R-4440

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 10-0359 County: Swain and Macon Date Received: 04/02/2010
Due Date: 5/5/2010
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - TIP No. R-4440 - Propose improvements to SR
1364 & SR 1114 Needmore Road from SR 1369 Tellico Road to existing
pavement
is rojec is being reviewed as indicated e ow:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville ? Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville ? Aquifer Protection Wildlife ? Environmental Health
Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resources Other
? Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Sign-Off/Region:
Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at Me1ba.McGee(&,ncdenr.gov
s?•?y/ G?lO?v?Q
?9 o D
sr ??
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
A kffl`?KVA
IAV
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
April 30, 2010
MEMORANDUM
Dee Freeman
Secretary
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs ll
LU1
From: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed improvements to SR
1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) from existing SR 1369 in Macon County to existing
pavement in Swain County, WBS No. 35597.1.1, TIP Project No. R-4440, State
Clearinghouse Project No. 10-0359.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 26, 2010. The NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ
offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
It is unclear which sections of the subject project are funded in NCDOT's Five Year Work Plan.
The EA summary states that Sections A, B, and D are funded in the Fiver Year Work Plan while
S"L1UII l? IS SChCdUiGU IUl i"I id Illy, dlWl G.0 1 UiI 61L ULL1Gi IlalI., Lill IIliallI 6u?-UHL1 iIL SLAWS LhdL
Sections A and B are in the Five Year Work Plan and Sections C and D are scheduled for funding
after 2015. Please provide clarification on which sections are funded in the Five Year Work Plan.
3. In Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives, impacts for Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands is shown by
occurrence. Each alternative has one occurrence of impacting Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands,
the Needmore Tract owned and managed by NC Wildlife Resources Commission. However, this is
not a representative comparison of the impacts for each alternative. Clearly, Alternatives D and E
which include widening ofNeedmore Road to meet current design standards would have more
impacts than Alternatives A, B, and C. It also unclear how Alternative A, the No Build alternative
would impact Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands. Please revise the table to provide impacts to
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands by acres of land impacted for each alternative.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: httpalh2o.enr.state.nc,uslncwetlands!
NorthCarolina
NaturallrY
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
4. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives reports zero impacts to streams and wetlands for Alternatives
IR
A, B, and C. Alternative D has 4,988 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.023 acres of wetland
impacts, and alternative E has 2,224 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.044 acres of wetland
impacts. By concurring with the Purpose and Need statement on February 22, 2002, NCDWQ
recognized the need for improvements to Needmore Road. However, Alternatives B and C satisfy
the Purpose and Need statement and have no impacts to jurisdictional resources while Alternatives
D and E have significant impacts to streams. It will be very difficult for NCDWQ to issue a 401
Water Quality Certification for Alternatives D and E when adequate alternatives are available that
have no impacts to streams or wetlands. This is especially true when considering that no current or
future traffic problems exist and no current safety problems exist.
5. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives reports that Alternatives A, B, C, and D have no impacts to
acidic rock formations, and Alternative E has impacts to approximately 24, 201 cubic yards of
acidic rock formations. NCDWQ is aware of and respects NCDOT's current treatment and disposal
procedures for acidic rock. However, when considering the close proximity to and the highly
sensitive nature of the Little Tennessee River and its numerous threatened and endangered species,
NCDWQ has major concerns with disturbing acidic deposits for improvements to a road that carries
less that 500 vehicle per day.
General Comments:
6. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
8. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 214.0506(h)).
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
9. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
10. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
11. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
12. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to
be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
App] ication.
13. Where streams must be crossed, NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, NCDOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
14. Whenever possible, NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall
not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
15. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
17. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
18. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
.?,.?r t, •?,-lr {?,?.. ?.?......,...,,?f`f? ,. nn.n ?.•.} ll1nrC rn?L1f'; ..nll. r4n rrrn•?tr+r c1, .. 11 nn? )•,., r.., r,., ittn.a 1-n
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
19. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be
contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
20. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
IR
fish kills.
21. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
22. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NCDWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
23. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain benches, and/or
sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall be avoided. Stream
channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
24. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
25. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
26. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved RMP
measures from Liu; must current version of NCDO'1 Construction and Maintenance ActivILICS
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
27. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
28. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
29. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed,
sized and installed.
30. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Shall you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Joel Setzer, PE, Division 14 Engineer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US FWS (electronic copy only)
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT OF 1971
APPROVED:
r-2 J41 /J
ate Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
lsroject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
SR 13 64 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEBRUARY 2010
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH BY:

0z-X- to
Date
Stever L. Browpf, P.'E.
Project Planning Engineer
z /c) "
at Eug
Proj

Engineer
\\\' C A R 0 /
•oFESS/p?
.Q SEAL
32096
6
'i ?G
"INS
Date Linwood Stone
Project Engineer
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
• The project area contains habitat for several threatened and endangered species including the
Spotfin Chub, Appalachian Elktoe, Littlewing Pearlymussel and Virgina Spirea. Additionally, the
Little Tennessee River is designated Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe and Spotfin
Chub.
A Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS for these threatened and endangered species will be
required. It is expected that this consultation will result in reasonable and prudent measures to
avoid, minimize or reduce any adverse effects to these species.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch and Human Environment Unit
• The proposed improvements to Needmore Road will have an adverse effect on the Proposed
Tellico Valley Historic District. The Human Envrionment Unit of PDEA will coordinate with the
US Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Eastern Band of Cherokee, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, property
owners and the Land Trust of the Little Tennessee to develop a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) outlining mitigation for the effects of the proposed action to the historic district. The
MOA will be completed prior to project letting.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulic Design Unit, and Roadside Environmental Unit
• The proposed project is located within a critical habitat area for the federally protected
Appalachian elktoe and Spotfin Chub. Therefore, NCDOT will implement erosion and
sedimentation control measures, as specified by NCDOT's "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B.0124). Detailed plans for the placement of appropriate hydraulic
drainage structures and stormwater best management practices will be determined during the final
design of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with USFWS concerning fill slope protection measures where the road is
in close proximity to the Little Tennessee River.
Division 14
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Project Commitments
State Environmental Assessment page 1 of 2
February 2010
PROJECT COMMITMENTS (Cont.)
SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
Hydraulic Design Unit
• A TVA Section 26a permit is required for all proposed obstructions involving streams or
floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. The TVA is a cooperating agency for this
project.
• The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Project Commitments
State Environmental Assessment page 2 of 2
February 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i
A. TYPE OF ACTION ....................................................................................................... ... i
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... ... i
C. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................... ... i
D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....................................................................................... .. ii
E. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... . iii
F. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................................... . iii
G. SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED ....................................................................................... . Vi
H. COORDINATION ......................................................................................................... . Vi
1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... Vii
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................. ..1
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... .. 1
B. HISTORICAL RESUME AND PROJECT STATUS ................................................................ .. 1
it. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................... .. 6
A. QUALITY OF TRAVEL .................................................................................................. .. 6
1. Project Traffic/Capacity ........................................................................................ .. 6
2. Exisiting Roadway Conditions/Defeciencies ........................................................ .. 6
3. Traffic Safety Analysis ......................................................................................... .. 7
4. System Linkage .................................................................................................... .. 7
B. HYDROLOGY/SEDIMENTATION ..................................................................................... ..8
C. NATURAL RESOURCE SETTING ..................................................................................... .. 9
D. MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................... ..9
E. PURPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY ................................................................................... 10
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY ..................................................................... 10
A. LENGTH OF PROJECT .................................................................................................. 10
B. ROUTE CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................... 10
C. EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION ........................................................................................ 10
D. PROJECT TERMINII ..................................................................................................... 10
E. RIGHT OF WAY ......................................................................................................... 11
F. BRIDGE/DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ................................................................................. 11
G. SPEED LIMIT ............................................................................................................ 11
H. ACCESS CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 11
1. INTERSECTION AND TYPE OF CONTROL ........................................................................ 11
7. UTILITIES ................................................................................................................ 11
K. SCHOOL BUSES ......................................................................................................... 11
L. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ................................................................................................. 11
M. SIDEWALKS/ BICYCLES ................................................................................................ 11
N. PARKING ................................................................................................................ 12
0. GREENWAYS ............................................................................................................ 12
P. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENTS ................................................................. 12
Q. NAVIGABLE WATERS .................................................................................................. 12
R. PARKS ................................................................................................................... 12
S. GEOENVIRONMENTAL SITES ........................................................................................ 12
T. OTHER TIP PROJECTS IN THE AREA ............................................................................. 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...............................................................................13
A. No-BUILD ............................................................................................................... 13
B. NO PAVE WITH SELECTIVE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE ......................................... 13
C. PAVE IN PLACE - 18-FEET MAXIMUM WIDTH ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 15
D. PAVE IN PLACE - 18-FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 16
E. DIVISION 14 SECONDARY ROAD STANDARDS WITH DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................... 16
F. COMPARISON OF SR 1364 IN MACON COUNTY AND SR 1114 IN SWAIN COUNTY
(NEEDMORE ROAD) .................................................................................................... 17
G. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 18
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 18
A. DESIGN SPEED .......................................................................................................... 18
B. TYPICAL SECTION ...................................................................................................... 18
C. RIGHT OF WAY ......................................................................................................... 19
D. ACCESS CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 19
E. STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 19
F. PARKING ................................................................................................................ 19
G. SIDEWALKS ............................................................................................................. 19
H. BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS ....................................................................................... 19
1. INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL ................................................... 19
7. SCHEDULES & COSTS .................................................................................................. 20
VI. H UMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................. 20
A. COMMUNITY EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 20
1. Community Geographic and Political Description ............................................... 20
2. Study Area .......................................................................................................... 22
3. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 22
4. Community Characteristics ................................................................................... 22
a. Natural Environmental Context ...................................................................... 24
b. Population Trends ........................................................................................... 24
c. Population Projections .................................................................................... 26
d. Economics .................................................................................................... 26
e. Housing Characteristics .................................................................................. 27
f. Community Resources - Natural .................................................................... 28
g. Emergency Needs and Response Services ...................................................... 28
h. Land Use and Development Regulations ........................................................ 29
i. Community Resources - Utilities ................................................................... 29
5. Analysis of Community Impact ............................................................................ 30
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 32
1. Compliance Guidelines ......................................................................................... 32
2. Historic Architecture and Historic Landscapes ..................................................... 32
3. Archaeological Resources ..................................................................................... 33
C. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/AIR QUALITY ..................................................................... 34
D. GEODETIC MARKERS .................................................................................................. 35
E. HAzARDous MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................. 35
A. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................. 35
1. Soils ................................................................................................................. 35
2. Water Resources ................................................................................................... 37
3. Biotic Resources .................................................................................................. 41
a. Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................. 41
b. Aquatic Communities ...................................................................................... 45
4. Rare and Unique Natural Areas ............................................................................ 47
B. JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ............................................................................................... 47
1. Wetland Descriptions ............................................................................................ 48
2. Jurisdictional Streams Descriptions ...................................................................... 48
3. Wetland and Stream Impacts ................................................................................ 48
C. ACIDIC (HOT) ROCK ................................................................................................... 50
1. Hot Rock Assements to Date ................................................................................ 50
2. Project Impact to Acidic Rock .............................................................................. 52
3. Treatment and Disposal Methods ........................................................................ 52
D. WINTER SALTING PROTOCOL ....................................................................................... 53
E. PERMITTING AND MITIGATION ..................................................................................... 53
1. Permits and Certifications Required ..................................................................... 53
2. Mitigation Basis ................................................................................................... 54
3. Mitigation Evaluation ........................................................................................... 55
F. PROTECTED SPECIES ISSUES ......................................................................................... 55
1. Federal Protected Species ..................................................................................... 55
2. Federal Species of Concern ................................................................................... 62
3. State Protected Species ......................................................................................... 64
4. Invasive Species ............................................................................ .65
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................... 65
A. COMMENTS SOLICITED ................................................................................................. 65
B. NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER PROCESS ....................................................................... 66
C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................. 66
IX. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................................... 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
TABLE S-1: COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES .............................................. ............ v
TABLE 1: PROJECT CRASH RATE SUMMARY ........................................................................ ............ 7
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... .......... 17
TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (CONT.) ............................................................ .......... 18
TABLE 3: SCHEDULE & COSTS ........................................................................................... .......... 20
TABLE 4: EMPLOYMENT & POVERTY ................................................................................... .......... 21
TABLE 5: POPULATION TRENDS ......................................................................................... .......... 24
TABLE 6: SEASONAL POPULATION ....................................................................................... .......... 25
TABLE 7: POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................................................................... .......... 26
TABLE 8: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................ .......... 28
TABLE 10: PLANT COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ................................ .......... 44
TABLE 11: AQUATIC INSECTS COLLECTED .......................................................................... .......... 47
TABLE 16: NET NEUTRALIZATION POTENTIAL RESULTS ...................................................... .......... 51
TABLE 18: FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES (31 JANUARY 2008 USFWS LIST ......................... .......... 56
TABLE 19: FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN (FSQ (31 JANUARY 2008 USFWS LIST ......... .......... 63
TABLE 20: STATE LISTED SPECIES ....................................................................................... .......... 65
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVES MAP
FIGURE 4 TYPICAL SECTIONS
FIGURE 5 COMMUNITY STUDY AREAS
FIGURE 6 DIRECT COMMUNITY IMPACT AREA
FIGURE 7 PROPOSED TELLICO VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT
FIGURE 8A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED TELLICO VALLEY
HISTORIC DISTRICT - BEFORE MINIMIZATION
FIGURE 8B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED TELLICO VALLEY
HISTORIC DISTRICT - AFTER MINIMIZATION
FIGURE 9 JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
FIGURE 10 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACT TO NEEDMORE TRACT BUFFERS
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C Natural Environment Effect Tables
TABLE 9 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROJECT AREA
TABLE 12 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY
TABLE 13 JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY - SECTION A & B
TABLE 14 JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY - SECTION C
TABLE 15 JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY - SECTION D
TABLE 17 ACIDIC ROCK IMPACT SUMMARY - SECTION C AND D
Appendix D Citizens Informational Workshop Material
SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation Administrative Action, State
Environmental Assessment (SEA). This SEA has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts
of this proposed transportation improvement project.
B. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements
to SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) from SR 1369
(Tellico Road) in Macon County to the existing pavement in Swain County. The total project
length is approximately 3.3 miles (see Figure 1 in Appendix A).
SR 1364/SR 1114 (Needmore Road) is an unpaved secondary road located along the
Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties. The width of the existing roadway varies
from 14 feet to 19 feet. Proposed improvements include paving and upgrading the facility to
NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards from SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County
to existing pavement in Swain County.
This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The project is divided in the STIP into four sections, A through D. Section A
begins at SR 1369 (Tellico Road) and extends to the Macon/Swain County line. Section B
extends from the Macon/Swain County line to northwest of the Macon/Swain County line.
Section C runs from 0.55 miles northwest of the Macon/Swain County line to 0.93 miles
northwest of the Macon/Swain County. Section D begins 0.93 miles northwest of the
Macon/Swain County line and ends at the beginning of the existing pavement in Swain County.
Major project features and a project section breakdown appear in Figure 2.
The total estimated cost in the STIP is $7,347,000, which includes $134,000 for
mitigation and $6,550,000 for construction. The current estimated cost ranges from $375,000 to
$13,100,000 for the studied alternatives. Construction is scheduled in NCDOT's Five Year Work
Plan to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013 on Sections A, B and D and in a future year
beyond 2015 on Section C of the project.
C. Purpose and Need for Proiect
The Purpose and Need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for
local residents that currently use Needmore Road; reduce existing sedimentation from Needmore
Road into the Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the existing high
quality natural resources including but not limited to water quality, habitat and vegetation, and
reduce existing maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
D. Alternatives Considered
The alternatives considered for the project consists of the "no-build" alternative
(Alternative A) and four improvement alternatives (Alternative B-E).
Alternative B proposes to improve Needmore Road by upgrading selected drainage
areas of the roadway, including replacement of drainage pipes, and grading inprovements.
NCDOT also added a soil binder/alternative surfacing method to Alternative B, as requested by
the merger team. This alternative seeks to reduce the maintenance of Needmore Road by
methods other than paving. Several different maintenance techniques (dust control, road
stabilization methods and geosynthetics) were reviewed for application to Needmore Road under
this alternative. Most of these techniques were applied to foresty roads with very low traffic
volumes. Several of these techniques appeared promising, but after further evaluation some were
not applicable and most need further research before they could be recommended on a project
with the traffic volumes projected for Needmore Road.
Alternative C proposes to improve Needmore Road by paving the existing roadway
width of Needmore Road. No shoulder improvements are included in this alternative. Although
the existing roadway width generally varies from 14 to 19 feet, with the proposed improvements
the maximum pavement width will be no wider than 18 feet for this alternative.
Alternative D proposes to improve Needmore Road to a 2-lane paved facility by
paving the existing variable roadway width consisting of a minimum 9-foot travel lane in each
direction, with a minimum roadway width of 18 feet, and improvements to the shoulders of the
roadway. This alternative will improve the facility to conform to NCDOT Division 14 Secondary
Road Standards in Sections A, B, C and D where possible without encroaching on the Little
Tennessee River or cutting into the existing acidic rock along the project. NCDOT Division 14
Secondary Road Standards include a minimum of 9-foot travel lanes, a minimum 18-feet of
roadway width, and roadway shoulder widths of 4-feet to 7-feet. In general, this alternative
improves Project Section A, B, and D to NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards and
improves the roadway to a minimum 18-foot width in Section C with shoulder improvements
where possible. In areas of the project (portions of Section C) where environmental constraints
are unavoidable and the existing roadway corridor narrows to below 18 feet, the roadway will be
widened to a minimum of 18-feet to meet minimum applicable design standards. Widening will
be asymmetrical away from the Little Tennessee River in Section C.
Alternative E proposes to improve Needmore Road to a 2-lane paved facility
consisiting of a minimum 9-foot travel lane in each direction, with a minimum roadway width of
18 feet, and improvements to the shoulders of the roadway. This alternative will improve the
entire facility to conform to NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards in Sections A, B, C
and D. The proposed alignment calls for widening the roadway away from the Little Tennessee
River. All widening on the project will be toward or into the rock hillsides adjacent to the
project, including areas identified as containing acidic rock. Plan views of the build alternatives
(Alternatives C, D, and E) appear in Figure 3.
ii
E. Recommended Alternative
Alternative E is the recommended alternative because it provides improvements to
Needmore Road which meets NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards without
significant impacts to the surrounding human and sensitive natural environment. This alternative
provides improved quality of travel on Needmore Road, reduces exisitng sedimentation into the
Little Tennessee River, avoids significant impact to existing high quality natural resources in the
area, and reduces exisiting maintenance costs currently associated with Needmore Road.
Alternative E will upgrade the current facility to comply with NCDOT Division 14
Secondary Road Standards, while avoiding direct impact to the adjacent sensitive natural
resources associated with the Little Tennessee River. NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road
Standards will include travel lanes that are a minimum of 9-feet wide and shoulder widths of 4
and 7-feet wide with guardrail on the river side, yielding a minimum cross section width of 29
feet. Required cut slopes on the rock side will be adjusted from 3/4:1 in non-acidic (or non-"hot")
rock cut areas to a steeper 1/4:1 in acidic ("hot") rock cut areas to minimize the impact to acidic
rock along the project. The typical section for the recommended alternative appears in Figure 4.
The exisiting facility will be widened away from the adjacent Little Tennessee River to avoid
direct impacts to the river.
Alternative E upgrades Needmore Road to a paved facility, which will significantly
reduce sedimentation into the river from the existing unpaved facility, as well as reduce the
annual costs associated with maintaining Needmore Road as an unpaved gravel facility.
F. Summary of Environmental Effects
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized through the
development of alternatives. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is
anticipated as a result of the project. The proposed project will have an "Adverse Effect" on the
Proposed Tellico Historic District. None of the alternatives will encroach upon any known
archaeological sites on or eligible for listing in the National Register. No business or residential
relocations are anticipated.
There are thirteen federally protected species listed for Macon and Swain Counties.
The bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of August 8, 2007. It is still
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The biological conclusions for these
species range from "No Effect" to "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA).
Biological conclusions for several species, which have potential or Critical habitat in the project
area, including the Spotfin Chub and Appalachian Elktoe mussel, are unresolved.
The recommended alternative has several noted unresolved biological conclusions
due to the documented Threatened and Endangered Species and the designated Critical Habitat
known to occur within the project study area. Coordination (Section 7 Consultation) with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is ongoing to determine the potential impacts of
construction on the Threatened and Endangered Species and the Critical Habitat. This
consultation will also determine if there are any special considerations for construction such as
moratoriums and special construction methods that may need to be followed to determine how
impacts will affect the populations and to limit the potential impacts caused by construction.
iii
Five named jurisdictional streams, including the Little Tennessee River, and ten
unnamed tributiaries were identified in the project area. Of these, fourteen jurisdictional streams
will be impacted by the project. Direct stream impacts are anticipated to total approximately
2,244 linear feet.
One jurisdictional wetland was identified in the project area. There are 0.044 acres of
direct wetland impact anticipated on this project.
Approximately 24,201 cubic yards of potentially acidic or "hot" rock will be
impacted by the proposed project. Special handling and disposal provisions for hot rock will be
implemented on the project as necessary. Excavation, handling and disposal provisions are
described in detail in Section VII, C. of this document.
Table S-1 presents a comparison of the build alternatives. Figure 3 depicts project
alternatives.
lv
Table S-1: Comparison of Improvement Alternatives
Resource Alternative
A Alternative
B Alternative
C Alternative
D Alternative
E
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 1 1 1 1 1
Churches 0 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
National Register Eligible Properties/
Areas 0 0 1 1 1
Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Federally-Listed Species within
Corridor 13 13 13 13 13
100-Year Flood lain Crossings 1 1 1 1 1
Prime Farmland 0 0 0 0 0
Residential Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.023 acres 0.044 acres
Stream Crossings 14 14 14 14 14
Stream Impacts 0 if 0 if 0 if 4,988 if 2,2241f
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 17.6 acres 18.1 acres
Terrestrial Natural Community
Impacts
- Maintained/Disturbed 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 7.0 acres 7.0 acres
- Mixed Pine Hardwood 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
- Montane Alluvial Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 6.1 acres 6.1 acres
- Acidic Cove Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.9 acres 1.9 acres
- Montane Acidic Cliff 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
- White Pine Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.6 acres 1.6 acres
Acidic or "hot" Rock 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 24,201 cubic yards
Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watershed Protected
Areas 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 1 1 1 1 1
Section 4 Impacts Historic 0 0 0 0 0
Low Income Population Impacts None None None None None
Minority Population Impacts None None None None None
Construction Cost $ 0 $ 375,000 $ 5,200,000 $9,000,000 $ 13,100,000
Utility Cost $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $ 0
i htofWa Cost $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $ 0
Total Cost $ 0 $ 375,000 5,200,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 13,100,000
G. Special Permits Required
Dredging or placement of fill material into surface waters or wetlands will require
permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Based on the anticipated impacts, a Section 404
Individual permit will likely be applicable. A corresponding Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for linear transportation projects (GC 3404) will likely be required and a Water
Quality Certification for temporary construction access and dewatering may be required.
Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act requires that TVA
approval be obtained before any construction activities can be carried out that affect navigation,
flood control, or public lands along the shoreline of the TVA reservoirs or in the Tennessee
River or its tributaries. The improvements to Needmore Road are being coordinated with the
TVA and may require an Off-Reservoir Construction Permit.
H. Coordination
Agency Comments
Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
environmental document. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted
with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
* Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Written comments received from the noted agencies appear in Appendix B.
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process
A Section 404 Merger Team / NEPA Merger Team was established for the project to
improve environmental protection and the regulatory process. The merger team consists of
representatives from the following state and federal agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
vi
Merger team meetings have been held prior to publishing this State Environmental
Assessment (SEA) to discuss and agree on the project purpose and need, alternatives under
consideration, to review the impacts associated with the alternates under consideration, and agree
upon project alternatives to carry forward for detailed study.
Additional merger meetings to concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicible Alternative (LEDPA) and Avoidance and Minimization of impacts will be held for
this project subsequent to approval of this SEA.
I. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
vii
SR 1364 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
From SR 1369 in Macon County to existing pavement in Swain County
Macon and Swain Counties
WBS No. 35597.1.1
T.I.P. No. R-4440
L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes improvements to SR
1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) from SR 1369 (Tellico
Road) in Macon County to the existing pavement in Swain County. The total project length is
approximately 3.3 miles (Figure 1). Note that all Figures associated with this document appear in
Appendix A.
SR 1364/SR 1114 (Needmore Road) is an unpaved secondary road located along the Little
Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties. The width of the existing roadway varies from 14
feet to 19 feet. Proposed improvements include paving and upgrading the facility to NCDOT
Division 14 Secondary Road Standards from SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County to
existing pavement in Swain County. Major project features and a project section breakdown
appear in Figure 2.
B. Historical Resume and Proiect Status
The SR 1364/SR 1114 (Needmore Road) Improvement Project has undergone significant
planning and design changes throughout its project life to date. Following is a summary of the
highlights of the project's history and timeline:
The improvements to Needmore Road began as a NCDOT Division 14 Design/Construct
project funded separately by Swain County, District 2, and Macon County, District 3. In May
1997, District 3 applied for a Nationwide No. 14 Permit to extend existing culverts and add new
ones where required in conjunction with the proposed improvements to Needmore Road in Macon
County.
Due to the critical habitat designation, a Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act
was required for the project. At a coordination meeting, held August 11, 1997, natural resource
agencies raised concerns over the potential for secondary and cumulative environmental impacts.
Because of the potential of impacts to endangered species and growing local controversy among
the citizens, it was determined that this project did not comply with state minimum criteria.
Therefore, a State Environmental Assessment (SEA) was deemed as appropriate to fulfill
documentation requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that Swain and Macon Counties submit a
combined application for an Individual Permit for the proposed construction on Needmore Road.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on the project on December 2, 1999 to provide
available planning and design information to the public. Approxiamtely 120 people attended the
workshop. Comments and petitions from the public were split evenly between favoring and
opposing the project.
I
NEPA/Section 404 Clean Water Act Merger Process
A Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose and Need) meeting
was held on July 19, 2000 with applicable environmental resource agencies to discuss the Purpose
and Need for the project. Additional information was requested on the project by the agencies to
support the project's Purpose and Need.
The project was added to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in January 2001 to
fund the anticipated additional environmental studies and design effort to complete the project.
A Section 404/NEPA Merger Team (Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose and Need) meeting
was held on February 22, 2002 with applicable environmental resource agencies to discuss the
Purpose and Need for the project. The agencies concurred on the project purpose and need during
this meeting.
Two Section 404/NEPA Merger Team meetings for Concurrence Point #2 (Alternatives to
Carry Forward) were held for the project. The first meeting was held on September 20, 2005 in
the Board Room of the Transportation Building. The second concurrence meeting was held in
Bryson City at the Southwestern Community College's Swain Center (SCC) on December 13,
2005. The second meeting was held in conjunction with a field review meeting.
Team member concurrence was reached on December 13, 2005 to carry forward the following
alternatives for detailed study:
A. No Build Alternative - This alternative only maintains the existing gravel/dirt road.
Maintenance includes the cost of adding gravel.
B. No Pave with Selective Improvements Alternative - Selective improvements include
drainage, buffer, and maintenance issues.
C. Pave in Place -18 feet Maximum Alternative - This alternative only paves the existing
roadway width of Needmore Road. Although the existing roadway width generally varies
from 14 to 19 feet, the maximum pavement width will be no wider than 18 feet.
D. Pave in Place - Improve where you can Alternative - The improvements for this
alternative include paving the existing variable roadway width as well as improving the
road and shoulders without impacting hot rock or placing fill into the Little Tennessee
River. Stream and sensitive area impacts would be minimized.
E. Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with Design Exceptions Alternative - This
alternative combines Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with design exceptions.
Division 14 Secondary Road Standards include a minimum roadway width of 18 feet with
shoulder widths of 4 feet and 6 feet. Therefore, the total typical section width for this
alternative is 28 feet. The design exceptions can reduce the shoulder widths as well as the
roadway width below 18 feet; however, the roadway width will not be reduced to 14 feet.
A Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting was held on September 3, 2008 at
Southwestern Community College in Bryson City. An optional field review was held on the
2
project before the meeting. The purpose of the concurrence meeting (Concurrence Point 2A)
was to review the project alternatives, stream crossings and impacts. The following project
alternatives (as carried forward from Concurrence Point 2 and developed since that meeting) and
their respective impacts to the environment were presented:
A. No Build Alternative - This alternative only maintains the existing gravel/dirt road.
Maintenance includes the cost of adding gravel.
B. No Pave with Selective Improvements Alternative - Selective improvements include
drainage, buffer, and maintenance issues. Drainage pipes have been identified throughout the
project for replacement.
C. Pave in Place - 18 feet Maximum Alternative - This alternative only paves the existing
roadway width of Needmore Road. Although the existing roadway width generally varies
from 14 to 19 feet, the maximum pavement width will be no wider than 18 feet.
Improvements would not impact hot rock or place fill into the Little Tennessee River. Stream
and sensitive area impacts would be minimized. Portions of the existing available roadbed in
Section C are as narrow as 14 feet and immediately constrained by the Little Tennessee River
on one side and a mountainside on the opposite side of the roadbed. Note that because of the
physical constraints in Section C, a reduced cross-section has been studied but is not
recommended nor endorsed by NCDOT Roadway Design staff. Minimum design standards
require a minimum of 9-foot travel lanes, which would yield a minimum 18-foot wide
roadway.
C Modified. Pave in Place - To meet minimum design standards, this alternative includes
minimum 9-foot travel lanes and shoulder improvements throughout the project.
D. Pave in Place - Improve where you can Alternative - The improvements for this
alternative include paving the existing variable roadway width as well as improving the road
and shoulders without impacting hot rock or placing fill into the Little Tennessee River.
Stream and sensitive area impacts would be minimized. Note that because of the physical
constraints in Section C, a reduced cross-section has been studied but currently is not
recommended nor endorsed by NCDOT Roadway Design staff.
D Modified. Pave in Place - Improve where you can Alternative - To meet minimum design
standards, this alternative includes minimum 9-foot travel lanes and shoulder improvements
throughout the project.
E. Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with Design Exceptions Alternative - This
alternative combines Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with design exceptions. Division
14 Secondary Road Standards include a minimum roadway width of 18 feet with shoulder
widths of 4 feet and 6 feet. Therefore, the total typical section width for this alternative is a
minimum of 28 feet. The design exceptions can reduce the shoulder widths; however, the
roadway width would not be reduced below 18 feet. Reducing the roadway width below 18
feet had previously been presented as part of Alternative E. However, there is no design
exception to Division 14 Secondary Road Standards which would allow this reduction.
The following issues were discussed by the merger team during the Concurrence Point 2A
meeting:
3
• NCWRC expressed a desire to remove all "modified" alternatives from consideration
(which included minimum 9-foot travel lanes and shoulder improvements) because of
impacts to Little Tennessee River and only have pave in place alternatives that do not
widen the existing roadway. Also, NCWRC expressed the belief that there was no
need for shoulders and maximum widths for any of the alternatives, especially if speed
limits were posted.
? NCDOT responded that any paving of Needmore Road would require some
widening to adhere to the minimum travel lanes and shoulder widths as set forth in
the applicable design standards. It was also stated that speed limits were not posted
on gravel roads because of changing roadway conditions.
• NCDOT suggested modifying Alternative E, with all the widening away from the
river, with only a cut section into the rock and reducing the shoulder section where
needed.
• USFWS expressed concerns about how freshly exposed acidic rock faces and runoff
from them would be handled during construction, especially given the extremely
sensitive nature of the area.
? NCDOT responded that the acidic levels of the rock on this project were very low.
With the levels present, runoff from them would not be considered a "hot runoff'.
Leaching from freshly exposed surfaces are not likely to pose a long term problem,
because the surfaces oxidize very quickly. Any runoff from the surfaces could
easily be neutralized by lining ditches with limestone or spraying a limestone
slurry on the exposed rock faces.
? NCDOT also proposed pre-drilling before any blasting, to acheive a nearly vertical
(1/4:1) rock wall/face, which would reduce exposed surface areas to weathering
(verses a sloped cut section).
• USFWS also expressed concerns about how acidic rock debris from the construction
would be kept out of the river, especially with the potential for floods.
? NCDOT responded that non-explosive methods could be used to control debris
material from going into the river. Material generated would be transported to a
single waste area for treatment outside or above the potential flood zone. Also, if
exposure of the fresh surfaces on debris material during construction is an issue,
the material could be covered so as to shield these surfaces from the weather.
• EPA asked if this modified Alternative E could allow design to division standards with
no backfill to the river.
? NCDOT indicated that modifying Alternate E to widen away from the river would
allow design to minimum standards.
• EPA stated that there could be very specific design criteria to control acidic runoff and
that this should be looked at as an alternative, since filling in the river will not be
permitted.
• NCWRC stated that they wanted Alternatives C and D (Pave-in-Place alternatives with
no widening of the roadway) included as alternatives to carry forward.
4
• DWQ asked why a significant amount of work is being considered for such a minor
project and also noted that while safety was emphasized as the main reason for the
project, safety was not part of the purpose and need for the project.
? NCDOT responded that Needmore Road is projected to carry increased traffic in
the future, due to tourism and the fact that it is being used as an alternate cut-
through route to avoid NC 28. An increase in traffic on this road could
theoretically increase the likelihood of accidents on this road and reduce the
quality of overall travel, due to the narrow roadway and severe curves at points
along the project.
• USFWS stated that with the Appalachian elk toe having drastic declines in areas of the
Little Tennessee River, they were especially concerned about preserving their habitat
on this project. To this end USFWS asked if a soil binder or alternativesurfacing
method could be used on one or more alternatives to lower the maintenance rather than
having paving as only option.
? NCDOT responded that soil binders/alternative surfacing method would be added
to Alternative B. However, it should be noted here that NCDOT is generally
required by law to pave eligible unpaved secondary roads.
After discussions on the alternatives and their respective impacts to the environment, the
Merger Team reached concurrence on Concurrence Point 2A. The Team decided to not carry
forward Alternative C Modified or Alternative D Modified. This left the following alternatives to
carry forward:
• Alternative A: No Build
• Alternative B: No Pave with Selective Improvements including
binder material/alternative surfacing
• Alternative C: Pave-in-Place - 18 foot maximum roadway width
• Alternative D Pave-in-Place - 18 foot minimum roadway width
• Alternative E: Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with Design
Exceptions with widening to the rock side only,
impact to hot rock side and no fill into the Little
Tennessee River
Current Project Funding and Schedule Status
This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and in NCDOT's 5 Year Work Program. The project is divided in the STIP into
four sections, A through D. Section A begins at SR 1369 (Tellico Road) and extends to the
Macon/Swain County line. Section B extends from the Macon/Swain County line to northwest of
the Macon/Swain County line. Section C runs from 0.55 miles northwest of the Macon/Swain
County line to 0.93 miles northwest of the Macon/Swain County. Section D begins 0.93 miles
northwest of the Macon/Swain County line and ends at the beginning of the existing pavement in
Swain County.
The total cost in the STIP is $7,347,000, which includes $134,000 for mitigation and
$6,550,000 for construction. The current estimated cost ranges from $375,000 to $13,100,000.
Construction is scheduled in NCDOT's Five Year Work Program to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2013 on Sections A and B and in future years beyond 2015 on Sections C and D of the
proj ect.
5
H. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Purpose and Need for the proposed project is to improve the quality of travel for
local residents that currently use Needmore Road; reduce existing sedimentation from Needmore
Road into the Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the existing high
quality natural resources including but not limited to water quality, habitat and vegetation, and
reduce existing maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
Needmore Road is designated as a local rural route between Franklin and Bryson City.
A 1000-foot section of Needmore Road in Swain County is prone to flooding due to its proximity
to the Little Tennessee River. Frequent floods wash sediment across the roadway and into the
Little Tennessee River, make the road impassable except in four-wheel drive vehicles, and
produce substantial maintenance requirements. Additionally, during the dry months of summer,
the dust stirred up on the road settles on the surrounding vegetation and into the river itself.
A. Quality of Travel
1. Project Traffic/Capacity
Based on the 2007 NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimates for Macon
and Swain counties, the traffic volumes are low in the project area - approximately 140 to 470
AADT. In general, traffic on Needmore Road is seasonably variable, based on seasonal tourist
activity in the area.
Current traffic volume on Needmore Road is estimated at approximately 260 vehicles per
day. Traffic volume on Needmore Road is forecasted to be approximately 440 vehicles per day in
the project design year of 2030.
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its traffic carrying ability. Levels
of service range from LOS A to F. Level of Service A represents unrestricted maneuverability and
operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced maneuverability and normal operating
speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service C represents restricted maneuverability and the
posted speed limit is maintained. Level of service D represents severely restricted maneuvering
and unstable, low operating speeds. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. Breakdown conditions are characterized by stop and go travel; this occurs at
level of service F. Capacity analysis on Needmore Road indicates that it will operate at a LOS of
B in the design year with no improvements to the road. Due to the low volume of expected future
traffic, the proposed improvements to Needmore Road will not significantly affect the facility's
LOS.
2. Exisiting Roadway Conditions/Defeciencies
The existing paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain County (outside of the project
limits) has two nine foot lanes with grass shoulders of varying widths. The unpaved section of
Needmore Road in both Swain and Macon Counties has a hard packed surface of dirt and gravel
and a cross-section that varies in width from 14 feet to 19 feet. The existing alignment in Swain
County has a series of sharp curves with poor horizontal sight distance. An existing stone
retaining wall exists adjacent to the Little Tennessee River in the portion of the facility where the
roadway width is 14 to 16 feet. The combination of inadequate roadway width and poor sight
6
distance makes this area a potential safety hazard. The paved portion of Needmore Road in Swain
County has a 35-mph posted speed limit. The unpaved portion is not posted for speed.
3. Traffic Safety Analysis
There was one reported crash along the studied portion of Needmore Road between April
1, 2006 through March 31, 2009. For crash rate purposes, this location can be classified as a 2-
lane, undivided rural North Carolina (NC) route. Table 1 shows the comparison of the crash rates
for the analyzed section SR 1364 - SR 1114 versus the 2005-2007 statewide crash rates for a
comparable road type and configuration. Current crash rates do not exceed the statewide crash
rates or the critical crash rates in any categories.
Table 1: Project Crash Rate Summary
Rate Crashes Crashes per
100MVM Statewide
Rate 1 Critical Rate z
Total 1 35.64 354.02 556.45
Fatal 0 0 3.93 41.78
Non-FatalInju 0 0 125.75 253.85
Night 0 0 142.23 277.32
Wet 0 0 52.64 140.75
' 2005-2007 statewide crash rate for 2-lane, undivided rural North Carolina (NC) routes.
z Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence).
Crash data is obtained through the North Carolina Crash Database, which is maintained by
the Division of Motor Vehicles. Many crashes are unreported for a variety of reasons, particularly
in a rural setting. It should be noted that previous three-year period crash statistic analysis has
indicated that the Crashes per 100 MVM has historically been as high as 754.72 accidents per 100
MVM on portions of Needmore Road. Historically, the majority of the accidents on Needmore
Road have involved a single vehicle running off of the road.
4. System Linkage
Needmore Road is a local road that connects Graham County and Bryson City with
Franklin. People commute from Bryson City and areas within Graham County to work and shop
in Franklin. Alternate routes must be used when Needmore Road is impassible.
a. Alternate Routes
NC 28. Traffic originating in Graham County or the Needmore community can
choose to travel NC 28 to Franklin. The distance is approximately 45 miles from both
destinations. The distance is only 17 miles travelling via Needmore Road. NC 28 is a two-lane
road with switchback curves. The road hugs the mountain with steep drop-offs and no safety
guardrail.
US 19-23-74 to US 441. Traffic originating in Bryson City can use US 19-23-74 to US
441. This route would be approximately 89 miles. To travel to Franklin by way of Needmore
Road is approximately 50 miles.
7
US 19-74 to SR 1310. Commuters from Graham County can take US 19-74 toward
Murphy and then turn onto SR 1310 (Wayah Road) in Macon County. This is approximately 52
miles in length. SR 1310 runs through Wayah State Game Refuge.
b. Emergency Vehicles
EMS service is not eliminated when the road is flooded or impassible. Both counties
have a mutual aid agreement to respond to isolated areas near the county lines. Additionally, an
EMS unit is being considered for the West Swain Volunteer Fire Department which is located at
the junction of US 74 and SR 1113. Macon Medical Center in Franklin, N.C. is the preferred
hospital in this region. However, in a life-threatening situation, EMS personnel would transport a
patient to the nearest medical facility.
c. School Buses
Currently, no school buses from either county use the unpaved portion of Needmore
Road for their routes.
B. Hydrology/Sedimentation
A hydraulic study was conducted on the Little Tennessee River along the project near the
Macon/Swain County line. The study involved comparing the existing conditions of Needmore
Road with proposed roadway improvements. The proposed improvements consisted of widening
the lane widths and shoulders to NCDOT secondary road standards as well as raising the grade
along this portion of Needmore Road that has a history of flooding and washing out. The
hydraulic study consisted of conducting field surveys to establish cross sections and running a
HEC-RAS model to compare the existing and proposed conditions. The elevations for the study
used an assumed datum because the interest was in the difference in elevation between the road
and the water surface elevation of the river during the various storm events. The model was run
for storm events ranging from the two year storm to the 500 year storm. The study showed that
portions of the road would be flooded during the 5 year storm and that the 2 year storm event was
within six inches of overtopping the road. The difference in elevation between the existing and
proposed models varied from 0.00 ft. to 0.06 ft. and the difference in velocity varied from 0.00 to
0.09 ft/sec. The study concluded that there will be no significant change in water surface
elevations or velocities in the Little Tennessee River as a result of the proposed road
improvements.
Sediment filled runoff from existing unpaved roads contributes to the overall sedimentation of
streams in the project area, resulting from significant flooding events, and runoff of stormwater
from regular rain events. Past maintenance records were used to estimate the amount of material
lost into the Little Tennessee River on a yearly basis. The amount of sediment into the Little
Tennessee River from Needmore Road is estimated to range from 70 tons to 372 tons annually.
Converting Needmore Road to a paved facility would significantly reduce sedimentation into the
Little Tennessee River from both the frequent flooding events on the roadway and typical
stormwater runoff from the current gravel and dirt facility.
8
C. Natural Resource Setting
The project begins at SR 1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County and terminates at the existing
paved portion of Needmore Road located in Swain County. The road winds through a very rural
setting, loosely following the Little Tennessee River. The view varies between a tree lined road
with camping areas to narrow passes where the river flows close on one side of the road and rock
hills abut the other side.
The headwaters of the Little Tennessee River start in Georgia. The river flows through the
Town of Franklin into Lake Emory and then on to Fontana Lake located on the border of North
Carolina and Tennessee. The stretch of the Little Tennessee River from Franklin to Fontana Lake
is considered to be one of the most significant aquatic habitats in North Carolina as well as in the
southeastern United States.
The project contains suitable habitat for a total of eight aquatic and plant species which are
listed as Federally threatened or endangered species for both Swain and Macon Counties. This
reach is designated as Critical Habitat for the Appalachian elktoe mussel and the spotfin chub.
The Little Tennessee River also supports numerous other rare species as well as a substantial
smallmouth bass fishery. Please see Section VII of this document for a complete analysis of the
natural resources in the project area and the anticipated impacts of this project to those natural
resources.
In Swain County, there are areas of exisiting acidic rock that will be impacted by road
improvements. Excavation of acidic rock will follow a set of special procedures, including
excavating in small lifts, containment and treatment of stormwater runoff from excavations,
stabilization of exposed slopes, and neutralization and offsite disposal of waste material. Please
see Section VII, C. of this document for detailed discussion of acidic rock impact mitigation.
The proposed improvements to Needmore Road will avoid direct impact to the Little
Tennessee River and its associated Critical Habitats. Paving Needmore Road will contribute
directly to improving the overall water quality of the Little Tennessee River by reducing
sedimentation associated with the existing dirt and gravel facility. Potential environmental
impacts resulting from excavation of the existing acidic rock in the project area will be controlled
and mitigated through established NCDOT acidic rock procedures.
D. Maintenance
Needmore Road must be routinely graded and new material added in areas that have been
washed away or deeply rutted by storms. Routine grading, according to maintenance records,
occurs approximately twice a month. The ditches are cleaned on an average of 2-3 times per year.
The cost of this routine maintenance is estimated at approximately $207,000 per year.
The proposed improvements to Needmore Road will require routine maintenance typically
associated with a paved facility such as patching, shoulder maintenance, and re-striping.
However, the proposed improvements will eliminate frequent, routine maintenance (including the
regular purchase of new road material) and will substantially reduce the total annual maintenance
cost for this roadway.
9
E. Purpose and Need Summary
The purpose and need for improving Needmore Road involves both environmental concerns
(controlling sedimentation and maintaining the integrity of this valuable natural habitat) and
socioeconomic concerns (providing a reliable and safe local road and reducing maintenance
costs). While this road does not show a consistent capacity problem, it does provide system
linkage in an area where travel between essential destinations is made more difficult by
mountainous topography and limited available travel corridors. When this road is not operational,
it increases travel time and out of pocket costs for the local traveler. When this road floods, it
deposits additional sediment into a high quality water resource that is a critical link of the Little
Tennessee River and that is critical habitat for multiple threatened and endangered species.
The proposed project provides an improved transportation facility and minimizes direct
impact to critical resources in the project area.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Length of Proiect
The total length of the proposed improvements to SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in
Swain County (Needmore Road) is approximately 3.3 miles.
B. Route Classification
SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) is designated as a
graded and drained road in the North Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System.
C. Existing Typical Section
The existing paved portion (adjacent to project boundary) SR 1114 in Swain County
(Needmore Road) in Swain County has two nine foot lanes with grass shoulders of varying
widths.
The unpaved section (within the project limits) of Needmore Road in both Swain and Macon
Counties has a hard packed surface of dirt and gravel and a cross-section that varies in width from
14 feet to 19 feet.
D. Proiect Terminii
The southern project terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1364 (Needmore Road) and
SR1369 (Tellico Road) in Macon County. The northern project terminal is located on SR 1114
(Needmore Road) at the existing start of pavement, near the intersection of SR 1114 (Needmore
Road) and Bull Hollow Road.
10
E. Right of Way
The existing right of way along SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County
(Needmore Road) is 50 feet, consisting of a corridor 25 feet wide to either side of the roadway.
Right of way is currently maintained on the roadway from ditchline to ditchline.
F. Brid2e/Draina2e Structures
There is one bridge, Bridge No. 78, along the proposed project. Bridge No. 78 spans Tellico
Creek, a tributary to the Little Tennessee, with a single span, steel I-beam bridge. The bridge, No.
78, has timber back walls and timber railings. The clear roadway width is 19.1 feet. This structure
will not be replaced by this project. It has a sufficiency rating of 51.0.
G. Speed Limit
There is no posted speed limit on SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County
(Needmore Road). In general, speed limits are not posted on gravel roads because of changing
roadway conditions.
H. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
1. Intersection and Type of Control
All intersecting roadways within the project limits have at-grade intersections with SR 1364 in
Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road). There are no traffic signals on
SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road).
J. Utilities
No water or sewer utilities are located in the area. The closest municipal water and sewer
systems are located in Franklin and Bryson City. Private homes and developments in the area
have well and septic systems.
No overhead power lines are located in the immediate project area.
K. School Buses
There are no school bus routes from Macon or Swain Counties that operate along the project.
L. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along the proposed project.
M. Sidewalks/ Bicycles
There are no sidewalks or bicycle facilities along the proposed project.
11
N. Parking
There is no designated on-street parking within the project corridor.
0. Greenways
There are no designated greenways within the project corridor.
P. Horizontal and Vertical Alignments
The existing horizontal alignment along the proposed project is typical for unpaved rural
roads in this region, with limited sight distance and severe curves in some areas. The vertical
profile of Needmore Road in the project area is relatively flat, with few elevation changes,
compared to most roads in the region. Major changes to the horizontal or vertical alignment are
not anticipated due to the environmental and physical constraints on the project.
Q. Navigable Waters
The Little Tennessee River is considered a Section 10 Navigable Water and is immediately
adjacent to the proposed project.
R. Parks
The Needmore Tract is the collective name for multiple parcels totaling 4,500 acres on a 27-
mile stretch of the Little Tennessee River between Franklin and Fontana Lake. At some points,
this mostly forested corridor is fairly narrow; at others, it is up to 1.5 miles wide on either bank.
The largest parcel, adjacent to Needmore Road, consists of 3,400 acres in Swain County and 600
acres in Macon County. Twelve noncontiguous parcels in Macon County account for the
remaining acres. The properties were originally acquired in the 1930's to allow the construction
of a reservoir for a hydroelectric power plant and dam. The dam was never constructed. The State
of North Carolina purchased the Needmore Tract in January 2004. The Needmore Tract is
depicted on Figures 5 and 6.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is currently working with local
governments, conservation and recreation groups, and citizens to develop a management plan for
the Needmore Tract. The NCWRC has set policies in place to curtail unauthorized activities
including: the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), unrestricted dog training, gathering of native
plant materials, firewood collection without a permit, and camping in nondesignated areas. The
Commission is also working with local groups to setup and expand camping areas, continue
active agricultural use, and determine the best methods and placement for active uses, including
hunting, boating, and fishing.
S. GeoEnvironmental Sites
No Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities, Hazardous Waste Sites, Landfills, or other
sites of GeoEnvironmental concern were identified in this assessment.
12
T. Other TIP Proiects in the Area
Proposed and recently completed highway projects nearby include:
• TIP Project B-3868 - Replace Bridge No. 172 on SR 1456 over the Little Tennessee
River. Currently, this project is not included in NCDOT's 5-Year Program.
• TIP Project R-2408 - NC 28 and SR 1323 (Riverview Street) in Franklin, Macon
County. SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road). Upgrade and make
safety improvements. R-2408A - SR 1323 (Riverview Street) from US 441 Business to
NC 28 - is currently under construction. R-2408B - NC 28, from SR 1323 (Riverview
Street) to SR 1335 (Sanderson Road) is currently in the right of way acquisition phase and
is currently scheduled for construction in May 2010.
• TIP Project R-4748 - New Route from SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown
Road) south of US 441 in Franklin. Currently, this project is in the right of way
acquisition phase and is currently scheduled for construction in September 2010.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternatives considered for this project consist of "no build" (Alternative A), and
build alternatives (Alternatives B-E) for the SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain
County (Needmore Road) improvements.
A. No-Build
The "no build" alternative consists of doing nothing to the existing facilities. If improvements
are not made to SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road), the
quality of the facility will be degraded as traffic volumes on the road increase over time. With no
improvements, the exisiting concerns with this facility (overall travel quality, flooding,
sedimentation into the Little Tennessee River, reliable system linkage, and elevated regular
maintenance costs) will not be addessed and will likely worsen.
The No-Build alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need for the project, and has
therefore been dropped from further consideration. The "no-build" alternative does, however,
provide a basis for comparison with other alternatives.
B. No Pave with Selective Improvements Alternative
Selective improvements include drainage, buffer, and maintenance issues. Identified facility
deficiencies that would be corrected under this alternative include replacement of failing drainage
pipes, grading improvements, and improving poorly draining areas of the project.
Approximately 1,000 linear feet of exisiting drainage pipe, located throughout each section of
the project, would be removed and upgraded with approximately 1,400 linear feet of new pipes.
Newly installed pipes are proposed to range in size from 18 inches to 36 inches diameter, as
appropriate, to improve drainage in each pipe area.
13
Additionally, approximately two large areas of the project in project sections B and C are
proposed to be regraded to correct existing drainage problems.
Alternative Surfacing/Soil Binder
During the project coordination process, the merger team requested that NCDOT investigate a
soil binder and/or alternative surfacing method for one or more of the alternatives to lower the
maintenance rather than studying only paving options. NCDOT agreed to look into adding the soil
binder/alternative surfacing method to Alternative B.
As a starting point, the USFWS suggested reviewing a document titled "Environmentally
Sensitive Maintenance for Dirt and Gravel Roads". This document was produced by Penn State
University in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The
Dirt and Gravel Road Program was formed 12 years ago by the State Conservation Commission
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to develop a more cost effective maintenance program and
provide long-term solutions to prevent erosion and storm water pollution, while promoting
sustainable unpaved roads. The program targeted mainly locally maintained unpaved roads. This
document, dated December 2007, serves as a manual to provide guidance using natural systems
and innovative technologies to reduce erosion, sediment and dust pollution while more effectively
and efficiently maintaining dirt and gravel roads. Of particular interest to USFWS was Chapter 7
of this document. This chapter covered additional maintenance techniques, which included dust
control, road stabilization and geosynthetics. These topics are evaluated below for application to
Needmore Road.
Dust Suppressants
Several different types of dust suppressants were discussed in the document. All of these dust
suppressants are applied to the surface of the unpaved road with a sprayer of some sort. The dust
suppressants act as a binder and help stabilize a road by keeping the fines of a gravel road in
place, which in turn keeps the larger aggregate in place. Further reviews of the individual
products mentioned were conducted. One of the main problems with most dust suppressants is
that they are not recommended for use in close proximity to water (they can be damaging to the
environment). Another problem noted is that multiple applications could be required depending
upon the traffic load or if the road is disturbed by grading activities. This would reduce the cost
effectiveness of suppressants. Finally, these products are mainly designed to act as a dust
suppressant, not a road stabilization product.
Road Stabilization Methods
Many of the other road stabilization techniques outlined in this section of the document were
more structural (adding new material to raise the road elevations, re-grading and shaping the road
with a proper crown and good compaction, including the use of geosynthetics for the roadbed
along with drainage and embankment stabilizations) rather than application of material to the
current gravel road surface to bind it together. It is possible that some of these structural
techniques could be used to improve certain aspects of Needmoore Road, but further research
would be required. Also, several of these techniques are already in use on Needmore Road, while
others are not applicable.
The most promising road stabilization material/technique identified in the document was a
material named Driving Surface Aggregate (DSA). It was developed by Penn State's Center for
Dirt and Gravel Road Studies and is specifically designed for maximum compaction for use as a
driving surface on unpaved roads. DSA is a mixture of crushed stone with a unique particle
14
gradation (no silt or clay, all material is derived from crushed rock) and has a specific abrasion
resistance for the coarser aggregates (for the L.A. Abrasion Test the acceptable limit as measured
by weight loss is less than 40%) designed to maximize packing density and produce a durable
road surface. DSA requires careful handling to maintain uniform performance and there are also
specific moisture, pH and placement (single lift placement with preferred method of application
through a paver) requirements.
Several county maintenance and forestry road projects in Pennsylvania have been completed
using DSA material and other road stabilization techniques outlined in the above referenced
document. Some of the improvements noted for these projects included: a durable road surface
with longer maintenance cycles (upwards of 3-4 years), a surface that can be plowed, produces
very low amounts of airborne dust, considerably reduces fine sediments in storm water runoff that
pollutes streams, does not require application of chemicals that impact the environment, can
potentially be cost competitive with traditional materials. Material costs are approximately $8 per
ton verses $6 per ton (not including hauling) for traditional gravel.
Information on DSA and the pilot projects was distributed to several branches within NCDOT
for comments. Most agreed that the DSA sounded promising, but felt that further research would
be needed before it could be recommended.
One of the major concerns raised was how the material would perform under higher traffic
volumes. All of the roads in Pennsylvania's studies were forestry type roads or very isolated
county roads that were done by local county maintenance crews and were not state maintained
roads. No traffic volumes were mentioned in any of the studies. While PennDOT has approved of
DSA for state purchasing, it has recently (February 2009) completed a state maintained project.
This project is less than a mile long with a speed limit of less than 35 mph and traffic of 50 ADT.
Therefore, data on how the DSA would perform with traffic in the range of 400 ADT, the
projected traffic level of Needmore Road, is unavailable at this time. Other concerns for DSA are
related to specific and meticulous maintenance operation requirements. Loosening DSA to
sufficient depth during grading operations is very important to reestablish the proper blend of
particle sizes and achieve maximum compaction density. Optimum moisture content is essential
during DSA maintenance operations, since DSA dries out very quickly and is prone to separation
under dry conditions. Finally to preserve the benefits of DSA, mixing of materials from drainage
ditches with the surface material should be avoided.
Based on the information presented above, the Soil Binder/Alternative Surfacing Method for
this project is not recommended.
Alternative B would marginally improve the quality of travel on Needmore Road and avoid
impact to environmental resources. However, it would not meet the remaining elements of the
project Purpose and Need.
C. Pave in Place -18-feet Maximum Width Alternative
This alternative proposes to improve Needmore Road to a 2-lane paved facility consisting of a
maximum 9-foot wide travel lane in each direction, with a maximum roadway width of 18 feet.
This alternative will essentially pave the existing roadway width in place. However, in Section C
of the project, the existing roadway widths are as narrow as 14 feet in some areas and the roadway
is directly adjacent to existing acidic rock on one side and the Little Tennessee River on the
opposite side.
15
Minimum applicable design standards require that a paved roadway in this area be a minimum
18 feet wide, with 9-foot travel lanes in each direction. Widening of the existing road bed would
be required to meet minimum design standards in Section C of the project. Therefore, paving the
existing roadbed in place would not meet minimum design standards for paved roadways.
Alternative C would marginally improve the quality of travel for portions of Needmore Road
and avoid substantial impacts to environmental resources. However, it would result in a facility
that does not meet minimum design standards for paved roadways in Section C of the project.
Please see Figure 3 for a depiction of the roadway alignment for this alternative.
D. Pave in Place -18-foot Minimum Width Alternative
This alternative proposes to improve Needmore Road to a 2-lane paved facility consisiting of
a minimum 9-foot travel lane in each direction, with a minimum roadway width of 18 feet, and
improvements to the shoulders of the roadway. This alternative will improve the facility to
conform to NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards in Sections A, B, C and D where
possible without encroaching on the Little Tennessee River or cutting into the existing acidic rock
along the project. NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards include a minimum of 9-foot
travel lanes, a minimum 18 feet of roadway width, and roadway shoulder widths of 4 feet to 6
feet. In general, this alternative improves Project Section A, B, and D to NCDOT Division 14
Secondary Road Standards. It improves the roadway to a minimum 18-foot width in Section C
and also has limited shoulder improvements in Section C. Widening will be asymmetrical away
from the Little Tennessee River in Section C and will require cutting into the existing acidic rock
in Section C.
Please see Figure 3 for a depiction of the roadway alignment for this alternative.
E. Division 14 Secondarv Road Standards with Design Exceptions Alternative
Alternative E proposes to improve Needmore Road to a 2-lane paved facility consisting of a
minimum 9-foot travel lane in each direction, with a minimum roadway width of 18 feet, and
improvements to the shoulders of the roadway. This alternative will improve the entire facility to
conform to NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards in Sections A, B, C and D.
This alternative paves Needmore Road and combines NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road
Standards with design exceptions. NCDOT Division 14 Secondary Road Standards include a
minimum roadway width of 18 feet with shoulder widths of 4 feet and 6 feet. Therefore, the total
typical section width for this alternative is 28 feet. The design exceptions can reduce the shoulder
widths of the facility. However, design exceptions cannot include reducing the minimum roadway
width below 18 feet.
To minimize impacts to the high quality natural resources in the project area, this alternative
includes asymmetrical widening of the roadway away from the Little Tennessee River.
Asymmetrical widening will eliminate the need for fill in the Little Tennessee River and avoids
direct impact to this resource.
In the area of the project (Section Q where the existing roadway narrows below 18 feet and
the existing corridor is constrained by acidic rock on one side and the Little Tennessee River on
the other side, the majority of impacts associated with this alternative will be to the acidic rock.
16
Special procedures will be required to excavate, stabilize and dispose of waste acidic rock during
construction in this area. See Section VII, C. of this document for discussion of special handling
associated with acidic rock. Impact to acidic rock will be minimized by reducing cut slope
gradients in the acidic ("hot") rock area to 1/4:4.
Please see Figure 3 for a depiction of the roadway alignment for this alternative.
F. Comparison of SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore
Road
Table 2 presents a comparison of the alternatives. Figure 3 shows the build alternatives in plan
view.
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational Areas and Parks 1 1 1 1 1
Churches 0 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
National Register Eligible
Properties 0 0 0 1 1
Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Federally-Listed Species within
Corridor 13 13 13 13 13
100-Year Flood lain Crossings 1 1 1 1 1
Prime Farmland 0 0 0 0 0
Residential Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
Business Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.023 acres 0.044 acres
Stream Crossings 14 14 14 14 14
Stream Impacts 0 if 0 if 0 if 4,9881f 2,2241f
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 17.6 acres 18.1 acres
Terrestrial Natural Community
Impacts
- Maintained/Disturbed 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 7.0 acres 7.0 acres
- Mixed Pine Hardwood 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
- Montane Alluvial Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 6.1 acres 6.1 acres
- Acidic Cove Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.9 acres 1.9 acres
- Montane Acidic Cliff 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
- White Pine Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.6 acres 1.6 acres
Acidic or "hot" Rock 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 24,201 cubic
yards
Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 0 0 0
17
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives (Cont.)
Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Water Supply Watershed
Protected Areas 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game
Lands 1 1 1 1 1
Section 4 Impacts Historic 0 0 0 0 0
Low Income Population Impacts None None None None None
Minority Population Impacts None None None None None
Construction Cost $ 0 $ 375,000 $ 5,200,000 $9,000,000 $ 13,100,000
Utility Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ o
Right of Wa Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $0 $0
Total Cost $ 0 $ 375,000 $ 5,200,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 13,100,000
G. Recommended Alternative
Alternative E is the recommended alternative because it provides improvements to SR 1364 in
Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) while avoiding and/or
minimizing impacts to the surrounding human and natural environment. Alternative E provides
improved quality of travel for local residents that currently use Needmore Road; reduces existing
sedimentation from Needmore Road into the Little Tennessee River; avoids or minimizes adverse
impacts to the existing high quality natural resources including but not limited to water quality,
habitat and vegetation, and reduces existing maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
Alternative E upgrades Needmore Road to a paved facility, which will significantly reduce
sedimentation into the river from the exisitng unpaved facility, as well as reduce the annual costs
associated with maintaining Needmore Road as an unpaved, gravel facility.
Alternative E will incorporate a typical section reflecting minimum applicable design
standards while protecting the highest quality environmental resources in the project area.
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the improvements to SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114
in Swain County (Needmore Road) is a minimum of 15 mph and a maximum of 35 mph.
Currently, SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) does not
have a posted speed limit. After construction of the proposed improvements, the project area will
have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less.
B. Typical Section
The proposed improvements to SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County
(Needmore Road) include a 2-lane typical section throughout the project length.
18
The typical section for the proposed project will include two 9-foot travel lanes, roadway
shoulders widths of four (4) feet and seven (7) feet, with guardrail placed in the seven (7) foot
wide shoulder. Typical section shoulder widths will be reduced as appropriate in areas of the
project constrained by area topography and the Little Tennessee River.
The typical section on areas of the project where the roadway is constrained by acidic or hot
rock will be altered to minimze cut volumes of hot rock. The typical cut slope in this area will be
steepened from a gradient of 3/4:1 to a gradient of i/4:1.
See Figure 4 for the project typical sections.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width for SR 1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain
County (Needmore Road) is approximately 50 feet. Right of way agreements are currently in
place which state that NCDOT is entitled to right of way in the area of the proposed
improvements that consists of a corridor of 25 feet to either side of the improved roadway's
centerline.
D. Access Control
The proposed project does not call for purchase access control along the project corridor.
Exisiting driveways will be maintained as appropriate along the project
E. Structure Improvements
No bridges or culverts are proposed under this project. Bridge No. 78 over Tellico Creek is
scheduled to be replaced as a seperate NCDOT Division 14 maintenance project.
F. Parking
On-street parking will not be provided.
G. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are included in the proposed project.
H. Bicycle Accommodations
No bicycle facilities are included in the proposed project.
1. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All side streets and driveways will intersect at grade. No change in intersection treatment is
suggested for this project.
19
J. Schedules & Costs
The total cost of the project and the schedule are listed below:
Table 3: Schedule & Costs
Recommended
Alternative Costs Schedule
Right of Way $0 N/A
Construction $13,100,000 FY 2013
Total Cost $ 13,100,000
*From the 2010 NCDOT 5 Year Work Program - Sections A and B of R-4440 are scheduled for construction
in FY 2013, while Sections C and D of R-4440 are not included in the current 5 Year Work Program.
VL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Community Effects
1. Community Geographic and Political Description
Needmore Road runs along the Little Tennessee River in a rural, mountainous area of Macon
and Swain Counties in the western part of North Carolina. The Town of Franklin in Macon
County (south of the project) is the largest community in the two counties and serves as an
economic center. Bryson City (north of the project) and Cherokee on the Cherokee Indian Qualla
Boundary are the largest employment areas in Swain County.
The area's mountain topography is a great asset but also presents the area with unique
economic and transportation challenges. The economic effects of geographical constraints are
compounded, especially in Swain County, by the presence of large Federally and autonomously
controlled tracts of land including the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Nantahala
National Forest and the Cherokee Eastern Band Reservation (Qualla Boundary). According to
local reports, over 86% of Swain County's land area is controlled or managed by other
jurisdictions. These reports suggest that only 50,000 acres in Swain County are locally owned and
only 6,000 acres are developable based on topography. In Macon County over 50% of the area is
controlled or managed by the Federal Government.
According to the 2000 Census, Macon County and Swain County experienced relatively high
rates of population growth from 1990 until 2000. Macon County grew by 26.8% or 6,307
residents while Swain County grew by 15.7% or 1760 residents. This population growth is
occurring in areas that have been historically sparsely populated. The population increases in each
area are most likely attributable to the demand for second, vacation or retirement homes in
mountain areas. The new residents in the area are most likely retirees or established workers who
moved to the area for visual and natural amenities.
20
The growth rate in all areas may likely hide the departure of young people in search of better
jobs and career opportunities. This trend is present in many sections of the western counties in
North Carolina and has been occurring for many years. The younger populations in these areas
tend to move to larger municipalities for education, economic opportunities, services, and cultural
amenities.
According to the North Carolina Data Center, Macon County had a negative natural growth
rate from 1990 until 2000. The negative natural growth rate in the area suggests a lower number
of 20 to 40 year olds in the area than in other areas. According to the 2000 Census, the percentage
of the population between the ages of 20 to 40 was 20.8% in Macon County, and 24.2% in Swain
County. This compared to 30.4% in North Carolina overall.
Travel, tourism and related industries are a large part of the area's economy. Visitors come to
the area for variety of reasons, including year round recreation, experiencing the changing of the
seasons, or the mountain environment. Other popular attractions in the area include the Blue
Ridge Parkway, Harrahs Cherokee Casino, the Cherokee Indian reservation, the Nantahala
Outdoor Center, the Great Smoky Mountains Railroad and the Appalachian Trail. According to
the Town of Franklin's web site, the town's population typically doubles during the spring,
summer and fall tourist seasons. The area's proximity (under 3 hours) to the Atlanta metro area
generates many of these trips. The area's attractiveness and proximity has also generated a
demand for vacation and second homes. According to the 2000 Census, over 7,978 homes in the
two counties are used for seasonal or recreational use. This represents 28.6% of all of the houses
in the area and this is notably higher than 4.2% in the State overall.
Economic trends in Macon and Swain Counties parallel those in many other counties of the State.
April 2009 unemployment rates for Macon and Swain County are not unusually high (10.5% and
12.3%, respectively) in comparison to the statewide average (10.5%). Although the current
unemployment rate in Swain County is slightly higher than the rate for Macon County and the
state as a whole, the rise in unemployment since 2000 has been less pronounced in Swain County
than elsewhere (see table below). A similar trend is revealed in poverty data (see table below).
Table 4: Employment & Poverty
EMPLOYMENT POVERTY
Unemployment April 2009
Percent Percent of Percent of
Population
Percent
Rate Unemployment Change Population in in Poverty Change
2000 Rate Poverty 2000 2007
Macon
County
4.9%
* 10.5%
+5.6%
12.5%
14.7%
+2.2%
Swain
County
10.1%
* 12.3%
+2.2%
17.9%
17.3%
-0.6%
North
Carolina
5.3%
* 10.5%
+5.2%
11.9%
14.3%
+2.4%
Source Data: The North Department of Commerce Economic Development Intelligence System
'Source Data: The US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service
Each of the elements addressed in the previous paragraphs shape the political climate in the
two counties. The limitations on developable and taxable land in the Swain County makes the
21
availability and potential tax revenues of the remaining land very important. Macon County's
stronger tax base from its commercial uses and small communities along with a larger resource of
developable land and an active citizenry has allowed the county more flexibility. Macon County
has adopted a resolution that suggests that farmland may be better for the local tax base, in the
long term, than new residential development because it requires very few municipal services.
Both Counties, following trends found in many Appalachian counties, place a high value on
private property rights and are resistant to adopting land management regulations and zoning
regulations.
2. Study Area
Demographic Study Area - (shown in purple and yellow on Figure 5.) The demographic
study area is made up of the smallest number of existing Census areas that include the direct
community impact area. The demographic area for this project includes Census Tract 9702, Block
Group 2 in Macon County, and Census Tract 9603, Block Group 6 in Swain County. The Census
Block Groups in the area are large in area but relatively small in population. The Demographic
Area includes around 160,000 acres of land. Of this acreage, 74%, or over 130,000 acres, is
owned by agencies of the Federal Government. The census statistics in the area describe the
characteristics of the population living in the remaining 39,000 acres. This area is still very large
compared to the direct community impact area but will provide adequate insight on area trends. In
the report, the selected block groups will be consolidated into the overall demographic area, but
will be looked at separately if notable differences occur in certain block groups.
Direct Community Impact (DCI) Area - (shown outlined in red on Figure 6.) The direct
community impact area for this project attempts to incorporate all parts of the community that
will be impacted by project construction. This area includes the uses along Needmore Road's
right of way and the uses, primarily residences, that use the route as the only or a primary means
of access. The Direct Community Impact Area extends from the intersection of Tellico Road and
Lower Burningtown Road in the south, along Needmore Road to the intersection of Needmore
Road and Licklog Road in the north. The Direct Community Impact Area contains approximately
1,800 acres.
3. Methodology
This Community Effects analysis outlines the existing conditions and trends of the area
around the project, and predicts the likely impacts of the project on the area and on the inhabitants
of the area. This document includes data gathered from the US Census merged with data from
local plans and maps, and observations from field visits. Resources, including, NCDOT project
staff, local staff, and specific research information were used to reasonably predict the most likely
impacts. In compliance with the federal guidelines on community impact assessments, this
document includes, where applicable, recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation of the impacts expected and predicted in the report. It also addresses, where applicable,
possible enhancements that could be added to the project to lessen the effect of these impacts.
4. Community Characteristics
The area around the project is important in the history of the eastern band of the Cherokee
(addressed in more detail in Section VII, B. of this document) and has a history of rural simple,
but self-sufficient farming. Two rural communities are located in this area: Stiles, centered at the
22
intersection of Tellico Road and Lower Burningtown Road; and Needmore, centered at the
intersection of Needmore Road and Lick Log Road. A cluster of homes and important community
features such as churches are located around these community centers.
The land directly around the project, except for a small area just south of Licklog Road,
belonged to Duke Power and Light (previously Nantahala Power and Light Company) for decades
and was originally purchased as part of a plan to build a hydroelectric lake. While the land was
owned by the electrical utility, the area had nearly unlimited public access. Campers, hikers,
hunters, fisherman, swimmers, bicyclists and boaters used the tract regularly, sometimes in ways
that were not beneficial to the natural environment. Observations by NCDOT staff in 2002 noted
tents and vehicles actively using the narrow strip of land between Needmore Road and the river.
Bicyclists along Needmore Road were also observed. In 2004, the Nature Conservancy in
cooperation with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Natural Heritage Trust Fund, the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service purchased this property
(4,500 acres total) from Duke Energy. These parcels are known locally as the Needmore Tract.
Although the Needmore Tract was purchased to conserve natural features and protect area
water quality, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) was charged with developing a
management plan that will permit appropriate public use. The NCWRC has set policies in place to
curtail unauthorized activities including: the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), unrestricted dog
training, gathering of native plant materials, firewood collection without a permit, and camping in
non-designated areas. The Commission is also working with local groups to setup and expand
camping areas, continue active agricultural use, and determine the best methods and placement
for active uses, including hunting, boating, and fishing. Approximately 40 individuals rent
portions of the Needmore Tract, principally for agricultural use.
Three mailboxes were observed along the length of the project. Two of the mailboxes were in
a single location located adjacent to High Lonesome Road about three-quarters of a mile north of
the Needmore Road and Tellico Road intersection. The other mailbox is just over a mile further
north and is adjacent to a private drive. The homes served by these mailboxes sit on the same
outcrop of land in the bend of the river. The closest house is located approximately 1000 feet
from the roadway.
A local road (unknown name) is located just north of the project area. Several homes and a
home based business, Brookling Water Dog Kennel, are located off of this road or private drives
in this area. Further north, Needmore Road intersects with Long Branch Road. A residential
development called Long Branch is being developed in this area. The residential project is a 122
acre planned community with twenty home lots ranging from 2 - 8 acres in size. The project is
actively marketed as having mountain views and as being close to the Needmore Tract nature
preserve, the Little Tennessee River, and other area amenities. The size of lots in the development
are typical of the home sites marketed in the area. The lots are large primarily due the steep grade
in the area and a demand for seclusion. A cemetery, Crave Gap Cemetery, is located across
Needmore Road from Long Branch Road.
Portions of the Nantahala National Forest area are present in this area. The Federal
Government owns much of the high and steep land in the area. Federal land comes closest to the
project area where the steep mountains are closest to the Little Tennessee River, along the
northern end of the project just before the roadway climbs toward Long Branch Road. The
ridgelines in the forest are protected from development.
23
a. Natural Environmental Context
The natural aspects of the land and water around the project brought numerous groups
together to work for it's protection. The area is unique biologically. This stretch of the Little
Tennessee River is the only totally functional example of a Blue Ridge River, with all of it's
native animal and plant life still present.
The river is home to several threatened and endangered species of fish, mussels and plants,
including the Spotfin Chub and Appalachian Elktoe. The site is also the first successful river otter
reintroduction in Western North Carolina.
Riverbanks in the area include forests that span from the Nantahala Range to the Cowees and
are rare examples of mountain floodplain forest. The area also contains a large number of
individual wetland sites. Both the forests and the wetlands are important to wildlife, including the
Black Bear as it travels between mountain ranges.
The protection of this type of resource in an area with limited tax resources and strongly held
community belief in private property rights is significant. According to local reports, as the
strategy for preservation evolved, the purchase of the property gained the strong support of the
political bodies in Macon and Swain County, environmental groups, and a large portion of the
local population.
b. Population Trends
According to US Census data, 1,723 people lived in the Demographic Area in 2000. This
population experienced growth by 43.5% between 1990 and 2000, a relatively modest increase of
522 persons. Both Macon and Swain Counties experienced similar rates of population growth
across the same period (26.8% and 15.7%, respectively), as did the State (21.4%). As summarized
below in Table 5, growth rates in the Demographic Area are largely attributable to the migration
of people to areas that have historically been sparsely populated; and the migration is likely
driven by a rising demand for second, vacation, and retirement homes in mountain areas. The
seasonal population estimates are representative of this trend and is discussed under Seasonal
Population below.
Table 5: Population Trends
POPULATION GROWTH SOURCE OF GROWTH
Pop. Pop. Growth Natural Growth Mi gration
1990 2000 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Demographic
Area
1>201
1>723
522
43.5%
-
-
-
-
Macon
County
23>504
29>806
6>307
26.8%
-481
-10.9%
4>900
110%
Swain
County 11,208 12,973 1,760 15.7% 87 8.6% 922 91.4%
North
Carolina
6,628,631 8,049,31
3 1 420 68
2'
21.4%
407,673
28.7%
772,521
54.4%
24
The demographic area is not racially or ethnically diverse. In the demographic area 99.4%, or
1713 people identified themselves as White racially. These statistics are similar to Macon County
where 96.7% of the population identified themselves as racially White. The demographic area
statistics contrast with Swain County overall where 67.3% of the population identified themselves
as White racially and 27.0% of the population identify themselves as American Indian or Alaskan
Native racially. The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indian population is centered in Qualla
Boundary, located northeast of the demographic area. Ethnically, both Macon and Swain Counties
have a relatively small but growing Hispanic or Latino population. However, few members of this
community were present in the demographic area according to the 2000 census.
Seasonal Population
The official reported population likely under represents the actual population of the area
during the Spring, Summer and Fall. This area has a large number of seasonal residents who are
officially counted as residents of other areas. Although the actual number of seasonal residents is
difficult to determine, the number can be estimated by examining the number of vacant homes
reported as being used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Based on Census data, the
average household size in the Demographic Area is equal to 2.65. If it is assumed that
approximately this many people reside in each of the residences during the warmer seasons, the
population in the area may increase by 1,058 people or 61.4%, as presented below in Table 6
below. This mirrors the observations of the Town of Franklin which estimates that it's population
doubles during tourism seasons.
Table 6: Seasonal Population
Homes used for Seasonal,
Population Growth 1990 - 2000 Recreational or Occasional
Use
Pop. 1990 Pop. 2000 # % # %
Demographic
Area 1,201 1,723 522 43.5% *1,058 61.4%
Macon
Count 23,504 29,806 6,307 26.8% *15,324 51.4%
Swam
Count 11,208 12,973 1,760 15.7% *3,457 26.7%
North
Carolina 6,628,631 8,049,313 1,420,682 21.4% *378,014 4.7%
*Seasonal Population numbers are estimates derived by the number of homes reported as vacant used for seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use by the average household size, for each demographic unit. Source: 2000 and 1990
Census.
Age
According to the 2000 Census, a large number of older residents live in the demographic area.
The median age in the demographic area is approximately 46.2 years. This is higher than the
median age in Macon County at 45.5 years and higher than Swain County at 39.3 years. The
median age in the demographic area and the two counties are over ten years higher than North
Carolina's median age of 35.1 years. The presence of older residents is likely a combination of
two factors. Long term residents remain in the rural area, while their children or other younger
people move to other areas for employment or career opportunities. New residents, retirees or
established workers, move into the area for visual and natural amenities.
25
c. Population Projections
According to the State Demographics Unit, both Macon County and Swain County are
expected to experience slower but continued growth in the future. The steady growth rate
predicted suggests that the area will continue to see an influx of new residents. These residents
will likely be attracted to the area by the visual and natural amenities. If current trends hold, these
new residents could be somewhat isolated from the local economy, relying on accumulated
wealth, jobs in other areas, or internet / home based businesses for financial stability. All
estimates discussed address the year round or permanent population in the area. If current trends
in travel and tourism continue, the demand for services in the area could be double the permanent
population or over 60,000 in 2010. Table 7 below presents projected population for the project
area.
Table 7: Population Projections
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Macon Total 23,504 29,811 34,895 40,288 45,375
Change 3,326 6,307 5,134 5,343 5,087
Percent 16.5% 26.8% 17.2% 15.3% 12.6%
Swain Total 11,208 12,968 14,290 15,728 17,047
Change 925 1,760 1,322 1,438 1,319
Percent 9.0% 15.7% 10.2% 10.1% 8.4%
d. Economics
According to the 2000 Census, the residents in the demographic area are better off financially
than the residents in other areas of Macon or Swain Counties. The median household income in
the demographic area is approximately $37,749. This number is higher than Macon County at
$32,139 and notably higher than Swain County at $28,608. The higher median household income
likely reflects the presence of established workers and retirees. The median household income has
likely increased in this area as residents with established careers and retirees with additional
resources have moved to the area.
Because the median income level is likely attributable to new residents, it is possible that the
income levels of many long-term residents have not been affected. Historically, residents of this
area, like many Appalachian areas, have had few employment opportunities. According to the
2000 Census, 99 or 16.2% of the households in the demographic area made less than $15,000 per
year. Although the 2009 unemployment rates in both counties (12.2% in Macon, 14.5% in Swain)
are similar to the state's at 10.8%, the percentage of the population in poverty is higher than the
state average. This suggests that many employees in the area may be underemployed and work in
seasonal and/or low-paying jobs. According to the Employment Security Commission of North
Carolina, the hospitality and leisure employment sector employs the highest number of people in
the Macon and Swain Counties. This sector includes restaurants, hotels, rental offices, and
portions of the Cherokee Casino.
26
Retired Population and Established Workers
According to the 2000 Census, 690 people or 46.8% of the population in the demographic
area over 16 years old are classified as not in the labor force. This compares to 44.9% in Macon
County, 41.5% in Swain County and 34.3% in the State. This statistic likely verifies the high
percentage of retirees who moved into homes in the demographic area. More than ten percent
(10.9 %) of the working population in the demographic area report that they work from home.
This is more than double the rate in both Macon County and Swain County and three times the
rate for North Carolina. This rate likely reflects the presence of private farmers, and a relatively
large number of people who use the internet to conduct business or telecommute.
Tourism
A large number of tourists visit and stay in the demographic area each year. These visitors
come to the area for variety of reasons including year round recreation, experiencing the changing
of the seasons, or the mountain environment. Nearby attractions include the Blue Ridge Parkway,
the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, the Museum of the Cherokee Indian, the Oconaluftee
Indian Village, the "Unto These Hills" outdoor drama, the High Playhouse and Chamber Music
Festival, the Nantahala National Forest and the Appalachian Trail. The nearly continuous flow of
people affects the majority of the businesses in the region, not just those that cater to the tourism
and travel industry.
The project area is about 12 miles north of the Town of Franklin. Site observations, in the
Franklin area noted a large number of license plates from the State of Georgia. The project area is
about 24 miles north of the North Carolina and Georgia border. Atlanta is a little over three hours
from the project area.
Commuting
Residents in the Needmore community likely use Needmore Road to access employment and
services in the Franklin area. Vacationers likely also use this route to access amenities and
activities in the Franklin area. Based on site observations, this route is also used by contractors
traveling to new home construction sites in Swain County.
e. Housing Characteristics
According to the 2000 Census there were 1,189 housing units in the demographic area. Over
345 of these homes were constructed since 1990. Both Macon County and Swain County
experienced similar housing construction trends during the same period. The demand for
vacation, second, and retirement housing is driving new home construction in the area.
The Median Home Value in the demographic area, at $110,550, is higher than both Macon
and Swain County. The high median home value likely reflects the number of vacation homes in
the area. Because the median value is calculated for only the homes classified as occupied by the
Census Bureau, the median home doesn't reflect the value of vacant structures. A review of
internet real-estate listings for rental properties currently on the market noted that properties list
from $120,000 to $300,000 and above. Table 8 provides a summary of housing characteristics in
the area.
27
Table 8: Housing Characteristics
1990 2000 % Growth Median
Home Value Seasonal
Homes
Demographic Area 844 1,189 40.9% $110,555 404
Macon Count 15,145 20,746 37.0% $103,700 6,605
Swain County 5,335 7,105 33.2% $86,800 1,372
As addressed in the population statistics, 404 or 34.0% of the homes in the demographic area
are used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The percentage of vacation homes is higher
than Macon County at 31.8% and notably higher than Swain County at 19.3%. All of the areas are
notably higher than the State of North Carolina overall at 4.2%. The majority (302) of the homes
in the demographic area reported as being used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use were
located in Swain County.
L Community Resources - Natural
The project is in direct proximity to the Little Tennessee River. This river has been designated
as one of the most pristine rivers in the western part of the State. The roadway also crosses four
creeks; Bird Branch Creek, Tellico Creek, Ledbetter Creek and Loudermilk Creek. All of these
creeks are tributaries of the Little Tennessee and flow directly into the larger waterway.
Needmore Tract
The Needmore Tract is the collective name for multiple parcels totaling 4,500 acres on a 27-
mile stretch of the Little Tennessee River between Franklin and Fontana Lake. At some points,
this mostly forested corridor is fairly narrow, while at others it is up to 1.5 miles wide on either
bank. The largest parcel, adjacent to Needmore Road, consists of 3,400 acres in Swain County
and 600 acres in Macon County. Twelve noncontiguous parcels in Macon County account for the
remaining acres. The properties were originally acquired in the 1930's to allow the construction of
a reservoir for a hydroelectric power plant and dam. The dam was never constructed.
As a result of a decade long conservation effort that ultimately had the support of many local
and regional groups and the county commissioners from Macon County and Swain County, the
State of North Carolina purchased the Needmore Tract in January 2004. The N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission is working with local governments, conservation and recreation groups,
and citizens to develop a management plan for the Needmore Tract. This plan strives to balance
the desire of the community to use the property with the need to preserve the natural
characteristics of the area.
g. Emergency Needs and Response Services
The project area is a remote rural area with a small population. Macon County's Sheriffs
office and ambulance services respond out of the Franklin area. The closest volunteer fire
department in Macon County, Burningtown/Iotla Station, operates off of Lower Burningtown
Road, about three and a half miles south of the Tellico Road. Swain County's Sheriff s office and
ambulance services operate out of Bryson City. The closest volunteer Fire Department in Swain
County, West Swain Station, is located at the Needmore Road and US 19/74 intersection.
Dispatch personnel for both counties noted that the project area was a low call volume area.
28
Swain County noted that the areas along Needmore Road north of the project, particularly near
the US 19/74 intersection, requested law enforcement and medical service several times a month.
Macon County noted that EMS personnel had responded to vehicle incidents, due to failed
roadway shoulders, along the narrow section of Needmore Road in the project area.
Both counties noted that wider, paved roads are preferred for the provision of emergency
services, based on the equipment used. However, both counties noted that this was not the only
gravel road in the area and their equipment and personnel were capable of responding to the
emergencies in the area. Personnel from both counties have requested coordination if Needmore
Road is to be closed during construction.
h. Land Use and Development Regulations
The traditional tools of land use planning are not widely used in western North Carolina in
general and this area specifically. Many residents are concerned with government agencies
dictating what they can or can not do with their property. This concern is heightened in the area
around the project where a large amount of the property is already controlled by Federal agencies.
Neither Macon County nor Swain County have adopted zoning regulations or land use plans.
However, due to the high population growth and the strong connection to the natural
environment in the area, both counties have had involved conversations that relate to land use.
These conversations are being driven by locals concerned with the rapid pace of growth and new
residents wishing to preserve the amenities that attracted them to the area. These conversations
identified areas of common agreement and suggest ways land use may be managed in these areas
in the future. Similar policies have been adopted in neighboring counties and municipal
jurisdictions in the area.
Macon County's adopted policies focus less on specific land use but on appearance, function,
and compatibility with community infrastructure. These regulations specifically focus on non-
residential uses. In practice, the policies direct high impact uses toward appropriate locations and
toward the existing communities, while lower impact uses are permitted in more locations. The
regulations specifically address dust, noise and light mitigation, vegetative buffer, stream
setbacks, principal use setbacks, buffers or buffer yards, screening, hours of operation, and safety
fencing. Swain County has adopted similar regulations in some of these areas.
The Macon County planner noted that the vast majority of the new homes in the area have
occurred in planned subdivisions. The planner suggested that this trend is likely to continue. The
planner noted that Needmore Road is not in an area of expected growth for Macon County.
Available land in the northern sections of Needmore Road may have potential for residential
growth in Swain County. Residential development decisions in this area, especially in Macon
County, will be informed by studies that suggests that farmland may be better for the local tax
base, in the long term, than new residential development because it requires fewer municipal
services.
i. Community Resources - Utilities
No water or sewer utilities are located in the area. The closest municipal water and sewer
systems are located in Franklin and Bryson City. The Long Branch development and others in the
area have well and septic systems.
29
5. Analysis of Community Impact
a. Physical, Social and Psychological Impacts
Based on the project goals, it is likely that limited or no right of way acquisition will be
required. This right of way acquisition will likely not affect the usability of neighboring
properties. No structures will be impacted by the project.
Large plumes of dust and fine particles surround each car that uses the corridor, especially
those traveling at high speeds. Paving the gravel roadway, or otherwise addressing dust issues
will improve conditions for users, importantly cyclists, hikers, or boaters, along the corridor.
These modifications will also have positive affects on the natural systems in the area.
The acquisition and process undertaken to conserve the Needmore Tract closely aligned the
condition of the natural systems in the area with the community identity of the area. Both counties
supported the loss of potentially developable land to maintain area pride in the natural
environment and a place to interact with the natural environment. Impacts to the natural
environment or the use of methods that are not sensitive to the context will likely be perceived as
impacting the area's community character along with its natural systems. The Needmore Tract
process has also expanded the stakeholder group considerably in this area.
b. Economic Impacts
The natural environment and tourism are extremely important in this area. The Needmore
Tract and the pristine condition of the Little Tennessee River are marketed as local amenities and
features. The Long Branch Development mentions proximity to the property in sales materials.
Any impacts to the natural environment in general and the Needmore Property specifically, could
affect tourism in the area.
The construction of, sale of, and tax income from vacation homes is also important
economically. As noted, the attraction of these homes is a rural setting and mountain views.
Although proximity to good travel routes is important, direct proximity to large travel routes may
actually hurt the area's value. Many residential developments are located along small roads off
larger routes. The likely improvements of this project will not adversely affect this area. A
solution that minimizes effect to the environment could potentially improve the area's
marketability.
Needmore Road provides a vital link from the rural areas on the west side of the Little
Tennessee to the economic center in Franklin. This project will improve traveling conditions on
that link.
c. Mobility and Access
The likely modifications of this project will improve the traveling conditions along Needmore
Road but should not affect vehicular access or overall mobility in the area.
30
d. Community Safety and Response
Needmore Road is likely traveled by a number of tourists. These vehicular users are likely
unfamiliar with and unaccustomed to driving on area roadways. These users may be pulling boats
or other recreational equipment and would prefer more roadway width. The project modifications
could result in a safer situation for these travelers.
The project corridor is used frequently by non-vehicle users including cyclists and hikers. As
in most rural areas, these users share the roadway with other users. This will not change with the
proposed modifications. The current roadway functions as a one way roadway in many locations.
This characteristic slows vehicular speeds and requires drivers to be alert for other roadway users.
The nonvehicular users in the area could be negatively affected by modifications that increase
speeds or sends the vehicle driver signals that vehicles have priority.
This area is not a high volume emergency call area. Based on the equipment used, emergency
management personnel noted that a wider paved road is preferred. These personnel also noted that
they serve other gravel roads in the area. Local emergency management agencies requested
coordination if the roadway is closed during construction.
e. Environmental Justice
No impacts to any low-income or minority populations identified in the Environmental
Justice requirements have been identified as part of this State Environmental Assessment.
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are requirements that protect individuals
from any type of discrimination on the grounds of race, age, color, religion, disability, sex, and
national origin. Along with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898 states
that federal programs cannot have a disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effect on minority or low income populations. Environmental Justice requires the
equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, ages, and incomes during development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Other special
populations may include the elderly, children, or the disabled.
f. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The likely improvements to this project and the other projects along Needmore Road will
modify the conditions of the existing roadway. This may result in very moderate travel time-
savings but will not affect property access or route decisions. Although regional population
growth is being driven by proximity, especially to the Atlanta market, residential growth in the
project area is being driven by specific property characteristics, i.e. rural land and mountain
views. These attributes will exist in the area with or without the project. The Needmore Tract
(managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) and the Federal Government
own a considerable amount of land in the project area that will not be developed. Additionally,
the local community has identified preserving water quality as an important goal and has shown a
commitment to preserving sensitive properties along area waterways and tributaries. As such, this
project is not anticipated to alter the land use decisions that could result in additional degradation
of water quality in the area. Thus, a detailed cumulative impacts study will not be needed.
31
B. Cultural Resources
1. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute (NCGS)
121-12(a) and with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) and afford
the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
This project is state-funded, but is anticipated to require a federal permit under the
Clean Water Act. Section 106 only applies to permit areas. For this project, that is anticipated to
be the majority of the project area.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for archaeological resources associated with this
project is defined as the 30-foot (9.1-meter) wide ROW for the 3.31-mile (approximately 5.3-
kilometer) long project corridor. The APE for historic architectural resources comprises the same
area as the archaeological APE, though the adjoining Tellico Creek Valley was studied to evaluate
the project area in connection with the nearby Tellico Valley Historic District, which is listed on
the North Carolina Study List.
2. Historic Architecture and Historic Landscapes
The evaluation of historic structures consisted of field surveys in October 2003 and
February 2004 and background research. During the site visits it was determined that no
structures over fifty years of age exist within the project's architectural APE. However, historical
research and information from the archaeological investigations uncovered the cultural and
historical significance of the landscape at the southern end of the project area. This significance
is linked to the extraordinary natural resources of the area, which influenced successive
occupation, landuse, and development of the area by Native Americans, including the members of
the Cherokee Nation, and the later individual Citizen-Reservations of Oo-san-ter- take, Skeken,
Suaga, and Coo-lee-chee, as well as subsequent Euro-American settlers.
While there are no properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) or the North Carolina Study List within the APE, Section 106 investigations
resulted in the identification of the Tellico Valley Historic District. This area is considered
eligible for the NRHP under criteria A, C, and D and runs along Tellico Creek from Indian
Branch to the east bank of the Little Tennessee River. Figure 7 in Appendix A demarcates the
boundaries of this district in relation to the project area.
In a letter dated December 11, 2006 (and included in Appendix B), the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with NCDOT that the Tellico Valley Historic
District (see Figure 2 Sheet 1 and Figure 7), is eligible for the NRHP under criteria A, C, and D.
HPO also concurred with the boundaries of the historic district proposed by NCDOT and noted
that the eastern boundary is within the APE for the project. Additionally, the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians concurred with the district's designation in a letter dated January 3, 2008.
32
An effects assessment, attended by NCDOT and HPO personnel, was held on
September 15, 2009 for the Tellico Valley Historic District. After reviewing the estimated
impacts of the recommended alternative to historic district, HPO requested additional information
from NCDOT Division Design and Construct (DDC) personnel regarding documentation of
efforts to minimize impacts to the historic district as well anticipated encroachments on the
historic district in the final design.
On November 24, 2009 a follow-up effects assessment was held to present information from the
DDC. Adjustments to the proposed shoulder widths and steepening of proposed cut slopes in the
area of the historic district were proposed to minimize the project construction limits to the extent
practicible. However, the proposed project is physically constrained by the Little Tennessee
River, which is immediately adjacent to the existing facility and contains critical habitat for
multiple endangered species protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore,
the close proximity of the proposed project to the Little Tennessee River necessitates that
widening of Needmore Road be proposed away from the river, which will encroach on the Tellico
Valley Historic District. Minimization efforts by the DDC to reduce impacts to the historic district
resulted in a decrease of impacts to the historic district from 1.86 acres (see Figure 8A in
Appendix A) to 1.44 acres (see Figure 8B in Appendix A). Additionally, it is likely that
permanent and temporary easements for the project will also encroach on the Tellico Valley
Historic District. Any easements required will be determined during the final design phase of the
proj ect.
Considering the impacts described above, it was determined that the proposed project
will have an Adverse Effect on the Tellico Valley Historic District. A Concurrence Form for
Assessment of Effects was signed by HPO, NCDOT, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and is included in Appendix B.
NCDOT will notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation about the adverse
effect determination and begin the process for a Memorandom of Agreement (MOA).
Development of the MOA will require consultation among NCDOT, USACE, TVA, the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indian, USFWS, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission,
property owners, and the Land Trust of the Little Tennessee. Since this is not a federally funded
project, the USACE will be the lead agency during this process.
3. Archaeological Resources
Archaeological investigations of the APE consisted of pedestrian survey and
subsurface testing designed to locate and assess potentially significant archaeological remains that
could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed road improvement project. The pedestrian survey
consisted of the visual inspection of the alluvial terrace of the Little Tennessee River (located
along the northeast of Needmore Road), the upland areas along the southwestern side of the road,
and the Little Tennessee River drainage adjacent to the APE. Subsurface testing within the APE
was conducted through the placement of a single transect on each side of Needmore Road,
parallel to its orientation.
Shovel test pits were placed at a 25-meter (82-foot) interval approximately 5 meters
(16.4-feet) from the edge of the road. A total of 103 subsurface tests out of 220 were excavated on
the "River Transect." Along the "Ridge Transect", a total of 43 out of 209 placed shovel tests
were excavated. Additionally, two possible rockshelters adjacent to the APE were investigated
33
through a visual inspection of each and the excavation of a single 50-x-50- centimeter test unit in
each. The archaeological investigations along Needmore Road identified the presence of eight
archaeological resources. Sites 31SW386**, 31MA586**, and 31SW387** are small, low
density scatters of late nineteenth/early twentieth century artifacts. Extant aboveground evidence
for late nineteenth/early twentieth century structures was observed at sites 31MA628** and
31MA629**. Sites 31MA583 and 31MA584 are both represented by small collections of pre-
Columbian artifacts. Site 31MA585 is an extant fishweir of likely pre-Columbian origin located
in the Little Tennessee River.
With the exception of the fishweir (31MA585), none of these archaeological sites
appears to possess the potential to provide information that might illuminate pre-Columbian or
historic period research contexts. Therefore, 31MA583, 31MA584, 31MA586**, 31SW386**,
and 31SW387** are recommended as individually ineligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places (as defined by the criteria outlined at 36 CFR §60.4), and no further
archaeological work is recommended at those locations. Sites 31MA628** and 31MA629** were
not evaluated due to their distance from the APE. However, the fishweir (31MA585) is
recommended eligible for the NRHP criterion [c] of 36 CFR §60.4, which provides for resources
that "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction..." and
criterion [d], which addresses sites that "have yielded or may be likely to yield information
important to prehistory or history". However, based on current project information, the fishweir at
site 31MA585 is located outside the APE for the project. Improvements to Needmore Road, as
proposed, will have no direct effects on site 31MA585. Secondary impacts to the weir are not
expected unless subsequent development in the project area severely alters the hydrology of the
Little Tennessee River near Tellico Creek.
In a letter dated December 11, 2006 (Appendix B), the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with NCDOT's recommendations regarding archaeological
sites as presented above. HPO recommends no additional archaeological work in connection with
this project.
C. Highway Traffic Noise/Air Quality
The project is located in Macon and Swain Counties, which has been determined to comply
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an
attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The proposed project is located along SR 1369 and SR 1114 (Needmore Road) in Macon and
Swain Counties. The project proposes to improve these unpaved secondary roads located adjacent
to the Little Tennessee River. It is noted that there are no apparent noise receptors along the
proposed project limits. The proposed right of way is 50 feet and the predicted 66 dBA noise
contour is less than 34 feet and no substantial changes in the vertical or horizontal alignments are
planned. The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes with predicted ADT's being
less than 1,000 VPD. Therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
significant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
34
15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
D. Geodetic Markers
This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.
E. Hazardous Materials
The NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit observed no contaminated properties,
Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites, Hazardous Waste sites, Landfills, or other
geoenvironmental concerns during a field reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' records search
of the project limits. Please note that discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory
agencies and not reasonably discernable during the project reconnaissance may occur. The
Geotechnical Engineering Unit will be notified immediately after discovery of such applicable
sites so that their potential impact(s) to the project may be assessed.
VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Physical Resources
The project study area is located in the Southern Mountain physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography in the project study area is characterized as steep slopes along the Little
Tennessee River Valley. Elevations within the project study area range from 1840 feet above
mean sea level to 1880 feet above mean sea level along the Little Tennessee River (USGS 1961
and USGS 1940).
The project study area is rural in nature. The majority of the project area is vegetated in re-
growth with adjacent forest. The only disturbed areas observed are the existing road and small
camp sites along the road and adjacent to the Little Tennessee River. No residences are located
adjacent to the project study area, but there are three driveway connections leading up the hillside.
The project vicinity is rural in nature. The majority of the project region is rural in nature with
small residential areas scattered throughout.
1. Soils
Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors which include past geologic
activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal
activity, age of sediments, climate, and topographic position. General soil associations incorporate
areas with distinctive patterns of soils, relief, and drainage (USDA 1996).
The project study area is underlain by three geologic formations: Great Smoky undivided,
Wehutty formation, and Copper Hill formation (USGS 1985). The Wehutty formation and the
Copper Hill formation are characterized by the abundant dark gray and black, graphitic and
sulfidic layers (USGS 2003). These formations that have sulfide minerals are also known as
pyritic rock. Pyritic rock, when exposed releases sulfide minerals that interact with rainwater to
produce a weak sulfuric acid (USGS 2003). This acidic runoff can adversely affect streams by
35
decreasing the pH of the water. This runoff has the potential to damage or kill sensitive flora and
fauna and slowly dissolve concrete and metals. The portions of the project study area underlain by
this formation represent areas of concern for planning and construction due to the sulfuric
properties of these formations. The Great Smoky undivided formation is characterized by thick
metasedimentary sequence of massive to graded beds of metagraywacke and metasiltstone
interbedded with graphitic and sulfidic slate and schist (USGS 2003).
Based on the Macon County Soil Survey, the general soil association within the project study
area is the Brasstown - Junaluska Association (USDA 1996). The Brasstown - Junaluska
Association, found in low and intermediate mountains, is characterized by strongly sloping to
very steep, deep and moderately, well drained loamy soils (USDA 1996). This association may
contain one or more mapping units occupying unique natural landscape positions. Mapping units
are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other
soils. There are six soil mapping units located within the project study area in Macon County. No
soil mapping information is available for Swain County.
There are no hydric soil mapping units or non-hydric soil mapping units that contain hydric
inclusions within the project study area (USDA 1991). The six non-hydric soil mapping units in
the Macon County portion of the project study area are described below.
Bras stown-Junaluska complex, (30 to 50 percent slopes) (Typic Hapludults), well drained
(BsE), is the dominant mapping unit along the Little Tennessee River within the project study
area. This complex is found on the upper part of side slopes and is not recommended for many
uses due to slope (USDA 1996). This mapping unit is known for its large amount of ultra acid,
sulfur-bearing rock which when exposed can create an acid leachate that can kill aquatic life
(USDA 1996).
Rosman fine sandy loam, (0 to 2 percent slopes) (Fluventic Haplumbrepts), frequently
flooded well drained (RsA), is found along large streams and next to natural levees (USDA 1996).
The Rosman mapping unit has limited uses due to its position in the landscape and the frequency
of flooding (USDA 1996).
Soco-Stecoah complex, (30 to 50 percent slopes) (SoE) and (50 to 95 percent slopes) (SoF)
(Typic Dystrochrepts), well drained, are found in the low and intermediate mountains on
mountainsides and very narrow ridgetops (USDA 1996). These mapping units are not
recommended for many uses due to slope (USDA 1996). These mapping units are known for
large amount of ultra acid, sulfur-bearing rock which when exposed can create an acid leachate
that can kill aquatic life (USDA 1996).
Spivey- Santeetlah complex, (8 to 15 percent slopes) (SrQ and (15 to 30 percent slopes) (SrD)
(Typic Haplumbrepts), well drained, are found in the low and intermediate mountains in coves,
drainageways, and toe slopes and are known for seeps and springs (USDA 1996). These areas are
not generally recommended for access roads due to the potential need for a high number of
culverts needed to divert the water from numerous seeps and streams (USDA 1996). These
mapping units are recommended for hardwood timber production, but are not recommended for
pasture, row crops, and building sites due to slopes and large stones (USDA 1996).
36
2. Water Resources
Brief descriptions of physical characteristics are provided for the streams within the project
study area. All streams were delineated in the field and GPS mapped. Physical characteristics of
stream channels are described in Section 2.b and Table 9 in Appendix C. Mapping depicting
stream locations is presented in Figure 7.
a. Water Quality Classification
The project study area is located within sub-basins 040401 and 040402 of the Little Tennessee
River Basin (DEM 1997) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 06010202 (USGS 1974). The
Upper Little Tennessee River sub-basin (040401) contains the upper-most reaches of the Little
Tennessee River from the North Carolina/Georgia state line north to the confluence of
Burningtown Creek south of Franklin, North Carolina (DWQ 2007). The Lower Little Tennessee
River sub-basin (040402) is known for its clean water and pristine areas (DEM 1997).
Best Usage Classifications (BUC) and Stream Index Numbers (SIN) follow Classifications
and Water Quality Standards published for each river basin (DEM 1993), as updated through
November 4, 2003. Unless otherwise noted, unnamed streams carry the same BUC as its
receiving waters. Five named streams occur within the project study area: Bird Branch, Little
Tennessee River, Tellico Creek, Ledbetter Branch, and Loudermilk Creek. Ten unnamed
tributaries (UTs) occur within the project study area: nine UTs to the Little Tennessee River and
one UT to Bird Branch. Physical characteristics of these streams are provided in Section 2.b.
The Little Tennessee River [SIN 2-(26.5)] has been assigned a BUC of B from a point 0.4
mile upstream of N.C. Highway 28 to the Nantahala River Arm of Fontana Lake. Bird Branch
(SIN 2-39), Ledbetter Branch (SIN 2-42), and Loudermilk Creek (SIN 2-43) have been assigned a
BUC of C from their sources to the Little Tennessee River. Tellico Creek (SIN 2-40) has been
assigned a BUC of C Tr from its source to the Little Tennessee River.
Class B waters are freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes swimming on
a frequent or organized basis and all Class C uses (DEM 1996). Class C waters are freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life (including propagation and survival),
wildlife, and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with
water on an infrequent or incidental basis (DEM 1993). The supplementary classification Tr
correspond to freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout
(DEM 1996). The unnamed tributaries have not been assigned a separate SIN (DWQ 2003a).
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies in natural and undeveloped watersheds (WS-1), or Water Supplies in predominantly
undeveloped watersheds (WS-I1) within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the project study
area (DEM 1993, DWQ 2003b). However, the uppers reaches (outside of the project study area)
of Tellico Creek and Loudermilk Creek are identified as a HQW/ORW watershed (NCGIA
2002). These areas have been identified as having excellent water quality in association with an
outstanding resource (NCGIA 2002). Point and non-point source pollution management strategies
are applicable to these waters. No stream that flows through the project study area is designated as
a National Wild and Scenic River or a state Natural and Scenic River.
37
DWQ has compiled a comprehensive list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7 [Section 303(d) list]. A waterbody that does not
meet its water quality standards for its designated uses is considered to be impaired. No streams
within the project study area have been listed as impaired waters according to the 303(d) list
(DWQ 2006). There are no impaired water listings within 3.0 miles of the project study area for
these subbasins (DWQ 2006).
Water Quality Information
One method used by N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to monitor water quality is
through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). Bioclassification of benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages is based on monitoring at long-term monitoring stations (formerly
part of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network [BMAN]). There are no benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring stations within the project study area. However, two project study
area streams have been sampled outside the project study area; the Little Tennessee River and
Tellico Creek (DWQ 2007). The Tellico Creek monitoring station (B-30 in subbasin 040401) is
located approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the project study area at SR 1367. This station
received an Excellent rating in 1994, 1999 and 2004 (DWQ 2007). The Little Tennessee River
monitoring station (B-1 in subbasin 040402) is located approximately 2.1 miles downstream of
the project study area off of SR 1113. This section of the river received a Good rating in 1994,
1999 and 2004 (DWQ 2007).
Another measure of water quality used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish
communities. No streams within 3.0 miles upstream/downstream of the project study area were
monitored as part of the most recent DWQ Basinwide Fish Community Assessment (DWQ 2000
and DWQ 2003b).
Trout Water Riparian Buffers
Any stream that has been assigned a BUC of Tr is subject to specific buffer zone requirements
(15A NCAC 0413.0215) to protect trout waters. The buffer zone is defined as a 25-foot wide
undisturbed riparian buffer adjacent to designated trout waters measured horizontally from the top
of bank. Where a temporary and minimal disturbance is permitted as an exception by G.S. 113A-
57(l), land disturbing activities in the buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters shall be
limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total length of the buffer zone within the tract to be
disturbed such that there is not more than 100 linear feet of disturbance in each 1000 linear feet of
buffer zone. Larger areas may be disturbed with written approval from DWQ. No land-disturbing
activity shall be undertaken within a buffer zone adjacent to designated trout waters that will
cause adverse temperature fluctuations, as set forth in 15A NCAC 2B .0211 "Fresh Surface Water
Classification and Standards", in these waters. Tellico Creek has been assigned a BUC of C Tr
and is subject to the Buffer Zone Requirements as outlined in 15A NCAC 04B.0215.
Permitted Discharges
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source discharges include
municipal (city and county) Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP), industrial WWTP, small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions, and in dividual homes (DWQ 2003c). Stormwater point source discharges include
38
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges associated with
certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. According to 40 CFR
Section 122.3, certain discharges are exempt from NPDES permits. Point source discharges are
regulated through the NPDES program. Permitted discharges not subject to NPDES permits are
provided in NCAC T15A2H.0106 (f).
There are no permitted dischargers located within the project study area or along any portion
of the tributaries to the Little Tennessee River (DWQ 2003c). The nearest relevant permitted
discharger is the Town of Franklin WWTP (NC0021547), a large municipal discharger, which is
over 10 miles upstream of the project study area.
Nonpoint Source Discharges
Nonpoint Source (NPS) pollution is described as pollution contained in stormwater and
snowmelt runoff from agricultural, urban, mined, and other lands (DWQ 1996). NPS pollution
comes from diffuse sources in contrast to "point" source pollution, which is discharged through a
pipe or outlet. Surface water as well as leachate to groundwater can be impacted by NPS
pollution (DWQ 1996). The only NPS discharges observed within the project study area include
stormwater runoff from the paved portions of Needmore Road and sedimentation from the
unpaved portion of Needmore Road.
b. Surface Water Characteristics
There are 15 streams (43 stream segments) (See Figure 7) located within the project study
area. These include the Little Tennessee River, four named streams and ten Unnamed Tributaries
(UT). The project study area streams are relatively undisturbed, have little to no turbidity, and are
known for their good water quality. The Little Tennessee River flows northwest through the
project study area. The Little Tennessee River within the project study area is approximately 253
feet wide with substrate consisting of rock, cobble, and sand. Small rock outcrops and vegetated
islands are found within the banks of the Little Tennessee River. Bird Branch, at the top of bank,
is approximately 1.5 feet deep and 7.0 feet wide with a substrate consisting of rock, cobble, and
sand. Tellico Creek, at the top of bank, is approximately 4.0 feet deep and 28.5 feet wide with
areas of exposed cobble and sand bars. Ledbetter Branch, at the top of bank, is approximately 2.5
ft deep and 10.0 ft wide with a substrate consisting of sand and gravel. Loudermilk Creek, at the
top of bank, is approximately 1.5 feet deep and 20.0 feet wide with a substrate consisting of rock
and cobble. The majority of the UTs within the project study area are 1st order perennial mountain
seeps with substrate consisting of rock and cobble. Characteristics of stream reaches within the
project study area are provided in Table 9 in Appendix C. The number of stream segments (43)
is greater than the number of actual streams (15), because most of the stream channels are broken
by culverts under Needmore Road and both the Little Tennessee River and Bird Branch now in
and out of the project study area. Each individual stream has a numeric designation (1 through 15)
and each individual segment has a letter sub-designation (i. e., S4a through S4o).
As part of the Natural Resource Investigation, all surface waters were classified using the
Natural Stream Channel Classification System (Rosgen 1996) and Cowardin Classification
(Cowardin et al. 1979). The Natural Stream Channel Classification effort was a Level 1
classification, and consisted of a general description of channel type without detailed
measurements.
39
Natural Stream Channel Classification
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width-to-depth ratio;
4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material. This classification system uses the first
five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a reach of a stream. The eight types are
designated A, B, C, D, DA, E, F, and G. Use of the Natural Stream Channel Classification
System for a Level 1 classification requires the identification of several features in the field
including bankfull width and depth (the stage at which the controlling channel forming now
occurs), slope, sinuosity, and valley morphology.
Prior to initiation of field efforts, available mapping of stream channel segments within the
project study area was reviewed to estimate sinuosity. In the field, all stream channels were
traversed to identify any significant changes in channel type. Estimations of channel width,
bankfull depth, and flood-prone width were made at selected locations to verify channel type;
these locations were selected because they were either representative of the stream as a whole or
of a specific reach. Sinuosity was estimated in the field and compared to estimated sinuosity from
the mapping. Slope was also estimated in the field. Two channel types were identified within the
project study area: A and B. A brief description of each channel type found in the project study
area follows.
• "A" type streams have a steeply sloped, relatively narrow and shallow, deeply
entrenched channel with low sinuosity. "A" type channels are characterized by step-
pool sequences, somewhat well defined meanders, and lack a well-developed
floodplain.
• "B" type streams have a moderately sloped, relatively wide and shallow, somewhat
entrenched channel with moderate sinuosity. "B" type channels are characterized by
step-pool sequences, somewhat well defined meanders, and lack a well-developed
floodplain.
Classification of stream reaches within the project study area is provided in Table 9 in
Appendix C. Project study area streams tend to be moderately to steeply sloped and lack a well-
developed floodplain.
Cowardin Classification
All streams within the project study area are considered to be riverine systems (Cowardin et
al. 1979). Riverine systems may be perennial or intermittent and are identified as those areas
contained within a channel that are not dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,
emergent mosses, or lichens, and contain less than 0.5 parts per thousand ocean-derived salts
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
The Little Tennessee River has been classified as an upper perennial riverine system (R3). R3
systems have no tidal influence with a high gradient, fast moving water and tend to have very
little floodplain development (Cowardin et al. 1979). Eleven other perennial streams within the
project study area are also classified as R3 systems. The three intermittent streams within the
project study area are classified as R4 systems. R4 systems contain flowing water for only part of
40
the year (Cowardin et al. 1979). The water in these systems may be absent or present only in
isolated pools. Stream lengths and flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent) are provided in
Table 9 in Appendix C. Mapping of stream features is provided in Figure 7.
Stream Importance
To aid in alternative analyses and to help determine stream mitigation requirements, the
USACE designates streams as either important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow,
associated wetlands, significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species
are generally considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation.
Intermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant aquatic
fauna, or Threatened and Endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as unimportant
do not typically require mitigation. Unimportant streams tend to be very small intermittent
channels with undefined bed and bank or excavated ditches that have captured groundwater flow.
All of the jurisdictional stream channels within the project study area are tributaries to the Little
Tennessee River, which has been designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat for Threatened
and Endangered species (discussed in Section F below), and therefore have been designated by
the USACE as important. Impacts will require mitigation.
Floodplain Issues
Macon and Swain counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program
which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The currently
effective FEMA floodplain mapping for Macon county indicates that the Little Tennessee River
in the vicinity of the project is located within a limited detailed flood study. The preliminary
mapping for Swain County also indicates that the Little Tennessee River in the vicinity of the
project is scheduled to be located within a limited detailed flood study. The Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (IMP), to determine status of project with
regard to applicability of NCDOT' S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMB).
3. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial community descriptions are presented in the following sections describing existing
plant communities and terrestrial fauna. Impacts to terrestrial communities are discussed in
Section 4 below.
1. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices.
Residential development, logging, selective cutting, and natural succession after disturbances
have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. The project study area is predominantly forested
as a Montane Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). General vegetative patterns (forested
vs. cleared) may be discerned from the aerial photograph base used for Figures 3 and 7.
Five natural forested communities (Montane Alluvial Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Montane
Acidic Cliff, white pine forest, mixed hardwood/pine forest) occur within the project study area
41
and one additional community (maintained/disturbed lands) is the result of human activities.
When possible, plant community names have been modified from the NCNHP classification
system units (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations
within the project study area.
Montane Alluvial Forest
Montane Alluvial Forest is the dominant community type within the project study area. This
community type occurs along stream banks and in undisturbed river floodplain areas adjacent to
the Little Tennessee River. The canopy is composed predominantly of bottomland and
mesophytic tree species. Red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) dominate the canopy. Other canopy species include
white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
white pine (Pious strobus), Virginia pine (Pious virginiana), black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Midstory species include tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), Carolina
silverbell (Halesia carolina), American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). The herb layer
is very diverse and includes yarrow (Achillea millefolium), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus)
Appalachian gentian (Gentiana decora), wild ginger (Hexastylis aaifolia), wild hydrangea
(Hydrangea arborescens), doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris),
goldenrod species (Solidago spp.), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), New York fern
(Thelypteris noveboracensis), violets (Viola spp.), and yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima),
and various unidentified grass species (Family: Poaceae).
Acidic Cove
Acidic Cove Forest is the second most common habitat encountered within the project
study area. Dense thickets of rhododendron and a low diversity of herbaceous cover characterize
this community. These sites occur most commonly on the stream banks of small high gradient
streams. This community may also have an open canopy present and support limited species more
typical of a Rich Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Canopy species include red maple,
sweet birch (Betula lenta), tulip polar, white pine, eastern hemlock, white oak, and northern red
oak. Understory species include witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), American holly, mountain
laurel, cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), Fraser's magnolia (Magnolia fraseri), and
rhododendron. The rocky acidic soil supports a limited number of herbs including galax (Galax
urceolata), downy rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), doghobble, Indian cucumber root
(Medeola virginiana), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), Christmas fern, and New York fern.
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
This community is characterized by the presence of hardwoods and pines and with the
species present being similar to the acidic coves but lacking the dense thickets of rhododendron.
These dry upland sites occur upslope of Acidic Cove Forest, on ridges, and just above the
floodplain. Canopy species include red maple, tulip poplar, American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
white oak, southern red oak, rock chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), northern red oak, black oak
(Quercus velutina), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), white pine, Virginia pine, and eastern hemlock. The
understory often includes American holly, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), mountain
42
laurel, and rhododendron. The herb layer includes Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
self-heal, Christmas fern, greenbrier, and goldenrod species.
Montane Acidic Cliff
The Montane Acidic Cliff community is present directly adjacent to short sections of
Needmore Road and grades to an Acidic Cove Forest. These areas are characterized as being
steep, with exposed rock and little soil formation that are kept wet by uphill drainage. A canopy is
not established except at the upper edge of the sites where enough soil has accumulated to support
larger trees and shrubs. Found along the upper edge of these sites are red maple, white pine,
eastern hemlock, rock chestnut oak, northern red oak, rhododendron, and mountain laurel. The
rocks tend to be covered with moss and lichens and various herbs including maidenhair fern
(Adiantum pedatum), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), southern lady fern, sedge species
(Carex spp.), milksick (Eupatorium rugosum), marginal shield fern (Dryopteris marginalis),
galax, wild hydrangea, jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), doghobble, Japanese honeysuckle,
groundpine (Lycopodium obscurum), Christmas fern, and twisted hair spikemoss (Selaginella
tortipila).
White Pine Forest
This forest type is found on steep slopes and is dominated by white pine. Eastern hemlock
also occurs but is uncommon. The only understory species that occurs in this community is
rhododendron, which commonly occurs along the edges of the white pine forest. The herb layer is
undeveloped. This community, as present in the project study area, is probably the result of
clearing and forest management for silviculture and not the natural community described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Maintained/Disturbed Land
Maintained/disturbed land occupies a small portion of the project study area. This community
type includes roadside pull-offs, camping areas, and a disturbed hillside dominated by kudzu
(Pueraria lobata). These areas are continually disturbed by human activity, or by extremely
aggressive exotics, which disrupts natural succession. A variety of species flourish under these
conditions, although invasive and exotics species tend to be most common, including Chinese
privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Various species compose the
open canopy with the most common being tulip poplar, red maple, and white pine. The understory
often includes tag alder and the herb layer is dominated by invasive exotics along with common
greenbrier, and various goldenrod, thoroughworts (Eupatorium spp.), kudzu, and grass species.
Table 10 summarizes areas of impact to individual plant communities located within the
project study area. Areas are based on the total project study area (20.54 ac). The plant
communities within the project study area were mapped on an aerial photograph base and field
verified.
43
Table 10: Plant Communities within the Project Study Area.
Plant Community Area (Acres) % of Project
Stud Area'
Montane Alluvial
Forest 6.13 29.8
Acidic Cove Forest 1.86 9.0
Mixed
Hardwood/Pine Forest 1.78 8.7
Montane Acidic Cliff 1.76 8.6
White Pine Forest 1.55 7.6
Maintained/Disturbed
Landb 7.00 34.1
Totals`: 20.08 97.8
' Project Study Area includes open water area attributed to the Tellico Branch channel [0.02 ac (<O.1 percent)] and
Little Tennessee River [0.44 ac (2.1 percent)] not included in this plant community assessment.
b Maintain/Disturbed Land includes the approximated area of the existing unpaved road, 6.15 ac (29.9 percent)
c Plant community areas and percentages are calculated for the entire project study area (20.54 ac).
2. Terrestrial Fauna
Only minimal disturbance due to the road and camping areas occur within the project study
area. The natural community coverage within and adjacent to the project study area is extensive
and provides cover and food for many types of animals. The project study area was visually
surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Most of the terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the
project study area are typically adapted to life along the edges of natural communities and overall
impacts should be minor.
Mammals observed by sight or by tracks within the project study area include raccoon
(Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Other mammals expected to occur within the project
study area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), and eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius).
No quantitative surveys were conducted to document the small mammal populations within
the project study area. The forested communities in the project study area are expected to provide
habitat for small mammals including insectivores such as masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) and
rodents such as eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli).
Avifaunal species expected to reside in the project study area are typical of the forested
mountain areas of North Carolina. Birds present within the project study area may include a
combination of permanent residents, and summer breeders or visitors. Some birds are habitat
specific, whereas others have more general habitat requirements.
Resident bird species observed year-round throughout the project study area include species
commonly occurring in both natural and anthropogenic habitats throughout western North
Carolina. Commonly encountered birds include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), eastern screech-owl (Otus asio), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus),
44
eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other resident birds
expected to be observed within the project study area include tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor) and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis).
Field investigations were conducted in December, and therefore no summer resident bird
species were documented within the project study area. Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon),
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceus), black-throated blue warbler (Dendroica caerulescens), Louisiana
waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), and summer tanager (Piranga
rubra) are common summer residents expected to be observed in the various forested
communities found within the project study area.
No reptiles were documented within the project study area. Common reptiles expected to
occur within the project study area include species occupying variety of habitats such as five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and black racer (Coluber
constrictor). No terrestrial or arboreal amphibians were documented within the project study area.
Common terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur within the project study area
include marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus
ochrophaeus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer).
b. Aquatic Communities
1. Aquatic Habitats
The aquatic habitats located within the project study area include the Little Tennessee River,
four other named streams and ten UTs. There were no other aquatic habitat types such as ponds or
lakes within the project study area. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic
vegetation were observed in the channels during the field investigation.
Visual observation and limited sampling of stream banks and channels within the project
study area were conducted to document the aquatic habitat. Physical characteristics of project
study area streams are presented in Section 2 and in Table 9 in Appendix C.
2. Aquatic Fauna
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes the Little Tennessee River
and fourteen other streams. The variety of flow characteristics, microhabitat, and substrate within
these streams has the potential to support an array of species. According to BasinPro Version 3.1
in association with WRC, Bird Branch, the Little Tennessee River, Tellico Creek, and Loudermilk
Creek are considered Public Trout Waters and Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
(NCGIA 2002). Public Trout Waters refer to streams where state trout regulations are in effect
(NCGIA 2002). Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat identifies the extent of
endangered or threatened populations and the tributaries and headwaters of their habitat (NCGIA
2002).
No fish sampling was conducted within the project study area. Aquatic habitats within the
project study area varies from small 1st order headwater streams to the Little Tennessee River.
45
The majority of the fish species expected to occur within the project study area are found in
medium creeks to small rivers with medium to fast moving waters. Fish species expected to occur
within the project study area include: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), central stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), rosyside dace (Chnostomus funduloides), river chub (Nocomis
micropogon), whitetail shiner (Notropis galacturus), Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodus),
mirror shiner (Notropis spectrunculus), warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis), longnose dace
(Rhinichthys cataractae), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), northern hog sucker
(Hypentelium nigricans), golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum), rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides),
greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium), and banded darter (Etheostoma zonale)
(Menhinick 1991). Three fish species listed as Federally Endangered, Threatened, or Federal
Species of Concern have been documented within the project study area including: spotfin chub
(Erimonax monachus), sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.1), wounded darter (Etheostoma
vulneratum), and Olive darter (Percina squamata) (NCNHP 2003a) and are discussed further in
Section F below.
Streams within the project study area provide riparian and benthic habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. No reptiles were observed in project study area streams during the field
investigation. One salamander (Desmognathus sp.) was documented in Bird Branch. Some
amphibians and reptiles that are expected to occur within aquatic habitats of the project study area
include pickerel frog (Rana palustris) and eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum).
Several species of conspicuous aquatic macroinvertebrate species were observed during
stream surveys. All stream banks within the project study area were visually surveyed for mussel
middens; one relic shell from a spike (Elliptio dilatata) was observed along the bank of the Little
Tennessee River. Four different methods were used to collect the benthos including: visual
observations of semi-permanent structures within the channel, kick net, sweep net, and leaf packs.
Each method of collection focuses on a different habitat and identifies different benthos. Benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms collected within project study area streams were typically identified
to at least Order and Family if possible.
Benthic macroinvertebrates documented within project study area streams included a variety
of aquatic insects. Table 11 provides a list of the aquatic insects collected and identified to Order
and Family. Identifications are based on McCafferty (1998).
46
Table 11: Aquatic Insects Collected
Common
Name Order
Families Large
Streams Medium to Small
Streams
Water beetles Coleo tera Noteridae X
Chironomidae X
Midges and Di Cerato 0 onidae X
Flies ptera Dixidae X
Ti ulidae X
Odontoceridae X
H dro s chidae X X
Glossosomatidae X
Caddisflies Trichoptera Rh aco hilidae X
E hemerallidae X
Baetidae X
Le to hlebiidae X X
Pelto erlidae X X
fli
S Pl Perlidae X
tone
es ecoptera Taenio to idae X
Nemouridae X
Project study area streams contain a diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Sampling
included the Little Tennessee River and Bird Branch. The Little Tennessee River and Bird Branch
contain a variety of aquatic insects belonging to the Orders Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and
Plecoptera. These three orders are considered indicators of good water quality.
4. Rare and Unique Natural Areas
The Little Tennessee River Aquatic Habitat and the Little Tennessee River Floodplain are
unique natural areas occurring within the project study area as identified by NCNHP. These areas
occur throughout the project study area and extend upstream and downstream of the project study
area.
B. Jurisdictional Areas
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of
the United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USACE has major responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the
United States." Wetlands have been described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)]
47
The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
1. Wetland Descriptions
One small wetland area (<0.01 acre) [WI on Figure 9, Sheet 12 and 13] occurs in Section D
of the project study area. This jurisdictional wetland is classified as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS)
as defined in Cowardin et al. (1979). Palustrine systems include all non-tidal wetlands dominated
by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses and all such wetlands that occur in tidal
areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5% (Cowardin et al. 1979). PSS areas
are identified as jurisdictional wetlands that are palustrine in nature and dominated by woody
vegetation less than 20 ft in height. The PSS wetland occurs within maintained/disturbed land
within the project study area. This wetland is a depressional area within the Little Tennessee
River floodplain and is dominated by red maple, tulip poplar, and tag alder. The wetland is small
in areal extent, but has the potential to provide higher wetland and wildlife functions by providing
water storage from overbank flooding and processing potential acidic leachate from the rock face
seeps.
Some wetland systems are defined as palustrine but are hydrologically influenced by adjacent
streams through periodic overbank flooding and are considered riparian wetlands. The riparian
wetlands are commonly referred to as riverine wetlands, not to be confused with the Riverine
system of Cowardin et al. (1979). Non-riparian wetlands are not typically influenced by overbank
flooding and are commonly referred to as non-riverine wetlands. The project study area wetland
receives the majority of its hydrology from seeps that are piped under Needmore Road, but is in a
location that would receive periodic overbank flooding from the Little Tennessee River, and
therefore would be considered riparian.
2. Jurisdictional Streams Descriptions
There are 15 jurisdictional streams within the project study area. There are approximately
4,007 linear feet of perennial stream channel within the project study area of which 3,093 linear
feet is attributed to the Little Tennessee River. There are also 84 linear feet of intermittent stream
channel within the project study area. All of the jurisdictional stream channels within the project
study area are tributaries to the Little Tennessee River, which has been designated by the USFWS
as Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered species (discussed in Section F below), and
therefore have been designated by the USACE as important and requiring mitigation for impacts.
Tellico Creek is subject to the Trout Buffer Rules and is discussed in detail in Section 2.a.
3. Wetland and Stream Impacts
Locations of wetlands and streams are presented in Figure 9. Impacts to jurisdictional areas
on the proposed project are summarized by project section and by project alternative studied in
Tables 12 -15 (Appendix Q.
48
a. Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
The jurisdictional wetland located in the project study area has been analyzed based on
vegetation type (Cowardin Classification) and source of dominant hydrologic influence (riparian
or non-riparian) as discussed above. These characteristics can be used to determine the alignment
that best avoids or minimizes impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland (W1 in Figure 9,
Sheets 12 and 13) identified within the project study area is a PSS, riparian wetland. W1 is small
in areal extent and considered to have medium wetland function and wildlife value. Rock face
seeps that are piped under Needmore Road are a major source of hydrology for WI, although WI
is also expected to receive periodic overflow from the Little Tennessee River. The existing
culverts adjacent to WI should remain in-place in order to maintain the surface connection with
the wetland's source of hydrology.
Estimated anticipated impact from the proposed project (Alternative E) to the jurisdictional
wetland is anticipated to be 0.044 acres. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are summarized in
Table 12 (Appendix C) and shown on Figure 9.
b. Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional streams located in the project study area have been analyzed based on three
general characteristics: natural stream classification, flow characteristics (perennial or
intermittent), and stream importance. These characteristics, especially stream importance, can be
used to determine the alignment that best avoids and minimizes impacts to jurisdictional streams.
Stream channels within the project study area have been designated as important or unimportant
by USACE. Stream importance is used to determine which stream channels, if impacted, will
require mitigation by the USACE.
The streams within the project study area have been impacted by Needmore Road. The project
study area includes: Bird Branch, the Little Tennessee River, Tellico Creek, Ledbetter Branch,
Loudermilk Creek, and ten unnamed tributaries. Detailed descriptions of streams within the
project study area can be found in Section 2 and in Table 7 (Appendix Q.
Estimated anticipated impact from the proposed project (Alternative E) for all sections of the
project (A-D) to jurisdictional streams is anticipated to be approximately 2,244 linear feet.
Impacts to jurisdictional streams are summarized by project section in Tables 13-15 (Appendix
C) and shown on Figure 9.
c. Impacts to Needmore Tract Riparian Buffers
The Needmore Tract (Game Lands) was purchased in January 2004 by the Nature
Conservancy in cooperation with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Natural Heritage
Trust Fund, the Ecosystem Enchancement Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. One of
the main purposes for the purchase was to preserve the tract as a high quality stream preservation
site for the local ecoregion. As part of the preservation, a 300 foot primary riparian buffer was
established via deed restrictions. The tract is currently managed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
The preferred alternative for the project impacts over 18 acres of these riparian buffers (see
Figure 10, Sheets 1 thru 8). For a comparision of impacts to the buffers by alternative see Table
49
2: Comparison of Improvement Alternatives. The shapefiles for the riparian buffers shown on
Figure 10 used to calculate these impacts were provided by the NC Natural Heritage Program. It
should be noted that while the riparian buffers are large enough to include all of Needmore Road,
the existing road is excluded as part of the riparian buffers.
Significant avoidance of the buffers by the preferred alternative was difficult because most of
the proposed project is completely within the buffers. The need to shift the preferred alternative
away from the river also limited avoidance efforts and increased impacts to the buffers
Minimization efforts were also restricted due to the need to adhere to the minimum travel lanes
and shoulder widths as set forth in the Division 14 Secondary Road Standards. Most of the
minimization efforts were in the cut sections with rock, where nearly vertical cut slopes of 3/4:1 to
'/4:1 were used. Also, in certain fill sections, the fill slopes were reduced to avoid impacts to the
river, to reduce impacts to the proposed historic district and riparian buffers.
C. Acidic (Hot) Rock
1. Hot Rock Assements to Date
The project lies within two mapped geological units, the Wehutty (Zwe) and Great Smoky
group (Zgs). Both are categorized as thin to massive bedded metasedimentary rocks with
interlayered schists and slates, some of which are sulfidic. A discussion of the sulfidic nature of
these units follows. Project-scale mapping shows massive bedded units of fine and medium
grained metasediments with very little slate and sufate bearing schists. The predominate rock
structure (bedding) dips consistently to the SE with secondary jointing dipping nearly vertical to
the north. These are nearly ideal orientations for designing stable rock slopes along this particular
alignment.
There are colluvium deposits of note on the project.
Rock along the project has been extensively tested, yielding Net Neutralization Potential
results. The Wehutty formation in particular has been highlighted by the profession as a "hot
rock", or exhibiting negative Net Neutralization Potential. The results of testing are as follows in
Table 16:
50
Table 16: Net Neutralization Potential Results
Sample # Date Location NNP Sample # Date Location NNP
1 3/12/98 11+50 0.329 43 4/28/98 60+00 -25.351
2 3/12/98 15+25 3.483 44 4/28/98 59+00 -14.642
3 3/12/98 21+00 2.36 45 4/28/98 58+75 -3.202
4 3/12/98 25+00 0.983 46 4/28/98 63+35 1.949
5 3/12/98 29+00 2.488 47 4/28/98 63+75 -42.48
6 3/12/98 35+50 -10.216 48 4/28/98 65+10 -21.04
7 3/12/98 38+00 2.736 49 4/28/98 64+25 -7.39
8 3/12/98 44+00 3.234 50 4/28/98 66+00 3.48
9 3/12/98 54+50 2.545 51 4/28/98 4.04
10 3/12/98 59+50 -15.691 52 4/28/98 0.734
11 3/12/98 59+40 -13.526 53 4/28/98 -6.574
12 3/12/98 63+00 0.703 1 9/30/97 16+00 3.98
13 3/12/98 64+40 -4.024 2 9/30/97 17+70 15.672
14 3/12/98 1+50 -5.689 3 9/30/97 24+00 -8.532
15 3/12/98 5+50 -4.219 4 9/30/97 36+50 10.945
16 3/12/98 14+50 0.746 5 9/30/97 59+00 -14.036
17 3/12/98 24+50 1.493 6 9/30/97 64+50 8.706
18 3/12/98 31+90 2.325
19 3/12/98 37+00 -12.465
20 3/12/98 55+50 -10.833
21 3/12/98 61+75 6.762
22 3/12/98 67+90 6.958
23 3/12/98 92+10 -9.439
24 3/12/98 55+95 2.514
25 3/12/98 55+00 -6.507
26 3/12/98 100+00 -22.352
27 3/12/98 65+00 3.913
28 3/12/98 63+50 4.258
29 3/12/98 59+25 4.725
30 3/12/98 60+25 -16.55
31 3/12/98 57+25 3.855
32 3/12/98 35+70 2.358
33 3/12/98 37+00 3.98
34 4/28/98 58+00 3.855
35 4/28/98 57+00 -0.58
36 4/28/98 57+90 2.485
37 4/28/98 57+65 3.199
38 4/28/98 57+15 3.483
39 4/28/98 57+50 2.795
40 4/28/98 57+35 -16.481
41 4/28/98 60+30 -16.701
42 4/28/98 59+90 -22.822
51
There have been several NCDOT projects to date that have encountered and impacted hot
rock units where there were associated fish kills, and required mitigation of acidic materials. In
hindsight, some of these instances have been caused by acidic groundwater sources or other
natural phenomena which certainly were unleashed by NCDOT activities, but cannot necessarily
be attributed solely to excavation of hot rock.
In the original literature, most of which was authored by Dr. Don Byerly of the University
of Tennessee at Knoxville, NNP values of -5 were a starting point of concern (the more negative,
the "hotter"). Other subsequent projects have added to the knowledge base by testing thousands of
samples of both blasted rock and surface water. This has shown that consistent values of -10 do
not necessarily affect runoff chemistry and Dr. Byerly has written that minor amounts of rock
between -5 and -15 do not cause problems, as long as some neutralization potential is present, ie.:
the rock is not consistently hot. Other project factors such as turbidity and siltation seem to have a
much larger impact, particularly on small streams. The final result of hot rock excavation is
whether the material can produce pH 4.5 runoff, which then calls into question the volume of
water contacted, the "volatility" of the sulfur producing component and the neutralization
potential of the non-hot component.
Positive NNP results indicate the basic chemistry component, or, it's ability to neutralize
acid. Negative NNP results indicate greater levels of acidic potential. Empirical experience shows
values between -5 and -15 are benign as long as some neutralization potential is present.
Of the 59 samples for this project, 24 were "hot" with an average NNP of -13.806. The
overall average NNP was -3.446. The overall average reflects a value that has proven to cause no
problems with acidic runoff on projects with hot rock.
2. Project Impact to Acidic Rock
Anticipated impact to acidic rock for the proposed project is presented in Table 17
(Appendix Q. Impacts are delineated by project section and studied build alternates and are
expressed in anticipated cubic yards of acidic rock that is anticipated to require removal. Acidic
rock impact areas are shown on Figure 9.
Approximately 24,201 cubic yards of potentially acidic rock is anticipated to require
excavation and treatment for the proposed recommended alternative (Alternative E).
3. Treatment and Disposal Methods
NCDOT has sampled each of the cut areas and have definite quantitative measures on the
intensity of sulfide bearing rock. Based on successful mitigation methods used on other projects
including R-977 (US 64 - Murphy Bypass), A-913 (Almond to Stecoah) and A-10 (I-26, Madison
County), representing 44 million cubic yards of sulfide bearing rock, the following specific
measures, which have proven effective on past NCDOT projects, are proposed:
Rock will be excavated in 20-foot lifts. Drainage will run to typical sediment/erosion control
basins that are constructed and lined with 90% calcium carbonate equivalent limestone riprap and
gravel base.
52
Wasted rock will be placed in on or offsite locations, not in the presence of active surface or
groundwater. Waste rock will rest on a 4 inch base layer of limestone with 1 inch layers of
limestone placed on every 3-foot lift. The limestone will be in the form of fine crushed aggregate
with minimal fines. This will be customized for each rock excavation area to achieve the
treatment necessary as accepted for NNP, namely, in tons of 90% CaCO3 per 1,000 tons of
excavation.
Each waste area will have a permanent erosion control basin constructed that catches periodic
surface runoff and is lined with limestone base.
The ditchline below cut areas will be lined with limestone riprap and aggregate in the finished
condition. This will buffer runoff to catchment basins or drainage for the length of time necessary
for the cut fresh face to naturally react. Based on experience in large cuts in the vicinity of the
project on US 74, this will occur within 1 year with adequate rainfall.
Areas of large excavation of hot rock cuts will be broken-up into smaller segments to have
more control during blasting operations.
Similar treatment of the entire waste volume occurred on the R-977 project, resulting in runoff
pH in the adjoining stream approaching 9.0. NCDOT will more closely match the NNP value to
the treated rock on this project to avoid over-elevating stream pH.
Other measures such as temporary coverage or intermittent slope face treatment are usually
employed when a much more negative NNP value is encountered. NNP values measured on this
project do not indicate that use of these additional measures are warranted.
D. Winter Salting Protocol
The NCDOT District Offices salt all primary roads first during winter storm events, followed
by secondary roads depending upon the severity of the storm. Needmore Ropad would be salted
on the second or third day of a storm event if necessary. Secondary road salting protocol entails a
mixture of 2 parts sand and 1 part salt applied at 250 pounds per lane mile (500 pounds per road
mile). NCDOT would be applying approximately 165 to 170 pounds of salt per mile along
Needmore Road when needed.
E. Permitting and Mitigation
1. Permits and Certifications Required
Several permits are expected to be required for encroachment into wetland communities and
stream channels as a result this project highway construction.
Section 404 -Clean Water Act
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United
States".
The proposed project is being evaluated as an State Environmental Assessment (SEA) and
then potentially a State Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI) for the purposes of the North
53
Carolina Environmental Policy Act documentation. As a result, an Individual Permit will likely be
applicable for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE holds the final
discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. In addition to the
Section 404 permit, an Individual Permit will be required due to the project's location and its
potential to impact the Little Tennessee River, Threatened and Endangered Species Designated
Critical Habitat, acidic rock, and large number of important stream crossings.
Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each state to certify that state water quality
standards will not be violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or
license; or 2) require discharges to "waters of the United States." The use of a Section 404 permit
requires the prior issuance of the 401 certification under a General Certification No. 3404. Under
General Certification No. 3404, in accordance with 15A NCAC .0506, compensatory mitigation
may be required for jurisdictional impacts to 1.0 ac (0.41 ha) or more of wetlands or 150 total
linear ft (46 linear m) or more of stream channel. The NCDOT must apply to the DWQ for 401
certification as part of the permit process which is typically handled as a joint permit application
to both the USACE and DWQ.
TVA Shoreline Construction Permit
Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act requires that TVA approval be
obtained "before any construction activities can be carried out that affect navigation, flood
control, or public lands along the shoreline of the TVA reservoirs or in the Tennessee River or its
tributaries" (TVA 2004). There are two main types of shoreline construction permits On-
Reservoir and Off-Reservoir permits. On-reservoir construction permits include activities "that
occur in, across, or along TVA reservoirs and regulated rivers and streams in the Tennessee
Valley" including regulated rivers and streams located downstream of TVA dams which are
directly impacted by the operation of the dams (TVA 2004). Off-Reservoir Construction Permits
apply to all activities that "occur in, across, or along all other perennial rivers and streams in the
Tennessee Valley watershed". Off-reservoir construction permits are considered on a case-by-
case basis (TVA 2004). The improvements to Needmore Road will need to be coordinated with
the TVA and may require an Off-Reservoir Construction Permit.
2. Mitigation Basis
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b)
minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down
procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS
mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. A practicable
alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
54
USFWS policy (step-down procedure) also emphasizes avoidance and minimization.
However, for unavoidable losses, the USFWS recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the
value and scarcity of the habitat at risk.
The NCDOT policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or
minimize harm to wetlands, which will be affected by federally funded highway construction. A
sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible.
Mitigation employed outside of the highway right of way must be reviewed and approved on a
case-by-case basis.
3. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance - Jurisdictional stream and wetland areas are present within the project study area
and will be impacted by the proposed project. Efforts have been and will continue to be made
throughout the Project Development process to avoid impacts to the greatest extent practicable. It
is not possible for the proposed project (Alternative E) to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas,
due to the location of Needmore Road and design constraints. However, the proposed project
avoids direct impact to the Little Tennessee River.
Minimization - Impacts to natural environment features in the project area have been avoided
and minimized through selection of the recommended alignment for the project. Minimization
was achieved by widening away from the river and steepening cut slopes in rocky areas. Stream
crossings and impacts were maintained as perpendicular where possible. Avoidance and
minimization efforts on the project will be summarized and presented in detail to the merger team
at a Concurrence Point 4A meeting.
Compensatory mitigation - The need for compensatory mitigation is likely due to the size
and location of the jurisdictional streams within the project study area. Mitigation will likely be
required for stream impacts greater than 150 linear feet. A specific mitigation plan cannot be
developed until final design is completed and final impacts are determined.
The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream mitigation opportunities based on the
recommended alternative. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District"
(MOA), July 22, 2003, the EEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the
federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
F. Protected Species Issues
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16
USC 1531 et seq.), as amended. Table 18 presents the federal protected species listed for Macon
and Swain Counties (USFWS 2008). Descriptions of these federally protected species along with
habitat requirements and biological conclusions for this project are presented following the table.
55
Table 18: Federally Listed Species (31 January 2008 USFWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Statusa County
(MIS)b Potential
Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T(S/A) M/S No Not Required
S otfin chub Erimonax monachus T MIS Yes' Unresolved
Carolina northern
flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E S No No Effect
Indiana bat M otis sodalis E M /S Yes MA-NLAA
Gray bat M otis risecens E S Yes MA-NLAA
Eastern cougar Puma concolor cou uar E Se Yes No Effect
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus BGPA S No Not Required
A alachan elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E MIS Yes' Unresolved
Spruce-fir moss
spider Microhexura montivaga E S No No Effect
Noonday globe Patera clarki nantahala T S No No Effect
Littlewing pearly
mussel Pegias fabula E MIS Yes Unresolved
Small whorled
0 oma Isotria medeoloides T M Yes No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T MIS Yes MA-NLAA
Rock gnome
lichen Gymnoderma lineare E MIS No No Effect
' E-Endangered: "taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range", T-Threatened: "taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" , T(S/A)-Threatened due to the similarity of
appearance (USFWS 2003a).
b M-Macon, S-Swain.
c The Little Tennessee River within the project study area is designated as Critical Habitat by
the USFWS for both the spotfin chub and the Appalachian elktoe.
d Summer habitat/winter records.
Historic record.
f MA-NLAA - May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Bog turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4
inches. This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright
orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980).
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association
with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and
Braswell 1995). The bog turtle occurs from New York to northern Georgia. In North Carolina,
bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-
collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the USFWS listed the bog turtle as threatened within
the northern portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its range, which includes
North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the
northern population (USFWS 1997a). The listing allows incidental take of bog turtles in the
southern population resulting from otherwise lawful activity. T(S/A) species are not subject to
Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. No known occurrences of bog
56
turtle have been documented within 3.0 miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Potential
habitat for the bog turtle does not exist within the project study area.
Spotfin chub - The spotfin chub, sometimes placed in the genus Cyprinella, is a small,
slender minnow that may reach adult size of 2.2 to 3.5 inches standard length. The spotfin chub
has an inferior mouth with small barbels at each corner, a large caudal spot, and dark posterior
dorsal fin membrane. Breeding males have blue sides with two large white bars anteriorly, olive
or tan back, silvery cream belly, and blue fins edged with white. The coloration of the breeding
male leads to an alternative common name in usage for this species, turquoise shiner. Adult
females and non-breeding males are bright silver with tan, gray, or olive green dorsal coloration,
and have pale fins. Spawning is thought to begin in mid-May and extend into mid-August
(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
In North Carolina, the spotfin chub is presently restricted to the Little Tennessee River
system, although it formerly occurred in the French Broad drainage as well (LeGrand et al. 2001).
Spotfin chub is typically found in clear waters of medium-sized streams and rivers of moderate
gradient. Spotfin chub do not tolerate heavily silted conditions and are reported to prefer areas
with moderate to swift flow over large bars and beds of small to medium-sized gravel (Lee et al.
1980). Spotfin chub occasionally occur in sandy areas (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
The main stem of the Little Tennessee River from the backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream
to the North Carolina - Georgia state line is designated as Critical Habitat for spotfin chub
(USFWS 2003a). The project study area is within this portion of the Little Tennessee River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
Spotfin chub has been documented within the Little Tennessee River and
upstream/ downstream of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). The reach of the Little
Tennessee River within the project study area has been designated as Critical Habitat for spotfin
chub by the USFWS. Potential habitat also exists within the Little Tellico Creek. Coordination
with the USFWS will be required.
Carolina northern flying squirrel - The Carolina northern flying squirrel is an isolated,
endangered subspecies of the more wide-ranging northern flying squirrel. Flying squirrels are
nocturnal and have a loose, fully furred fold of skin on each side of the body between the wrists
and the ankles that enables the squirrels to glide from trees to other trees or to the ground for
foraging. Carolina northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from the similar southern flying
squirrel (Glaucomys volans) by larger size ranging from 10 to 12 inches total length and by
having gray rather than white bases of the ventral hairs (Weigl 1987).
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is usually associated with boreal habitats, especially in
spruce-fir forests and mature hardwood forest adjacent to spruce-fir forests at elevations above
4000 ft (USFWS 1990). Endemic to the Appalachians of western North Carolina and eastern
Tennessee, this subspecies is known from the Great Smoky Mountains, Roan Mountain, and
Mount Mitchell.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of the Carolina northern flying squirrel have been
documented within 3.0 miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Elevations in the project
57
study area are below 2000 ft and are considered too low to support the spruce-fir forest habitat for
this species. No impacts to Carolina northern flying squirrel populations are expected as a result
of this project due to the absence of high elevation habitat within the project study area.
Indiana bat - The Indiana bat is a small, brown bat measuring 3.0 to 3.6 inches in total
length. The Indiana bat is distinguished from other eastern bats by having a keeled calcar
(cartilaginous projection from the hind foot), relatively small ears that do not extend beyond the
nose when pulled forward, short toe hairs that do not extend beyond the toes, and two tiny teeth in
a gap between the canines and cheek teeth (Handley 1991).
Indiana bats hibernate in the winter in limestone caves usually where standing water is present
(Webster et al. 1985). Indiana bats also use mine tunnels for hibernation (Handley 1991). In the
summer, males continue to roost in caves, but females in maternity colonies, normally roost under
the loose bark of dead, large-diameter trees; however, living shagbark hickories (Carya ovata)
and tree cavities are also used occasionally (Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan 1993; Kurta et al.
1993).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
No known occurrences of the Indiana bat have been documented within 3.0 miles
of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). No caves or large diameter trees which are ideal
habitat for the Indiana bat were noted within the project study area. However, large cliff faces and
outcrops were not able to be systematically checked for small cave entrances and may provide
potential habitat. Impacts to Indiana bat populations as a result of this project cannot be
determined at this point.
Gray bat - Populations are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Tennessee, with a few colonies occurring in northwestern Florida, western Georgia,
southwestern Kansas, south Indiana, south Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern
Mississippi, western Virginia, and possibly western North Carolina.
Gray bats live in colonies in caves, utilizing different caves for summer roosting and
winter hibernating. Summer caves are usually within a kilometer of a river or reservoir, which
provides foraging habitat. During the summer, females give birth and rear the young in maternity
caves, while males and yearlings roost in separate bachelor caves. Caves preferred for hibernation
are typically deep, vertical caves with a temperature between 6 and 11 degrees Celsius. Gray bats
are highly selective in choosing suitable caves, and nine known caves are thought to provide
hibernation space for 95% of the population. Migration from summer to winter caves begins in
September and is mainly complete by the beginning of November. The distance between summer
and winter caves can be as little as 2 miles, but in some cases is greater than 200 miles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
No known occurrences of the gray bat have been documented within 3.0 miles of the
project study area. No caves which are ideal habitat for the gray bat were noted within the project
study area. However, large cliff faces and outcrops were not able to be systematically checked for
cave entrances and may provide potential habitat. Impacts to gray bat populations as a result of
this project cannot be determined at this point.
58
Eastern cougar - The eastern cougar is a possibly extinct eastern subspecies of the
widespread mountain lion species. This species was possibly extirpated from North Carolina by
the late 1800s, although recent sporadic sightings have been reported from remote areas of the
mountains and coastal plain (Lee 1987). Mountain lions are large, long-tailed cats; adult males
may measure 7 to 9 ft total length with females averaging 30 to 40 percent smaller (Handley
1991). Adult mountain lion tracks measure approximately 3.5 inches (Lee 1987).
Recent specimens of mountain lion taken in North Carolina and elsewhere in other mid-
Atlantic states have proven to be individuals of other subspecies that have escaped or been
released from captivity. The eastern cougar requires large tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat
that support large populations of white-tailed deer (Webster et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of the eastern cougar have been documented within 3.0
miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). This species is considered to be extirpated from
North Carolina. The potential impacts to natural communities are limited due to the narrow study
corridor.
Bald eagle - The bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of
August 8, 2007. It is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Little
Tennessee River is within one mile of the survey area for this project. A survey of the study area
plus 660 feet outside the study area was completed on June 9, 2009. There is nesting habitat for
the eagle, although no nests were found. A biological conclusion is not required for this species.
Appalachian elktoe - The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped
shell, reaching up to about 3.2 inches in length, 1.4 inches in height, and 1.0 inch in width (Clarke
1981). Juveniles generally have a yellowish-brown periostracum (outer shell surface) while the
periostracum of the adults is usually dark brown to greenish-black in color. Although rays are
prominent on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell, many individuals have
only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside shell surface) is shiny, often white to bluish-
white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of
the shell; some specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches (adapted from Clarke
1981).
The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with
cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water (USFWS 1996). The species is
most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse
sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the
substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the species is seldom found in
stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble (USFWS 1996).
The main stem of the Little Tennessee River, from the Lake Emory Dam in Macon County to
the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County has been designated as Critical Habitat
(USFWS 2003a). The project study area is within this portion of the Little Tennessee River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
Appalachian elktoe has been documented within the Little Tennessee River
upstream/downstream of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). The reach of the Little
59
Tennessee River within the project study area has been designated as Critical Habitat for
Appalachian elktoe by the USFWS. Based on the description above, Tellico Creek may also
provide potential habitat and will need to be surveyed for the presence/absence of Appalachian
elktoe. Coordination with the USFWS will be required.
Spruce-fir moss spider - Spruce-fir moss spiders are small mygalomorph (tarantula-like)
spiders; adults are less than 0.2 inch in length (Harp 1992). The small size, second pair of book
lungs, and long posterior spinnerets distinguish this species from other spiders within its range.
The spruce-fir moss spider appears to be associated with moist, well-drained moss mats
growing on rocks and boulders in well-shaded situations in mature high-elevation conifer forests
dominated by Fraser fir (USFWS 1998). This species has only been found at or above 5,300 feet
elevation. Spruce-fir moss spiders are extremely vulnerable to desiccation, and are adapted to the
high rainfall of these mountains and the moist environment provided by the mosses.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. The species is historically known from
four mountain peaks in North Carolina. The species has been recorded from Mount Mitchell,
Yancey County; Grandfather Mountain, Avery and Caldwell Counties; and Mount Collins and
Clingman's Dome, Swain County (USFWS 1998).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of the spruce-fir moss spider have been documented within
3.0 miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Elevations within the project study area are
below 2000 ft and are too low to support the spruce-fir habitat for this species. Therefore the
project study area does not provide suitable habitat for the spruce-fir spider. No impacts to this
species will occur as a result of this project.
Noonday globe - The noonday globe is a land snail, which is 0.75 inch wide and 0.5
inch in height (USFWS 2003b). The shell is shiny, reddish in color, with sculptured course lines,
and white around the opening (USFWS 2003b). The animal is black. The noonday globe appears
to most active during wet weather and is found on the surface of vegetation.
This species is endemic to the high cliffs within the Nantahala Gorge. The cliffs in this region
are wet and intersected by many small streams and waterfalls. The habitat is characterized by a
mature forest with a thick humus layer and has many exposed calcareous rocks (USFWS 2003b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of the noonday globe have been documented within 3.0
miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). The noonday globe is endemic to the mature
forests within the Nantahala Gorge. The project study area is not located within the Nantahala
Gorge and not within the area of endemism. No potential habitat exists within the project study
area. No impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Littlewing pearly mussel - Littlewing pearly mussels are small, not exceeding 1.5 inches
in length and 0.5 inch in width (USFWS 1989). The shells with outer shell (periostracum) intact
are light green or dark yellowish brown with dark rays (NCWRC 2001). However, the outer shell
is usually eroded, therefore the shell appears ashy white (USFWS 1989).
60
The littlewing pearly mussel inhabits small to medium streams that have high gradient, cool
water and low turbidity (USFWS 1989). This species is usually found in the riffle areas in the
headwaters of high gradient streams, but has also been know to occur in the transition zones
between pools and riffles (NCWRC 2001).
The species is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains and the Cumberland Plateau
Region. The project study area is located within the occupied habitat mapped by NCWRC
(NCWRC 2001). No Critical Habitat has been designated for the littlewing pearly mussel in
Macon or Swain Counties, North Carolina. However, the NCWRC notes that all headwater areas
that flow into these occupied habitats should receive special management (NCWRC 2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
Littlewing pearly mussel has been documented within the Little Tennessee River
upstream/downstream of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Occupied habitat within the
Little Tennessee River exists within the project study area and coordination with the USFWS will
be required. Tellico Creek may also provide potential habitat due to its gravel and cobble
substrate, with riffles providing well-oxygenated, moderately flowing water. Tellico Creek will
need to be surveyed for the presence/absence of littlewing pearly mussel.
Small whorled pogonia - The small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to
about 10 inches high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed
tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a
single, yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower
rarely may be present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch,
surrounded by 3 narrow sepals up to 1 inch in length. Flower production, which occurs from May
to July, is followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches in length
(Massey et al. 1983). This species has been known to flower infrequently and may remain
dormant for extended periods (Porter and Wieboldt 1991).
The small whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern
Georgia, but is very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found in scattered
locations in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso 2002). Small whorled pogonia is
found in open, dry, deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forests, or along stream banks. Examples
of areas providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer)
where small whorled pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windthrow areas,
cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and
cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). In the southern part of its range small whorled pogonia is typically
associated with canopy species such as white pine, white oak, red maple, rock chestnut oak, and
tulip poplar (USFWS 1992a). Typical ground layer species associated with small whorled
pogonia include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), cat-brier (Smilax glauca), and
Christmas fern (USFWS 1992a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of small whorled pogonia have been documented within
3.0 miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Potentially suitable habitat consisting of open
and disturbed areas and streambanks exists within the project study area. A systematic survey for
small whorled pogonia was conducted by NCDOT biologists on June 9, 2009. No specimens were
observed during an eighteen man-hour survey.
61
Virginia spiraea - Virginia spiraea is a deciduous, colonial shrub that averages 3 to 10 ft
in height (USFWS 1992b). Its short-stalked leaves are alternate, nearly toothless, and narrowly
elliptic with a pointed tip (Radford et al. 1968). Numerous small, white, 5-petaled flowers are
produced on terminal clusters in June to July. Dried corymbs often persist through winter. Seed
production is reported to be sporadic and most colonies are believed to arise from downstream
dispersal and establishment of fragments of horizontal rootstock (Porter and Wieboldt 1991).
Endemic to the southern Appalachians, Virginia spiraea is restricted to disturbance-prone
riverine areas, specifically along scoured banks of high gradient streams, meander scrolls, point
bars, natural levees, and braided features of lower stream reaches (USFWS 1992b). Disturbance is
required for removal of woody competitors and to aid in establishment of colonies.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
One known population of Virginia spiraea occurs within one mile of the study
area. Element ocurance (EO) 21 is located on the Little Tennessee River approximately 0.75 miles
downstream of the project area in Swain County. A survey for Virginia spiraea was conducted by
NCDOT biologists on July 7, 2009. While habitat for Virginia spiraea is present within the study
area, no specimens were observed. Due to the proximity of this known population the biological
conclusion for this species is "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
Rock gnome lichen - The rock gnome lichen is a small, squamulose (strap-like) lichen in
the reindeer moss (lichen) family. This species is similar to squamulose lichens in the genus
Cladonia by having terminal portions of its strap-like lobes that are blue-gray on the upper
surface and shiny-white on the lower surface; rock gnome lichen differs from these other lichens
by having blackened lobe bases. The lichen grows nearly parallel to the rock surface to which it is
attached, but the tips curl up to a near vertical orientation. Reproduction appears to be asexual,
with colonies spreading clonally. Rock gnome lichen is typically found growing in association
with a distinctively colored, reddish-brown moss (Andreaea sp.) (USFWS 1997b).
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Most
populations occur above 5000 ft in elevation in areas subject to frequent fog cover, but the species
has been found at lower elevations in deep gorges where a similar high humidity regime is present
(USFWS 1997b). Rock gnome lichen typically occurs on vertical rock faces subject to
intermittent seepage (USFWS 1997b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect.
No known occurrences of rock gnome lichen have been documented within 3.0
miles of the project study area (NCNHP 2003a). Elevations within the project study area are
below 2000 ft, well below the reported elevational distribution of this species and no deep gorges
are present within the project study area. No impacts to the rock gnome lichen are expected as a
result of this project due to lack of suitable habitat.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The 31 January 2008 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC) (USFWS 2008). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. However, these species are listed because they may attain
federally protected status in the future. The presence of potential habitat within the project study
area has been evaluated in Table 19 for the FSC species listed for Macon and Swain Counties.
62
Table 19: Federal Species of Concern (FSC) (31 January 2008 USFWS list)
Common Name Scientific Name County
(M/S)a State
Designation
ba Potential
Habitat
Southern Appalachian saw-
whet owl Aegolius acadicus M/S T Yes
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis M Sc No
Green salamander Aneides aeneus M E Yes
Smoky dace Chnostomus unduloides ss .1 MIS Sc Yes
Olive-sided flycatcher Conto us borealis MIS Sc No
Rafines ue's big-cared bat Cor norhinus ra mes uii M/S T No
Hellbender Cr tobranchus alle aniensis M/S Sc Yes
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea M SR Yes
Wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratum M/S Sc Yes
Southern Appalachian red
crossbill Loxia curvirostra S Sc No
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus
carohnensis S Sc No
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma s p. 1 M/S SR(PT) Yes
Eastern small-footed m otis M otis leibii S Sc No
Southern Appalachian
woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia MIS* Sc Yes
Southern Appalachian black-
capped chickadee Poecile atricapillas practica S Sc No
Olive darter Percina s uamata M/S Sc Yes
Pygmy Salamander Desmo nathus wri hti M/S -- Yes
Seepage Salamander Desmo nathus aeneus M/S -- Yes
French Broad Crayfish Cambarus reburrus S -- Yes
Little Tennessee Mussel Lexin tonia s .c dolabelloides M/S -- Yes
Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa M Sc Yes
Northern pine snake Pituophismelanoleucus
melanoleucus S Sc No
Southern water shrew Sorex alustrhs unctulatus S Sc No
Southern Appalachian
yellow -bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
a alachiensis S Sc Yes
Appalachian cottontail S lvila us obscurus M/S SR No
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thr omanes bewickii altus M E No
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita M**/S** SR Yes
Clin man covert Mesodon wheatle i clin manicus S T No
Lost Nantahala Cave spider Nesticus coo eri M/S SR No
Tawny crescent butterfl Ph ciodes batesii maconensis M/S SR Yes
Diana fritillbutterfly S e eria diana M/S* SR Yes
Fraser fir Abies aseri S SR-L No
Piratebush Buckle a disticho h lla M/S** E Yes
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis S SR-T Yes
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii M* SR-L No
Cream tick-trefoil Desmodium ochroleucum S* SR-T Yes
Darlington's spurge Eu horbia ur urea M/S SR-T No
West Indian dwarf of od Grammitis nimbata M E No
Smoky Mountain mannagrass Gl ceria nubi ena S T No
Gorge film fern H meno h llum to loriae M PE No
Butternut Ju lans cinerea M/S W5A Yes
Fraser's loosestrife L simachia raseri M E Yes
Sweet inesa Monotro sis odorata M*/S SR-T Yes
63
fable iy: vecteral Npecies of concern (rNc.) (si January luu5 uNv wN list) cont.
Common Name Scientific Name County
(M/S)a State
Designation
ba Potential
Habitat
Torrey's mountain mint Pycnanthemum torrei M* SR-T No
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis S T No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga carohniana M SR-T Yes
Blue Ridge ragwort Packera millefolium M -- No
Dwarf aster Eurybia mirabilis M -- No
Anderson's Melon moss Brachymenium andersonii M -- Yes
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var.
alaci olia S E-SC Yes
Mountain catchfl Silene ovata MIS SR-T Yes
Granite dome goldenrod Solida o simulans M SR-L No
Mountain than ium Thas ium innati idum S* SR-T No
A liverwort Ce haloziella obtusilobula M* W2 No
A liverwort Pla iochila shay ii M SR-L No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var.
sullivantii M/S SR-T No
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var.
carohniana M SR-T No
A liverwort Porella watau ensis M* SR-L No
A liverwort S henolobo sis earsonii S PE No
a M-Macon, S-Swain.
b E-Endangered; PE-Proposed Endangered; PT-Proposed Threatened; T-Threatened; SC-Special Concern - "Any species of wild animal or
once-native to N.C. which is determined by NCWRC to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulation adopted under the provisions
of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987; SR-Significantly Rare - "Any species not listed by the NCWRC as E, T, or SC", but
has been determined to need monitoring by NCNHP; SR-L - Significantly Rare, the range of the species is limited to N.C. and adjacent states; SR-
T- Significantly Rare, throughout range; W-Watch List. Updated November 2003 (NCNHP 2003b).
Proposed habitat based extensively on Amoroso (2002), LeGrand et al. (2001), and other literature previously cited.
* Historic Record. ** Obscure Record.
According to NCNHP records, FSC species have been documented within the project study
area and within 3.0 miles of the project study area. FSC species documented to occur within the
project study area include the wounded darter, olive darter, sicklefin redhorse, and tawny crescent
butterfly. The wounded darter, olive darter and sicklefin redhorse have also been documented
both upstream and downstream of the project study area.
3. State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (G. S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina
Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202.12 et seq.). In addition to the FSC species records
identified above, six other state listed species and one NCNHP monitored SR species have been
documented within 3.0 miles of the project study area (Table 20).
64
Table 20: State Listed Species
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Designation State
Designation
Stonecat Noturus flavus N/A Endangered
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC Endangered
Slippershell mussel Alasmidonta viridis N/A Endangered
Tennessee Pigtoe Fusconaia barnesiana N/A Endangered
Spike Elliptio dilatata N/A Special Concern
Wavy-rayed mussel Lampsilis fasciola N/A Special Concern
Listed above in Table 20 are the six state-listed species documented in the Little Tennessee
River within and 3.0 miles upstream/downstream of the project study area. The SR species,
Appalachian azure, a butterfly, has also been documented from the project vicinity. During field
investigations, ESI biologists documented a relic shell of a spike (a freshwater mussel) along the
banks of the Little Tennessee River.
4. Invasive Species
Four species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to
occur in the study area. The species identified were: multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinese), kudzu (Pueraria montana) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). Multiflora rose, Chinese privet and kudzu are listed as threat level 1 and considered to
be a severe threat to habitat and natural areas. Japanese honeysuckle is listed as threat level 2 and
considered to be a threat to habitat and natural areas. NCDOT will follow the Department's Best
Management Practices for the management of invasive plant species.
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Solicited
Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental
document. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk
(*) during the preparation of this assessment.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
* Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Written comments received from the noted agencies appear in Appendix B have been addressed
in this document.
65
B. NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process
A National Environmental Polity Act (NEPA) / 404 Merger Team was established for the
project to improve environmental protection and the regulatory process. The merger team consists
of representatives from the following state and federal agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Merger team meetings have been held prior to publishing this State Environmental
Assessment (SEA) to discuss and agree on the project purpose and need, alternatives under
consideration, to review the impacts associated with the alternates under consideration, and agree
upon project alternatives to carry forward for detailed study.
Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need): Concurrence on 08/20/2003
Concurrence Point 2 (Alternatives): Concurrence on 12/13/2005
Concurrence Point 2A
(Bridging Decisions and Alternatives to Carry Forward) Concurrence on 09/03/2008
Additional merger meetings to concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicible
Alternative (LEDPA) and Avoidance and Minimization of impacts will be held for this project
subsequent to this SEA.
C. Public Involvement
The NCDOT held a Citizens Informational Workshop on December 2, 1999 at Swain County
Administration Building to inform residents of the project and provide project information.
Citizen and activist group comments have been received, with an even split of comments in favor
and against the project. Typical concerns raised regard concerns over impacts to the Little
Tennessee River, impacts to other natural features in the area, and increased speeds on a paved
surface. Typical comments in favor of the projects cite a lack of connectivity between Franklin
and the Bryson City area, sediment and dust in the project area, and the usability of the road
during flood conditions.
A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public hearing
will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The
public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed
proj ect.
IX. BASIS FOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that this project will
not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human or natural environment. The
proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification or land use and is not
66
controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state and local agencies and no
major objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were voiced at the citizens
informational workshop held on December 2, 1999. For these reasons, it is concluded that an
Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this proposal:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
67
APPENDIX A
Figures
t
PROUECT umiTs

usl

SR 1364 AND SR 1114 IMPROVEMENTS
O Vs I miles
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
sHl °' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1364 and SR 1114 IMPROVEMENTS
NEEDMORE ROAD
MACON & SWAIN COUNTIES
R-4440
FIGURE / PROJECT VICINTY MAP
3 3
D D
i i

ED 2 D 2
r r
i i
m m
nay ,
r
? aw ? u
tti ,} A4 ?" y?F???a sRdy "SOS 1..i ?.s d-?
FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP LEGEND
SHEET 1 OF 2 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
TIP PROJECT R-4440 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS BUILDINGS WETLANDS LAKES, RIVER, STREAMS AND PONDS EXISTING ROADWAY
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND O PROPERTY OWNERS -4P- PROPERTY LINES CEMETERIES ACIDIC "HOT" ROCK
SR 1364 / SR 1114 (NEEDMORE RD)IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SWAIN-MACON COUNTIES SCALE: 1"=800'
s 3
D M.

D x

m
m
FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP LEGEND
SHEET 2 OF 2 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
TIP PROJECT R-4440 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS BUILDINGS WETLANDS LAKES, RIVER, STREAMS AND PONDS EXISTING ROADWAY
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Q PROPERTY OWNERS -4b-- PROPERTY LINES CEMETERIES ACIDIC "NOT" ROCK
SR 1364 / SR 1114 (NEEOMORE RD) IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SWAIN-MACON COUNTIES SCALE: 1"=800'

v
Z
9
1ww
0m
YI
F ?
iG J
CL Z
za
J
a
yF
?}Z
O;W
FXZ
W=lz
cC F
vg 0W
LOO
oya
ZOW
J ?
0
4 0
W
0 F
Z U
W
7
0
N
IL
? m?k+
t ?'"*r}` a R-4440 Figure 3
Widening
Needmore Road Alternatives Map
Improvements Sheet 1 of 13
Section A
Macon & Swain Counties
;- uyt ,? Legend
gar } jo4'`.
4 VFW x E ? o-
r, x #j ?r? ' `:,F "?; Alternative D
SCALE 105=100' Alternative E
f *
{ r•i ,•,a k ? r
W`
?. f
K'I
,
x
LL o y
A.
•+ 5
i ?
r
k'?Y""CCC F'?
•? fC
,
AIF
r ,
{{ 5
?Y1 .. ?' ? -. ;.? ., .{M,.` , d.? . ? ??-.u ? .. ,. ?.?6x???_....?r::aae?sf?.??+.59a? •?' ...?,'t,:.. y . ,
U
Z
9
Z 1211
0 y
sF y
J
d Z
iQ
?yQ
F
L6 LLI
0=2
zoo
X09
_09
12OZ LLI
LOO
0O
O;iQ
Q?F
ZOW
0
ao
?J
W
? O
0 F
Z v
W
7
0
19
IL
4MAN
`' K ?", • "" :'r
R 4440
41 11, fr`Z'
Vj *P
.. . 4r ?i ;7
Needmore Road
4'4 Improvements
t x ?. •a , aa" °? •:a Macon & Swain Counties
01W V_
SCALE 105=100'
Fri
,+ (??. .?'?ii,.. q ' y J .+?': ??? i T,d' x' Y a "?ex b ..,. r...p '. '+h???,.,?• a ? T ;tr
Wis. ? ? $[- s :.,r• _ r.e. ? ?? ?k`Yr?' ' ?*? ?r ? •t ?,r ?, ' } i ? e,ar
+F r.T Via.. ? 4, ? M f
14
?
M
M
r
04-
t'A

Fi,qure 3
Widening
Alternatives Map
Sheet 2 of 13
Section A
Legend
- - - Alternative D
Alternative E
U
Z
9
0 m
QF y
J
IL Z
z a
I-
LL.aZ
032
Uj
zoZ
W
WOZ
OHQ
Q?F
Z0W
0
a 0
_ >
z 0
0 F
Z
W
7
0
19
L

1 l IT-l:LY.
R-4440
Needmore Road
Improvements
Macon & Swain Counties
Fi.gure 3
Widening
Alternatives Map
Sheet 3 of 13
Section A
Legend
- - - Alternative D
Alternative E
e .
S

Z
U
t
9
0 m
F y
d Z
zQ
x.41
1-}i
032
W?1z
JgOW
dZC
?yt
Q
Q?F
ZOW
0
a 0
U W
N 0
0 F
Z v
W
7
0
1%
L
R-4440 Figure 3
Widening
Needmore Road Alternatives Map
Improvements Sheet 4 of 13
Section A
Macon & Swain Counties
Legend
- - - Alternative D
SCALE V=100' Alternative E

U
Z
9
Z m
0 y
F y
Z
az a
a
yF
IL4W
O32
Lu
L6 >
SOW
WO
o. Z
a
a>_1?-
Z?W
J ?
0
1
IC O
?
W
0 F
Z v
7
19
L

WW Y
V„
d

R-4440 Figure 3
Widening
,:. Needmore Road Alternatives Map
Improvements Sheet 5 of 13
Section A
Macon & Swain Counties
Legend
,; - - - Alternative D
SCALE 1"=100' Alternative E
." .1

i?
1 `5: gy s(Y. :4
Y l?.

v
z
9
zm
0 y
aF y
0? J
Z
Z A
I-*Z
o3W
FZZ
x_12
Fe OW
4c z WOZ
c.a
a01-
zsz
0 2
a0
U J
W
OG 0
0 F
Z U
W
7
0
19
IL

.. C
6 ion
R
k
y ; T
s
1-7
9 m

nn All
yL•a

F +
Ov 6
Z nZ
ti
W
v
Z
9
zm
0 y
4F y
d Z
Z J
9.F
F}
?3WZ
0
Z0
FZ
W=?
Roz
WOZ
0.a
a>1?-
ZOW
0 2
Q O
V J
W
F W
0 F
Z v
W
7
O
19
L

v
Z
9
zm
0
C J
d Z
za
Q
HF
H}Z
o32
W00
IN >
Roz
WOZ
oya
Z?W
0
a O
W
0 F
Z ti
W
7
0
IL

v
z
9
Z m
0 y
H ?
J
d Z
za
o? A
a
HF
?}Z
o3W
FZZ
0
W=12
IgoW
WO
DyZ
Q
ZCZ
J ? LLI
0
U 0
W
LLI
0 F
Z U
W
7
0
19
IL
v
z
9
zm
0 fA
F y
J
d Z
za
rya
LL. 4W
032
W0?
L6 >
SOW
Wi
oyz
a
Z?W
J ?
ao
W
LLI
0 F
Z U
W
7
0
12
IL
v
z
9
Z m
0 y
F H
J
d Z
z a
a
HF
?}Z
02
FZZ
LLI _1%
1?- 115
IgOW
WO
O. Z
a
a>?
Z W
?
J ?
0
0
W
? O
0 F
Z 0
W
7
0
19
IL
v
z
9
Z m
0 y
F y
J
d Z
za
o? A
a
yF
?}Z
LL.
0
W??
2_
?OZ
W
WOZ
o.a
a>_?
Z?W
J ?
0
Ig IL
0
W
LLI
0 F
Z v
W
7
0
19
L

°f µOFYTN ?,4 TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR County: MACON/SWAIN
9O, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT NEEDMORE ROAD Figure
p v OF TRANSPORTATION Div: 14 TIP# R-4440 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WIDENING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 35597.1.1 A
'9, tie ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH i?
?FNT°F TRpN?'QO MACON & SWAIN COUNTIES Date: MAY 2009
TIP PROJECT R-4440
TYPICAL SECTION IN HOT ROCK AREAS
TYPICAL SECTION IN NON-HOT ROCK AREAS
Great Smoky Mountains National Park ?
Census Tract 9603
Block Group 6
Fontana Lake
Nantahala National Forest
Santeelah Lake
Graham County
Swain County
N
Little Tennessee River
1
Needmore Tract
E
>UNeedmore Community
Nanatahala River
Legend
R-4440
Rivers and Lakes
Q Direct Community Impact Area
Needmore Tract
® Nanatahala National Forest Nantahala National Forest
® Great Smoky Mnts Natl Park
Cherokee County
Demographic Study Area
Census Tract 9603, BG 6
Census Tract 9702, BG 2
Nantahala National Forest
Public Involvement Community Studies
February 2007 10,000
0 Feet
Macon County
I
Nantahala Lake _q
Clay County

-7-7
?o
'MR
R-4440
?I O
To Bryson City >>
=V
Stiles Community
FCen,s usTract 9702
ock Group 2
Figure 6 - Direct Community Impact Area
A: n \
rn
J o W
10
Y
Licklog Creek
Needmore Community

Long Branch Development
Long Branch
Rattlesnake Creek
Swain County

A Legend

U Rivers and Lakes
c
Q Direct Community Impact A

0 Needmore Tract
® Nanatahala National Forest
Rural Communities
Needmore Tract
Little Tennessee River
Brush Creek
Crave Gap Cemetery
Grouping of Homes and Small Businesses
R-4440
Simon Branch
??F • A'pf b1o
Upe Z
h r
0
Z O
ub ?¢2
3bts n PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) W
00?
0< z
D= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
F-
>- U
W J Z C)
QN 5 u
N>p 0
a0U_ z w
0 J 00 Q
(L W? U)
HN
2
I
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
7
??F • A'pf b1o
Upe Z
h r
0
Z O
ub ?¢2
3bts n PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) W
00?
0< z
D= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
N
F-
L)
Lu 0
N Z o
Q?a
zaV E 0 u
W LU .- 0
w 0 O- 0 Q
Cn C)
i
0O N
0
LU (L LU (D
w
w0J
UL W
al
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
8A
??F • A'pf b1o
Upe Z
h r
0
Z O
ub ?¢2
3bts n PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U)0>
0LL >xz
z0oaw
N
F-
L)
LU r
J
FWa- Z °
Q V N O II
W LU 0
WcnO'c z J
JOfA? 0 Q
CL U
a02 g U)
r
LUaJQ
0
LL 1
W
a
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
8B
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440
v Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
Stream Impacts
Wetland Impacts
EB pyN Acidic Rock
= SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section A Alternate E
SCALE 151=100'
10/ GR
N h G ? ? Sr
Begin Project
o y N
W a
6? C
P
ST
\ Bird Branch (S1)
o
UT to Bird Branch (S W °
?G
Q, ?,o
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 2
Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
?O Stream Impacts
(?C G o? ? Wetland Impacts
o? 7 Acidic Rock
SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section A Alternate E
SCALE 150=1005
ti
0 °
6V
Q? d
Little Tennessee River (S4)
w •?
•a4`' o
W
7
o? UT to Little Tennesse River (S3)
?w
?
W
0 _n1Z., v
w
fB 0
Little Tennessee River (S4)
h
w
coi
44
ti
SCALE 151=1001
N
WWWVJ

1
OyH
?J "r
sov
o?
Little Tennessee River (S4)
W
col
o
R
UT to Little Tennesse River (S6)
v09
0,aSc
UT to Little Tennesse River (SS)
cU RED
?g5
RO
Is
UT to Little Tennesse River (S7)
G \\
M
H
W
h
SCALE 1"=100'
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 5
/ Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
/ Stream Impacts
f
9 ??r Wetland Impacts
Acidic Rock
SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section A Alternate E
SCALE 155=100'
Little Tennessee River (S4) x
W
W
r?
flu
O
da$
\0
Q ? J rt 0
0
i
/ O O
J
w C
yy O O N
1? X
U `?
CC
fB 0
?'N

r
pl6
section
V
H

2!nl-
of
0
b
0
??0/000
?
(3?) SCv

SCALE 1"=100'

LT4
4
N
Little Tennessee River (S4)
e
S ,on
C
J= J=
00 too
oZ
0
y
eel
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 7
Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
Stream Impacts

Wetland Impacts
ti Acidic Rock
i SS Line +25 ft
Little Tennessee River (S4)
SS Line
Section C Alternate E
Ln
N
SCALE 151=100'
h
CAMP SITES
7 se-- -
`
RR
111
snES
CAMP _
_
l1

Nj?

/
`?
?
oans ?
? ?
'
M
Ledbetter Branch (S9) `
,
." . b
c

?J
0
N
± y
G
0
ko

U
N
Oky

`?X
?
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 8
Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
Stream Impacts
do
ro
o Wetland Impacts
a
z Acidic Rock
SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section C Alternate E
SCALE 15'=1005
H
0
ti
a
O+
Z Little Tennessee River (S4)
W F
F+ . -
V WOWS ..... q1.,?? -.- 3?? 7? V
UT to Little Tennessee River (S10) w
o
V ?
W
lP
f
V
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 9
Preliminary Plans
Stream Impacts
00 NPQ 83 Wetland Impacts
Acidic Rock
SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section C Alternate E
n SCALE 111=1000
V
0
Little Tennessee River (S4)
rorwo
- ?.0.0
Q o
s
Ilk,
w
loans
x /
x
46
• ???T
```' a`-ft ,`;` ` Y`
Ib
? STET Dio.ll

UT to Little Tennessee River (S12)
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
R-4440 11
Figure 9
Jurisdictional Impacts
Stream Impacts AWOL Wetland Impacts
Acidic Rock
= SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section C Alternate E
SCALE 111=1001
0
ti
N
m
i ^ D
N
o ? p
Q Z
W Little Tennessee River (S4) ?,! x
1-ft fin
\?
K-k
nos COO
eiP` 00J
?
Loudermilk Creek (S13) COO
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
R-4440 12
Fiqure 9

8 Jurisdictional Impacts
Stream Impacts
Wetland Impacts
Acidic Rock
SS Line +25 ft
SS Line
Section D Section C Sections C/D Alternate E
SCALE 151=100'
Little Tennessee River (S4)
Ln
00

ME JM(p
CO
o
r -
;, 1•, n

Q
Wetland 1 (W1)

? . Iii I
.. [-'1
" ... . ' W

I.
o I ?If

v,
W
-- ---------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- MINDS

UT to Littl Tennessee River (S14)

N y o
n
L Ln
Ln
w
O

SCALE 151=100'
END PROJECT
Little Tennessee River (84)
un
%IND

0

? 4%.
_ j

?ppme
¦?r? uw 0 j¦¦ 011
N
\ 3 f ! W
U
H
UT to Little Tennessee River (S15)
8
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
>a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
a-
4
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 1 of 7
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
>a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
a-
4
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 2 of 7
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
>a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
a-
4
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 3 of 7
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
> a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
a?
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 4 of 7
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
>a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
(L
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 5 of 7
Upe??p ?f1oas
h r
0
2 O
0 0debts G PPP4
U
z
H
W z
H a (A
a U) Z
0<
0 z
D0= J
0?2
>
?a o Z
LL w
0
UZzUZ
0WO
U) 0>
0LL 5;xz
z0oaw
WW
>a,
Q0
N
°w °
W W LL Z N
J Z] 0 II
QOm U
Z J
0
U)
U
LL
H
W a
w2
a -
I
County:
Macon, Swain
Div: TIP#
14 R-4440
WBS:
35597.1
Date:
February 2010
Figure
10
Sheet 6 of 7
APPENDIX B
Comments from Federal,
State, and Local Agencies

Regulatory Division
Action ID 200130891
March 14, 2002
J. Ralph Cannady, P.E.
County Maintenance Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 1551
Andrews, North Carolina 28901
Dear Mr. Cannady:
Gel V E0
MAR 19 W2
? OF
HW400, S
DEVEtq?
NTAL 01t
Reference your U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Pre-Construction Notification
application dated May 17, 2001, and revised September 20, 2001, requesting
authorization to extend two (2) culverts associated with the widening and pa pg of High
Lonesome Road (SR 1363) adjacent to the Little Tennessee River and unna d
tributaries in Macon County, North Carolina. You requested verification of the proposed
activity (45 linear feet of permanent impact to unnamed tributaries of the Little
Tennessee River) under Department of the Army (DA) Nationwide Permit Number 14.
The proposed project involves widening, grading, and paving 4250 feet of existing gravel
road to bring the roadway up to current secondary road standards. The roadway is
situated off SR 1364 (Needmore Road), on rising slopes with steep sections above
Needmore Road, in close proximity to the Little Tennessee River. Substantial bank
cutting will be required to widen the road through the steep sections.
Based on our review of this application and the project site, as well as on
comments received from Federal and State resource agencies, we have concluded that the
proposed work does not meet the general conditions for authorization under the
Nationwide Permit regulations. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirms by letter
dated February 6, 2002 (copy enclosed), that populations of the federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe and littlewing pearlymussel, and the federally threatened spotfin chub
occur within the reach of the Little Tennessee River adjacent to the project. This reach is
also designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub. In addition, a federally threatened
plant, Virginia spirea, is present along the Little Tennessee River in this area. We have
concluded that the proposed roadwork may affect these listed species and that formal
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary. Because
it is critical habitat for the spotfin chub, the Little Tennessee River is included as a
Designated Critical Resource Water pursuant to General Condition No. 25 of the
Nationwide Permit regulations. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not concur with
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006

r
-2-
your "no effect" conclusion for listed species and critical habitat, therefore the proposed
work does not meet General Conditions 11 and 25 of the Nationwide Permit regulations.
As such, the project will require an evaluation and permit decision through the
Department of the Army's individual permit application process.
Please provide an individual DA permit application for the High Lonesome Road
project. This application should include a Biological Assessment of impacts to
threatened and endangered species and formal Section 7 consultation results. The
application should also include an environmental assessment of secondary and
cumulative impacts related to land uses affected by the proposed project, and, in general,
a demonstration of avoidance and minimization of impacts to high quality waters.
Technical information should include a geotechnical evaluation of postconstruction slide
potential on proposed steep cut slopes and location of any pyritic rock in the project area
which may be exposed during construction and, if applicable, proposed hot rock
containment and disposal methods and plans to monitor and treat acid runoff.
Due to proximity and similarity of issues and impacts, the Corps recommends that
the SR 1363/High Lonesome Road project be joined with the Needmore Road/SR 1114
& SR 1364/TIP Project No. R-4440, for evaluation and resolution of issues. This could
be accomplished by allowing the existing Needmore Road Merger Process project team
to address both projects concurrently. By copy of this letter, we are notifying Mr.
William D. Gilmore, Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, of this recommendation.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. John Hendrix at telephone (828)
271-7980, extension 7.
Sincerely,
,?, (, (,J. P"--, \
?1- Dav
id Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
Copy Furnished (w/enclosure):
R. G. Watson, Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Drawer 37
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
-3-
Mark Davis, Division Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Drawer 37
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Brian P. Cole, State Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
T WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
November 6, 1998
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Action lll 199707069, Statc Pro - ject Nos. 6.9720621'and 0.99219;
William D. Gilmore, P.L.. Manager
Planninw and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference the North Carolina Department of -I'ransportation's (NCDOT) proposal to
widen, grade and pave portions of Ncednutre Road (SR 1 i64 and SR 1114) adjacent to the Little
Tennessee River and unnamed tributaries in Macon and Swain Counties, North Carolina. A
Department of the Army (DA) Nationwide Permit Number 26 has recently been requested for the
Macon County segment of this project.
Based on our revicx,%7 of this application and the project site as well as discussions with
Federal and State resource agencies, we have concluded that the proposed work does not meet
the general conditions ol'the nationwide permits therehy requiring an individual permit
application. Informal consultation with the US Dish and Wildlife Service has indicated that
populations of the Federally crndan<gcred Appalachian elk-toe, little-wing pearly mussel and
spotlin chub occur- within the reach of the Little Tennessee River that parallels the project. l-his
reach is also designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub. In addition, a threatened plant.
Virginia spirca, is known to occur along the Little Tennessee River in the area- We have
concluded that the proposed roadwork may affect these listed species and that formal
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be necessary. We have also
been advised by NCDOT that pyritic (hot) rock will likely be encountered and exposed during
construction. Given the sensitivity of the project area, it will be necessary for the DOT to fully
cvaluale ways to avoid and minimize exposure and disbursal of hot rock as well as appropriate
monitoring and contingency plans to deal with any acidic runoff problems that may develop.
Please provide an individual DA permit application for the complete Necdmore mood
project including both the Macon and Swain County segments of the work. As previously
discussed, this application should include a Biological Assessment of impacts to threatened and
endangered species, an evaluation of the occurrence of pyritic rock in the project area, proposed
hot rock containment and disposal methods, plans to monitor and treat acid runoff and the
minimization of impacts to waters and wetlands.
I f you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steven Lund at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Rohert W. Johnson
Office Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Copy l-l'urnislied:
Mr. Michael Wood
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina department ofTransportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 270711-52131
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 6, 2002
Mr. John W. Hendrix
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patten Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
RECEIVED
F E B 0 8 2002
CESAW-CO-RA
Subject: Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application for Improvements to SR 1363 (High
Lonesome Road), Macon County, North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested a Section 404
nationwide permit for the subject project. We have reviewed the proposed project and provide
the following comments in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
The NCDOT proposes to grade, drain, base, and pave SR 1363 (High Lonesome Road) in
accordance with current secondary road standards. SR 1363 runs parallel to Needmore Road and
the Little Tennessee River and is an unimproved single-lane road with little hard surface and no
shoulders. There are steep slopes on both sides over much of its length. The stated purpose for
paving the road is that the NCDOT's Division 14 is running out of secondary roads for which the
necessary rights-of-way can be obtained and is at a point on the list where they are proposing the
paving of low-priority roads. High Lonesome Road is considered a very low-priority road; it
serves no homes or businesses and is, for all practical purposes, a dead-end road.
There are four federally listed animals and two federally listed plants that occur in Macon County
and a number of Federal species of concern. The Little Tennessee River supports populations of
the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and littlewing
pearlymussel (Pegias fabula) and the federally threatened spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha).
The river is also designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub and proposed critical habitat for
the Appalachian elktoe. The federally threatened Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) occurs at
numerous locations along the Little Tennessee near the subject project. Additionally, the
federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the federally threatened small-whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) have the potential to occur and be affected by the project.
Currently, only the aquatic species have been considered in NCDOT documents regarding the
project.
This project was first proposed in July of 2001. Initially, the NCDOT did not notify us about the
project; we learned about it when we received a copy of an e-mail from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) expressing numerous concerns about the project. As
a result of the questions asked by the NCWRC and additional concerns from our staff biologists,
a field meeting was held on July 31, 2001, to review the project and discuss the plans. At that
meeting we discussed shortening the project to decrease direct impacts. It was agreed that the
road did not need to circle back to Needmore Road but that it could be a dead-end road. At that
time we also requested that the NCDOT consider the improvements to High Lonesome Road in
the same environmental assessment for improvements to Needmore Road. Given the fact that
SR 1363 parallels Needmore Road on a contour further from the river, this section could even
have been considered as part of an alternative in the proposed improvements to Needmore Road.
High Lonesome Road is completely contained within a portion of the "Needmore Tract." This
approximately 4,500 acres of land (currently owned by Crescent Resources) has been the topic of
numerous discussions regarding whether it will be developed or conserved. The county
commissioners in both Macon and Swain Counties have publicly stated they would prefer that
the tract be conserved in perpetuity and be available to the public for recreational. use. Many
other groups support conserving the area as a buffer for the river and to maintain public access.
We fully support efforts to maintain habitat for the numerous federally protected species and
Federal species of concern in the Little Tennessee River basin and believe that a paved road at
this location will preclude future options with regard to these conservation efforts.
We have multiple concerns regarding this project and do not believe they can be adequately
addressed using a minimum criteria checklist. Improvements to High Lonesome Road should be
considered in an environmental assessment. Ideally, the current proposals for improvements to
Needmore Road should include this project as a similar action (40 CFR 1508.25). We do not
agree that this is a separate action; rather, it is one of a series of similar actions. The
environmental analysis should include a statement of purpose and need, a full range of
alternatives, and a complete consideration of the effects to listed species and wildlife and fish
habitat, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The analysis should also address the
pending efforts for conservation of the Needmore Tract and the potential effect of this road
improvement on those actions.
Given the amount of earthmoving that would be required to bring SR 1363 to current secondary
road standards and its close proximity to the Little Tennessee River and Tellico Creek, we
believe there is great potential for erosion and sedimentation in the tributaries and in the Little
Tennessee River. Recent failures and resulting slides on other secondary road projects
(specifically, Licklog Creek Road) point to the fact that the steepness of the terrain and the
amount of rock present may require consideration of retaining walls or other engineered
structures to build this road successfully. A complete examination of the geology and hydrology
for this project should include testing for acid-producing rock.
At this time we cannot concur with a "no effect" conclusion for listed species. Based on (1) the
lack of supportable need for the project; (2) the lack of an analysis of the alternatives; and (3) the
fact that there has been no adequate analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on listed
species, their critical habitat, and other wildlife values, we recommend denial of the permit at this
time.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-02-148.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
Mr. Roger Sheets, Deputy Secretary for Environment, Planning, and Local Governmental
Affairs, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1501 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1501
Mr. Chris Militscher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse,
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206, Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. Mark Davis, Environmental Compliance Officer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 37, Sylva, NC 28779
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1548

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
August 15, 1997
Mr. Robert Johnson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Bob:
v E o
q OR
Subject: Proposed paving of Needmore Road, SR 1364 and SR 1114, Macon and Swain
Counties, North Carolina.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is aware of plans to pave Needmore Road in Macon
and Swain Counties, North Carolina, along the Little Tennessee River. In a meeting on July 15,
1997, we discussed our concerns about this and other projects in the Little Tennessee River
watershed area with you. We have not received a copy of any permit application for the subject
project, which we specifically requested from you at that July 15th meeting. The following
comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Personnel from our ofl:ce attended a meeting on August 11, 1997, `yitlh North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) District Engineer Joel Setzer and NCDOT County
Engineer Trent Anderson, as well as others. The Service has relied upon descriptions of the
project provided at this meeting, as well as field stakes observed along the route for our analysis.
The proposed project involves the widening of shoulders, realignment of the centerline, and
paving of two 10-foot lanes. According to Mr. Anderson, a permit request for use of Nationwide
Permit No. 14 to replace culverts in conjunction with widening and paving of the Needmore
Road, SR 1364, was submitted in May 1997. Though the permit application has been submitted,
the Service has not received a copy from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). According
to Mr. Setzer and Mr. Anderson, similar plans are being developed for the Swain County portion
of this road (SR 1114, approximately 2.3 miles). Staff of the Planning and Environmental
Branch of the NCDOT are currently preparing environmental documentation for this project.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about potential impacts to
federally listed species, their designated critical habitat, and stream and wetland systems within
the project area. As my staff indicated in telephone conversations to Mr. Dave Baker of your
office, most recently on August 13 and 14, 1997, populations of the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), little-wing pearly mussel (Pegias fabula), and spotfin chub
(Hybopsis monacha) occur within the reach of the Little Tennessee River that parallels this road.
Further, this reach is designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub. A threatened plant, Virginia
spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), is also known from the Little Tennessee River near Franklin.
Potential impacts to these species and to critical habitat should be assessed. It is clear to the
Service that the project, as described by Mr. Setzer and Mr. Anderson and based upon staking
observed along its alignment, may affect these listed species and/or result in adverse
modification to critical habitat. The outfall of several of the proposed culverts would empty into
the river. The Service is dismayed that the Corps would contemplate using nationwide permits
in this important resource area, which could impact critical habitat and listed species.
Current Federal regulations (50 CFR, Subsection 402.12(b)(1)) require the preparation of a
biological assessment (of any endangered and threatened species impacts) for any "major Federal
activity affecting the quality of the human environment," such as this proposed project. We
strongly encourage the Corps to initiate interagency coordination and consultation for this
project. The consultation must include not only those impacts associated with the actual road
construction but also those cumulative and secondary impacts associated with the action or that
are likely to result from the construction or operation of the proposed facility. The Service
believes this project may result in indirect impacts to those species located within the project
area. The Service considers the contemplated improvements to this road (both segments) as a
single project; therefore, we suggest that it be considered as such in any environmental
document. We have enclosed a list of the federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species
from Macon and Swain Counties. Also note, that critical habitat is designated for the spotfin
chub, including the Little Tennessee River from the North Carolina state line downstream to the
backwaters of Fontana Reservoir. We believe that the consultation should begin with a careful
consideration of the project and the potential impacts to the listed species within the impact area
of the project.
Again, the Service is quite concerned about the use of nationwide permits where listed species
and/or critical habitat is involved. The Service has only recently begun consultation with Corps
on the nationwide permit system. The Service feels that even though the wetland impacts of this
project may be minimal, the effect to listed species and critical habitat could prove significant.
The use of nationwide permits in this manner was not contemplated in the environmental
assessment prepared by the Corps, and it is not what the Service expected. The Service requests
that the Corps exercise its authority to treat this project under an individual permit.
We do not believe that a determination of "no effect" is appropriate at this time. Regardless of
the nationwide/individual permit issue, the Service urges you to contact us with a formal
request to initiate Section 7 consultation at your earliest convenience. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at
704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-97-135.
Sincerely,
?f1
,i q Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Wayne Wright, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office, P.O. Box 1890,
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Mr. H. Frank Vick, Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Planning and Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dr. William O. McLarney, 1120 Meadows Road, Franklin, NC 28734
Mr. Mark Davis, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Route 1, Box 624,
Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Forrest Westall, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 59 Woodfin Place,
Asheville, NC 28801
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OUR
LOG NUMBER 4-2-97-135
ENCLOSURE PAGE 1 OF 4
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
FOR MACON AND SWAIN COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List.
It is a listing, for Macon and Swain County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed
endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list
of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information on this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums
and herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program's database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as
new information is received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of
listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for
field surveys.
MACON COUNTY
COMMON NAME
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
Green salamander
Bog turtle
Olive-sided flycatcher
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Spotfin chub
Cerulean warbler
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Olive darter
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Margarita River skimmer
Lost Nantahala Cave spider
Tawny crescent butterfly
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Aneides aeneus FSC
Clemmvs muhlenbergii Proposed
Contopus borealis FSC
Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Cr, ptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cvprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha Threatened
Dendroica cerulea FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Percina squamata FSC
Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Macromia margarita FSC**
Nesticus cooperi FSC
Phyciodes batesii FSC
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OUR
LOG NUMBER 4-2-97-135
ENCLOSURE PAGE 2 OF 4
Carolina skistodiaptomus Skistodiaptoinats carolirtensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
West Indian dwarf polypody Grammitis nimbata FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Nonvascular Plants
Anderson's melon-moss Brachymenium andersonii FSC*
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Chiloscyphus appalachianus FSC
A liverwort Lejeunea blomquistii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila caduciloba FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila echinata FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
Carolina star-moss Plagiomnium carolinianum (=Mnium FSC
carolinianum)
A liverwort Porelia japonica appalachiana FSC
Highlands moss Schlotheimia lancifolia FSC
SWAIN COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vertebrates
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Hellbender Ctyptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Cvprinella (=Hvbopsis) monacha Threatened
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OUR
LOG NUMBER 4-2-97-135
ENCLOSURE PAGE 3 OF 4
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern rock vole Microttis chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleticus inelanoleucus FSC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Appalachian cottontail Syivilagus obscurus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita FSC**
Noonday globe (=snail) Mesodon clarki nantahala Threatened
Clingman covert Mesodon wheatleyi clingmanicus FSC
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Lost Nantahala Cave spider Nesticus cooperi FSC
Little-wing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesi FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC**
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Wonotrops;s odorata FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutuin FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Bazzania nudicaulis FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
fN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO OUR
LOG NUMBER 4-2-97-135
ENCLOSURE PAGE 4 OF 4
Carolina star-moss Plagiomnium carolinianum (=Mnium FSC
carolinianum)
A liverwort Sphenolohopsis pearsonii FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
FSC A Federal species of concern - a species that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing).
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***IncidentaVmigrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic - obscure and incidental record.

4T ^
r•_ i3

Uni zed S L'aies De artruie ?t of the I ? t r
FTIT'
Ito Ziliicoa Streat
Ashvnilc. Ncmi Carolina ._QRoI
7e ,,
?:
April I J
Mr. Lan-, Gco w t
r.U. Bzx SS E.2
v.
D ear % s f: iti'o rJuf::
?•?n ?ir•a' tT+',?r.?1`? 1. a:` :?
.:te S. ;5r and .d .t,. ' r=l :
°.S.i2,$
1.-?S
lI7t: :zc:tt. Il 7(' yr*i.E_ rh Se4 afiti.I2,rr , i"1 a n'.?e+t
'IxS
3G...?S: :_'?.
e iG ,. <<.r :.ti1- . C L -"'Is
SiteCleS. It is ",wn!ze in ac:c)-,,-Ja:'cv
6 ?...e., ,!6 t -.+_,-7 L.Y-':S r. l=' vS 4_I i t-nd'll.
,.. l`.'.•"."':=..mrac.,S -e ',zzk Gi -y tf'1 °*.'? (}f
, ,a T:' "' ;'G':, ¢ l i• _ _ ' S tr' ? „.. Y ilt r ?S.c _ .°? 3Si4 c' j`.:efz? Suedes
t icr2t;1. In +'. > ,t ` 3? •?fCli 3 ?'Gw• ^ tt :a1 .':*iS C^ tlL?;t ± L ^t dC'elc-e
,I;ninnum „i` i- r Wc `tom ii sl :?t:ai:'^"f, C:
.. . r u- =ziC:'_3. t ?T -may c?'6 i
.'..E;. »r t:: GIStIM
whlc L1G i'° ' uU S. '^ ?y :v-k- - .,.:
iS9i.ES •2S2 1117")ba'". ,, n, ..r f'• :' t a ;;ecom
a: t I-Ii at C::i` 1i51::? ,-GP°iy,- 7a

Ii;Lie e . .iLf Prc-'e T 'me ?t-7v2`": .+i, /vvW y,}T" t a:T? t
..: . _ ..: iiv f}? .1 ? x':. L a.. Y `S?,r?
i.3:}t Sly(l?(,r ZS i^I.GTi:yv JrGi**° `hen ore lb-. -,Jm'su Ttt :iC_w?, j r.c d1 sAw3.? .i? .If r?;
sic?es ? _ the -oad-,• av v.'i? C.•. tv4 u.1c ?ng .?.. rs..r- ty ire,11-c.ckadw>..i
! ?:? rr s 7a(Jf ta...: i ? t?C : ityCit Li: wJ Li,
nl {a his w..'
r t.' r, L, !I"I?_ nµ en*"1 ' Pr, %t:
n, : 4,
t?tl 4. i'_In ,GI?:a'y', t EL I ok' ,5t tiz ".azle-i `i
13iC1
w^G w IlS liai Ji '. it is ' 3;S 'L` w l 'V :c i :V7S ,, - - ,; ?•Mr Vi a, ?3}it"z ?1 y,w.Qn
?: 1-:7 t- ?lt..?'p". "h.-.. ", wr: ., _` -__. ..,. .t: i',.x .,.., ?•, n•na.N Ma.--,r'.; '::?? :?K Lc; ?. _I:t Z
,.;
{ • 1. "a_ _»,., .,,' V? t e'1? _ i ? .., 'v nm 77!n'
V7
.?..' _.. 2k 94
i i
-11
{ +n tip.^,.:i" S l i7, E t ir { 1
tit 1 s RATOR
l
a
additional data e;. rftd-cockaded w ,,odrecka. use of the area.f-omm their in-house surveys. The
Service reoueszed that 'NCDCYT c aside: the. Presence o:'t:",;, red-cockaded woodpecker in
their environm?J,mai ocurntriz anu JC'il_ce survey work and'brairn?; habitat analy3is along the
entire route.
On Afarcn 18, 199", Se^;ice biologists yisitza. SR 1200 with Randy Turner and Jerry Jennings of
the NCDCT, persenrei rrom :I.- North Carolina Itiarur3:'-:eritagc Prep-am, and Don Johnson of
Union Camp. The Se.^rc_ .?hscrved That all of Lhe landowners along the first seven.;? miles of
SR 12Gn had ciea-ed 'rea3 fr;s-,i within t!ie staked right -way limits. Union Car:1p
tat vas incic3ie t at tre NCLOT t^C t : s-wa.? men: tad tole their. :to "cut it if Lou wan;
the ti nbe-? because we wius: do: c it down. '
Despite the Service's interv:mlion, zkins the vCDGT '.o consider the known presence of
red-cockaded :vecdnec'sers and :,itat, :?abitat wa: re^:roved prior to the co Jpl:lion of zr
erv;rr*:rrcn 74 a: do.'1,'lte:::s a prior :c Szrvice c11):1C z_.°r:c-. A !aw e- orceme t invcszigat-ion ^.as
been initiate;.! This :S not the '-l'.' `Lien tG f.:! ow. i e Service prz4"-3 to wrwx
OD `:CVCl? .it: d: P"t i°S t L.J SiCe'r tl?f '7CC. ^-!nC°, -if scecies, thc- ;ife hlstcr .^.F'=Cs. ?_d
^riar -o .al- aE _^_.cQJi:C3f?O.
e tG ?L:: for :lie Cr ° n
It ?;:i5 Ct:ri,., .,,.'.,'.i;, •.s:_ &P.? 3'. ?e:t:? OC : `) t`2'+'tr!" _ SZLG';Q..: ? raL"5 tYld:
para!!el: }4. --in. and Nla col: C-oun'lws. lili il?a' T ^ih?SSP.°
r_':VE'*' //oi:L'CI .il:))G .:i'_._ :3i:}^' lS_?,' ?tl u'S f : -/iG,-•3n'?i ? i`7rC?tC^.e'? j t`lt' ??^vTli^.
Ct:i l,Cvarcr.'::1.[.' w _ n z7n--? ?_ '1 P-C en i +?+ c en
o C 3r ?c c a. _ r tiial =pac:s tc .a.z , sc ie3 u it
these macs are ;aged. `y :rh ?he es Count cn_n_c, :n 1. , ncv pan theCDCT ass:::
L1C J_^IJCC that . ?Q G °;`•^ Z:i s e:: as ',k`il ile -,Dt'7IZd:° :n San?
•l'e rr?s-o xC ^r
N f?.., tt :v 71?1C ?i?+ ?. 1
121 a:,.,,, ?r Vu?C? ?. T_ lr X37°u f .. C,.. °;,'. !Ca .r ? ^.
;t a CCC 17 pr,)j r ? rc-; at the
__..r
{ ??'! 3tP• :1C..- ? r?S _ 321- a _
?.dallV 1 3t _. °.. . a :I''?3i: ?= • Sect!-_-n ?,rt,_ Lo Ac h c l ~,c ,_ art. ar c:es :?:. _ ' a n or. 1; v ;
7--6erai H ,_,'novav nG:C *' zit, ";en it no Fede' J 5_-i Js - rP i are
re to c?.:tp±e:e u ?c scary ..?? im r; :-r a-tt Ti r:e':t, under •ectior. ? o:` t1e .=.c', tl:e
` 13 c` 1° Li enda cCr`_:.i ze-,-4.?s is still - _ Ae" nas be---.] dti-i ed to incinde ha -1 Ln;t
(tarn 3 _ 11' 1Di. !u L .71C S CiCtl?11tlOP nr : 1r :1 .o :nc,ue? ar.,,'£:?e
habitat iilCQii.CuiiJ?.S C2ciicn , - A- .:.'.? ... .. =il ?.nd Cia:rina! L` '1oiLe
Additlonai1y. t1?B ?t'r".tE°_ v?.:E?° i1? Clri;Gt:! <+itii ?':C:L-~:e:.:(s? :Crall r^?%5?'aF Y'}°C:S
si-c"lid address C-,e Tyr '°S li
: StI::C 'r°S 3a ?i3t? l 'l'it!? P..'1
,?. , any
proposed ')e d. e reolace^ er: _. , µpe :a -rem ire: ,?ropcse3 to to?n;m-e- se?:,-rcniatior.
durng aa-:t f.:•) any rnzz3utwS that will 13° implemented to milnlmiz'? i:,lpac:S :O f sh
and w,'d1ife it3?_,t,,a: vezatati•.,_. whcnever Possible).
.c:.;-e- s 3
_..:i:. a. ?r,2 cr C-nc-r .
This information gill also be sent to all of the division and dis=ci e:igineers who are Sur. ervising
projects ;o im-rove rlhe seeordarr roads. Please :et us !snow what ac.;cns the NCDOT wilt take
tz incme isa tree vwareness cf erivirommentai issues at the dli3tnct and civisicn. ieve's.
We apprec:sct: vour atte ti,,,n to Lhis matte: and request drat our agencies werx toge:ber to avmd
impacts to endangered srec:cs ??hllc , Lecing the ;,-zr.sportation reeds of Ncr,-h Carolina.
$i..cerei;?
?r.•a :13 Co!e
State Supervise:
tncicsure
r?•
"Or. Rod Shc" -.. DiviSio g :?'a.; Adrr_inistraftr, l _ znv E - 71
Av::tue, Site .4 10,'?r6 -i z n. `,C :''tiP, 1
-Yf :^'?m Pe nri..... se-..' R -St. :A. T S. L:S i and La,,,,- r,n . . -n-':
.z ?t `,j.ent, ? ? and i?rc.;.:.....
SrATE
r
aw.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
December 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck
98? I
SUBJECT: Needmore Road (SR 1364/1114), R-4440, Macon and Swain Counties, ER 06-2441
Thank you for your letter of May 31, 2006, transmitting the archaeological and architectural survey reports by
Shane Peterson, Jennifer Cathey, Jesse Zinn, and Caleb Smith. We apologize for the delay in our response.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property has been State Study-listed and remains eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Tellico Valley Rural Historic District, SR 1365, Tellico.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Tellico Valley Rural Historic District Expansion, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for its
association with the successive settlement of Native and Euro-American populations and with events in the
history of Cherokee-American, North Carolina and United States relations; specifically, the granting and
subsequent revocation of 640-acre life reservations to individual Cherokees. These patterns are evident in the
basic structure of the Cherokee citizen reservation landscape-creek, field, and woodland, overlaid with
nineteenth and twentieth century rural buildings and landscapes patterns. Here, the natural and built
environment serve to illustrate the evolution of-the cultural landscape after most of the Cherokee were forced
to leave the area.
The district is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for design and construction, containing a
stone fishweir and representative examples of late nineteenth and early twentieth-century rural buildings,
including farmhouses and outbuildings, other agricultural buildings, communit< buildings, a church, a school,
and landscape elements. These structures retain a high level of integrity of design, workmanship, and
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276934617 [phone]/733-8651
RESTORATION 515 N Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276934617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276934617 [phone]/715-4301
materials-and an excellent integrity level of location and setting, which combined express the feel of a rural
historic district.
The Tellico Valley Rural Historic District is eligible under Criterion D for its potential to yield information.
We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as discussed and highlighted in the survey report.
Page 153 of the report illustrates the proposed expanded area of the Tellico Valley Rural Historic District. It
should be noted that the eastern boundary of the district is inside the R-4440 project APE.
During the course of the survey, eight archaeological sites were located within the project area. We concur
that the following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criteria
cited:
31MA585 Criteria C and D 31MA585 is a stone fishweir located in the Little Tennessee
River
Please note that Bridge 78 over Tellico Creek has not been previously surveyed. If the bridge is over fifty
years old, we request a determination of eligibility and an evaluation of the bridge as it relaxes to the Tellico
Valley Rural Historic District Expansion.
We concur that the following archaeological sites are not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places:
31MA583, 31MA584, 31MA586**, 31SW386** and 31SW387**
These sites do no retain sufficient integrity to yield information important to history or prehistory.
The significance of 31MA628** and 31MA629* was not evaluated because they are located outside of the
existing project area. No additional archaeological work is recommended in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt Wilkerson
Shane Peterson
Mary Pope Furr
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828-554-6852 Fax [phone]
RECEIVED
Division of Highways
TO: Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
Donnie Brew
310 NewbernAve.
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
JAN 0 7 2008
?'reamstr.diall
Projed Devebwentand
Environmental Maly Branch
PROJECT(S): Comments regarding the Cultural Resources Survey Report, Secondary Road
Improvements To Needmore Road, St. Rt. 1364 / St. Rt. 1114, Macon & Swain Counties,
North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians would like to
thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed Section 106 activity under 36 C.F.R.
800.
The proposed undertaking lies within the heart of the Cherokee Middle Towns. This region is
especially sensitive for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians because many Tribally enrolled
families trace their lineage through Middle Town Cherokees. It is evident that the State of North
Carolina Department of Transportation Archeology Group went to great lengths to provide a
thoroughly researched and meticulously constructed document that reflects the cultural
importance of both the Little Tennessee and Tellico Creek valleys.
The region is not only vital for the cultural and interpretative significance it can provide for our
sovereign American Indian nation, but also serves as a representation of early United States
federal treaty policies. The Treaties of 1817 and 1819 created 640 acre individual life reserves
for those Cherokees who agreed to sign the treaties. Of the 51 individual reserves in North
Carolina, 21 were created within close proximity of the proposed federal undertaking.
According to the information provided, the proposed undertaking transects the reserves of Oo -
san - ter - take and Yellow Bear.
It is very apparent by the carefully constructed Cultural Resources Survey that the NCDOT
appreciated the sensitive nature of the region for both the enrolled members of the EBCI, and for
the citizens of North Carolina. While this office concurs with the archeologist's
recommendations that only one site, 31 MA585, was considered eligible, NCDOT went above
and beyond to construct a document that thoroughly addressed the multi faceted history of the
Little Tennessee and Tellico Creek valleys. It is the opinion of the EBCI THPO that this report
should be held as a standard for a concise, and comprehensively constructed document that
represents not only the letter of Section 106 of the NHPA, but also appreciates the nature of the
law.
DATE: 3 - January - 08
As such, the EBCI THPO concurs that only site 31MA585, a fish weir, was considered eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, according to the
information provided, this office recognizes that this site is located outside the APE for the
proposed undertaking, and as such will not be adversely affected by the proposed federal
undertaking. However, the EBCI THPO would like to comment regarding the putative location
of the 18`h century Cherokee village of Little Tellico.
According to the information provided, the village of Talikwa, or Little Tellico, is purported to
be located in Macon County, NC, at the confluence of Tellico Creek and the Little Tennessee
River. This would place the village within the life reserve of Oo - san - ter - take, and
potentially within the APE of the proposed federal undertaking. The EBCI THPO recognizes
that no indications were included in the report that NCDOT archeology staff members
encountered the site during their field investigations. The EBCI THPO concurs with the
archeologist's recommendations that the site of Little Tellico village may be adversely affected
by the proposed federal undertaking.
At this time, the EBCI THPO also wishes to comment regarding the proposed expansion of the
Tellico Valley Historic District to include the life reserves of Yellow Bear, and
Oo - san - ter - take within the project's APE, in addition to the reserves of Ske - ken, Su - a -
ga, and Coo - lee - chee along Tellico Creek and Sugar Cove Creek. The expansion of this
historic district might one day enhance our understanding of not only Tribal history and culture,
but the early expansion of Euro - American settlement into western North Carolina.
Once again, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office would like
to extend our appreciation to the NCDOT for constructing a document which reflects the true
nature of Section 106 of the NHPA by addressing the cultural importance of the Little Tennessee
and Tellico Creek valleys not only for the Cherokee people, but for greater themes in American
history. This thoroughly researched document will undoubtedly enhance future archeological
and historic research projects which look to uncover facets of the Cherokee Middle Towns,
which often times have been overshadowed by other regions and events believed to be more
important by Euro-American scholars of the Cherokee people. It is the opinion of the EBCI
THPO that this report evidences a strengthening of our nation to nation consultation relationship
with the FHWA NC.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Tyle . Howe
al Historic Preservation Specialist
astern Band of Cherokee Indians
C: Matt Wilkerson
Mary Pope Furr
NCD©T WBS#:35597 TIP#:R-44411 Coccnty: Macon & Swain
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Improvements to SR 136411SR 1114 (Needmore Road)
On November 24, 2009, representatives of the
1 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Untied States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE))
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
C't:: er
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed within the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Signed:
Z. 4' A
Asheville Regional Office
11 1zq
Date
Date
t ! ` c-;44
Representative, HPO ( } Date
NCDOT WBS #:35597 TIP#:R-4440 Count;: Macon & Swain
Property and Status Effect Finding Alternative Reasons

Tellico Valley Rural Historic
District (DE)

Aa??1(Se
?Fec
?
'
ll
Gc I?YXnc fi L
l?rb ? QGt YQ UI Yes QOvV 3 easeme.? s L l l h JI5? is

bouvldLtr i es -acv its e- rn pmts Mu S e
3 I a?.s e

Initialed: NCDOT ?? USACE ? k ITO 0-' b

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Bryan Kluchar, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator m4 L?
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: August 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Needmore Road (SR 1364/SR 1114) improvements, Macon and Swain Counties.
TIP No. R-4440.
In our recent telephone conversation we discussed possible options for improvements to
Needmore Road in Swain and Macon counties. I have since consulted with other North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists familiar with the project and reviewed my
files in order to provide the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) our position
and concerns for this project.
As you know, Needmore Road is a narrow dirt and gravel road, which runs along a
portion of the Little Tennessee River that flows between Franklin, NC and Fontana Lake. The
Little Tennessee River in that area is considered one of the most significant aquatic habitats in
North Carolina, as well as the southeastern United States. The river supports populations of
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula), both
federal and state Endangered, and is designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub (Cyprinella
monacha), federal and state Threatened. Numerous other state listed and rare species inhabit the
Little Tennessee River in this area. The North Carolina Chapter of the Nature Conservancy is in
the process of purchasing 4,400 acres of land along Needmore Road and the adjacent river to
protect this rare and sensitive ecosystem.
While the road has been under consideration for widening and paving, the NCWRC
recommends a paving-in-place alternative, which would reduce sediment input into the river
from runoff and periodic flooding. We understand that at least one area of the road has a
tendency to wash out. Although we support stabilizing the area(s) to prevent further
sedimentation impacts and look to NCDOT for low-impact stabilization solutions, any
stabilization along the Little Tennessee River will need to consider the potential impacts to rare
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Servicc Center • Ralci,,gh, NC 27699-1 72 1
Telephone: [phone] cxt. 281 1 Fax: [phone]+3
Needmore Road, Little Tennessee River
Swain and Macon Counties 2 August 26, 2003
& endangered species, especially mussels. NCWRC is willing to assist with mussel surveys or
relocations, if necessary.
Needmore Road is a popular spot for camping and fishing. We are concerned for the
public's safety while enjoying the natural resources of the area. Some areas along the road have
limited site distance and many motorists travel the road at unsafe speeds. Cutting into the
adjacent slopes to improve site distance is likely undesirable due to the acidic nature of the rock
in the area. We understand that the unpaved portion of the road is not posted for speed, while a
paved section in Swain County has a 35-mph speed limit. We recommend a number of measures
be investigated to slow traffic in order to improve public safety, while preventing negative
impacts to the rare and valuable resources and preserve the rural character that makes it a popular
recreational area. We suggest that the measures considered include posting a 35-mph maximum
speed limit and installing speed bumps, rumble strips, guardrails and/or warning signs in
appropriate areas.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input in the planning stages of this project and
look forward to continue working with you on it. If you have any questions, please contact me at
[phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Sarah McRae, NC NHP
Wib Owen, NCWRC

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
April 16, 1998
l/ir. Robert Johnson, Office Manager
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch 4,p?? 201498;
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 ??'??•
SUBJECT: NCDOT Nationwide 404 Permit Application
Widen SR 1364 - Needmore Road - Little Tennessee River
Macon County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Mr. W. Trent Anderson of the North Carolina Department of Transportation is requesting a letter
of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit
from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. I have reviewed information provided by the applicant, and
onsite investigations were conducted on June 26, 1997, and August 15, 1997, to further assess construction
impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U. S . C . 661-667d).
The applicant proposes to widen, grade, and pave SR 1364 (Needmore Road) adjacent to the Little
Tennessee River in Macon County. Construction involves cut and fill slopes adjacent to the river and the
installation of culvert structures in Bird Branch and several unnamed tributaries, to the Little Tennessee
River. This reach of the Little Tennessee River, from a biological diversity perspective, is perhaps the
most significant habitat in Western North Carolina. The NCWRC is concerned about potential project
impacts to three federally listed aquatic species such as the endangered little-wing pearlymussel (Pegias
fabula), the endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), and the threatened spotfin chub
(Hybopsis monacha), as well as other state listed aquatic species. In addition, the Little Tennessee River
from the Georgia/North Carolina state line downstream to Fontana Reservoir is classified as critical habitat
for the spotfin chub. This area also supports an excellent smallmouth bass population as well as other
game and non-game fish species and provides habitat for several wildlife species such as river otter, wood
ducks, and herons. This project may cause short-term turbidity during construction, but upon completion,
could greatly reduce sediment inputs to the Little Tennessee River.
The NCWRC is concerned about potential project impacts to aquatic resources in this drainage;
however, we do not object to the issuance of a 404 permit provided the following conditions be placed on
the.subject permit:
SR 1364 Page 2 April 16, 1998
1. The road should be widened toward the side opposite of Bird Branch between stations 15+00
and 18+50 and the wetland area between stations 47+00 and 49+00 as we discussed in our site
visit on August 15, 1997.
2. Stringent sedimentation and erosion control measures should be implemented and maintained
on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Temporary or
permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. Culverts should be placed with the floor of the barrels approximately one foot below the level
of the stream bottom to allow natural stream bottom materials to become established in the
culvert following installation. This may require increasing the size of the culvert to meet flow
conveyance regwrements.
Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the wetted
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of the
culverts. Instream dredging has catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and disturbance of the
natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream erosion problems, possibly
affecting other land owners.
5. If possible, excavation of the stream crossings should be conducted in the dry. Sand bags,
cofferdams, flexible pipe, or other diversion structures should be used to minimize excavation
in flowing water.
6. If concrete is used during culvert installation (headwalls), a dry work area should be
maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured
concrete affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other organisms.
7. Stormwater should be directed to buffer areas or retention basins and should not be routed
directly into streams or the Little Tennessee River. Sediment basins should be constructed in
all ditch lines at culvert inlets to prevent sediments and other contaminants from entering
surface waters. This is extremely important at culverts which empty directly into the Little
Tennessee River. Structures should be inspected and maintained regularly, especially
following rainfall events.
8. Rock check dams at culvert outlets in "live streams" should be removed once the project is
stabilized.
9. Riparian vegetation should be preserved as much as possible. If overhanging trees must be
removed, they should be cut near ground level, leaving the stump and roots in the bank for
stability and to possibly sprout. Where practical, riprap should be kept to a minimum so as to
retain riparian vegetation, which we prefer for bank stabilization.
10. All culvert installations should be conducted between April 15 and January 1 to avoid impacts
on trout reproduction.
11. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
SR 1364 Page 3 April 16, 1998
12. If anakeesta (hot or acid bearing rock) is encountered during construction, NCDOT's
mitigation plan for the handling and deposition of such material should be implemented
immediately. Acid leachate from anakeesta will reduce the pH value of nearby surface waters,
which can adversely impact fish and other aquatic organisms.
13. In areas where the road is in close proximity of the Little Tennessee River, native trees
(willows, alders, sycamores, dogwoods, black walnut and red maple), and herbaceous shrubs,
should be planted along the fill slope and stream bank on 5 to 10-foot centers to reestablish the
riparian zone, improve bank stability, and provide longterm erosion control.
14. The applicant should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the above
listed threatened and endangered species. Please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell at (828) 258-
3939, Extension 227.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending availability of field
staff, the NCWRC may inspect the work site during or after construction. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mark S. Davis
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. W. Trent Anderson, NCDOT
Mr. Chris McGrath, NCWRC
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USF&WS
Appendix C
Natural Environment Effect
Tables
Table 9
R-4440 - Needmore Road Improvements
Stream Characteristics in the Project Area

Stream #
Stream
Name

Ros en Avg.
Deptha
(ft) Avg.
Widtha
(ft)

Substrate
Length
ft Cowardin
Classification
(113/114) Perennial/
Intermittent
(P/I) Important/
Unimportant
(I/U)
Sla Bird Branch A 1 6 sand, cobble 28.7 R3 P I
Slb Bird Branch A 1 6 sand, cobble 99.3 R3 P I
SIC Bird Branch A 2 6 rock, cobble, sand 333.3 R3 P I
Sld Bird Branch A 2 8 rock, cobble, sand 38.1 R3 P I
SIC Bird Branch A 1 8 rock, cobble, sand 112.7 R3 P I
S2 UT to Bird Branch A 1.5 8 rock, cobble, sand 5.0 R3 P I
S3a UT to Little Tennessee River A 1 3 rock, gravel 15.5 R3 P I
S3b UT to Little Tennessee River B 2 5 gravel, sand 5.4 R3 P I
S4a Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 70.7 R3 P I
S4b Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 33.4 R3 P I
S4c Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 223 R3 P I
S4d Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 568 R3 P I
S4e Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 93.4 R3 P I
S4f Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 130.5 R3 P I
S4g Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 86.6 R3 P I
S4h Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 38.6 R3 P I
S4i Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 561.4 R3 P I
S4j Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 246.4 R3 P I
S4k Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 308.8 R3 P I
S41 Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 26.5 R3 P I
S4m Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 43.3 R3 P I
S4n Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 307.9 R3 P I
S4o Little Tennessee River B U 252.9 rock, cobble, sand 354.7 R3 P I
S5 Tellico Creek B 4 28.5 cobble, sand 50.5 R3 P I
Table 9
R-4440 - Needmore Road Improvements
Stream Characteristics in the Project Area

Stream #
Stream
Name

Ros en Avg.
Deptha
(ft) Avg.
Widtha
(ft)

Substrate
Length
(ft) Cowardin
Classification
(113/114) Perennial/
Intermittent
(P/I) Important/
Unimportant
(I/U)
S6a T to Little Tennessee River A 1.5 3 rock, cobble 22.9 R3 P I
S6b T to Little Tennessee River B 1.5 3 sand, gravel 8.7 R3 P I
S7a T to Little Tennessee River A 1 6 rock, cobble 27.5 R4 I I
S7b T to Little Tennessee River A 1 6 cobble, gravel, sand 20.7 R4 I I
S8a T to Little Tennessee River A 1 6 rock, cobble 18.2 R4 I I
S8b T to Little Tennessee River A 1 6 cobble, gravel, sand 4.1 R4 I I
S9a Ledbetter Branch B 2.5 10 sand, gravel 19.2 R3 P I
S9b Ledbetter Branch B 2.5 10 sand, gravel 13.4 R3 P I
S10a T to Little Tennessee River A 1.5 4 rock 6.8 R3 P I
S10b T to Little Tennessee River B 1.5 4 sand 41.3 R3 P I
Slla T to Little Tennessee River A 1.5 4 rock 6.0 R3 P I
Sllb T to Little Tennessee River A 1.5 4 rock 13.3 R3 P I
S12 T to Little Tennessee River A 1 6 cock, cobble 13.2 R4 I I
S13a Loudermilk Creek A 1 20 rock, cobble 18.2 R3 P I
S 13b Loudermilk Creek A 1.5 12 rock, cobble 11.6 R3 P I
S14a T to Little Tennessee River A 1 5 rock, cobble 13.9 R3 P I
S14b T to Little Tennessee River A 1 5 sand, gravel 18.3 R3 P I
S15a T to Little Tennessee River A 1 5 rock, cobble 16.0 R3 P I
S15b T to Little Tennessee River B 1 5 sand, gravel 15.6 R3 P I
a Average widths and depths are taken at the top of bank.
b Depth of the Little Tennessee River is unknown.
TABLE 12
R-4440 JURIDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY
R-4440 Section D Alternate C
H R-4440 Section D Alternate D R-4440 Section D Alternate E
Wetland Name Wetland ID Station Acres Wetland Name Wetland ID Station Acres Wetland Name Wetland ID Station Acres
NA Wl L- 92+03 to 90+58 RT 0 NA Wl L- 92+03 to 90+58 RT 0.019 NA Wl L- 92+03 to 90+58 RT 0.04
NA Wl L- 90+05 to 90+74 RT 0 NA
F Wl L- 90+05 to 90+74 RT 0.004 NA Wl L- 90+05 to 90+74 RT 0.004
Total 0 Total 0.023 Total 0.044
Note 1 : Sream, Wetland and Acidic Rock Impacts were calculated per the NCDOT policy and were measured to the limits of construction (Slope-Stake Line) + 25 feet, including a 25 foot buffer.
Note 2: There are no Section "D" Wetlandlmpacts for Construction Limit Only.
TABLE 13
R-4440 SECTIONS "A" & "B" STREAM IMPACTS
R-4440 Section A& B Alternate C R-4440 Section A& B Alternate D R-4440 Section A& B Alternate E
Stream
Stream ID Station Impact (ft) Stream Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft) Stream Name Stream ID Station impact (ft)
Name
Little Little Little
L- 10+50 to 88+69 (10+00
Tennessee S4 L- 10+50 to 32+07 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L- 10+50 to 32+07 LT 0 Tennessee S4
on Section C) LT 0
River River River
Bird Branch Si L- 10+50 to 19+96 LT 0 Bird Branch Si L- 10+50 to 19+96 LT 1023.63 Bird Branch Si L- 10+50 to 19+96 LT 1025.8
UT to Bird UT to Bird UT to Bird
S2
- 15+72 to 15+91 LT
L
0 S2
- 15+72 to 15+91 LT
L
25.73 S2 L- 15+72 to 15+91 LT 28.64
Branch Branch Branch
Bird Branch Si L- 20+13 to 22+24 RT 0 Bird Branch Si L- 20+13 to 22+24 RT 221.18 Bird Branch Si L- 20+13 to 20+25 LT 221.19
UT to Little UT to Little UT to Little
Tennessee S3 L- 28+09 LT/RT 0 Tennessee S3 L- 28+09 LT/RT 88.28 Tennessee S3 L-28+09 LT 65.29
River River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L- 32+07 to 36+60 RT 0 Tennessee S4 L- 32+07 to 36+60 RT 0 Tellico Creek S5 L-36+74 LT/ RT 111
River River
Little Little UT to Little
Tennessee S4 L- 36+60 to 59+35 RT 0 Tennessee S4 L- 36+60 to 59+35 RT 0 Tennessee S6 L-51+18 LT 60.94
River River River
UT to Little
Tellico
S5 L-36+74 LT/ RT 0 Tellico Creek S5 L-36+76 LT/ RT 103.55 Tennessee S7 L-55+23 LT/ RT 70.07
Creek
River
UT to Little UT to Little UT to Little
Tennessee S6 L-51+22 LT/ RT 0 Tennessee S6 L-51+18 LT/ RT 64.73 Tennessee S8 L-60+86 LT 74.33
River River River
UT to Little UT to Little
Tennessee S7 L-55+27 LT/ RT 0 Tennessee S7 L-55+23 LT/ RT 71.93
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-59+35 to 79+49 RT 0 Tennessee S4 L-59+35 to 79+49 RT 0
River River
UT to Little UT to Little
Tennessee S8 L-61+88 LT/ RT 0 Tennessee S8 L-60+86 LT/ RT 67.74
River River
Total 0 Total 1666.77 Total 1657.26
Note: In general, Stream, Wetland andAcidic Rock Impacts were calculated per the NCDOT policy and were measured to the limits of construction (Slope-Stake Line) + 25 feet, including
a 25 foot buffer. Due to limited construction area and the parallel proximity of the Little Tennessee River, impacts to the Little Tennessee River were calculated to the proposed limit of
construction only.
TABLE 14
R-4440 JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY -SECTION "C"
R-4440 Section C Alternate C R-4440 Section C Alternate D ? R-4440 Section C Alternate E
Stream Stream
Name Stream ID Station Im act (ft) Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft) Stream Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft)
Little Little
Little Tennessee
Tennessee S4 L-11+34 to L-16+08 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-11+34 to L-16+08 LT 0
ver
River S4 L-10+00 to L-86+96 LT 0
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-16+08 to L-45+71 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-16+08 to L-45+71 LT 697.03 Loudermilk Creek S13 L-72+41 LT 80.02
River River
Loudermilk Loudermilk UT to Little
S13
-25+73 LT/RT
L
0 S13
-25+73 LT/RT
L
73.49 S12 L-58+42 LT 88.72
Creek Creek Tennessee River
UT to Little Little
UT to Little
Tennessee S12 L-39+44 LT/RT 0 Tennessee S4 L-30+01 to 40+34 LT 1016 Tennessee River Si l L-55+150 LT 76.5
River River
UT to Little UT to Little
UT to Little
Tennessee Si l L-42+36 LT/RT 0 Tennessee S12 L-39+44 LT/RT 68.72 Tennessee River S10 L-28+29 LT 88.2
River River
Little UT to Little
Tennessee S4 L-45+71 to L-49+94 LT 0 Tennessee Si l L-42+36 LT/RT 79.23 Ledbetter Branch S9 L-19+05 LT 79.22
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-49+94 to L-66+14 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-40+34 to L-54+24 LT 0
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-66+14 to L-66+80 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-54+24 to L-63+28 LT 950.51
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-66+80 to L-69+68 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-63+28 to L-67+66 LT 0
River River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-69+68 to L-79+18 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-67+66 to L-68+73 LT 110.78
River River
UT to Little Little
Tennessee S10 L-69+89 LT/RT 0 Tennessee S4 L-68+73 to L-90+41 LT 0
River River
UT to Little
Ledbetter
Branch S9 L-78+96 to L-79+19 LT/RT 0 Tennessee S10 L-69+89 LT/RT 80.04
River
Little
Ledbetter
Tennessee S4 L-79+18 to L-88+99 LT 0 Branch S9 L-78+96 to 79+19 LT/RT 63.55
River
Little Little
Tennessee S4 L-88+99 to L-90+41 LT 0 Tennessee S4 L-79+19 to L-90+41 LT 0
River River
I Total 0 Total 3139.35 Total 412.66
Note: In general, Stream, Wetland and Acidic Rock Impacts were calculated per the NCDOT policy and were measured to the limits of construction (Slope-Stake Line) + 25 feet, including a 25 foot buffer. Due to limited construction area and the
parallel proximity of the Little Tennessee River, impacts to the Little Tennessee River were calculated to the proposed limit of construction only
TABLE 15
R-4440 JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT SUMMARY- SECTION "D"
R-4440 Section D Alternate C R-4440 Section D Alternate D
H R-4440 Section D Alternate E
Stream Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft) Stream Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft) Stream Name Stream ID Station Impact (ft)
UT to Little
Tennessee
River

S14

L-83+65 LT/RT

0
UT to Little
Tennessee River

S14

L- 83+65 LT/RT

93.18
UT to Little
Tennessee River

S14

L- 88+60 LT/RT

78.31
UT to Little
Tennessee
River

S15

L-93+62 LT/RT

0
UT to Little
Tennessee River

S15

L- 93+62 LT/RT

89.06
UT to Little
Tennessee River

S15

L- 98+42 LT/RT

75.8
Total 0 Total 182.24 Total 154.11
Note: Stream, Wetland and Acidic Rock Impacts were calculated per the NCDOT policy and were measured to the limits of construction (Slope-Stake Line) + 25 feet, including a 25 foot buffer.
TABLE 17
R-4440 ACIDIC ROCK IMPACT SUMMARY - SECTION "C" and "D"
R-4440 Section C Alternate C R-4440 Section C Alternate D R-4440 Section C Alternate E
Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY) Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY) Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY)
L-54+50 RT to 55+95 RT 0 0 L-54+50 RT to 55+95 RT 0 0 L-80+55 RT to 82+00 RT 145 469
L-57+25 RT to 57+ 50 RT 0 0 L-57+25 RT to 57+ 50 RT 0 0 L-78+99 RT to 79+24 RT 25 453
L-58+75 RT to 60+80 RT 0 0 L-58+75 RT to 60+80 RT 0 0 L-75+67 RT to 77+75 RT 208 7495
L-63+50 RT to 65+60 RT 0 0 L-63+50 RT to 65+60 RT 0 0 L-70+83 RT to 72+94 RT 211 7971
L-91+60 RT to 92+60 RT 0 0 L-91+60 RT to 92+60 RT 0 0 L-43+49 RT to 44+50 RT 101 4463
L-99+50 RT to 100+50 RT 0 0 L-99+50 RT to 100+50 RT 0 0 L-35+77 RT to 36+81 RT 104 3182
Totals 0 0 Totals 0 0 Totals 794 24,033
R-4440 Section D Alternate C R-4440 Section D Alternate D R-4440 Section D Alternate E
Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY) Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY) Station Impact (ft) Volume (CY)
L- 35+00 RT to 35+70 RT 0 0 L- 35+00 RT to 35+70 RT 70 0* L- 100+78 RT to 101+78 RT 70 57
L- 36+50 to 37+50 0 0 L- 36+50 to 37+50 100 0* L- 99+00 RT to 100+00 100 111
Totals 0 0 Totals 170 0* Totals 170 168
PROJECT ALTERNATE TOTAL 0 PROJECT ALTERNATE TOTAL 0 PROJECT ALTERNATE TOTAL 24,201
Note : Linear feet of impact shown reflects approximate linear feet of affected acidic rock along the proposed roadway. Volume reflects approximate cut volume of acidic rock required for each proposed alternate.
Note: Stream, Wetland and Acidic Rock Impacts were calculated per the NCDOT policy and were measured to the limits of construction (Slope-Stake Line) + 25 feet, including a 25 foot buffer.
* = Section D, Alternate D Plan Sheets show Acidic Rock Impact - impact will be minimized during final design phase.
Appendix D
Citizens Informational
Workshop Material
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
ON SR 1364 (NEEDMORE ROAD)
Projects 6.972062T/6.992193 Swain/Macon Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Citizens
Informational Workshop on December 2, 1999, between the hours of
4:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Superior Court Room in the Swain County
Administration Building in Bryson City.
These proposed projects will widen and improve SR 1364 (Needmore Road) in
Swain and Macon Counties. Comments from the public will be used in the
preparation of the environmental document being developed for this project.
NCDOT representatives will be available at the workshop to answer questions
and receive comments relative to the proposed projects. Information at the
workshop will be general in nature. No detailed designs are available. Interested
individuals may attend at their convenience during the above-stated hours.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Karen Capps, Project
Development Engineer, at P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, or call
919-733-7844, ext. 240.
In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to attend the
workshop. To receive special services, please contact Ms. Capps at the above
address or fax [phone] prior to the date of the workshop.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Citizens Informational
Workshop
OF r10RT1{
C40

?y Z
O
OF TRANSQ
SR 1364 (Needmore Road) Improvements
Swain County
Macon County
State Project Nos: 6.972062T &
6.992193
December 2, 1999
CITIZENS' INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SR 1364 /SRI 114 (Needmore Road) Improvements
Swain County
Macon County
State Projects: 6.972062T and 6.992193
December 2, 1999
4:00 - 7:00 p.m.
DETAILS ABOUT THE WORKSHOP
This evening's Citizens' Informational Workshop is being held to provide an
opportunity for you to interact on a one-to-one basis with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) officials regarding our plans to improve the unpaved portion of
SR 13641 SR 1114 (Needmore Road). Comments and suggestions concerning this
project are appreciated and will be considered during the planning and environmental
study. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed improvements, please let
a representative of the North Carolina Department of Transportation know. Written
comments can be made using the form provided on the last page of this handout. You
can leave the comments with us here this evening or mail them to the address at the
bottom of this page.
The NCDOT realizes individuals living or working close to a proposed project
want to be informed of the possible effects of the project on their community. The
information provided is the most up-to-date information available at this stage of the
planning process. Additional design work is needed before the actual impacts can be
established. More detailed information will be available at the formal Public Hearing, to
be held at a later date.
If you need additional information or if you would like to submit comments after
the citizens' informational workshop, please address your requests and comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Persons who sign the workshop attendance sheet or submit comments during or
after the workshop will be added to the project's mailing list and will be notified of future
workshops or hearings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NCDOT Division 14 is proposing to pave, widen, and upgrade SR 1364 /
SR 1114 (Needmore Road) to secondary road standards. The project covers a distance
of 3.31 miles and involves portions in both Swain County and Macon County. The
project area is shown on the attached map (see Figure 1).
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the unpaved portion of Needmore Road.
The scope of work involves paving and cross-section improvements to bring the road up
to minimum secondary road standards. The purpose of the improvements are to:
• Reduce travel time between Swain and Macon Counties.
• Reduce the amount of sedimentation introduced into the Little Tennessee River.
• Make recreational facilities more accessible. (Fontana Lake)
• Improve the safety of the road.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives for this project are no-build, pave in place, and bring the
existing alignment up to minimum secondary road standards. The no-build alternative
(Alternative # 1) would maintain the road in its existing condition. The pave in place
alternative (Alternative # 2) would pave the existing alignment with no additional
improvements.
The third alternative (Alternative # 3) proposes to improve the existing unpaved
portion of SR 1364 / SR 1114 (Needmore Road) by widening it to two 9-foot lanes with
5-foot grass shoulders and culverts and ditches where required. The improvements will
follow the existing alignment except where it is necessary to shift that alignment to avoid
wetland impacts or impacts to pyritic (acid) rock.
Swain County has an area of concern as shown in Figure 2. Alternative 3a in this
area proposes to widen the road toward the Little Tennessee River. Alternative 3b
proposes to widen away from the river and excavate into the mountainside. Both
alternatives propose a 3-foot grade change to correct a flooding problem in this area.
Both alternatives will have impacts to the Little Tennessee River.
PROJECT COST
The current project cost for the improvements to Needmore Road are summarized
in the table below. Costs for Alternatives # 1 and # 2 are not avaliable at this time.
Although there are no construction costs with Alternative # 1, there is a cost associated
with maintanence of the road.
County Alternative # 3a Alternative # 3b
Swain 360,000.00 1.3 million
Macon 260,000.00 260,000.00
Total 620,000.00* 1.56 million
* Dose Not include the cost of mitigation for stream impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN STUDIES
NCDOT has begun an assessment of the environmental impacts of this project
and preliminary designs have been worked on. However, additional information may be
required. During this period, these NCDOT personnel may be on citizens' properties in
order to complete their studies. The purpose of these studies is to gather background
information that will be used in deciding on the most appropriate way to improve SR
1364 / SR 1114. No decisions on the final design of this project have been made.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional information concerning this project, please contact Mrs. Karen B.
Capps, PE, Project Development Engineer, at [phone] extension 240 or by e-mail
at kcappsAdot. state. nc. us.
A toll-free number is also available for general information regarding the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. The toll-free number for our Customer Service
Office is 1-877-DOT-4YOU. Citizens can call this number and speak with one of our
customer service representatives who will try to provide immediate responses to all
questions. If additional information is needed, questions will be directed to the proper
office within the Department, and a response will be given to each citizen within two
days of the inquiry.
Needm% ?.
-
1113 1.2
--? L I 1
END
PROJECT
1369
T.IC
1366
Jrh ,
i?
?ee?l
// A w?r Hi+a..e.
NAT eil+
a
30e4
- , N. CAADIINA s.., I 441 ?%E
1 A i . Smolemonl
a.:a. c.. N a a? ;
.E'nn/ana pMe • 7? Irdlo. r
fdn fit%i
ct?+
o d 19 i / uatd."
J
wd
I _
./
?
I ! ? c T? IS
1129 KNOB TDDIDn wells M.111
, I
"' ,•? ,,..ehor. Yle /NAilO lolb u? ,`
?• °"'y 0 one 1•"ere,• b° t+
p '` ; 1131 i
° f4nMnn I ^?
1132 1133 28 cun,tne 1
13 a _ ID , . _. a 64 116 1, \
SPI-nif
,ISray I t+I .A D'/.onr A"'." v , In
28 `d w Otlo Lv4r ?t
?a •ti •v a.a yvh r *\
1
?. PINACL 1359 ?LINA ?', w on y oc (o?nlena\.
KNOB ' ?-- 7 sr.,
??
-'13GJ ?9 \ 28 )4?? .
p 142 '
B 1455 1362 13 1
147 ' 8 _ /• 1 h b- ? /".'? 1'
- + 1360? 1357
13 4 ps 6 n j
9
3 1370 / E3 ( i
1443 3
i7 y
' 1369 SIj e ;
:1369 BEGIN / .O O I 1356 1355
PROJECT ?370
m i 13613( \ 9 w
l v ?_ I
1371 _
\ Y 1445
1459 '11 r
I l
1 372
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Gr DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR SR 1364
NEEDMORE ROAD
MACON & SWAIN COUNTIES
e +no+n+t t
al FIGURE I
i
all
t •?'^nlano -?:fl,• l}t rrdtv.h
-. _q s ,On Et.,
wo
1 MICA ( cla ,' n
1 129 K N08 tartan 1 ' ,1 Wtsrs M11,1`
c r , _ ?? rlt JMATrO
Needm ,ott ,e
l j'^c t `j Tam" '( AQ on[ }^^wu 4+a ,+, ti
f" ! aRlgj4 a r Er.n?!rn t r
__ " q f } 0 r .1131
1132
1133 1 1413 1 " 2 ' `"? { , ?1 13 C Gn.r ?.
11 tt
1 1 1 Frllbox Spnny 7 i
eai «,dnr v" r 10
? ,r 1 .ti prr +
213 J .> ' +. _ rNde, pity Caa: Fdr. .7j
` ? , ? ? Sev+.vyva
1359 9 + tan Y of F,itm?ne.
Ir" tINA
-GIN F'INACC KNOB t i..7 Scstr t
PROJECT --
3Gj f
28
AREA OF r 51 ti
O 142. ?i
CoHC6RNp,._..'' 1.8 1455 1362 13( 1 t 3 t+s1 ¢F
-
7 al 1 h ? _ `; ; v ti•
14 to
f 1360 • 1357
13 rn 'tT : h ??
? f ?'9 1370 ! $?
r
1369 1443
• 1369 R Ste
I. 3 :1369 '0 b? 1356 1355;
TaIGc E hI C) I ,
1366 PROJECT
?,, 1 1 1370
+ C,
136 ! w
1371
'
GA
, 1445

v
1459 'i
i
1372'
.. -
?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
C ) DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR SR 1364
NEEOMORE ROAD
MACON & SWAIN COUNTIES
.14 W1}till )
FIGURE Z
tl W}i; }
L
j -4
Stato Road Number: SR 1114
Needmore Road
Swain County
r
18' PW5WENT
?+--
e ' --?---
1'
?+--- E07'710M Cl-,ANNEL
I
!
SNJRL
Woe,
A NORMAL CROWN = 114" PER Fr., MAX. SUPEREL. -10 %
B SHDR SLOPE - 1" PER FT., MAX. ROLLOVER - 6%
C CUT SLOPE : 1:1 MAX. OR AS SLOPED STAKED
D FILL SLOPE: 1 1/2:1 MAX. FOR SOIL OR AS SLOPED STAKED