North Shore Road (18)

Meeting Summary Report
North Shore Road Environmental Impact Statement
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Subject
Interagency Meeting
Summary by
Knstma Miller, PE
Place/Date of Meeting
ARCADIS, Raleigh, NC
March 24, 2004
Participants
Jack Van Dop, FHWA - EFLHD
Imelda Wegwerth, NPS, GSMNP
Anita Jackson, NPS, SERO
Erik Kreusch, NPS, GSMNP
Keith Langdon, NPS, GSMNP
Larry Hartmann, NPS, GSMNP
Paul Webb, TRC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Chris Milrtscher, USEPA
Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse
Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO
Eric Howard, TVA
Bill Pickens, NCDFR
Rob Hanson, NCDOT
Barney O'Qumn, ARCADIS
Knshna Miller, ARCADIS
Steve Thomas, ARCADIS
Paige Cureton, ARCADIS
Martha Register, ARCADIS
Bryon Palmer, ARCADIS
Janice Campbell, ARCADIS
Melissa DuMond, ARCADIS
Hal Bain, ARCADIS
Participants via Teleconference
Don Owen, NPS, AT
Becky Fox, USEPA
Michelle Hamilton, THPO
Russell Townsend, THPO
Linda Hall, NCSHPO
David Baker, USACE
David McHenry, NCWRC
Scott McLendon, USACE
Allen Ratzlaff, USFWS
Ray Johns, USFS
Rodney Snedeker, USFS
ARCADIS G&M of North
Carolina, Inc
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607-5073
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www arcades-us com
ARCADIS Project No
NC603001 0000
Summary Issue Date
June 18, 2004
Initials Referenced Below Copies
JVD Participants
IW Harold Draper, TVA
AJ John Hendrix, USACE
EK Dan Brown, NPS, Blue Ridge Pkwy
KL Ed Clark, NPS, Blue Ridge Pkwy
LH David Cox, NCWRC
PW Scott Loftis, NCWRC
JH Joel Setzer, NCDOT
CM Ron Watson, NCDOT
CB Mark Davis, NCDOT
RG Lisbeth Evans, NCDCR
EH Jeffrey Crow, SHPO
BP Ken Jolly, USACE
RH Brian Cole, USFWS
BOQ Jon M Loney, TVA
KM Lynn Hicks, US Forest Service
ST R E Vann, Cheoah District, NNF
PC Mike Wilkins, District Ranger
MR Michell Hicks, Chief EBCI
BRP
JC
MD
HB
DO
BF
MH WETLANDS

RT / 401 GROUF
LH
DB
JUN 2 Y 2004
DM WATER QUALITY SE
CTION
AR
RJ
RS
ARCADIS
The purpose of the meeting was to review information on the alternatives development phase of the North
Shore Road Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and to mrtiate discussions and solicit input from the
resource agencies The meeting began with study team and agency introductions (led by Imelda
Wegwerth), followed by a presentation Presenters included Imelda Wegwerth, Jack Van Dop, Barney
O'Qumn, Knstma Miller, and Bryon Palmer
Discussion
initiated b Comments
Imelda Wegwerth explained that the National Park Service (NPS) is the lead National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) agency for the North Shore Road EIS with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) serving as the contract agency
Ms Wegwerth provided a summary of the project's history Brief recap The 1943 Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) was between the U S Department of the Interior (DOI), Swain County, the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the state of North Carolina After the construction of
Fontana Dam, over 217 families were without access to their land The TVA purchased this land
IW (approximately 44,000 acres, some through condemnation) and transferred it to the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (GSMNP) The 1943 MOA specified that as funds were available, the
Park Service would construct a new road to replace the one that was flooded The new road, to be
built along the northern shore of Fontana Lake, was to extend from Bryson City to Fontana Dam
Construction of the road began in the 1950's and 7 2 miles were completed (1 mile tying to the road
over Fontana Dam and 6 2 miles on the Bryson City end) The project ended with the completion of
the tunnel in 1972 due to construction problems and environmental concerns The National Park
Service (NPS) began the EIS process for the General Management Plan (GMP), and in 1982 decided
not to finish the road In 2000, Congress allocated funding, $16 million, to continue construction on
the road
Jack Van Dop continued with the presentation and reviewed the project's study area (120,000
JVD acres), public involvement efforts to date (outreach and participation), and the NEPA planning
process Mr Van Dop explained that the project is currently in Phase 3 of the process, Alternatives
Development
Barney O'Qutnn initiated discussion on the methodology for developing the 100 initial concepts,
review of the 9 preliminary alternatives, and explanation of recommendations for the detailed study
BOQ alternatives Mr O'Qumn explained that the project team is requesting suggestions improvements,
combinations, additions, or eliminations to/of the study alternatives He noted that concurrence on
the alternatives to be studied in the EIS is requested
Are the corridors or an alignment within the corridor going to move forward for detailed study in the
SM EIS9
JVD The detailed analyzes will be on alignments (20 to 25 percent design plans) within the 2,000-foot
wide corridors The preferred alternative will be based on review of the corridor with some level of
design for cost estimates
LH Would it be possible to modify the Flint Gap alternative so that it is adjacent to Fontana Lake
between Eagle and Hazel creeks, instead of going further north as currently planned?
CIS
Discussion Comments
initiated b
DO Is the Flint Gap Corridor, as shown, the most current corridor location or will it be changed?
BO The Flint Gap Corridor is in the general location but slight modifications may occur
Where are the cemeteries located in the study area? It would be helpful to get the locations of the
cemeteries to the agencies We need to know where they are located since it is such an important
issue with the public
BF The cemeteries (22) are included in the Existing Conditions Report Currently, access is being
BOQ provided by NPS The public doesn't understand that all the corridors will not reach the cemeteries
Even the Northern Shore Corridor will not grant easy access to those cemeteries located on the
KM northern shore of Fontana Lake
The cemeteries were grouped with other cultural resources on a map that was omitted from public
materials to protect the location of the other cultural resources A map with the locations of the
cemeteries will be provided to you with the meeting summa
Does Swain County know what they want at this time?
BF The Swain County Board of Commissioners has agreed to accept $52 million in lieu of the road, but
BOQ that is all we know so far Ultimately, after the EIS, the decision is with the NPS to make the final
recommendation
Are you eventually going to choose a typical section?
SM We are going to look at two road types, the Principal Park Road, two 10-foot lanes, asphalt surface
BOQ road with a 30 mph design speed, and the Primitive Park Road, two-way gravel road with a 15 mph
design seed
SM Will there be preliminary cost estimates?
BO The costs and impacts will be determined in the design stage
KM Knstma Miller summarized information about the public workshops This included reviewing the
displays, opportunities to provide comments, and the open house format
KL Is there a 1 1 ratio of the road to the topography? What would the road ratio be?
BOQ We are not sure yet There will be some switchbacks, but that will be determined during the next
phase
ALL The group took a break from discussions to view the project display boards
JH The alternatives look disparate What is the fundamental purpose of this project?
IW To look at a wide array of alternatives and consider all options that could potentially settle the 1943
Agreement
How does each alternative settle the Agreement?
JH The Agreement stated that a 20-foot dustless surface road connecting Bryson City to Deal's Gap
IW would be constructed We have incorporated other options that include partial-build and cash
settlement alternatives The options that differ from the 20-foot road would require a new
ACA S
Discussion Comments
initiated b
agreement to be signed, the old one made null and void, and all parties to agree in order to settle the
1943 Agreement without the road
Does the cash settlement alternative include funding or increased service to get people across
Fontana Lake for access to the northern shore and cemetenes9
DO No, not at this time We have discussed this and it could be added into the monetary settlement
IW NPS would continue the existing ferry service to the cemeteries (13 times a year, once per
BOQ cemetery)
Also, if the community wanted to utilize part of the $52 million settlement for improved boat access,
the could do that
Why not consider providing access as a separate alternative or in conjunction with other
DO alternatives, maybe use as a mitigation measure9
IW It could be included as a mitigation measure if a road is not built People want independence and
access without the ferries Some people need better accessibility
JVD It is not a separate alternative because that alone would not fulfill the agreement This could be an
add-onoption
LH People just want the road because it was a promise The want to have the promise fulfilled
JH Where can I get a copy of the 1943 Agreement9
IW There is a copy of it on the project website (www northshoreroad info)
KM If you go to the first page on the webstte, there is a link to the 1943 Agreement along the left
column
If cemetery access was never part of the Agreement, then why is it being addressed?
MH The scopmg process identified people's concerns It was not part of the Agreement, but it is a big
issue in the community They have shown us letters that TVA wrote to them encouraging them to
IW leave the cemeteries intact because a new road would be built in the future
JVD It is not part of the Agreement, but it may be part of a settlement
KM The 1943 Agreement does not state the intended purpose of the road Public comments have dealt
with three main reasons for the road access to cemeteries and prior home sites, economic
development issues, and fulfilling the promise made in the Agreement
Did the Agreement state the length of the replacement road9 If you don't go with a full build does
that mean you are not meeting the obligation?
CM
We are discussing alternatives that do not meet the original Agreement
BP
There is nothing specifically mentioned about the length of the road but it does provide a general
JVD area along the northern shore from to Deals Gap to Bryson City
If the parties agree on a resolution, the purpose and need of the project has been met
BP We are talking about a settlement and alternatives that do not meet the original Agreement, at some
ARCADIS
Discussion Comments
initiated b
point does a settlement get offered and we would stop the EIS9
The intent is to come up with a compromise and if any portion of the settlement affects the
JVD environment, an environmental document needs to be developed because federal funding is being
used If it is a piece of something that has already been shown, we will need to get it approved as an
action A settlement, or portion thereof, does not necessarily require a NEPA document Only if it
involves construction from federal funds/federal property This needs to be an efficient process to
cover an alternatives
JH If NC 28 fulfilled the 1943 Agreement, would there be a need for the project to exist9
JVD NC 28 does not fulfill the Agreement because it is not inside the park on the northern shore, but
could fulfill a transportation need
CB Clarification was made that the road stated in the Agreement was north of Fontana Lake
If a road is built, would a second EIS be needed? Will this EIS go into enough detail to provide the
BP agencies with enough information to evaluate the impacts9 The resource agencies will need more
JVD detail to make a decision
The intention is to capture the details within this EIS All of the detail will be art of the EIS
We will be doing design concurrently to get detailed impact information into this EIS We will be
BOQ collecting data on 2,000-foot-wide study corridors and will apply context sensitive solutions based
on impact information collected to the design
NEPA requires a range of alternatives We have narrowed down to a reasonable amount of
JVD alternatives to study in detail that can be defended in the NEPA process We will spend a lot of time
looking at these alternatives in more detail
The use of "alternative" versus "corridor" is somewhat confusing Are there other alternatives
CB within a comdor?
BOQ Depending on the typical section (15 mph or 30 mph), there may be two alternatives within a
corridor
We are having a hard time comparing a settlement to various road alternatives We need to make a
decision of whether a road should be built at all
I agree It seems that the settlement issue exists outside the EIS The settlement is a financial
SM restitution for an agreement If it is determined that no road is needed, we will be focusing on the
JH settlement option
BOQ This will be part of the economic analysis In addition to the cemetery access, there are many
people who feel that the road would be a boost to their economy compared to a lump sum of money
given to the county This is going to be difficult to compare What does the road mean for the
economy of Swain County versus the settlement9 What is the value of the road in comparison with
the cash settlement9
We are providing all the impact evaluations (cultural, econonuc, and environmental) to the decision-
1W makers The cash settlement means no environmental impacts However, the decision-makers will
need to weigh the socioeconomic impacts as well as the natural and cultural resource impacts
ARCADIS
Discuss= Comments
initiated b
Keeping the monetary settlement alternative is fine with the EPA If they take the settlement and
CM apply it to other build projects, I see it as part of the process that evaluates indirect environmental
impacts If you give a community $50 million, with no say on the environmental impacts, the
affects could be worse
The county (Swain County) is not letting us know what they might use the money for Currently,
1W some commissioners are saying they would invest a base amount to earn interest We can make
some assumptions on the indirect impacts
How far legally do you trace the money9 If it is a direct transfer of money to Swain County without
going through a federal agency, there is no NEPA requirement If there is interest on that, it
becomes further removed from a direct federal grant In this process, we will develop a matrix of
JVD the impacts For monetary settlement, it may be zero for all impacts We are not meeting a
transportation need but are looking at settling an agreement There is a disconnect between the
alternatives, but from the environmental standpoint, it may be easy to denote it being a no-build
alternative You can compare one to the other in a reasonable standpoint, such as a matrix
Can you explain your understanding of what the locals' expectations are that there will be a road9 Is
it passed on from generation to generathon9
CM It has been passed on through generations for building the road I have not been to all of the public
LH meetings, but at one, someone told me a story of a family that has been forcibly moved three
different times by the government A road is what they were promised, and a road is what they
want
What type of road do they want9
CM What it says in the Agreement, a dustless surface road to get back to their heritage on the northern
LH shore There is not a homogenous opinion, some want the settlement, others want the road You get
a variety of opinions
They want the road to get back to their heritage and the northern shore area Also it would bring an
economic stimulus to Bryson City They feel a new road would make it easier to visit their
IW cemeteries and home sites People have letters from TVA encouraging them to leave their family
cemeteries intact because a road would be built to replace NC 288 This is why some people chose
not to relocate their cemeteries
LH There are a variety of opinions Four out of five Swam County commissioners are for the monetary
settlement
What is the percentage of people for and against the road9 What is Graham County's position?
CM The road could possibly end in Graham County, which is why Graham County is interested It
IW could also increase tourism in the area The whole nation is interested since it is a national park
KM Graham County has asked that the road be constructed They also asked that if the EIS reveals that
environmental issues are too great that Graham County receive a settlement in addition to that
received by Swain County
ARCADIS
Discussion
initiated b Comments
Not listed They make their money off of tourist dollars If you don't control growth, the county's tourist
economy dies because there are no trout waters, no green visitation areas
Swain County is 85 percent federally owned Some of these people have been relocated two to three
BOQ times due to federal projects But there is also a sense of place with these folks You would think
that it happened 6 years ago instead of 60 years ago There are deep emotions tied up with their
national ride and the promise that was not kept
The people explain that they gave their land away because of the war, to assist in war efforts There
are also people in Graham County that were originally from Swain County These people say that
KM they could not find land in which to relocate within Swain County We have also been told that men
who came back from the war could not find where their families relocated, and there are a lot of
very strong emotions involved
LM Earthfirst and Sierra Club organizations are also very interested in this They have sent in letters
saying what they will do if a build alternative is reached
I appreciate the local sentiment What isn't clear is how they envision the road as an economic
stimulus?
JH It depends on the individuals Some people think other development will occur once a road is built,
LH such as campgrounds Others feel like Tennessee has more economic opportunities in tourist
communities, such as Gatlmburg
IW Some feel that the road would be a destination and that interpretation of heritage would attract more
people to the area People come to drive the GSMNP roads They typically visit the park through
their windshields
The opinion is vaned Right now, there is a PhD student from Yale, Mark Stern, who is studying
the relationships between the NPS and gateway communities He found that the further you get
LH from Gatlinburg, the more negative opinion there is about the government The southern side wants
to tell the world what they have gone through, like the Trail of Tears No one really knows their
story and the want their story to be told
BOQ In 1996, the park put out a visitor survey The highest recorded responses were from people that
wanted additional heritage opportunities
If a road alternative is selected, who would fund the road9 Would it come out of the NCDOT
budget for the state9
RH We have no idea how the money would be appropriated It could be congressional funding,
IW highway transportation bills, we do not know
RH That makes the decision more difficult if you do not know where the money will be coming from
JVD They are not going to fund it until it is a viable project The seven miles of the North Shore Road
that was completed was funded by 100 percent federal funds, but that does not guarantee that it is
going to stay there
ARCADIS
Discussion Comments
initiated b
I understand that the NPS work within GSMNP is not considered a 4(f) project What about
RG recreational areas and the USFS9 Also, Fontana Dam is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) as a National Historic landmark What is the schedule because there is an
election coming up9
The schedule was initially a 2-year process to complete the EIS Public Involvement has been much
JVD more aggressive and we are currently adding things, so the process will be extended
In 4(f) there is a provision that park roads within NPS lands are not subject to 4(f)
RJ Cable Cove is a public recreational area That area would be subject to 4(f) A 4(f) Evaluation
would need to be conducted on those alternatives, if pursued Also, Fontana Dam would trigger a
4 Evaluation
BOQ Some alternatives tie to an existing road that crosses the dam
CM There would be an increase in traffic, which could impact Fontana Dam
JVD 4(f) only applies if you actually take the land
RG 4 applies if you use the land
RJ You would need avoidance and minimization in the EIS for Cable Cove
KM Ray, do you have boundaries for the Cable Cove recreational area?
RJ Yes, we can provide that for you
AR Also, the Appalachian Trail is considered 4(f) outside the park
JVD 4(f) is not a fatal flaw
BOQ The AT is a 4(f) resource outside of GSMNP The Cable Cove alternative will be on USFS lands
and not within the recreational area
RJ Who are the decision-makers on the EIS?
IW The Department of Interior Secrets of the Interior), we are the signatory of 1943 Agreement
The Secretary of Interior does not have the authority to appropriate lands under the Department of
Agriculture - USFS Maybe the USDA needs to be a decision-maker or at least a cooperating
RJ agency? We encourage people to not include USFS lands in the alternatives Our biggest concern is
whether it complies with our USFS standards Any type of linear road in the area, or adjacent, is a
violation of our visual standards It takes extensive modification to the management plan to amend
the forest plan for a minor component This could take several years
ARCADIS
Discussion Comments
initiated b
CM Is their private property access on the south shore?
RJ According to the map, there isn't There may be a few private mholdmgs
NPS would have to modify their General Management Plan as well This is part of the coordination
JVD that needs to happen The purpose of this meeting is to raise concerns and address coordination
needs
RJ Mr Ray Johns noted that participation in this project was not encouraged by USFS back in June
2003 He also referred to the Memorandum of Understanding between the FHWA and USFS
RJ I would suggest a meeting with the USDA to get to the finer points of this process before we get too
far into the EIS GSMNP/USFS/FHWA and the state, we need a smaller meeting to review the legal
obligations and actions The Forest Service does not have the resources or the money to devote to
IW this project We may not be able to make an amendment since our plan is ready to go into revisions
We will try to meet with you soon
RJ I would like to be included in all future meetings and correspondence on this project Hal Bain with
ARCADIS has m contact information
There also needs to be additional coordination with the park superintendent and the AT It would be
DO appropriate for some coordination to make sure that we have appropriately and legally addressed
things such as 4
Are you going to seek agency concurrence before proceeding with an alternative?
SM We would like to have a modified merger process (404/401) for this EIS We will need to follow up
JVD so that everyone is satisfied with the documentation and how to proceed We will call you to set up
a meeting at the USACE office in Asheville
SM I am still uncomfortable with the partial-build concepts Until we get this resolved, I am
uncomfortable with making a decision on which alternatives to go forward with
FHWA's guidance on environmental documentation requires alternative analysis of the proposed
BOQ project compared to a no-build alternative (lesser impact), but also requires a partial-build, step-
down, traffic-engineering component You have some non-transportation components in this You
can compare a high level facile with a marginally improved facile
SM We are planning to send you a letter with our concerns There will have to be a very good
discussion on what the need would be for all alternatives
JVD If we can provide you with more information, please let us know
JH I agree with Scott Only one alternative fulfills the purpose and need
ARCADIS
Discussion Comments
initiated b
Anything that the federal government and Swain County can agree on will meet the purpose and
JVD need of the project If the signatories can agree and accept to void the 1943 Agreement, it does not
matter if it is outside the original intent We are trying to resolve a legal obligation instead of a
transportation need
CB Is the state (North Carolina) part of the Agreement?
JVD Yes
JH Would the monetary settlement meet the purpose and need?
JVD Yes, if the signatories agreed upon it
AR If you get DOI to sign for the settlement, is it (the 1943 Agreement) a mute point?
IW We have been directed to conduct the EIS If the DOI signed tomorrow, the EIS would be made
void
CM If you filed a notice of intent (NOI), you need to close the record with an official Record of Decision
(ROD)
CB Is there enough money to build a road in the congressional appropriations?
IW No, $16 million was appropriated
RG What is the current schedule?
JVD We have not resolved the final schedule et
The resource agencies will obviously favor the alternative that has no impacts, especially when three
BF signatories have already gone for the settlement
JVD We understand that, but there are other factors that are integral to the EIS process in addition to
resource agency concerns
There may be a combination of alternatives When you go through the EIS process, there may be
other reasonable, foreseeable alternatives than just giving a check The EIS may demonstrate that
the middle options do provide some benefit, possibly a heritage center, additional access to the park
CM I can also see them possibly being preferred for the park service No one is going to be able to see
the effects for years We are trying to conduct an apples-to-oranges analysis here Many projects
have a wide range of alternatives that could meet the purpose and need Keep interim options open
as long as possible in the NEPA process
We have to consider the social and economic impacts, not just the environmental impacts The No-
BOQ Action Alternative has no environmental impacts, but may have social and economic impacts
IW The decision-makers will want to know all of these things, that is why we are going through the EIS
process
10
ARCADIS
Discussion I Comments
initiated by
IW Ms Wegwerth closed with appreciation for the group's participation and input She requested
comments by April 2nd
Summary of Action Items from the meeting
1 A map with the locations of the cemeteries will be provided to you with this meeting summary
2 Ray Johns of the USFS will provide the boundaries of the Cable Cove Recreation Area to
ARCADIS
3 A future coordination meeting will be scheduled among the USFS, NPS, and FHWA
4 Ray Johns will be included on all future interagency correspondence to represent the U S Forest
Service
DEIS Study Alternatives - Current Status Update
Two meetings were held on April 22, 2004, one with the National Park Service (NPS), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and one with the NPS, the FHWA, and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to discuss
concurrence on the alternatives to be studied in the DEIS While verbal concurrence to proceed
with the alternatives was provided by participants of the first meeting, the USFS advised that
their regulations may not permit the North Shore Road to extend onto USFS property and
requested elimination of the Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove The NPS has been advised
to proceed with studying the Partial-Build Alternative to Cable Cove in the DEIS until
documentation is provided for its elimination
A letter was sent by the NPS to the NCWRC, the NC State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians - Tribal Historic Preservation Office, the USFWS, the
TVA, the USACE, the NC Division of Water Quality, and the USEPA that requested written
concurrence on the detailed study alternatives The letter was also sent to the North Carolina
State Clearinghouse for informational purposes To date, written concurrence has been received
from the USFWS, SHPO, NCWRC, TVA, and USEPA
The DEIS study alternatives that are shown on the enclosed map and are briefly described below
1) No Action - Required by NEPA as a basis for comparing the potential benefits and
impacts of the other alternatives
11
ARCADIS
2) Monetary Settlement - Monetary compensation to Swain County in the amount of $52
million
3) Laurel Branch Picnic Area - Day use area to be constructed prior to reaching the existing
tunnel terminus
4) Partial Build Alternative to Bushnell - Approximately 5 miles of new roadway would be
constructed, from existing tunnel to the vicinity of Monteith Branch A day use area
would be constructed to offer various types of visitor services
a Option 1 - Cross Forney Creek Embayment with a large bridge, or go around it
into the interior of the Park to cross the creek with a smaller bridge
5) Partial Build Alternative to Cable Cove - Approximately 22 miles of new roadway
(approximately 19 miles of road in Park), from existing tunnel to cross Fontana Lake dust
east of Hazel Creek The road would tie directly to Cable Cove Road which connects
with NC 28, near Cable Cove Recreation Area
a Option 1 - Cross Forney Creek Embayment with a large bridge, or go around it
into the interior of the Park to cross the creek with a smaller bridge
6) Northern Shore Corridor - Approximately 28 miles of new roadway, from existing tunnel
to the vicinity of Fontana Dam The corridor would generally follow the northern shore
of Fontana Lake and would utilize remaining portions of NC 288 to the extent possible
a Option 1 - Cross Forney Creek Embayment with a large bridge, or go around it
into the interior of the Park to cross the creek with a smaller bridge
b Option 2 - Cross Hazel and Eagle Creek Embayments at the lake with large
bridges or go around creek embayments into the interior of the Park to cross the
creeks with smaller bridges
c Option 3 - Terminate the road by going across Fontana Dam or bypass the Dam
and tie directly into NC 28, west of the Dam, roughly five miles east of Deals Gap
12
o m
a ?
-' cl) Z
a ?
n
A? m
?d
D r
O
0
C, A
0
z
0
z
a
0
r
T_
Z

ZO
A
H m
? 1
=

O D m
;o
- m 7
- >°
oz m D
-
<
Z
?z
<
m
3 =i z
D N
' 3

' z D
D ?
ti ^
?• 1 I
O
D
m
z
z
• ? °
z
?v
m
v
T
C
lD
fJ
D
z
?L1
?
> C
7C ?.
-ei
-? Sao
r e
? L
»1 - alle t
z OZ
Z ° I; D +, 1Ao i .: 3'F m r N
1 1 _ to
ly[w] 10
29
1ti O' l z
pp? ?\ y
1 ? O C I ? ?
.. it
z l\ p ?'
•? ? ?° y Sin riaawvM
_4
-0 ;a
`f
?N
C3 00- cn
CD CC
,n ja
CD =r
CD (1)
CL -0 CD
r FAR
0
! _. - . rRfr fn O 0
CD O
j' 2 l4'u¢i0 yeoauq , \ ae? CD N O
\ \a \
' l ?o? alpys ?? i O CO O
i
t C
o CD
Zm b- =3 C:
co SMNCH cl G Q-
r -
\ 9 flr
r A _? Z z D 4uaeL °
m t?
0 CL
r N Z / \ D °h
/- - - _
cr
\ - r\ Ott 1 (D Q