20120880 Ver 1_401 Application_20120921

ATTACHMENT - A PHOTOS

ATTACHMENT - A PHOTOS

uatum: rvHUtss copyngnt (c) zuug My I opo
3j
4°
NJ
C3-
Ekew 194
�-
1
Cn
Y
5
5
t
�
Z-
C)
\I .�•
CN
M
+
i r'
t�fj`
•
O
j PrOJE
ct Location
ff 'f
O
4
f v
��•
M
iy
O
Magnetic Declination
-.=
CD
t +
-_}
ti!
o
0
SCALE 1:12000
co
•-
�
— _
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
900 YARDS
co
0 1000 2000 FEET
t*
800 METERS
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
5.12° W
ti
111111 1777776� t
3 t 'i
. 3 #
3
3
Name: ROBBINSVILLE Location: 035° 20' 14.11" N 083'49'34.82"W NAD83
Date: 9/5/2012 Caption: MASSEY BRANCH BOAT RAMP AND PARKING UPGRADE
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet
uatum: rvHUtss copyngnt (c) zuug My I opo

Y�

I I
Lf)
zo � `I
v W JF�
�_� �bi
o \aao 0
Z 0
/ N
a / ZO
U
Z
I Lj� a
S W� F I it
LLI
OEbI OEbll I I O
r I l
r I yV
SLbI
I �
6 t I
t 1 � �-
��
J r
J '
v
/
Z /
A —
a h /
/ � \ah 0961 —Q ^
Q
OCD
c)
��. z z
a Q i-
Q Cx LLJ
<_
—E- Z --�
l
LU v
Z v z
> z
z
(Z
R k S �- z w
WOO!a
z O W
0 LL 9� Q
I + 8 I I
I Q z
Q O
z
L,

L
i a
ZZ
g
in
oEbl OEbI t / \ a
GZbl /
O �
1 / ♦ '
/
1 � /
� 1 /
1 SI
J it j
it 4 _
R
-a=*" Z
/ � S
1
I
n
N
0
1
/
0
s �Ill�li'
/
/
a
I / Zl?
m�
o.
AX
N
CL Qso
F-- a
� ®N
w w
Z
C
Z
0
H
L.f
Nv�
u- LpQ
z�-
Q W
x l�l
3wQ
LLJ
v Z
OTC ?
� ZO uQCU
Lu
O OC
1
C
0
o� �

l

r- i
$ P may+ C
7 d b E �
_gam E
gg qm z ° oEo
W 7e E S te_ �2 LL 2E'T
E° ° $° i'� Sc
ti a S o ° °
e . o
Z E�E$ Q g c c ec
a o c c ° 0 0 00
u■ �° o
a
LLI a s 8 e r z o r g
�p o $E `o
�y o M qq •�
® To 9$ v To E a
f .� '0
a o
E
w
e E ON �yIL g E
E° o « N. E
s ri v e g° a °
V v4 e $ S o �° u o p�
o LU °e E M 3 d�� E c ! ® U1 E o W. W. ■e ■ 0 0 0 ;
o rxa
x $
r c c
o
°O
O o ° -W ° E �o o �e { co
Q ��^ 8�p a g9 d ;�
� ° a °
B a 2�9 � i aP a
i .^ o e y E
£
W c ° E oi* vB ° Vo $
8 rE °e $So E o e o d j o •ri �;
rd ° hc v C° ® c,C�
��� ev, t 01 Mi t ES
Ce E `
,9 1
-- I E t� 11
d
0
Q °
lip e
l� ' g °
V co E$ b $a E .S E k E v
0
o f P° d v o f Pf°
o °off `� P
e 8
r $
�B a� yu A
s g� o 8$ 13.2 O __j �3 M w ro r: ad r a n
e
o �J
CIL
V T
W-
CL
a
y O
c
N m � z m
LL 'e
c r c c V
v E o
�' a
c $ m
c y m
m tl E L d v F rn
og�p E m °
� c S c H
d r r E O
a c E c m @ Q E a > « vrn
w �` 'v m a a
too �QZ E L c m c �%b
� �O E a E c
o
c m °' d $
m
fit' m d m c v tr `m
IW S � � O1 S ° n Ev w
or- ® a E 'o « g m o E - 00 Zo
�j rte. g LL ° m o 5 $ « "' ; m Tn < V
f2f� E Y Of N ..�A O O° C °
i:s� c 'm i3 m a 8 c ° d E m
�v a •c o o
W ` m v
O Dd = Lu < tr if 01
Hc rn E m o ?
., MOM. � 5 @ a E E m
E{ :
E
cfi d E>Dom� E
CHI= «a $ ° e
ra
° �•c 8 °'' c cao E dG 0 w c
m8 °e CL
$$• Q_ t c m E m m m m m H S m S v m E ° o
omec�� y� c°0 m $ m d
Fo1� C�tno ono UymEg v °ma m v m
mm 2Re cv>
r m w s w m B E m m Q v
y58�a� z Ec 'o3�d 0 �+O7 m n d w
o€€ m •L a c m•k'.. °c>'om °'m °m�m Q37 m« m
N° ryy IL c d aOQ m 0 •C 7 p_ p ,p m m
d w' p b O V2 U« d N p N .C� O vow O C
m«ca°>ci�iNH e w °ainmmmN$ �m�
° E m E m E LL EE m m E t= c w ra m a m c m c
° a y m c E E a 8 E m
r ��.yi H o E w
a°i vc'bid o` mt.kmc.P$`a�� "tr3''�.�m.
ud1 m «EgagE LLct « m�mCVVE PCCG o cam'
LL Lmc'�'n$�!�m LL FHm� °aEm�N� °c «C iS v >€
w 7 •cW Ali ° me c� °• �c mo m ° ° m
d
° m ? oCgwlECg.�rn m5� t'�mo � y o Ea E
EN N(; fq LU. iq (,1�cm w 0 aui C6%O6 6

Forest National Forests in 160 Zillicoa St, Ste. A
[JAS Service North Carolina Asheville, NC 28801 -1082
a 828 - 257 -4200
File Code: 1230 Date: September 5, 2012
Route To: (7100)
Subject: Delegation of Authority
To: Lynn L. Hicks, Engineering, Heritage and Recreation Staff Officer
You are hereby delegated the authority to act as my Agent for all phases of the application
process, for permits required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for road, bridge, culvert,
and facilities projects on the National Forests in North Carolina. You are authorized to make
formal application for all permits to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, provide all
necessary information, and sign all correspondence.
Include this letter as part of all applications for Section 404 permits to the US Army Corps of
Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
/s/ Kristin M. Bail
KRISTIN M. BAIL
Forest Supervisor
USDA OW
2f5 America's Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

—
Decision Notice
And
fending of No Significant Impact
Construction of a New District Office
And
Other Activities Associated With the New Office Site
USDA Forest Service — Region 8
National Forests in North Carolina
Nantahala National Forest
Cheoah Ranger District
Graham County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents my
decision to construct a new District Office Building to serve as headquarters and to provide
visitor information services for the Cheoah Ranger District in Robbinsville, North Carolina. The
new office will be located in the general vicinity of the current District Office approximately one
air mile northwest of Robbinsville (U.S. Hwy 129 north, then left for about one mile on State
Road 143).
A new office is needed to provide forest visitors and Cheoah District employees with a safe and
healthy facility that is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
needs for a new office are discussed more fully in the Purpose and Need section of the
Environmental Assessment (EA), which is available for review at the Cheoah District Office in
Robbinsville and at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Asheville, North Carolina. The EA
documents the analysis of two alternatives and a total of seven sites that were evaluated to
determine how the purpose and need for the proposal may be met.
2.0 DECISION
Based upon the analysis documented in the EA and consideration of comments received, it is my
decision to implement Alternative 2. Actions in Alternative 2 are as follows:
® A new office building will be constructed on the site located adjacent to Santeetlah Lake
(site alternative #3). Associated activities are construction of a driveway and parking lot,
construction of public restrooms, installation of utility lines and wastewater treatment
facilities, and landscaping around the new facilities. The activities will require site
grading and removal of some trees. Approximately three acres will be impacted.
Cheoah Office Project 1 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSI

© An interpretive hiking trail will be constructed around the perimeter of the peninsula at
this site. The trail will be approximately l/z mile in length. Existing old woods roads will
be used for the most part. A small section of trail (approximately 200 feet) will be
constructed down to the waters edge where a new boat dock is proposed.
o A boat dock will be constructed on a point of the peninsula due west of the new office to
serve boating visitors who want to get out their boats and visit the office.
® The Massey Branch boat launch will be upgraded to improve parking at the facility.
Activities will include constructing a retaining wall near the waters edge, cutting into the
bank on the highway side of the lot for about four feet to increase the size and space
available for parking, and resurfacing the existing lot.
3.0 REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Based upon the analysis presented in the EA, I have selected Alternative 2, which includes
activities to construct a new office building at site # 3, because it meets the purpose and need for
the action. A new office located in the vicinity of the current District Office will provide forest
visitors and Cheoah District employees with a safe and healthy facility that is in compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A new office will meet the General Service Administration guidelines for space per employee,
and will better accommodate the visiting public than the current office does.
Construction of a parking area will provide ample parking to accommodate District employees
and the visiting public. Parking will be available for large Recreational Vehicles and for vehicles
towing trailers.
A hiking trail located around the perimeter of the new office complex will provide recreational
and nature interpretive opportunities to the public.
A boat dock on Santeetlah Lake near the new office will allow boating visitors to go ashore and
visit the Cheoah Office.
Upgrading the parking facilities at the Massey Branch boat launch will allow for better
maneuverability of turning for trailers and will improve the parking situation as it currently
exists.
4.0 MITIGATION
Mitigation measures are actions taken to lessen adverse impacts or enhance beneficial effects.
Lands affected by this proposal are in Management Area 16, those lands providing support
facilities for the Forest and the public. Management requirements and mitigation measures that
apply to this proposal are:
Cheoah Office Project 2 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSI

I . Provide trail opportunities as appropriate, and maintain trails to maintenance levels 3 -5
(Forest Plan p. III -174);
2. Design all roads for all- weather use and appropriate traffic volumes (Forest Plan p. III -
175);
3. Complete heritage resource inventories prior to ground disturbing, implement necessary
mitigation (Forest Plan p. III -9);
4. Meet the Visual Quality Objectives for Management Area 16 (Forest Plan p. III -13);
5. Use Management Indicator Species (MIS) for project level analysis as necessary to
respond to specific issues and concerns (Forest Plan p. III -22);
6. Provide site specific analysis of occurrence and effects on proposed, endangered,
threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species and Forest listed species (Forest Plan p. III -23);
7. Provide aquatic, botanical, and wildlife analysis (Forest Plan p. III -23);
8. Protect water quality by applying mitigation measures wherever there is construction
requiring earth movement within 300 feet of perennial or intermittent streams or lakes
(Forest Plan p. III -41).
9. To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to Indiana bats and indirect effects to Indiana
bat habitat, this project would comply with the Terms and Conditions in the Biological
Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of the Indiana bat
(reference Opinion).
10. No standing snags would be removed between April 15 and October 15 (reference
Biological Evaluation).
11. Riparian areas would be seeded and mulched within 14 days of disturbance as a site
rehabilitation measure to improve water quality conditions for aquatic life. Riparian
areas are defined as the land that is 50 feet on both sides of the stream (reference
Biological Evaluation).
12. There should be no contact of wet cement with Santeetlah Reservoir. Wet cement is very
toxic to aquatic life and results in direct mortality (reference Biological Evaluation).
5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Two alternatives were considered for detailed analysis. In addition, a total of seven site locations
were considered. Alternative 2 (site # 3), as described in the preceding pages, is the alternative I
selected for implementation.
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Under Alternative 1 no activities would be
implemented. The existing office would continue to serve as the Cheoah District Headquarters.
The existing office would be kept up through maintenance and remodeling. Alternative 1 does
not meet the purpose and need for the proposed actions.
Alternative Site # I in the District Work Center currently has two government dwelling used for
housing district employees. Constructing a new office at Site # 1 would require demolishing the
existing buildings.
Alternative Site # 2 in the District Work Center would reduce existing parking space, requiring
that parking be found in another place.
Cheoah Office Project 3 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSI

Alternative Site # 4 is the existing office location. Constructing a new office at this site would
be a major disruption to district employees and the visiting public.
Alternative Site # 5, behind the existing office, was not chosen because of the presence of a
stream and associated riparian area at the site, and because of possible impacts to existing
Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) remnants.
Alternative Site # 6 is located on a hill behind Site # 3 where a helicopter pad is located.
Constructing a new office here would require relocating the helipad, and would be prohibitively
expensive to provide access to the public.
Alternative Site # 7 was to lease or purchase property not associated with the District
Office /Work Center Complex. Office lease space in the Robbinsville and surrounding area is not
available.
6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Scoping for the Cheoah Office project began in January, 2003 when it was listed in the Forest's
Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. Scoping as defined in the National Environmental
Policy Act is "an early and open process,for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and
for identifying the issues related to a proposed action." In March 2003 a "scoping" letter was
mailed to 78 individuals, organizations and agencies, informing them of the proposed action and
requesting their input. Also in March, a notice of the proposed action was published in the
Graham Star.
In July 2003 the EA was mailed to those who had requested it and to those who had participated
in the project planning. Alternative 2 as identified as the preferred alternative. A legal notice of
the opportunity to comment was published in the Asheville Citizen Times on July 10, 2003. The
formal 30 day comment period ended on August 11, 2003. Comments were received from three
individuals, two of which represented other Federal and North Carolina State resource
management agencies. These comments are in the project file and are a matter of public record.
7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that the
actions in Alternative 2 are not a major federal action, either individually or cumulatively, and
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the
context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement
will not be prepared. I base my findings on the following:
1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered, with no significant impacts
(see EA pages 9 -17). ' The low intensity of the effects within the limited context of this
project makes the adverse effects insignificant.
2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety (see EA page 17)
Cheoah Office Project 4 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSf

3. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area (historic and
cultural resources, park Iands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or
ecologically critical areas) (see EA Chapter 3).
4. Based on public involvement, the effects on the quality of the human environment are not
likely to be highly controversial (see EA pages 4 -5).
5. The effects analysis documented in the EA demonstrate that the effects are not highly
uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown environmental risk (see EA Chapter 3).
6. The actions in this decision are not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects, and do not represent a decision in principle about a future
consideration.
7. There are no apparent significant adverse cumulative effects between this project and
other past, present and reasonable foreseeable actions (see EA Chapter 3).
8. The actions will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways,
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, and will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic
resources (see Ea page 10).
9. The actions will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat
that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (see
Biological Evaluation).
10. The actions will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the
EA. The actions are consistent with the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource
Management Plan. North Carolina Best Management Practices will be met through
application of the LRMP standards.
8.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This decision to implement Alternative 2 is consistent with the intent of the Land and Resource
Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (LRMP) and all Amendments
to the LRMP, as required by NFMA 1976,16 USC 1604(I).
The actions of the project are consistent with management objectives described in Chapter III of
Forest Plan Amendment 5 for Management Areal 6.
Mitigation measures to prevent or lessen adverse impacts have been fully applied to the actions
in this project. The project is feasible and reasonable, and will result in applying the
management practices that meet the LRMP overall direction of protecting the environment while
producing goods and services.
9.0 APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal, including
attachments, must be postmarked or received within 45 days after the date this notice is
published in the Asheville Citizen Times. The Appeal shall be sent to USDA, Forest Service,
ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, 1720 Peachtree Rd, N.W., Suite 811N, Atlanta, Georgia
30309 -9102, within 45 days of the date of legal notice. Appeals may be faxed to (404) 347-
Cheoah Office Project 5 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSI

5401. Hand - delivered appeals must be received within normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Appeals may also be mailed electronically in a common digital format to appeals -
soiithe7 -n -1-e ional -of tce(cD,f, ed.zts. Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14.
For further information on this decision, contact Cheoah District Ranger R.E. Vann at 1133
Massey Branch Road, Robbinsville, NC 28771; telephone [phone]; fax [phone].
10.0 IMPLEMENTATION
If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five
business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation
may not occur for 15rbusiness days following the date of appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.9).
C 1 JOHN F. RAMEY
Forest Supervisor
Aj)
Date
The U S Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national ongin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc ) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice and TDD)
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 -W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20250 -9410 or call (202) 720 -5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer
Cheoah Office Project 6 8/26/2003
Decision Notice & FONSI

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DISTRICT OFFICE
AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW OFFICE SITE
CHE®AH RANGER DISTRICT
NANTARALA NATIONAL FOREST
Lead Agency:
USDA — Forest Service, R-8
Nantahala National Forest
Cheoah hanger District
Graham County, North Carolina
Responsible Official:
John F. Ramey
Forest Supervisor
National Forests in North Carolina
P.O. Box 2750
Asheville, NC 28802 -2750
For Further Information Contact:
R.F. Vann, District Ranger
Cheoah Ranger District
1133 Massey ]Branch Road
Robbinsville, NC 28771 -7899
Telephone: [phone]
The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) prolubits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or familial status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720 -2600
(voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 -W, Whitten Building, le and Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20250 -9510 or call (202) 720 -5964 (voice and TDD) USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -1-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL ........................................ ............................... 3
1:1 THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................... ...............................
3
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ..... ............. ...............................
4
1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE ............................ ........ .. ... ........ ............ ...............................
4
1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................. ...............................
4
1.5 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ..................................................................... ..............................4
1.6 NONSIGNIFICANT ISSUES ............................................................. ............................... 5
2.0 ALTERNATIVES .............................. ............................... ............... ............................... 5
2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ................ ........... ...................... ...............................
5
2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION) ........................................... ...............................
6
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELMNATED FROM DETAILED STUDY......... 6
2.4 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................
7
2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................. ................... ...............................
8
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................
9
3.1 PHYSICAL FACTORS .................... ............................... ............... ...............................
9
3.1.1 Soil and Water Resources ............................................................. ...............................
9
3.1.2 Visual Resources . ............................... ................................... ...............................
10
3.1.3 Cultural/Heritage Resources ........... ............................... ............... ...............................
10
3.2 BIOLOGICAL FACTORS ............................. ...... .................... .............................11
3.2.1 Vegetation ...................... ............................... .......................... ...............................
11
3.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................... .............................12
3.2.3 Fish ................................................................................................ ...............................
13
3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ...... ............................... .............. ...............................
17
3.3.1 Economic Considerations .............................................................. ...............................
17
3.3.2 Social Considerations ......................................................... ...............................
17
LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ................... .......... .............................18
LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS ................... ................ ...............................
19
REFERENCES........................................................................................ ...............................
20
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -2-

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DISTRICT OFFICE
and
OTHER ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW OFFICE SITE
USDA Forest Service — Region g
National Forests in North Carolina
Nantahala National Forest
Cheoah Ranger District
Graham County, North Carolina
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL
1.1 THE PROPOSED ACTION
National Forest in North Carolina - Nantahala National Forest proposes to construct a new District
Office Building to serve as headquarters and to provide visitor information services for the Cheoah
Ranger District in Robbinsville, North Carolina. The new office would be in the general vicinity of
the current District Office approximately one air mile northwest of Robbinsville (U.S. Hwy 129
north, then left for about one mile on State Road 143). Five sites within the present administrative
compound area were evaluated as possible locations. Of the five sites, one site across State Road
143 from the current office was chosen as the preferred site to study in detail.
Activities that would be part of the new Cheoah District Office construction are-
0
Construction of a new office building on the site located adjacent to Santeetlah Lake (site
alternative #3), including construction of a driveway and parking lot, construction of public
restrooms, installation of utility lines and wastewater treatment facilities, and landscaping
around the new facilities. The activities would require site grading and removal of some
trees. Approximately three acres would be impacted.
O An interpretive hiking trail would be constructed around the perimeter of the peninsula at
this site. The trail would be approximately ' /Z mile in length. Existing old woods roads
would be used for the most part. A small section of trail (approximately 200 feet) would be
constructed down to the waters edge where a new boat dock is proposed.
® A boat dock would be constructed on a point of the peninsula due west of the new office to
serve visitors who wish to get out their boats and visit the office.
® The Massey Branch boat launch would be upgraded to improve parking at the facility.
Activities would include constructing a retaining wall near the waters edge, cutting into the
bank on the highway side 'of the lot for about four feet to increase the size and space
available for parking, and resurfacing the existing lot.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -3-

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A new office is needed to provide forest visitors and Cheoah District employees with a safe
and healthy facility that is in compliance with the Americans with (Disabilities Act (A)iDA).
The existing Cheoah District Office does not meet General Service Administration guidelines for
space per employee, is too small to accommodate the visiting public, and does not meet the
requirements of the ADA. The current District office is 2,876 square feet. A new fully accessible
office would be approximately 5,200 square feet. The current office site does not have enough
space for adding on to the existing office.
Parking at the current facility is not adequate enough to accommodate District employees and the
visiting public. There is often a shortage of parking spaces, and there is virtually no parking
available for large Recreational Vehicles or vehicles towing trailers.
The parking facilities at Massey Branch are poorly designed for turning a trailer or for parking a
vehicle and trailer. Redesigning and upgrading the boat launch area provide more space for
maneuvering and parking.
1.3 (DECISION TO BE MADE
The decision to be made by the responsible official is whether to implement the proposed action in
order to meet the purpose and need as described above, or to choose the No Action Alternative.
The decision would be based upon the information contained in this environmental analysis.
1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement began in mid -March 2003 with a letter mailed to 78 individuals, organizations
and agencies, informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input.' January 2003 the
proposal was added to the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the National Forests in North Carolina,
which was posted on the Forests internet site. A "scoping" notice of the proposed action was
published in the Graham Star. The Asheville Citizen Times also ran a news story, "Area Forest
Service projects funded ", which gave notice of funding for the new office.
1.5 SIGNI>(+ICANT ISSUES
As a result of the public scoping effort, four letters commenting on the proposal were received. An
Interdisciplinary Team (Team) reviewed each public comment and developed a list of preliminary
issues. The Team then determined whether the preliminary issues were significant with respect to
the environmental effects of the actions being proposed. The Team identified the following
significant issues:
1. Identification of Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Forest Concern plant and animal
species, and analysis of potential impacts upon them. The Indian Bat was specifically
mentioned by the USDI — Fish and Wildlife Service.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -4-

2. Potential impacts on identified archeological sites including any potential Civilian
Conservation Corp (CCC) sites.
3. Create a facility that is safe for the visiting public and Forest Service employees, including a
safe entrance /exit intersection with State Highway 143.
4. Create a facility that is in harmony with the surrounding landscape and terrain.
5. Compliance with the American with Disabilities Act standards for federal buildings.
6. Address environmental concerns (runoff of polluted water into Santeetlah Lake) and safety
concerns that currently exist at the Massey Branch boat launch area.
7. Impact of proposed actions on water quality of Santeetlah Lake.
8. Ability to provide quality service to the public.
1.6 NONSIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The following issues were considered by the Team to be nonsignificant, either because 1) the issue
was outside the scope of the proposal, 2) the issue is already decided by law (or the Forest Plan), 3)
the issue is not in conflict with the proposed action, 4) the issue is not supported by scientific
evidence, 5) or the issue is limited in duration, extent, or intensity:
1. Placing hazard trees from the site in Santeetlah Lake to create or enhance fish habitat. This
issue is not in conflict with the proposed action and may occur regardless of whether or not
the proposal occurs.
2. Using bear -proof garbage receptacles at the site. This issue is not in conflict with the
proposed action, and may in fact occur.
3. Providing information about feeding wildlife, disposing of garbage, and storing food. This
issue is outside the scope of, and not in conflict with, the proposed action. This information
may be provided in any case.
4 Use of native plant species for landscaping. This issue is already decided by law and is not
in conflict with the proposed action. It is very likely that many native plant species would
be used in landscaping, as well as nonnative species such as fescue.
5. Returning already impacted lakeside buffer zones to as natural state as possible. This issue
is not in conflict with the proposed action.
6. Developing the site as an environmental park. This issue is not in conflict with the proposed
actions, and indeed part of the proposal is to develop an interpretive hiking trail and a boat
dock.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (N® ACTION,)
Under Alternative,) no activities would be implemented. The existing office would continue to
serve as the Cheoah District headquarters. The existing office would be kept up through
maintenance and remodeling. This alternative provides the basis for estimating the effects of action
alternatives.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -5-

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION)
Under Alternative 2 the activities as described in "Chapter 1.1 The Proposed Action" would take
place.
o Construction of a new office building on the site located adjacent to Santeetlah Lake (site
alternative #3), including construction of a driveway and parking lot, construction of public
restrooms, installation of utility lines and wastewater treatment facilities, and landscaping
around the new facilities. The activities would require site grading and removal of some
trees. Approximately three acres would be impacted.
® An interpretive hiking trail would be constructed around the perimeter of the peninsula at
this site. The trail would be approximately 'h mile in length. Existing old woods roads
would be used for the most part. A small section of trail (approximately 200 feet) would be
constructed down to the waters edge where a new boat dock is proposed.
o A boat dock would be constructed on a point of the peninsula due west of the new office to
serve visitors who wish to get out their boats and visit the office.
© The Massey Branch boat launch would be upgraded to improve parking at the facility.
Activities would include constructing a retaining wall near the waters edge, cutting into the
bank on the highway side of the lot for about four feet to increase the size and space
available for parking, and resurfacing the existing lot.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES C®NSE DER1E➢D BUT ELlllVHNATED FROM DETA1 LEBD STUDY
In addition to the preferred site location for the new office, six additional sites were considered
(refer to project map). This includes an alternative to lease or purchase space off -site. Each site was
eliminated from further detailed study.
Alternative Site No. 1 (Top of hill behind employees dwelling) currently has two
government dwellings used for housing district employees. Both structures were built in the
1950's and are in good condition. They would need to be demolished to make room for a
new office.
2. Alternative Site No. 2 (Adjacent to employee parking lot at the Work Center) would
eliminate space currently being used for employee parking. Parking space would need to be
established elsewhere.
3. Site No. 3 — Proposed Action.
4. Alternative Site No. 4 (Existing office location). Because the current office is located here,
rental trailers would be brought in to serve visitors and district employees while new
facilities are being built.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -6-

5. Alternative Site No. 5 (Behind the existing office) was eliminated from further detailed
study because of the presence of a stream and associated riparian area, and because of
possible impacts to Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) remnants.
6. Alternative Site No. 6 (District helipad) was eliminated from further detailed study because
it would be prohibitively expensive to provide access for RV's and buses.
7. Alternative Site No. 7 would be to lease or purchase property off -site. It has been
determined that there is no office or reception space available in the Robbinsville and
surrounding area.
2.4 MANAG1EMIENT R EOUEREMEE TTS AIiT1{D MITIGATION M[EASiJR ES
Lands affected by this proposal are in Management Area 16, those lands providing support facilities
for the Forest and the public. Management requirements and mitigation measures that apply to this
proposal are:
1. Provide trail opportunities as appropriate, and maintain trails to maintenance levels 3 -5
(Forest Plan p. 11[- 174))-
2. Design all roads for all- weather use and appropriate traffic volumes (Forest Plan p. III -175);
3. Complete heritage resource inventories prior to ground disturbing, implement necessary
mitigation (Forest Plan p. III -9);
4. Meet the Visual Quality Objectives for Management Area 16 (Forest Plan p. III -13);
5. Use Management Indicator Species (MIS) for project level analysis as necessary to respond
to specific issues and concerns (Forest Plan p. III -22);
6. Provide site specific analysis of occurrence and effects on proposed, endangered, threatened,
and sensitive (PETS) species and Forest listed species (Forest Plan p. III -23);
7. Provide aquatic, botanical, and wildlife analysis (Forest Plan p. III -23);
8. Protect water quality by applying mitigation measures wherever there is construction
requiring earth movement within 300 feet of perennial or intermittent streams or lakes
(Forest Plan p. 111-4 1).
9. To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to Indiana bats and indirect effects to Indiana bat
habitat, this project would comply with the Terms and Conditions in the Biological Opinion
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of the Indiana bat (reference
Opinion).
10. No standing snags would be removed between April 15 and October 15 (reference
Biological Evaluation).
11. Riparian areas would be seeded and mulched within 14 days of disturbance as a site
rehabilitation measure to improve water quality conditions for aquatic life. Riparian areas
are defined as the land that is 50 feet on both sides of the stream (reference Biological
Evaluation).
12. There should be no contact of wet cement with Santeetlah Reservoir. Wet cement is very
toxic to aquatic life and results in direct mortality (reference Biological Evaluation).
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger Distract
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -7-

2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The following table is a comparison of the issues and management concerns for each alternative.
Issues/ Mgt Concerns
Impacts to species of plants
and animals on the
Threatened, Endangered,
Sensitive and Forest Concern
lists (including Indiana Bat).
Impact on identified
archeological sites (including
CCC relics).
A safe facility (including
intersecting entrance with
State Highway 143).
Harmony with the
surrounding landscape and
terrain.
Legal compliance with the
ADA standards for federal
buildings.
Safety and environmental
concerns at Massey Branch
boat launch and parking lot
Impact on water quality in
Santeetlah Lake.
The ability to provide
continuing quality service to
the public.
Alternative 1
No effect on the Indiana bat,
or any other federally
proposed or listed species.
No impact to heritage
resource sites, listed in, or
eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic
Places.
No change from current
conditions.
No effect.
The current facilities do not
meet all ADA standards.
No change from current
conditions.
The preferred site for a new
office is currently used as a
storage area for miscellaneous
supplies. The current use
does not impact water quality
on Santeetlah Lake.
The current facilities provide
2,879 square feet of space to
accommodate the existing
organization and visiting
public. Space is less than
adequate, with no opportunity
for expansion.
Alternative 2
No effect on the Indiana bat,
or any other federally
proposed or listed species.
No impact to heritage
resource sites listed in, or
eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic
Places.
All new facilities would be
constructed with safety being
a primary consideration in the
design.
Harmony with the
surrounding area would be
considered in the project
design.
All new facilities would meet
ADA standards to the fullest
extent possible.
Safety and environmental
concerns would be addressed
in project design.
No effect when site specific
mitigation measures are put in
place to stop soils from
movement off site.
New facilities would provide
5,200 square feet of space for
25 employees, including 600
square feet as a welcome and
information area, meeting
GSA guidelines.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -8-

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
This chapter describes the environmental effects of each of the alternatives being considered in
detail. In this chapter the potential changes to the physical, biological, social and economic
environments of the affected project area are described. The direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental effects that could result in each alternative are considered. The focus of the effects
analysis centers upon the issues identified during scoping, as documented in Section 1.5 of this
document.
3.1 >PHYSIICAL FACTORS
3.1.1 Soil and Wager Resources
Current Situation — The project site is located immediately adjacent to Santeetlah Lake on slopes
ranging from 1% to 35 %. Soils in the project area are generally granular, with a layer (0 -5 inches)
of sandy loam topsoil. Drainage classes range from moderately well drained to well drained. Six
major soil series occur on and around the site: Thurmont - Dillard Complex, Udorthents -Urban Land
Complex, and Junaluska- Brasstown Complex. Depth to bedrock ranges from 30 to 60 inches.
Alternative I (No Action) - No new construction would occur. There would not be additional
impacts to soil or water. Conditions would generally remain the same. That is, the area would
continue to be used as a storage area for miscellaneous supplies, and the Forest Service would
continue to keep the existing service road open.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - Soil disturbance would occur on the site as excavation, road
work and other activities take place. There would be short term exposure of soil as vegetation is
removed. Soil compaction would be considerable as a result of heavy equipment operating in the
area. As a result of increased soil exposure and decreased water infiltration there is the potential for
increased runoff and soil movement. However, mitigation measures would be put in place to stop
movement of soil off site. Mitigation would include water diversion and soil catching devices such
as silt fence. Exposed soils would be promptly mulched and seeded with grass seed.
Indirect impacts to aquatic life may occur with the loss of aquatic habitat that would occur from
sediment loading. These impacts should diminish over time. An erosion control plan would be
developed by USFS engineering staff which would allow the project to comply with North Carolina
environmental regulations (Lynn Hicks, USFS Engineer). Off -site movement of soils would be
minimized with proper erosion control methods including silt fencing, and settling basins between
construction activities and the streams and Santeetlah Reservoir. These erosion control measures
would be maintained in working order throughout project activities and until plant growth is
established and stable enough to control runoff and erosion.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -9-

Road paving increases the amount of impervious surface draining to the watershed. Toxic materials
from motorized vehicles collect on paved roads and drain off the road surface with rain events.
Impacts to the aquatic system depend on the concentration of materials entering the stream.
Vegetated filter areas between the road and project area waters would reduce the amount of toxic
runoff into streams. A vegetated buffer strip would be located between the parking area and
Santeetlah Reservoir. This would reduce the toxic runoff from the parking lot to the lake.
3.1.2 Visual Resources
The visual objectives desired for the project area are a high- quality office building that is visible
from U.S. Highway 143, and that would enhance the character of the surrounding area. The
building should reinforce a pedestrian environment with well - defined building elements.
Alternative I (No Action) - Visual conditions would remain the same. The existing office meets
the visual objectives stated above.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - Construction of a new office would meet the visual objectives
stated above. A high- quality architectural design would be used to create a cohesive and attractive
environment for people who work and visit the facility. The building and landscape design would
reinforce each visual objective and be compatible with the environment in form, pattern, texture,
colors, and materials. The building and landscape would complement the site, blending rather than
contradicting, using natural forms and materials rather than artificial, to present a uniform design
statement of quality aesthetics.
3.1.3 Cultural/Heritage Resources
Alternative I (No Action) - No heritage resource sites listed in, or eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places would be impacted
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - In June, 2003, a heritage resource survey was conducted in the
proposed project area. Displaced concrete remains of the northern part of CCC Camp F -24 and one
small prehistoric lithic scatter were located. A site form was filed for this multi - component
historic /prehistoric site with the State Historic Preservation Office, by the Zone Archaeologist, as a
Class III site(not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places). State site
number 31 GH456 has been issued for the site. No heritage resource sites listed in, or eligible for
nomination to, the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted by the proposed project.
A copy of the Zone Archaeologist report is being forwarded to the State Historic Preservation
Officer for review and comment.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger Distrct
Constniction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -10-

3.2 BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
3.2.1 Vegetation
Current Situation - A query of the Biological Conservation Database (BCD) indicates the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program currently tracks 43 rare plant species occurring within Graham
County, North Carolina. The 43 species records include both recent and historical occurrences (>
50 years) on both public and private land. One species, the rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma
lineare), is listed as federally endangered. A second species, Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana),
is listed as federally threatened. Of the remaining species, 24 were regionally listed sensitive plant
species, and 17 were forest concern plant species. Sensitive species are designated by the Region 8
Office of the Forest Service, and exhibit region -wide viability concerns. Forest concern species are
designated by the National Forests of North Carolina, and lie at the periphery of their range or
disjunct from their main range.
Of the 43 tracked species occurring in Graham County, 39 occur in habitats not present in the
proposed construction site, such as bogs, spray cliffs, serpentine woodlands, high elevation forests,
and rocky summits. This includes Gymnoderma lineare, confined to wet outcrops at high elevation,
and Spiraea virginiana, confined to the scour zone of rivers.
Following the habitat analysis, the Biological Conservation Database was searched for records of
rare species located within one mile of the proposed construction site. A field survey for rare
species was conducted on April 10, 2003.
The survey location is highly disturbed, and often dominated by exotic species such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), hedge privet (Ligustrum chinese) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora). Large areas, such as the helipad, have been converted to lawns, and are dominated by
non - native grasses such as bluegrass (Poa pratense) and fescue (Festuca elatior), as well as weedy
forbs such as dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale) and lyre -leaf sage (Salvia lyrata). The slopes
surrounding the helipad support a yellow pine /oak- hickory forest, dominated by white oak (Quercus
alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), pitch pine (Pious rigida), short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata) and
red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory herbs are not common in the forest, and include common
woodland species such as wood -rush (Luzula bulbosa) and black -edged sedge ( Carex
nigromarginata). The western edge of the survey location contains a more mesic forest. This is
most evident in the shrub layer, which includes wetland species such as red osier (Corpus amomum)
and common alder (Alnus serrulata), primarily along a small stream course. The community also
contains some wetlands herbs, such as Carex intumescens and Carex debilis. Most of the area,
however, remains dominated by exotic species, especially privet (Ligustrum chinese).
The Biological Conservation Database contains no records for tracked species within one air mile of
the proposed construction site. No tracked species were located at the construction site during the
field survey. Due to the highly disturbed and weedy nature of the area, it is unlikely any tracked
species grow near the proposed construction site.
Alternative 1 (No Action) — No effects.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -11-

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - No federally proposed, threatened or endangered species were
found. The project would have no effect on any federally proposed or listed plant species. The
project would have no impact on any forest sensitive plant species, and would not result in any
cumulative effects on species viability across the national forest (see Botanical Analysis).
3.2.2 Wildlife
Current Situation - Proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species considered in
this analysis are those included on the Regional Forester's PETS species list (January, 2002). All
30 PETS terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were
considered (see attachment). Potentially affected species were identified from information on
habitat relationships, element occurrence records of PETS animals as maintained by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program and field data on the project area.
No PETS species are known to occur in the activity areas. Three sensitive species could possibly
occur. Recommendations are based on best available information and include direct effects and
indirect effects to PETS species off site or on private land.
Species - specific effects are described below by alternative. Recommendations are based on best
available information and include direct and indirect effects to PETS species off site or on private
land.
Alternative 1 (No Action) - No effect.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Endangered and Threatened species: To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to Indiana bats
and indirect effects to Indiana bat habitat, this project would comply with the Terms and Conditions
in the Biological Opinion of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of the Indiana
bat.
Since the sequence of events that would result in a tree being cut down in which a bat is roosting is
very unlikely, direct effects to Indiana bats should not occur. Because there is only a very minor
loss of potential Indiana bat habitat in the area impacted, this action would not affect the availability
of Indiana bat habitat in the project area. This project would have no effect on the Indiana bat.
Sensitive species: All but two of the 30 sensitive species considered in this analysis were dropped
from consideration due to lack of suitable habitat in the project area or being outside the known or
expected range of the species. The Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria dana), and the southern
Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee), may occur in the project area.
The Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria dana) was recorded from only three sites in western North
Carolina prior to 1994, according to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database. In the
last five years, this species has been found at more than 34 different locations in and near the
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. The records are widely distributed, with 22 sites on or near
the Nantahala National Forest. It is often found along roadsides through mature forest, particularly
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -12-

coves with rhododendron. Direct effects to this species are possible from any activity that uses
heavy equipment or disturbs the soil or vegetation. Small -scale disturbances are unlikely to affect
the availability of suitable habitat. The main threat to this species would be from the large -scale use
of insecticides.
The southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) is found in moist forests in the
southwestern mountains at all elevations. The Biological Conservation Database of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program has records from 12 locations in western North Carolina, eight
of which are on the Nantahala. It is thought to be fairly common across Graham, Swain, Cherokee,
Clay and Macon counties. Dr. Richard Highton's collection at the Smithsonian lists 1007 records
for this species from 10 counties at elevations from 1160 feet to 6000 feet. This includes 267
records on the National Forest, distributed across the same 10 counties and four ranger districts.
Direct effects to this species are possible from any activity that uses heavy equipment or disturbs
the soil. Since the species is widely distributed, potentially occupying nearly a half million acres of
National Forest land, current management is unlikely to affect the availability of suitable habitat.
Forest plan standards that limit the amount of regeneration allowed in any compartment,
management area and analysis area prevent any cumulative effects to this species.
The butterfly and salamander may occur in the project area. If they occur, there may be direct
mortality of these species. Habitat for the butterfly may be increased as ground disturbance leads to,
an increase in nectar plants seeding into openings. Habitat for the salamander may be temporarily
decreased where ground litter is disturbed and/or insolation increases from removal of canopy trees.
This may directly affect individuals of these species if they are present, but would not significantly
affect the availability of suitable habitat in the analysis area. These species have generalized habitat
requirements and may occupy much of the forested land across several counties in western North
Carolina. This project may directly affect individuals, but would not affect the viability of these
species across the Forest.
This project would have no effect on the Indiana bat. This project would have no effect on any
other federally proposed or listed terrestrial animal species. The project may impact individuals of
the Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria dana), and the southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon
teyahalee. The project would have no impact on any other sensitive species. No cumulative effects
on species viability across the Forest would result. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is not required.
3.2.3 ]Fish
Current Situation - The proposed project is within the Little Tennessee River watershed. Project
area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site - specific impacts on aquatic habitat and
populations. The analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted
by project activities, in addition to project area waters. Analysis area waters include the above
project area waters and downstream into the main channel of Santeetlah Reservoir.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has classified waters within the
analysis area as follows. Santeetlah Reservoir is classified as Class C (primarily recreation waters
and any other usage specified by the "C" Classification including aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture).
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -13-

Aquatic habitat surveys were conducted in an unnamed tributary to Santeetlah Lake. These surveys
consisted of walking stream reaches and noting habitat quality and quantity and suitability for rare
aquatic species and management indicator species. Qualitative macroinvertebrate surveys were also
conducted.
Additional information specifically addressing aquatic PETS species, forest concern species, and
MIS was obtained from NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists and North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records.
Aquatic Habitat and Populations: Aquatic habitat and macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted
in an unnamed tributary to Santeetlah Reservoir between the reservoir and Massey Branch Road.
The stream channel is two to three feet wide. Substrate within this stream is characterized primarily
by sand and large gravel. The stream riparian area consists of privet and some mixed hardwoods.
One caddisfly larvae and a beetle were found in the stream. There were also crayfish burrows in the
stream banks. Terrestrial vegetation flooded along the edge of Santeetlah Reservoir does provide
some nursery habitat for juvenile fish. Juvenile sunfish and largemouth bass were seen in the
vegetation and in the lower 50 feet of the small stream.
Rare Species: Thirty -five rare aquatic species have been listed by the NCWRC, USFWS, or
NCNHP as occurring or potentially occurring in Graham County. Of the 3 5 aquatic species
included on the list for analysis, 18 were dropped as a likelihood of occurrence based on preferred
habitat elements. Table 1 summarizes this process.
A proposed, endangered, or threatened species (P, E, T) is a species that has been Federally listed or
is proposed for listing by the USFWS. These species are included in every AQUA written for
projects within a watershed where the species is known to occur, likely to occur, or may occur.
These species are also included in AQUAs for watersheds where the species occurred historically,
but hasn't been found during recent surveys.
A sensitive species (S) is a species included on the USFS Southern Region Sensitive Species List
(7/96). These species may or may not have a Federal or State status, but generally have a global
rank of GI, G2, or G3 and a State rank of S 1 or S2. These species are included in every AQUA
written for projects within a watershed where the species is known to occur, likely to occur, or may
occur.
A forest concern species (FC) is a species that National Forests in North Carolina considers to be
generally rare and an important part of the biodiversity across the Forests and does not fall into one
of the above categories. Many of these species are peripheral in North Carolina to their overall
range. These species may or may not have a Federal or State status, but generally have a global
rank of G3 or lower and a State rank of S 1 or S2. These species are included in every AQUA
written for projects within a watershed where the species is known to occur, likely to occur, or may
occur. The large aquatic insect group of Forest Concern Species is addressed collectively as the
aquatic insect community.
Narrtahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -14-

Table 1: Rare Aquatic Species Likelihood of Occurrence for Cheoah Office Construction Project.
Known and Potentially Occurring" Rare Aquatic Species in Graham County, North Carolina
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
TYPE
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
WITHIN AQUATIC ANALYSIS
AREA
AMPHIBIAN
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
BIVALVE
Alasmidonta raveneliana
E
Not likely to occur (5)
CADDISFLY
Ceraclea sp. 9
FC
May occur (4)
CADDISFLY
Helicopsyche paralimnella
FC
May occur (4)
CADDISFLY
Wonnaldia thyria
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Aeshna tuberculifera
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
DRAGONFLY
Cordulegaster erronea
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus abbreviatus
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus consanguis
S
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus descriptus
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus lineatifrons
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus parvidens parvidens
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus ventricosus
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Gomphus viridifrons
S
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Lanthus parvulus
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Macromia margarita
S
Not likely to occur (5)
DRAGONFLY
Ophiogomphus aspersus
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
DRAGONFLY
Ophiogomphus edmundo
S
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Ophiogomphus howei ,
S
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Ophiogomphus mainensis
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
DRAGONFLY
Stylurus amnicola
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Stylurus scudded
FC
May occur (4)
DRAGONFLY
Sympetrum obtrusum
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Clinostomus sp. 1
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Etheostoma vulneratum
S
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Luxilis chrysocephalus
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Moxostoma sp. 1
FC
May occur (3)
FISH
Notropis futipinnis
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Noturus flavus
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Percina aurantica
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
FISH
Percina caprodes
FC
May occur (3)
FISH
Percina squamata
S
Not likely to occur (5)
MAYFLY
Seratella spiculosa
S
Not likely to occur (5)
STONEFLY
Shipsa rotunda
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
STONEFLY
Zapada chila
FC
Not likely to occur (5)
Evaluation Criteria: 5
= No suitable habitat present or vicinity records within analysis area, but species may be
present in County, 6 = Extirpated species listed for river system.
Management Indicator Species: Bluegill and Largemouth bass are both present in Santeetlah
Reservoir. These species were chosen as project -level aquatic management indicator species.
A management indicator species (MIS) is a species identified in the Forest Plan that represents a
community, assemblage, or special habitat on the Forests. MIS are intended to aid in description
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -15-

of biodiversity and to serve as a mechanism for monitoring population viability across the
Forests.
Species Analyzed for this Project: Potential effects of the proposed project on two aquatic
MIS, three sensitive aquatic species, and fourteen forest concern aquatic species would be
analyzed in this report. These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Aquatic species included in the AQUA for the Cheoah Office Construction Project
Species
Scientific Name
Status
Lenat's Caddisfly
Ceraclea sp. I
FC
A Caddisfly
Helicopsyche paralimnella
FC
A Caddisfly
Wormaldia thyria
FC
Tiger spiketail
Codulegaster erronea
FC
Spine - crowned clubtail
Gomphus abbreviatus
FC
Cherokee clubtail
Gomphus consanguis
S
Splendid clubtail
Gomphus lineatifrons
FC
Piedmont clubtail
Gomphus parvidens parvidens
FC
Skillet clubtail
Gomphus ventricosus
FC
Green-faced clubtail
Northern pygmy clubtail
Edmunds spaketail
Pygmy spaketail
Riverine clubtail
Zebra clubtail
Sicklefin redhorse
Logperch
Gomphus viridifrons
FC
Lanthus parvulus
FC
Ophiogomphus edmundo
S
Ophiogomphus howei
S
Stylurus amnicola
FC
Stylurus scudderi
FC
Moxostoma sp. I
FC
Percina caprodes
FC
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus MIS
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides MIS
Alternative 1 (No Action) - No effect.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - There are no federally listed or proposed aquatic species
within the analysis area. Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
This project may impact individuals of the species listed in Table 2 of this analysis if they are
present. No risk to aquatic population viability across the Forest would occur as a result of this
project. There should be no adverse cumulative effects with the implementation of mitigation
measures.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -16-

3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Current Situation - Funds for the construction of a new Cheoah District Office were made
available in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Omnibus Bill signed by President Bush. The $397 billion
spending bill included $1.25 million for the construction of a new District Office in Robbinsville.
3.3.1 Economic Considerations
Alternative I (No Action) — There would be an increase in maintenance costs at the current
office over time as the building continues to age and deteriorate.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - Projected costs for construction a new office, including all
associated moving expenses; all amenities; parking; landscaping; demolition and removal of the
existing office; and all other associated activities is $1,506,772.
3.3.2 Social Considerations
A Civil'Rights Impact Analysis was conducted to determine how the proposed action would
effect the rights of employees and the public.
Alternative 1 (No Action) - The current office would continue to be inadequate in terms of
space for employees, accommodating the public, and adequate parking space. The facilities at
Massey Branch would remain difficult to maneuver with a boat trailer and parking would
continue to be inadequate.
Alternative 2 (]Proposed Action)
Impacts on Employees: There would be no adverse impacts to employees as determined by
employee discussions concerning the proposed action in Alternative 2. Office space would
increase significantly as well as the reception area for the public. One employee is physically
challenged and is confined to a wheelchair. Current renovations to the existing office have made
it accessible to the minimum standards. The proposed new facility would be fully accessible to
employees and the public. There would be no transportation or office assignment issues with the
new facility.
Impacts on Delivery of Services: The new office is needed to provide forest visitors and the
Cheoah District employees with a safe and healthy facility that meets the American with
Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The existing Cheoah District Office is too small to
accommodate the existing organization and visiting public and does not fully meet the
requirements of the ADA. The general public would have greater access to resources in the
reception area and lobby with the increase in size of the new building. The current office is a
total of 2876 square feet, with the reception area occupying roughly 85 square feet. The
proposed facility would probably exceed 5200 square feet and the reception area would be
recommended at 200 square feet. Working efficiency of the office in general would increase as
well as employee productivity based on the increased space. A more efficient, more productive
work space leads directly to an increase in services and product to the public.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -17-

LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
John Alger
David Allen - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Almond Boat & RV Park
Ed Andrews - Wild Turkey Federation
Nathaniel Axtell - Appalachian Voice
Chrys Baggett - North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Roy Bailey - Smoky Mountain Lakes Marine
Taylor Barnhill - Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition
Marry Bergoffen - Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Conference
Alex Berman
Bryan Bird
David Blanchard- Reid - N.C. Sierra Club
Carla Boucher
Kelly Brady
Joffrey Brooks
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Eastern Band of Cherokee
Mickey Clemmons
Shirley Crisp
Mark Davis
Kit DeHart
Bob Dellinger
Randy Denman
Leslie Dibbens
Harold Draper
Shane Dugin
Steve Evans
Fontana Lakes Estates
Tom Strode - Forest Watch
Brownie Newman - Foundations for Global Sustainability
Sue Fugate - Tapoco, Inc
Bob Gale - WNC Alliance
Graham County Commissioners
Karen Wade - Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Floyd Griffin
Nan Guthrie - EHNR Regional Office
Leonard Harwood - Fish & Wildlife Conservation Council
Hedrick and Roberts
Steve Henson - Multiple Use Council
Walter Hooper
Norma Ivey - WNC Alliance
Payson Kennedy - Nanatahala Outdoor Center
Burt Kornegay
Frank McBride - WILDLIFE
Teresa Lewis
Glenn McConnell
Melba McGee
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -18-

Bob Miller
Kirk Otey — Trout Unlimited
Doug Paprocki
Jim Parham
Ray Payne — Smoky Mountains Hiking Club
Bill Pickens — Griffiths Forestry Center
Pigeon Valley Bassmasters
Dan Pittillo — Bartram Trail Society
Earl Robinson
David Rozendale
Randy Shook
Byron Smith
Larry & Ann Smith
Southern Environmental Law Center
Swain County Commissioners
Bill Thomas — NC Sierra Club
Carroll Turner
Robert Farrell — Tennessee Valley Authority
Craven Crowell — Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service — Tellico Ranger District
Earl Vaught — Trout Unlimited
Walter Andres
Henry Welch
Julie White
Peter Kirby — Wilderness Society
Chandler Willis, Jr.
John Wilson
Heartwood
LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS
Jason Farmer - Fisheries Biologist (AQUA)
Frank Findley - Cheoah District Resource Assistant
Larry Hayden - National Forest in North Carolina Ecosystems and Planning Staff Officer
Lynn Hicks - Forest Engineer
James Barry Jones - Civil Engineer Trainee
Carol Milholen - National Forests in North Carolina Planning Assistant
Doreen Miller - Wildlife Biologist (WILDA)
Horace Mitchell - Archeologist
Duke Rankin - Botonist (BOTA)
Rick Semingson - Resource Planner (EA Writer)
Robin Taylor - Civil Rights
R.E. Vann- Cheoah District Ranger
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -19-

REFERENCES
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Amendment 5, Nanathala and Pisgah National
Forest, USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC., March 1994.
Aquatic Resource Ana9vsis (AQUA);
Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Serratella
(Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149 -158.
Bonner, W.R. 1983a. Survey and classification of state - managed trout streams: district 9.
Mountain Fisheries Investigations Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F24 -S. 313pages.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Cmilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and olioghaetes
of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pages.
Bryan, S.A., J.D. Riley, and D.M Hill. 1999. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic Resources
of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, FY98 (unpublished).
Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interupta (Hald.) North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92- Snai -01. 20 pages.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pages.
Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild or periphyton-
grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236 -1248.
Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of
forest practices on riparian zones. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW -GTR -220. Portland, OR: US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 pages.
Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender,
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of Herpetology
5(3- 4):121 -126.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Number 480.
236 pp.
Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream
in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects
9 :229 -251
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -20-

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pages.
Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 594 pages.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.
Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey, Publication
#1980 -12. 867 pages.
McAfee, W.R. 1966. Eastern brook trout. Pages 242 -260 in Calhoun, A. (editor), Inland
fisheries management. California Fish and Game Publication. 546 pages.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate
effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910 /9 -91 -001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages.
Meehan, W.R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid
fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Special Publication #19, Bethesda, Maryland. 751
pages.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. Freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission Publication, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pages.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized
database.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh -water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. USFWS Biological Services
Program Publication FWS /OBS- 82/10.24. 42 pages.
Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Soloman, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability
information: rainbow trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS /OBS-
82/10.60. 53 pages.
Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Zuckerman, and P.C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and
instream flow suitability curves: brown trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication
FWS /OBS- 82/10.124. 42 pages.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -2 1 -

Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of
North Carolina's freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices.
Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the
conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual
report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North
Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.
Terwouldiger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium.
McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages.
Botanical Resource Analysis (ROTA):
Crum, H. A., and L. E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. Columbia
University Press, NY, NY.
Massey, J R., D. K. S. Otte, T. A. Atkinson, and R. D. Whetstone. 1983. An atlas and
illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North
Carolina and Virginia. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report SE -20,
Asheville, NC.
NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2002. Version 1.0. Arlington
(VA): Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http: / /www.natureserve org/.
Radford, Albert E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Wildlife Resource Analysis (Wl<L)<DA):
Braswell, Alvin L. 1989. Conservation status of North Carolina amphibians and reptiles.
Scientific council report to the Nongame Advisory Committee.
Beringer Jeffrey James. 1986. Habitat use and response to roads by black bears in Harmon Den,
Pisgah National Forest, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. U. of Tennessee, Knoxville, T.N. 103 pp.
Clark, Mary Kay, ed. 1987. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part 1. A
reevaluation of the mammals. Occ. Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987 -3. 50
PP.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -22-

Davis, James R. 1982. Nesting and brood ecology of the wild turkey in the mountains of western
North Carolina. M.S. Thesis Clemson U., S.C. 173 pp.
Gatrelle, Ronald R. 1998. Two new Nymphalidae from western North Carolina: New
subspecies of Speyeria aphrodite and Phyciodes batesh. The,taxonomic report of the
international lepidoptera survey. Volume 1. Number 3.
Hunter, Malcolm L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Principles of managing forests for
biological diversity. Prentice Hall, N.J. 370 pp.
Lee, David S. and James F. Parnell. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina.
Part 111. A re- evaluation of the birds. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey
1990 -1.
Martof, Bernard S., Wouldiam M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, and Julian R. Harrison 111. 1980.
Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, U.N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 264 pp.
Reed, Derik J. 1988. Movements of wild turkey hens in the southern Appalachians. M.S.
Thesis. Clemson University, S.C. 77 pp.
Robbins, Chandler S., D.K. Dawson and B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of
breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildi. Monogr. 103:1 -34.
Robinson, Wouldiam L. ed. 1984. Ruffed grouse management: State of the art in the early
1980's. Proc. 45th Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conf. St. Louis, M.O. 181 pp.
Sever, David M., H.A. Dundee, and C.D. Sullivan. 1976. A new Eurycea (Amphibia:
Plethodontidae) from southwestern North Carolina. Herpetologica 32: 26 -29.
Vanderah, Glenda C. and Scott K. Robinson. 1992. Distribution and habitat selection of the
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in s. Illinois. Report submitted to the Audubon Council of
Ill. 10 pp.
Webster, Wm. David, James F. Parnell, and Walter C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. U. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London. 255 pp.
Wentworth, James M., A. Sydney Johnson, and Philip E. Hale. 1990. Influence of acorn use on
nutritional status and reproduction of deer in the southern Appalachians. Proc. Annu. Conf.
Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wild. Agencies 44:142 -154. 13 pp.
Nantahala National Forest — Cheoah Ranger District
Construction of a New District Office and Other Associated Activities
Environmental Assessment Page -23-