ACTION ALERT:
Don’t Allow Corridor K to Carve a Swath of Destruction
Through our Mountains
Express your concern by Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2008

A costly, destructive, unnecessary four lane road is on the fast track to completion in rural, mountainous western North Carolina. Rather than this destructive and costly proposal, upgrades along the existing route should instead be thoroughly evaluated and considered. If you are concerned about the integrity of the southern Appalachians—the land and the people, and about irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars, take action.

Mail comments to

Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

NC Department of Transportation

1548 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Updated email address: soberhausen@ncdot.gov

NC Department of Transportation 625 page report:
Corridor K Draft Supplemental Final
Environmental Impact Statement (DSF EIS)

Now available for download.

DSF EIS Supporting Documents

The following documents were a part of the process that resulted in the Draft Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Traffic

2006 Capacity Analysis

2005 DOT Comments

2005 Traffic Forecast for 2030

1996 Capacity Study for 2020

Geology

1995 Geological Investigation of Stecoah and Tatham Gaps

1984 Final Environmental Impact Statement

1997 Geotechnical Reconnaissance Memo

Natural Resources

2003 Botanical Analysis

2003 Aquatic Resource Analysis

2003 Scenery and Recreation Impact Analysis

2002 Wildlife Analysis

Background: What is Corridor K

Corridor K, a four-lane highway to connect Asheville, N.C. and Chattanooga, Tenn. was planned during the mid-1960s by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Portions of this highway have been completed. However, sections through our mountains have not been built, and for good reason: the highway would be extremely expensive and would destroy the clear water, pristine views and great wildlife habitat we all value in the mountains.
Meanwhile, alternate highways, including interstate highways, have been built since the 1960s that provide good access between Asheville and Chattanooga. Rather than updating their plans to reflect changing needs and constraints of the 21st century, the ARC and state Departments of Transportation have stubbornly held onto their original, outdated plans that were designed in a bygone era of plentiful fuel and limited understanding of the environmental impacts caused by such highways, and before the emergence of a strong tourism industry.

Where we are: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement Pushing Corridor K in Graham County

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in 1984 evaluated the section of Corridor K between Andrews and Almond, N.C. Due to a lack of funding, only a portion of this four-lane road between Almond and Stecoah has been built. A scenic two-lane route already connects Stecoah with Robbinsville along highways 28 and 143. Travel between Robbinsville and Andrews occurs along U.S. 129 by way of Topton.
DOT recently released a Draft Supplemental Final EIS (DSF EIS) that proposes a specific design and route for a four-lane highway between Stecoah and Robbinsville. Comments on this DSFEIS must be submitted by Oct. 14, 2008.
The sections of highway being considered would cut through some of the most difficult and scenic mountain landscapes in Western North Carolina. The proposed highway establishes a new route through the Stecoah Valley and across Cheoah Mountain.
Although the DOT plans to build an additional segment of the highway, between Robbinsville and Andrews, which will be even more expensive and difficult to build, the agency has chosen not to consider the impacts associated with that part of the project in this current EIS.
As is often the case with DOT projects, this highway has a long history of “segmentation” where only portions of the highway are evaluated at any one time. This prevents the public from ever being able to consider and comment on an entire project, thereby obscuring the eventual costs of the entire project.
Rather than propose a highway design that will serve the needs of the 21st century and safeguard the mountain values of Western North Carolina, which are home to generations of area residents and bring others for recreation and renewal, the DOT is proposing a four-lane highway that will cut across the mountains and valleys, devastating these irreplaceable resources.

Help Steer North Carolina to a Responsible Transportation Future

Write a letter to NC DOT

Comments needed by Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2008

Request: DOT should consider other alternative routes that would address transportation needs while safeguarding the streams, scenic vistas, and wildlife habitat in this irreplaceable mountain landscape. In particular, upgrading highways 28 and 143 along the current route should be evaluated and considered as a viable alternative.

The current route could be retained and enhanced to address current limitations while minimizing additional environmental impacts by routing along the existing highway footprint. Retaining and enhancing the current scenic highway and integrating it into a network of scenic highways around Robbinsville should be considered an alternative to developing a four-lane behemoth designed in and for the last century. We need an alternative that is sensitive to the unique and priceless area it will travel through.

A careful reading of the DSFEIS reveals that the proposed route would only marginally benefit travel times; during certain times and situations the proposed route may actually take longer to travel than existing routes. The existing route also will handle projected traffic for decades to come. Furthermore, DOT has not evaluated the added capacity that sensible upgrades, such as redesigning intersections, could deliver at a cost significantly less than the $378 million the recommended four-lane is projected to cost.

Points to Make

Environmental Concerns

Pristine mountain vistas would be spoiled by the proposed route. Large cut and fill banks and cut rock faces would be visible from the Appalachian Trail and other areas in the Nantahala National Forest and surrounding areas. The DSFEIS states: “In one instance, west of Stecoah Creek, the proposed highway cut for the build alternatives would be approximately 160 feet high. A cut slope or rock face of this magnitude would be visible from miles away and be completely out of scale and character with the surrounding “natural-appearing” landscape.” The cut would be as tall as a 16-story building! This degradation of the scenic landscape that is acknowledged in the DSFEIS is unacceptable.
Deep cuts and fills, along with a 2,870-foot tunnel would impact the hydrology and drainage of the area. Potential acid bearing rock along the highway corridor could have long range and long lasting implications to stream health and drainage. Acid drainage is a significant threat that the cursory geological analysis in the DSEIS has failed to adequately address.
Impacts to clear streams and water quality are unacceptable in the one proposed route in the DSFEIS. Trout streams and drinking water supplies would be damaged and mountain streams could be destroyed.
Noise generated by the proposed route would impact the Appalachian Trail and other national forest lands that are important for recreation.
Sights and sounds of the proposed highway and highway construction would impact the Cheoah Bald Roadless Area. The highway would degrade the semi-primitive non-motorized setting and natural appearing environment of this inventoried roadless area.
The highway, as proposed, would impact numerous mature forest communities, impacting wildlife habitat and potentially impacting numerous rare species. The proposed highway establishes a new route through the Stecoah Valley and across Cheoah Mountain. In addition to the habitat loss resulting from the actual road construction, remaining wildlife habitat in the whole area would be degraded because the road would fragment habitat and make wildlife movement more difficult and dangerous. Increased wildlife mortality and reduced ranges would result. The effects of habitat fragmentation are potentially devastating because the proposed new route runs through remote areas of prime wildlife habitat. Upgrading the existing route would avoid many of these added impacts.

Economic Concerns

The financial cost of this project cannot be justified in light of its meager transportation benefit. With a total projected cost to taxpayers of $378 million, $38 million per mile, the financial burden of this unnecessary four-lane road cannot be justified. With soaring oil prices for asphalt, fuel, and heavy construction equipment, even these exorbitant cost estimates will rise substantially. With budget constraints impacting Departments of Transportation, and with the pressing need for existing infrastructure repair and maintenance, Cost-effective improvements to existing routes instead of this new construction should be considered.
With economic development being the focus of the Appalachian Regional Commission and Corridor K, this four lane road is not the best way to invest in what amounts to $42,000 per Graham County citizen on economic development. Like many communities in the area, Graham County has adopted economic development plans that focus on increasing heritage tourism, not the kind of heavy industry that looks for a four-lane highway. It would not be the boon to economic development it was conceived to be 40 years ago.
Impacts to local communities must be evaluated. The Department of Transportation projects that the road, when completed, will trigger a surge in the population of Graham County of 26 percent by the year 2030 if the proposed segment from Stecoah to Robbinsville is completed. In addition, it will cause an explosive 79 percent population increase in Graham County if the road is completed all the way to Andrews. Yet the EIS offers no analysis of what that kind of population growth in 22 years would mean for the people and environment of Graham County.

The Big Picture

Construction of a four lane Corridor K would literally pave the way for Interstate 3 to slice through the mountains from Georgia to Tennessee, bringing with it air, water, and noise pollution, forever changing local communities, landscape and wildlife habitats, not to mention the waste of taxpayer money for projects that do not have a justified need or purpose. The route for Interstate 3, a new corridor proposed to run from Savannah to Knoxville, as originally put forth by Congressman Norwood can be seen at http://www.stopi3.org/maps/index.html. The overlap between the two routes can be viewed at http://www.stopi3.org/corridor_k.html. Four-laning Corridor K in this region would complete some of the most technically challenging and most expensive portions of Interstate 3.
It is time for responsible transportation that provides for transportation needs while safeguarding our environment and communities. It is past time for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Departments of Transportation in the region to re-evaluate the old transportation plans developed in the 1960s. New plans should be developed to address the needs, constraints, and opportunities of the 21st century. It is folly to ignore the changing dynamics of fossil fuel prices and availability. It is wasteful to ignore the role alternative transportation, including rail, can play in addressing many transportation needs such as freight transportation. It is foolish to minimize the many environmental impacts of roads that have been documented during the past several decades. It is an insult to the Appalachian region to refuse to acknowledge and incorporate the lessons learned over the past 45 years as the ARC highway corridors have been completed. The promised economic development the roads were intended to deliver have remained largely unfulfilled, bringing instead uncontrolled sprawl, destruction of small communities, degradation of streams and viewsheds and destruction of wildlife habitat.

Please contact DOT today and let them know that, as currently proposed, Corridor K is not okay.

Send your comments postmarked by Tuesday, Oct. 14 to: