form for assessment of effects for
the Preferred Alternative and meeting minutes from August 10, 2020.
One NRHP-eligible historic resource, the Appalachian Trail, is located on NFS land.
ownership, such as the US Forest Service
(USFS) and the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians (EBCI). The following topics may
be covered in the PA:
• Effects calls from June 1 including
conditions (see below)
• Periodic design reviews and
consultation points
• Principles to follow
• Avoidance and mitigation measures
• Archaeology reviews
• Unanticipated discovery
• Course of action to develop a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) if
necessary for archaeology
• Specifications or aspects of the
roadway alignment
On June 1, 2020, the following conditions
were identified at the Section 106 Effects
meeting. These conditions will be
included in the PA.
John and Mattie Colvard House: Tree
surveying to avoid trees during
construction—replace any trees that
cannot be avoided.
John and Ruby Cody House: Protective
measures for stone wall that lines
driveway.
Cheoah Historic District: Minimize tree
cutting and restore landscaping after
temporary detour is removed.
3-3 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.2
Archaeology
Resources 2
None anticipated. Section 106 effects determinations for archaeological resources
are pending the results of an intensive archaeological survey report for the
Preferred Alternative. Project commitments have been developed to identify
actions needed to complete field surveys for remaining unassessed areas and to
document the results of investigations conducted on artifacts identified during field
surveys.
S Background The management summary addresses 87 archaeological sites,
including 73 sites that were identified or revisited during the 2019-2020 field
investigations and two previously recorded sites (31GH35 and 31GH45) that could
not be revisited due to lack of access.
Also discussed are 10 previously recorded sites that did not require additional survey
as they had been delineated within the current Area of Potential Effects (APE)
during past episodes of fieldwork. The two other sites, 31GH700 and 31GH709, are
road traces that are documented in an appendix to the management summary.
Both are located outside of the project alternatives and were therefore not
assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility but were
investigated to better understand former travelways in the Stecoah Gap and Fort
Hill areas.
Of the 73 sites from the 2019-2020 archaeological investigations, 54 sites were either
not eligible for listing in the NRHP, or the portions of the sites within the surveyed
corridor would not alone contribute to any potential eligibility of the sites; eleven
sites were eligible for listing in the NRHP; and, three sites identified as unassessed for
listing in the NRHP that should be further investigated should project activities be
determined to impact these sites. Five sites are located on EBCI land with effects
determinations still pending. [The results of ongoing coordination with the EBCI
Tribal Preservation Office (THPO) will be documented in the Finding of No
Significance (FONSI).]
Of these sites, one (31GH696) is located on NFS land.
Archaeological resources will also be
captured under the Section 106
Programmatic Agreement (PA) that was
mentioned above in Section 3.1. In the
event that an archaeological site eligible
for the NRHP has a finding of adverse
effect, the PA will spell out a process
where a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) would be developed.
An intensive archaeological survey of the
Preferred Alternative will be completed
prior to the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI). Evaluation of identified
archaeological resources, including
previously identified but unassessed sites,
shall be conducted.
Archaeological Sites 31GH34, 31GH78,
31GH94, 31GH599, 31GH664, 31GH673,
and 31GH691: while avoidance is
recommended, the sites do not warrant
preservation in place. If portions of the
sites are determined to be adversely
affected, those areas will be mitigated by
a data recovery plan once right-of-way
and easements are acquired.
Archaeological Site 31GH46: this site will
be avoided during the construction phase
of the project including any staging
activities. Its locations will be added to
the design plans as environmentally
sensitive. If avoidance of Site 31GH46 is
2 Draft Archaeological Investigations Management Summary prepared for ADHS Corridor K. June 2020.
3-4 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.2
Archaeology
Resources
(cont.)
See discussion on previous page. determined not possible, consultation with
SHPO and consulting parties is required.
Archaeological Sites 31GH45 and
31GH723: subsurface testing (including
additional deep trench testing) at these
sites will be completed once right-of-way
and easements are acquired by NCDOT.
If these sites or any newly identified sites
are determined eligible for the NRHP,
NCDOT will coordinate with SHPO and
other consulting parties to identify
appropriate mitigation. All potential
mitigation at these sites will be covered in
the 106 Form for adverse effects and
incorporated in the stipulations of a
Memorandum of Agreement.
3.3 Section 4(f)
Resources
No. The following resources were determined to have No Adverse Effect for Section
106 and de minimis for Section 4(f): John and Mattie Colvard House, Patton Gwynn
Denton House, Cody House, John A. Cody House, Cheoah Historic District, and
Randolph-Stewart House and the Appalachian Trail. See Section 3.1 for additional
details on historic resources. With regard to the Appalachian Trail as a Section 4(f)
resource, with mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would not adversely impact the
AT. See Section 3.18 for additional discussion of parks and recreational resources.
S Background The Appalachian Trail (AT): The trail is both a Section 106 resource
and Section 4(f) resource due to and its eligibility for listing on the NRHP and its
protected recreational function.
The Trail of Tears: The Trail of Tears is an approximately 5,000-mile long trail that
represents the path traveled by Native Americans during forced relocation in the
1830s. Available data on the exact location of the Trail of Tears is imprecise and
there is uncertainty about the exact location of this portion of the Trail of Tears. As
Mitigation for impacts related to the
realignment of the AT are being
developed in coordination with the NPS,
USFS, and ATC and will be included in the
Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
(PA) discussed in Section 3.1.
The proposed land bridge and AT
realignment fall within the USFS
Management Area (MA) for the
Appalachian Trail.3 The land bridge and
AT realignment will be developed to
avoid and minimize impacts to the AT MA
to the full extent practicable, and is
anticipated to result in a de minimis
finding in accordance with Section 4(f)
regulations. Section 4(f) determinations
3 The Appalachian Trail falls within Management Area (MA) 14 of the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (N&P LRMP) which is described as
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and its visual foreground zone and is managed to maintain scenery and visual quality.
3-5AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.3 Section 4(f)
Resources
(cont.)
such, there is the “Trail of Tears National Historic Trail” and a second alignment (“Trail
of Tears – Potential Route”) that is based on research conducted as part of the
study “Removal Period (1835-1838) Cultural Resources in the Proposed TIP Project A-
9 Highway Corridor: Historical and Physical Evidence” (Riggs, 1998). Both areas are
being studied as part of the STIP A-0009C project. Additional right-of-way proposed
as part of the Preferred Alternative would encroach on 21.4 linear feet of the
National Historic Trail route; however, no construction impacts are anticipated.
The USFS concurred with FHWA’s findings that only one Section 4(f) resource, the AT,
is located on NFS lands.
will be finalized following coordination
with the USFS and other appropriate
agencies.
John and Mattie Colvard House: Tree
surveying to avoid trees during
construction—replace any trees that
cannot be avoided.
John and Ruby Cody House: Protective
measures for stone wall that lines
driveway.
Cheoah Historic District: Minimize tree
cutting and restore landscaping after
temporary detour is removed.
3.4 Threatened
and
Endangered
Species 4/5
No. With the exception of the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat, the
project would have No Effect on federally threatened and endangered species.
The project may impact forested areas that the Indiana bat and northern long-
eared bat potentially use in the summer months for roosting and foraging, there is a
May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect finding for both species. To avoid
potential effects to roosting and foraging habitat, NCDOT will maintain a
construction moratorium for specified months, developed in coordination with the
USFWS. For additional information, see USFWS coordination.
S Background An informal consultation letter has been provided to USFWS
regarding the biological conclusions outlined below but official approval has not
yet been received. Biological conclusions have been developed in conjunction
with USFWS. No changes are anticipated.
Six federally endangered species have the potential to occur within the project
area; gray bat, Indiana bat, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Appalachian elktoe,
rusty-patched bumble bee, and rock gnome lichen.
Construction authorization will not be
requested until ESA compliance is satisfied
for the Indiana bat and northern long-
eared bat. A tree clearing moratorium will
be held from October 15 – April 15 during
construction for Indiana bat and northern
long-eared bat.
Golden-winged warbler will be evaluated
through a conference opinion. NCDOT is
committed to working with the USFWS
and other relevant partners to develop a
mitigation plan for the golden winged-
warbler that is mutually beneficial to all
involved parties upon proposed listing of
the species.
4 Preliminary Draft Programmatic Biological Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. July 2020 and Natural Resources Technical Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K.
October 2019.
3-6 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.4 Threatened
and
Endangered
Species (cont.)
Five federally threatened species have the potential to occur within the project
area; Bog turtle, Northern long-eared bat, small whorled pogonia, Spotfin chub,
and Virginia spiraea.
Surveys were conducted for the Indiana bat, Northern long-eared bat, and gray
bat in 2008 and in 2009; however, no species surveys (mist netting or acoustic) were
conducted as part of this effort. Bridge, culvert and structure surveys were
conducted in 2019. Mine, cave and non-traditional winter habitat surveys were
conducted in late 2019 / early 2020. No Indiana bats were recorded in mist nets,
bridges, or culverts; however, the eastern end of the project study area intersects a
known Indiana bat maternity roost buffer. The northern long-eared bat was
captured in mist net surveys in the project area. The gray bat was not documented
within the project area nor was its associated winter and summer habitats. Due to
past species captures of northern long-eared bat and proximity to the Indiana bat
maternity roost buffer, presence is assumed for both bat species. The project may
impact forested areas that the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat potentially
use in the summer months for roost trees and foraging, resulting in a May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect finding for both species. Based upon the lack of habitat
and evidence of bats during species surveys, a biological conclusion of No Effect
was rendered for the gray bat.
Suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel does not exist within the
project area. The species typically occurs at elevations above 4,500 feet. Due to a
lack of suitable habitat, a biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel.
Suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen was not found in the survey area. Due
to a lack of suitable habitat, a biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered for
the rock gnome lichen.
Habitat for Appalachian elktoe is marginal in the study area and according to the
USFS no habitat exists within the Nantahala National Forest areas of the project
(USFS 2000). USFWS did not require surveys for the species due to species range and
lack of habitat. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, a biological conclusion of No
Effect was rendered for the Appalachian elktoe.
See discussion on previous page.
3-7 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.4 Threatened
and
Endangered
Species (cont.)
The spotfin chub is not known to occur in the project area. The only known
population is related to restoration work and is located more than a mile from the
project area. USFWS did not require surveys for the species due to species range
and lack of habitat. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, a biological conclusion of No
Effect was rendered for the spotfin chub.
Surveys for small whorled pogonia and Virginia spiraea failed to detect the species
within the project area but suitable habitat for both species was found. A
biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered for small-whorled pogonia and
Virginia spiraea.
The golden-winged warbler is listed as a Forest Concern species, but due to
declining populations this species is being considered for federal listing. Singing bird
surveys documented Golden-winged warblers and suitable habitat within the
project area. Since the golden-winged warbler may be listed in the future, NCDOT
will work with the USFWS to evaluate the effects for the species under a conference
opinion so that the project will not be delayed if the species is listed.
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance to the northern population; therefore, the southern population is not
afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA.
See discussion on previous page.
Golden-winged warbler and northern long-eared bat occurrences are located
within the NFS land surveyed for the project. Biological conclusions match those
outlined above.
3.5 Water
Quality
No. The proposed project is not located in any sensitive watersheds. A seasonal
construction moratorium would be implemented to protect trout waters during
construction. NCDOT will implement erosion and sediment control measures during
construction. Although additional impervious surface would be created by the
proposed project, it will not create a notable effect on water quality given the
project study area’s rural setting within a well-established riparian system.
As discussed in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Assessment,5 analysis of
future development patterns indicates there is limited available land for
development, which limits the potential for adverse water quality effects associated
with development.
A moratorium on all work within a 25-ft
buffer disturbance zone will be placed on
trout supporting streams identified by NC
Wildlife Resources Commission. The
moratorium will be in place from January
1st to April 15th of any given year. NCDOT
will implement Guidelines for Construction
of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina in
the design and construction of this
project.
5 Indirect and Cumulative Effects prepared for ADHS Corridor K. March 2020.
3-8 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.5 Water
Quality
(cont.)
s Background Waters within the study area drain to Santeetlah and Fontana
Lakes within the Little Tennessee River basin. Beech Creek, Harwood Branch, Orr
Branch, Pigpen Branch, Slay Bacon Branch, Sweetwater Creek, Tulula Creek, and
their tributaries carry the Water Supply (WS) WS-III classification because they are
upstream of Robbinsville’s water supply intake on Tulula Creek. In total, the project
study area contains 7,846 linear feet of WS-III-designated surface waters. The
portion of Tulula Creek from the water supply intake to one half mile upstream is
classified as the Water Supply Watershed Critical Area (WS-III, CA). The closest
hydraulic crossing to the CA is located approximately 1.0-mile upstream. Hydraulic
Site 3 is within one mile upstream of the water supply intake on the Cheoah River.
This is not a concern, however, because this site is not within the 0.5-mile Water
Supply Watershed Critical Area.
Sweetwater, Stecoah, and Tulula Creeks also carry the Trout Waters (Tr)
supplemental classification. The remaining streams are classified as C waters which
are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic
life including propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity,
agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized or incidental manner.6
The project study area contains 11,734 linear feet (40 streams) of Trout “Tr” Waters.
Some of those streams may be classified by NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) as trout streams requiring additional protections during construction. To
avoid potential adverse effects on trout populations, NCDOT will maintain a
construction moratorium for trout streams identified by the NCWRC from January to
April of any given year and implement construction guidelines for trout waters.
Preferred Alternative is anticipated to impact 10,366 linear feet of Trout Waters.
There are no designated Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW), designated High
Quality Waters (HQW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within or within 1.0
mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2018 Final 303(d) list did not
identify an impaired water within the study area.
Further investigation on the potential
implementation of hazardous spill basins
at Hydraulic Site 3 during final design.
6 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (DWR). Surface Water Classifications.
3-9 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.5 Water
Quality
(cont.)
The majority of the streams within the NFS land are classified as “C” for their best use
classification by NCDEQ. Unnamed tributaries to Stecoah Creek within NFS land are
also classified as “Tr” waters. 97 linear feet of Trout water impacts are anticipated
on NFS land.
See discussion on previous page.
3.6 Wetlands/
Waters of the
U.S.7
No. No significant impacts to wetlands or surface waters are anticipated. Based on
a 35-foot buffer of the construction limits, up to 15,004 linear feet of impacts to
streams could be created by the proposed project (approximately 1,275 linear feet
of impacts at culvert extensions and 13,729 linear feet due to fill placement);
however, it is anticipated that a large portion of these impacts will be less than the
amount calculated within the 35-foot buffer as there are a number of valley streams
parallel NC 143 and NC 28 where impacts can be avoided and/or reduced
through the use of retaining walls and other measures to be evaluated during final
design using more detailed survey data.
s Background The project is located within the following watersheds: Beech
Creek, Carver Branch, Cody Branch, Edwards Branch, Harwood Branch, Johnson
Gap Branch, Orr Branch, Pigpen Branch, Slay Bacon Branch, Stecoah Creek,
Stillhouse Branch, Sweetwater Creek, Tulula Creek, and Wolf Creek. Field surveys
identified perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands and surface water features
within the Preferred Alternative project limits. Wetlands are located throughout the
project limits and concentrated near Carver Branch, Harwood Branch, Pigpen
Branch, Slay Bacon Branch, Sweetwater Creek, and Wolf Creek, and their
associated tributaries. A total of 1.12 acres of wetland impacts are anticipated with
the proposed project.
A mitigation plan for unavoidable
impacts to streams and wetlands will be
developed in consultation with the
USACE.
To comply with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, the project would request
authorization under Regional General
Permit 31.
Stream relocations will be evaluated in
final design as an option to minimize
stream impacts.
Of the total project stream and wetland impacts, 261 linear feet of stream impacts
and 0.01 acres of wetland impacts are anticipated on NFS lands.
3.7 Forest
Service Land
(NFS Land)
No. With mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would meet Nantahala and Pisgah
Land and Resource Management Plan (N&P LRMP) standards.8 Construction of the
proposed land bridge for the Appalachian Trail would support the N&P LRMP
management objectives for Management Areas (MAs) 4C and 4D “to provide a
All seeding mixes will be approved by
USFS personnel and not include any
invasive nonnative species.
7 Natural Resources Technical Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. October 2019.
8 United States Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5.
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, North Carolina. Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.
3-10 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.7 Forest
Service Land
(NFS Land)
(cont.)
remote forest setting mostly closed to motor vehicles” and MA 4D objectives to
“maintain high-quality wildlife habitat and preferred black bear habitat.”
MA 14 is discussed in Section 3.20. The proposed right-of-way for the Preferred
Alternative requires 7.03 acres of NFS land outside existing right-of-way. Impacted
areas include the proposed location for the land bridge and tiered retaining walls in
the AT vicinity, which would be vegetated in accordance with a planting plan
developed in coordination with the USFS.
Direct impacts from the project do not occur to these species. Indirect effects
could occur from the potential introduction of additional invasive species due to
changes in the existing forest canopy from road construction activities. With
exception of golden-winged warbler, this proposal may impact local
subpopulations of these species but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal
listing or loss of viability.
S Background A Biological Evaluation was completed within NFS land in the
project area. The evaluation included aquatic, terrestrial and botanical surveys. In
addition to the Threatened and Endangered species already discussed above,
eighteen Forest Concern or Sensitive species were considered in the analysis:
mountain catchfly, sweet white trillium, Cumberland azalea, purple sedge, Carey’s
sedge, northern shorthusk, eastern small-footed bat, tricolored bat, Cheoah bald
salamander, black mountain disc, little brown bat, golden-winged warbler,
cerulean warbler, ramp cove supercoil, open supercoil, crossed dome, dusky azure,
and tawny crescent.
The Golden-winged Warbler uses early successional habitat within the project area
particularly in and around Stecoah Gap. The finding for this species is unresolved
pending approved mitigation measures.
All off road equipment to be used for
construction shall be pressure washed to
remove propagules (seeds or vegetative
parts capable of reproduction) of
nonnative invasive plant species prior to
being brought into the project area.
NCDOT shall coordinate with the Forest
Service on the timing, location, and
method of all chemical treatments in
order to ensure there are no undesirable
effects to non-target species.
A land bridge is proposed to facilitate the
crossing of wildlife and pedestrians across
NC 143, and would relocate the
Appalachian Trail in the middle of the
land bridge. The land bridge would be
approximately 160 feet long, 220 feet
wide, and 29-feet tall filled with earth
material and planted.
3.8 Air Quality 9
No. There may be localized areas where Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would
increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that
localized increases and decreases in Multiple Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions
may occur.
N/A
9 Air Quality Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. February 2020.
3-11 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.8 Air Quality
(cont.)
S Background The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most
pronounced where the design will shift closer to buildings or outdoor areas of use
along the project corridor. However, even if these increases do occur, they too will
be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and
fuel regulations. In the design year, it is expected there would be reduced MSAT
emissions in the immediate area of the project, relative to the No-Build Alternative,
due to EPA's MSAT reduction programs.
It is also expected there would be reduced MSAT emissions in the immediate area
of the project on NC 143 adjacent to NFS lands.
N/A
3.9 Farmland
Soils and
Agriculture
No. The Preferred Alternative scored 66 out of a maximum of 260 points on the
NRCS farmland conversion impact rating form which is below the 160 point
threshold for protective measures. As such the Preferred Alternative will not be
further evaluated for farmland impacts.
S Background There are 2,465 acres of farmland soils in the project study area.
Approximately 24.5 acres of direct impacts to farmland soils are anticipated with
the proposed right-of-way, including 6.9 acres of prime farmland, 12.8 acres of
farmland of local importance, and 4.8 acres of farmland of statewide importance.
There are no active farms or agricultural land on NFS lands.
N/A
3.10 Geologic
Resources and
Soils
No. The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to include excavation of approximately
27,564 cubic yards of geological unit ZWE (acidic rock) along NC 28 and Bill Crisp
Road, based on a 35-foot buffer of the construction limits. Excavation in the ZWE
unit is being studied under thin section microscopy and NNP (acid-base
accounting) as part of current geotechnical investigations that run through Summer
2021. Mitigation is determined by acid-producing-potential levels. The selection of
the Preferred Alternative reduces excavation in general and allows this material to
be selectively excavated without likelihood of mixing with other materials or being
unaccounted for in the construction process.
S Background The proposed and existing corridors traverse rocks that make up the
NW limb of the Murphy Syncline, denoted as ZWE and ZHHA on the NC State
Geologic Map. These are meta-sandstones, meta-greywacke, meta-siltstones and
mica schists. ZWE is present in the Edwards Gap cut and along the north side of
The amount of potential excavation is
small enough that even very high results
could be economically and feasibly dealt
with at the scale of total encapsulation if
necessary. Treatment protocol is likely to
be at the level of chemical neutralization
(lime) within selected lifts of waste or
embankment above base-flow water
levels or selected non-perennial stream
locations. A Project Special Provision will
ultimately be produced to deal with any
necessary handling and treatment.
3-12 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.10 Geologic
Resources and
Soils (cont.)
Stecoah Valley with ZHHA making up the rest of the project area from the
intersection of NC 143/NC 28 over Stecoah Gap and through the Sweetwater
Valley. ZWE is considered an acidic rock due to its richness in iron sulfide. As such, it
poses a high risk of generating acid runoff. Acid runoff can destroy aquatic habitats
and degrade water quality, making it unfit for consumption.
Graham County is located along the Appalachian Mountains within the Southern
Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province (MLRA 130B). Topography consists of
very steep mountains, rolling intermountain hills, and narrow valleys. In general, the
rock types are competent and durable, with weaker zones defined by the mica rich
bands of schist and sericite. Slope instability in the region is notably on a small scale
per incident due to the lack of large developed planar features- but occurs often
due to the increased pore pressure surface coupled with large amount of
precipitation and groundwater. The majority of the soils in Robbinsville along US 129
and NC 143 have a low level of steepness. Approximately 33% of the soils in
Stecoah along NC 143 and NC 28 have a medium level of steepness and 28% of
the soils have a high-level steepness. There are stability issues with the current
alignment, but they are known and can be repaired with the preferred alternative.
No acidic rock excavation is anticipated on NFS lands.
See discussion on previous page.
3.11 Vegetation
and Habitat
No. The proposed project includes improvement to an existing road with edge
habitats that are of slightly lesser quality than forests further from existing
development. Of the total 225.7 acres of general habitat within a 35-foot buffer of
the construction limits, 175.0 acres are maintained/disturbed habitat (including
existing right-of-way), 72.3 acres of upland forest communities, 7.8 acres of riparian
habitat, and 0.66 acres of wet meadows.
S Background Outside of maintained/disturbed areas, upland forested land, more
specifically Rich Cove Forest is the primary type of vegetative cover within the
project area. Additional upland forested areas include Acid Cove Forest, Canada
Hemlock Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Rich
Cove Forest, and White Pine Forest. Vegetative communities in riparian areas
includes Montane Alluvial Forest, Headwater Forest and Seeps. Non-forested
See Section 3.7 for NFS vegetation
mitigation.
3-13 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.11 Vegetation
and Habitat
(cont.)
riparian wetlands were classified as wet meadows. Early successional habitat is
found within and on the edges of utility corridors, roadsides, and where agricultural
land is no longer in production. Early successional habitat found around Stecoah
Gap is suitable habitat for the golden-winged warbler.
A North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Area is located on the south side of
Stecoah Gap adjacent to the project. This area is known as Stecoah Gap Cove
Forests and is rated as an exceptional Cove Forest community. The total area of this
Natural Area is 171 acres. Based on construction limits plus an extended 35-foot
buffer, the Preferred Alternative would impact 0.23 acres of the Stecoah Gap Cove
Forests within a 35-foot buffer of the construction limits.
Within the Stecoah Gap area on NFS lands and adjacent existing right-of-way,
direct impacts will occur across approximately 5 acres of rich cove forest, 5 acres of
basic montane oak-hickory forest, and 10 acres of either existing road/shoulders or
other disturbed and maintained areas including powerline corridors (based on
construction limits plus a 35-foot buffer). Within these disturbed areas and in the
surrounding undisturbed forest, the project has the potential to increase the amount
of invasive nonnative plants on NFS due to introductions during construction or
during future maintenance of the road
The amount of encroachment of nonnative plant introductions into undisturbed NFS
adjoining the project area would be expected to be minimal (<50 feet) due to
shading that is offered by the existing mature forested areas of nearby NFS. The
road alternative now under consideration has a relatively lower potential to
introduce non-native plants into NFS land because it is on existing alignment and
not a new surface location alternative cutting through currently uninterrupted NFS
land. Therefore, the project will not be introducing considerably more to the NFS
land adjacent to the roadway.
See Section 3.7 for NFS vegetation
mitigation.
3-14 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.12 Noxious
Weeds
No. No large areas of noxious weeds or invasive species were found during plant
surveys.
S Background Invasive species were found scattered throughout the project area
particularly in areas classified as maintained/disturbed and on the edges of forest
land and riparian areas.
Within these disturbed areas and in the surrounding undisturbed forest, the project
has the potential to increase the amount of invasive nonnative plants due to
introductions during construction or during future maintenance of the
road. Clearing of large areas for road cuts and fills and subsequent ground cover
establishment has the potential to introduce invasive nonnative plants.
The amount of encroachment of invasive nonnative plant introductions into
undisturbed NFS lands adjoining the project area differs based on the rate of spread
and the shade tolerance of the species. Species such as oriental bittersweet
(Celastrus orbiculatus) and privet (Ligustrum sinense) already near the project area
have the greatest potential to encroach into the more shaded canopy. Other
species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) would
primarily persist only along the roadside edge and trails where more sunlight
reaches the ground.
The Preferred Alternative has a lower potential to introduce nonnative plants into
adjunct undisturbed land because it is on existing alignment and not a new surface
location alternative cutting through an existing forested landscape. This minimizes
the amount of new edges between disturbed areas and NFS where nonnative
species encroachments could occur. Nonetheless, there are risks and mitigation
could be implemented to lower the potential spread.
The project area will require routine
maintenance of both invasive and non-
invasive vegetation. Vegetation
management will occur within right-of-
way or easement and is anticipated to
include a two to five year long-arm
mowing schedule with targeted
broadcast herbicide treatment generally
within 25 feet from the edge of
pavement, though wider areas may be
managed if vegetation interferes with
sight lines.
Herbicide treatments and other
vegetation management will be
coordinated with the NFS Cheoah Ranger
District on the road easement. See
Section 3.7 for additional mitigation
measures for Forest Service vegetation
management.
3.13 Land Use
No. The proposed project is consistent with local, regional, and state plans on
transportation, land use, and economic development. The project is included in the
Graham County CTP and would foster the implementation of local planning efforts
related to tourism, walking, and biking. Given the small amount of developable
land, limited water and sewer services, and lack of development and growth in the
project area, the project is not anticipated to cause indirect effects associated with
induced land use changes.
N/A
3-15 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.13 Land Use
(cont.)
S Background The project study area is sparsely populated with scattered
residential properties located mainly along valley streams and small coves.
Approximately 18% of the land within the project study area is used for agriculture,
hay, corn, and pastureland. A majority of the rugged terrain is undeveloped
woodland. NFS lands comprise 67% percent of the land in Graham County
including a portion within the project study area in the Stecoah Gap. Most
development is near the intersection of US 129 and NC 143 in Robbinsville. A
grocery store, small retail shops, a high school and middle school, several service
stations, and a fast food restaurant are located near this intersection. A few small
businesses and community facilities are located in Stecoah, including a community
center located in a converted historic school building. The Preferred Alternative
would not significantly alter land use as impacts are constrained to widening the
existing roadway.
N/A
The Preferred Alternative would not significantly alter land use on NFS lands, as
impacts are constrained to widening the existing roadway.
3.14
Community 10
Transit, Community Resources, Community Cohesion: No. Analysis and coordination
has determined that transit, community resources (schools, churches, etc.) and
community cohesion will not be impacted by the project.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities: No. Minimal temporary impacts to pedestrian facilities
in Robbinsville are anticipated. All facilities will be restored after construction. The
addition of sidewalks from Robbinsville High School’s entrance on NC 143 to the
intersection of US 129 and SR 1275 (Five Point Road), a multi-use path in Stecoah,
and AT land bridge will positively impact bicycle and pedestrian mobility and safety
within the project area.
S Background Outside Robbinsville, there are no other pedestrian facilities along
the corridor. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities located on NC 143
adjacent to NFS lands, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The project corridor
includes a multi-use path around Robbinsville Middle and High Schools, a bicycle
road path along NC 143 a sidewalk on the north side of NC 143 from SR 1275 (Five
Point Road) to US 129, and a sidewalk on the north and south side of US 129.
N/A
10 Community Impact Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. February 2020.
3-16 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.14
Community
(cont.)
Emergency Services: No. Although construction activities have the potential to
create temporary delays that could increase emergency response times, the
proposed project would utilmately have a beneficial effect by allowing emergency
response services the ability to pass slower moving vehicles; tractors or other farm
equipment on the roadway; accidents; and other obstructions such as fallen
rock/landslides.
S Background EMS services located in the vicinity of the project corridor include
Graham County Fire Department, Graham County Sheriff, and Stecoah Fire
Department. US 129, NC 143, and NC 28 are the primary routes used when
transporting individuals to surrounding hospitals. Emergency medical service
response times are frequently affected by the lack of mobility and reliability of the
transportation network within the project study area.
Poor infrastructure causes challenges for EMS when transporting individuals to the
closest hospital (approximately a 31-mile drive from Robbinsville). Improvements
include passing and climbing lanes throughout. These improvements would
facilitate safer travel and improved mobility throughout the project corridor,
allowing for quicker EMS response times and improved health conditions as a result.
Community Concerns: No. Community concerns include impacts to environmental
resources, travel times for those who commute, reliability of additional routes when
main roads are blocked, and impacts to prominent historical or environmental
features such as the Trail of Tears or Appalachian Trail. The Preferred Alternative
would increase reliability and mobility with the addition of passing and climbing
lanes, therefore providing a positive impact on the above community concerns
regarding mobility and reliability.
S Background Historically, Graham County’s population has contained a higher
percentage of retired senior citizens and a lower percentage of working-age
individuals than statewide averages. Many working-age adults move out of the
county to be closer to employment centers. The proposed project would improve
mobility and reliability for those commuting outside of or into Graham County.
N/A
3-17 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.14
Community
(cont.)
Additional right-of-way proposed as part of the Preferred Alternative would
encroach on 21.4 linear feet of the National Historic Trail route; however, no
construction impacts are anticipated.
No community impacts or concerns regarding NFS lands were received during
public involvement in February 2019.
N/A
3.15
Environmental
Justice
No. The project relocation report indicates that two of the nine residential
relocations are minority occupied, which does not create a disproportionate
impact to low-income or minority populations.11 Benefits and burdens resulting from
the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community.
No disparate impacts are anticipated under Title VI and related statues.
S Background Census data indicates a notable presence of low-income
populations meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice and low-income
communities were observed within the study area during a field visit. Two census
block groups exceed the threshold for poverty. One mobile home park is located in
Robbinsville on SR 1275 (Five Point Road).
There are no residences located on NFS lands; therefore, no EJ impacts are
anticipated.
N/A
3.16
Relocations
and Right-of-
Way
No. The proposed project would relocate nine residences and five businesses, as
indicated in the project relocation report.11 Given Last Resort Housing Programs
and proper lead time, decent, safe and sanitary housing will be made available to
those persons being displaced.
Although the Preferred Alternative would relocate five businesses, there are suitable
replacement business locations within Robbinsville, thereby limiting the effect on
businesses and local employment opportunities.
S Background Development is concentrated in Robbinsville, transitioning to rural
development along US 129 and NC 143 outside Robbinsville and NC 28 in Stecoah.
Anticipated right-of-way cost is $14.8M.
There are no residential relocations on NFS lands. The total amount of proposed
right-of-way on NFS land is 7.03 acres.
Relocation assistance in accordance with
NCDOT policies and in accordance with
49 CFR 24, the Uniform Relocation and
Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as
Amended.
11 Relocation Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. August 2020.
3-18 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.17 Major
Utilities
No. No impacts to major utilities are associated with the Preferred Alternative.
S Background There are a number of power distribution lines within the project
study area. There is one power substation to the south of NC 143 and east of SR
1275 (Five Point Road). There are no pipelines or other major utilities within the
project study area.
There are no impacts to major utilities on NFS land.
N/A
3.18 Parks/
Recreational
Resources
No. The Preferred Alternative would improve mobility throughout the project study
area, facilitating local government goals to foster ecotourism.
S Background The eastern portion of the project study area contains NFS land that
is part of the Nantahala National Forest. As the largest of the North Carolina
National Forests, the Nantahala National Forest stretches 531,148 acres and gives
visitors the opportunity for hiking, mountain biking, whitewater rafting, bird watching
and camping, among other outdoor activities. Due to the amount of NFS lands
within the project study area, there are many recreational resources within the
area. Notable resources include the Appalachian Trail (a Section 106 and Section
4(f) resource), Brown Fork Shelter and multiple gaps and coves.
See Sections 3.1 and 3.3 for additional discussion of the Appalachian Trail.
Mitigation for impacts to NFS lands will be
developed in coordination with the USFS.
3.19 Noise 12 No. There is no predicted impact on any noise receptors within the study area.
N/A
There is no predicted impact on any noise receptors on NFS lands.
3.20 Visual
Resources/
Aesthetics 13
No. No visual impacts anticipated in Robbinsville due to developed nature of the
Town. Low-moderate visual impacts anticipated in Stecoah due to road widening.
Positive visual impacts are anticipated along the AT with the land bridge and trail
relocation.
A land bridge is proposed to facilitate the
crossing of wildlife and pedestrians across
NC 143, and would relocate the
Appalachian Trail in the middle of the
12 Traffic Noise Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. April 2020.
13 Visual Impact Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. July 2020.
3-19 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.20 Visual
Resources/
Aesthetics
(cont.)
S Background The visual environment of the project area in Stecoah is defined by
rugged, mountainous terrain with steep slopes leading to ridges, knobs and gaps; a
rural, mountainous landscape typical of western North Carolina.
land bridge. The land bridge would be
approximately 160 feet long, 220 feet
wide, and 29-feet tall filled with earth
material and planted.
With mitigation, the Preferred Alternative would meet Nantahala and Pisgah Land
and Resource Management Plan (N&P LRMP) standards.14 The proposed land
bridge, realignment of the Appalachian Trail, and tiered retaining walls in the
vicinity of the AT would meet Management Area (MA) 14 Visual Management
System objectives for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and its foreground
zone.
3.21 Energy No. Construction of Preferred Alternative is anticipated to require less energy
utilization than the no-build alternative. An initial consumption of energy and
resources, that would not otherwise occur, would take place during construction.
However, the increase in efficiency provided by an improved facility would more
than compensate for the initial expenditure of resources. The proposed
improvement project would increase energy efficiency by improving horizontal
alignments and vertical grades, as well as providing opportunities to pass slower-
moving vehicles, resulting in more efficient vehicle operation, decreased vehicle
delay, and more efficient local and regional trips.
N/A
The portion of the Preferred Alternative on NFS land would result in energy efficiency
benefits as described above.
3.22 Hazardous
Materials 15
No. Low monetary and scheduling impacts to hazardous materials sites are
anticipated to result from construction of the Preferred Alternative. No direct
impacts to hazardous materials are anticipated with Preferred Alternative. Indirect
effects will be minimized during the construction.
S Background Nine sites of concern were identified within the study area. These
include abandoned, relocated, and active underground storage tanks (USTs)
associated with active and former gas stations, a distributing facility, and NCDOT
maintenance yard.
There are no hazardous material sites NFS land.
N/A
14 United States Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5.
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, North Carolina. Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.
15 Phase 1 GeoEnvironmental Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. December 2020.
3-20 AUGUST 2020
Resource Significant Impact? Measures to Address Impacts
3.23 Indirect/
Cumulative
Impacts 16
No. The project will not cause significant indirect and cumulative effects on the
human and natural environment. Given the small amount of developable land,
limited water and sewer services, and lack of development and projected growth,
the project is not anticipated to cause indirect effects. It is unlikely the proposed
project would have a large-scale influence over the type or rate of development
within the area.
S Background The absence of notable planned/funded public or private actions,
including other major transportation projects, private residential developments,
public water/sewer expansions, or new/expanded commercial developments
strongly limit anticipated cumulative effects from the proposed project. Over two-
thirds of Graham County is owned by the US Forest Service, severely limiting
opportunities for development within the county. In addition, there are no known
developments planned within the project area.
The Graham County Watershed Ordinance applies protections to watersheds as
designated by the NC Environment Management Commission.
The project will not cause significant indirect and cumulative effects on NFS lands.
N/A
3.24
Section 6(f)10
No. There are no Section 6(f) resources within the project area. N/A
There are no Section 6(f) resources on NFS lands.
16 Indirect and Cumulative Effects prepared for ADHS Corridor K. March 2020.
4-1 AUGUST 2020
What Outreach and Opportunities for
Stakeholder Participation were Provided?
Since mid-2015, FHWA and NCDOT have coordinated a
number of project team meetings, stakeholder group
meetings, local officials’ meetings, and a public meeting.
Early meetings focused on developing and reaching
consensus on the planning approach for A-0009C;
subsequent meetings focused on subjects related to
implementing the process.
In July 2015, transportation and resource agency leadership
met to reinitiate studies and identify themes for a new
project approach. A "fresh look" approach was developed
with a focus on early and ongoing collaboration to help
avoid schedule delays by identifying and addressing
concerns as they developed. The new process placed
emphasis on early and continuous input and participation of
local elected officials and local government staff as well as
tribal staff, and federal/state regulatory and resource
agencies. This group is collectively referred to as the “project
team.”
Local officials from Graham and Cherokee Counties have
served key roles in the project through participation in
project team meetings, helping to identify project needs,
and vetting potential design options. At the October 11, 2017
project team meeting, NCDOT and FHWA emphasized that
local input would drive the project.
4.0 AGENCY & PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
SECTION CONTENTS
4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION SUMMARY.................................4-2
4.2 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS……...............................................4-4
4.3 TRIBAL COORDINATION…….................................................4-4
4.4 MERGER PROCESS…….........................................................4-4
4.5 PUBLIC HEARING…................................................................4-5
4.6 SECTION 404 PUBLIC NOTICE…............................................4-5
Detailed
information on early
public outreach and
agency coordination
can be found here.
4-2 AUGUST 2020
4.1 AGENCY COORDINATION SUMMARY
The table below shows coordination since the project’s
restart in 2015. Meeting information for 2019 and 2020 can
be found here.
TABLE 4.1: AGENCY COORDINATION SUMMARY
2015
7/2: Agency Leadership Kickoff Meeting
9/30-10/1: Project Team Meeting
12/5: Project Team Teleconference
2016
3/17: Project Team Meeting
5/19: Project Team Meeting
8/23-24: Design Workshop
2017
8/8: New Team Members Orientation
9/14 & 9/17: Design Study Report Webinars
9/26: Project Team Teleconference
10/10: Agency Leadership Meeting
10/11: Project Team Meeting
10/31: FHWA, USACE & NCDOT Coordination Call
11/13: Local Officials’ Meeting
2018
2/12: Local Officials’ Meeting
3/5: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
4/16: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
6/1: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
6/14: Local Officials’ Meeting
6/18: FHWA, Bureau of Indian Affairs Teleconference
8/23: New Team Members Orientation
8/27: FHWA & Chief of EBCI Coordination Meeting
8/30: New Team Members Orientation
9/27: USACE Leadership Update Meeting
9/28: Local Officials’ Teleconference
10/19: Local Officials’ Meeting
10/31: Local Officials’ Teleconference
12/12: Design Study Report Webinar
12/17: Project Team Meeting
2019
2/11: Business Stakeholders Meeting
2/11: Environmental Stakeholders Meeting
2/12 & 2/14: Public Meetings
4/9: Local Officials’ Meeting
5/3: FHWA, USFS, USACE Coordination
5/16: Project Team Coordination Meeting
6/27: Project Team Teleconference
7/19: FHWA, DEQ, USACE, USFS, NCDOT Meeting
7/25: Cultural Resources Teleconference
7/31: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
8/8: Town of Robbinsville NHS Resolution
8/20: Stecoah Heights Meeting
9/3: Cherokee County Board of Commissioners
9/12: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
9/16: Merger Screening Meeting with USACE, DEQ, FHWA
9/17: Historic Architecture Coordination Meeting
10/1: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
4-3 AUGUST 2020
10/3: USACE/FHWA Pre-Merger Discussion
10/7: Graham County Emergency Management
10/9: Concurrence Points 1 & 2 Meeting
10/10: Local Officials’ Meeting
10/15: Section 7 Coordination Teleconference
10/21: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
10/23: State Historic Preservation Office Meeting
10/24: Swain County Board of Commissioners
11/5: Graham County Board of Commissioners
11/14: EBCI Natural Resources Coordination Call
11/15: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
11/18: EBCI Attorney General’s Office Coordination Call
11/19: Graham County Board of Commissioners
11/20: Concurrence Point 2A Meeting
11/22: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
11/25: Southwestern RPO Public Meeting
12/3: Graham County NHS Resolution
12/10: Lake Santeetlah NHS Resolution
12/10: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
12/16: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
12/16: Local Officials’ Meeting
12/17: EBCI Attorney General’s Office Teleconference
12/18: Fontana Dam NHS Resolution
2020
1/7: Project Team Teleconference
1/22: Project Team Teleconference
1/27: EBCI THPO Call
1/29: Project Team Teleconference
1/29: USACE, NCDWR, NCWRC Teleconference
2/7: USFWS Coordination Teleconference
2/19: FHWA, NCDOT & EBCI Councilmember Work Session
3/6: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
3/13: Cultural Resources Teleconference
3/27: USFS Teleconference
4/8: Section 106 AT Pre-Effects Meeting
4/16: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
4/22: USACE Teleconference
5/5: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
5/20: Concurrence Point 2 Meeting (Revisit)
6/1: Section 106 Effects Meeting
6/11: USFWS Coordination Teleconference
6/17: WaysSouth Teleconference
7/1: Environmental Stakeholders Teleconference
7/1: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
7/25: EBCI Attorney General’s Office Teleconference
7/30: AT Stakeholders Teleconference
8/10: FHWA, NCDOT, NCSHPO, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation Meeting
8/11: FHWA, USACE, NCDWR, & NCDOT Pre-CP 3/4A
Meeting
8/13: USFS Environmental Assessment Comments
Discussion
8/17: USFS Environmental Assessment Comments
Discussion
4-4 AUGUST 2020
4.2 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
As shown in Table 4.1, NCDOT and FHWA have coordinated
with several groups who have provided input throughout the
project development process. These groups include the
Appalachian Trail (AT) stakeholders, environmental
advocacy stakeholders, and local business stakeholders. The
AT stakeholder group is comprised of FHWA, the AT
Conservancy (ATC), National Park Service (NPS), State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and the US Forest Service (USFS).
AT stakeholder discussions center around both direct and
visual impacts to the AT and impacts to USFS lands.
Coordination with AT stakeholders is ongoing.
The environmental advocacy group is comprised of
WaysSouth, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC),
Defenders of Wildlife, Wilderness Society, Mountain True, and
Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition. Coordination with
environmental advocacy groups is ongoing.
The local business stakeholder group is represented by the
Graham Revitalization Economic Action Team (GREAT),
Stecoah Valley Center, Graham County Travel and Tourism,
Graham County Schools, Cherokee County Economic
Development, and Robbinsville Envisioning Vital Vibrant
Economic Development & Urban Prosperity (REVVED UP).
Additionally, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
participated in local business stakeholder meetings.
4.3 TRIBAL COORDINATION
As shown in Table 4.1, tribal coordination has been ongoing
since the project’s restart in 2015 and will be maintained for
the duration of the project. Tribes that have been
coordinated with on this project include the Cherokee
Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee Indians, Catawba Nation, and the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
What Additional Opportunities for
Stakeholder Participation will be Provided?
4.4 MERGER PROCESS
Future project team meetings will be conducted through the
NCDOT Merger Process concurrence points (CPs) and will
continue to draw on local input from Graham County local
officials and government staff.
* Exact date to be determined
Concurrence Point Date
1: Purpose and Need and Study Area 10/09/2019
2: Detailed Study Alternatives 10/09/2019
Revisited 05/20/2020
2A: Bridging Decisions 11/20/2019
3: Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
Summer/Fall 2020
4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Measures
Summer/Fall 2020
4B: Drainage Design April 2021 *
4C: Permit Drawings October 2021 *
4-5 AUGUST 2020
4.5 PUBLIC HEARING
Two public meetings were held in February 2019 after the
distribution of the Draft Design Study Report and prior to
initiating NEPA studies. Detailed information on this early
public outreach can be found here.
A Public Hearing is anticipated in September 2020. A 30-day
comment period will follow the Public Hearing in 2020, during
which citizens can submit comments on the recommended
alternative.
After the comment period ends, the project team will review
and identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA).
4.6 SECTION 404 PUBLIC NOTICE
Prior to construction of any project, NCDOT is required to
obtain necessary state and federal permits. The Clean Water
Act (CWA) Section 404 permit process requires the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to announce that a permit is
being sought for a project and initiates a 30-day comment
period. During the 30-day comment period, the public can
provide comments to the USACE regarding the project.
5-1AUGUST 2020
Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative. It would improve existing US 129, NC 143, and NC 28 to
include passing/climbing lanes, and paved shoulders between Robbinsville and Stecoah. A
description and mapping of Alternative 1 can be found in Section 2.0; detailed mapping can be
found here. Alternative 1 was identified as the preferred alternative for the following reasons:
•Alternative 1 will provide more reliable facilities with the addition of passing and climbing lanes and
extending/adding shoulders. All hot spots (locations of high vehicular crashes) on the existing roads will be
addressed with Alternative 1. Travel times are expected to become more consistent and reliable for the segments
through Robbinsville, along NC 143 to NC 28, and through Stecoah. Traffic operations and mobility within the
project study area are expected to improve.
•Based on agency and stakeholder coordination and input to date, coupled with environmental study and
analysis, impacts associated with Alternative 1 have been avoided or minimized to the extent possible. Those
impacts that are unavoidable do not reach a threshold of significant concern and they will be further addressed
with mitigation measures that have been developed in coordination with resource and regulatory agencies.
•There is adequate funding available to construct Alternative 1 in the near term versus uncertainty related to the
funding of constructing any design options that would include a tunnel to avoid impacts to the Appalachian Trail.
•There is a limited amount of ADHS funding available to North Carolina, and as included in the Concurrence Point 2
meeting minutes, it is unclear whether additional funding will be received in the future. A summary of the
Concurrence Point 2 revisit meeting with additional details is located here.
•Graham County Commissioners expressed support for Alternative 1 at their April 4, 2020 Board Meeting.
5.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
View detailed
alternative mapping
and information on
agency coordination.
5-2 AUGUST 2020
• A revisit of Concurrence Point 2 was held on May 20, 2020 in light of construction and operations/maintenance
costs associated with tunnel design options. The Merger Team reached concurrence on retaining Alternative 1
(Improve Existing) and the No Build Alternative. This decision was reached after evaluating funding availability,
tunnel operations and maintenance costs, and design considerations.
• Because the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose to address the mobility and reliability needs
of area residents, Alternative 1 is the Recommended Alternative. By providing opportunities for passing slower
moving vehicles and providing additional space to allow vehicles to pass crashes, landslides, farm equipment, and
other obstructions, it would satisfy the project’s purpose to improve mobility and reliability in the project area.
It is anticipated from the findings of this Environmental Assessment that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would
be appropriate for this project. However, the determination on the format for the final National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documentation for this project will be based on the comments received at the Public Hearing and the comments
received on this document.
R-1 AUGUST 2020 R-1 R-1
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (DWR). Surface Water Classifications.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A-0009 Public Outreach Materials & Comment Summary. February 2019.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009-feb-2019-public-meeting.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Natural Resources Technical Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. October 2019.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-natural-resources-technical-report.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Design Study Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. November 2019.
https://stage-www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009-design-study-report.pdf
NCDOT. Phase 1 GeoEnvironmental Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. December 2019.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-geoenvironmental-report-phase-1.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A-0009C Coordination.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-coordination.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Air Quality Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. February 2020.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-aq-report-2-25-2020.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Community Impact Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. February 2020.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009-community-impact-assessment-checklist.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Indirect and Cumulative Effects prepared for ADHS Corridor K. March 2020.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-indirect-cumulative-effects-report.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Historic Architecture Survey Report. prepared for ADHS Corridor K. April 2020.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/web/A-0009/A-0009C-historic-preservation-study.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Traffic Noise Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. April 2020.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-final-traffic-noise-report.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Draft Archaeological Investigations Management Summary prepared for ADHS Corridor K. June 2020.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Preliminary Draft Programmatic Biological Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. July 2020
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Visual Impact Assessment prepared for ADHS Corridor K. July 2020.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Relocation Report prepared for ADHS Corridor K. August 2020.
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/a-0009c-environmental-impact-statement-relocation-report.pdf
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5. Nantahala and
Pisgah National Forests, North Carolina. Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5194769
REFERENCES
BACK COVER